1. Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put? CoGETI Forschungsnetzwerk Constraintbasierte Grammatik: Non-Canonical Structures workshop University of Göttingen, 06.07.-07.07.2006 Thomas Hoffmann (University of Regensburg)

2. 1. Introduction (1) About what will I talk? (2) What will I talk about?

3. 1. Introduction (1) About what will I talk? (2) What will I talk about? (1) displacement of P about (“pied-piping”) (2) P about “in-situ” without complement (“stranded”)

4. 1. Introduction Preposition stranding as in (2) looks like normal long-distance filler-slot structure, but: Not all languages allow P stranding, cf. e.g.: (3)*Das Thema, das ich über sprechen werde (4) The topic which I will talked about  Which factors affect P stranding/pied-piping in E?  Can all stranded data be captured by a general construction/constraint? [which e.g. licenses SLASH-ed COMP-lists for P]

5. 2. Stranding and Pied-Piping in English In English stranding occurs in four structures in which …: i. Stranding i I’ve heard of i.[preposing] ii. What i is he talking about i ?[open interrogative] iii.What a great topic i he talked about i ![exclamative] iv.the structure [which i he talked about i ].[wh-relative] (cf. Pullum and Huddleston 2002: 627)

6. 2. Stranding and Pied-Piping in English In English stranding occurs in four structures in which pied piping is an alternative option: i. Of stranding i I’ve heard i.[preposing] ii. About what i is he talking i ?[open interrogative] iii.About what a great topic i he talked i ![exclamative] iv.the structure [about which i he talked i ].[wh-relative] (cf. Pullum and Huddleston 2002: 627)

7. 2. Stranding and Pied-Piping in English In English stranding occurs in four structures in which pied piping is not possible: v.the structure [(that i ) he talked about i ]. [non-wh relative] vi.the same stuff i as [I talked about i ]. [comparative] vii.His talk i was easy [to find fault with i ].[hollow clause] viii.Stranding i has been talked about i enough].[passive] (cf. Pullum and Huddleston 2002: 627)

8. 3. Roadmap: What to Expect 1.P placement across clause types (corpus) 2.Categorical RC data (corpus) 3.Magnitude Estimation experiments 4.Variable RC data (corpus) 5.Conclusion

9. 4. Corpus Data Corpus used: International Corpus of English ICE-GB (educated Present-day BE, written & spoken) (tagged for P stranded / parsed  “P+Wh“ search) Analysis tool: GOLDVARB computer programme (logistic regression; Robinson et al. 2001) relative influence of various contextual factors (weights: 0.5 = favouring)

10. P strand/pied-piped token tested for 1.Clause Type 2.displaced element (who, what, NP, etc.) 3.XP contained in (V / N, e.g. entrance to sth. / Adj, e.g. afraid of sth.) 4.level of formality 5.X-PP relationship (V prepositional, PP Loc_Adjunct, PP Man_Adjunct …) (e.g. Bergh, G. & A. Seppänen. 2000; Hoffmann 2005; Trotta 2000) 4. P placement across clause types

11. 4.1 Categorical stranding contexts 1. Which PP types occur in categorical stranding contexts? TypeToken% Passive 9785 Hollow 1412 Comparison 3 3 Sum114

12. 4.1 Categorical stranding contexts Figure 1: Categorical stranding context by PP type (%)

13. Note: P stranding in passive tokens only with lexically specified stored / associated V-P combinations 4.1 Categorical stranding contexts: Passive

14. (5)Prepositional Verb: Maybe his absence is is not properly dealt with (6) Complement PP: King 's Canterbury is being spoken of very highly at the moment (7) V-X-P idiom: it 'll be taken care of (8) Affected location: One of the benches had been sat upon

15. Note: P stranding in passive tokens only with lexically specified stored / associated V-P combinations  features of P stranded in passive sentences combination of:  general P stranded constraint [which licenses SLASH-ed COMP-lists for P]  general passive construction [affected arguments as Subj] 4.1 Categorical stranding contexts: Passive

16. Preliminaries: several categorical data excluded, e.g.: all categorical stranding contexts [cf. above] all that/  -RCs [cf. later] idomatic constructions: What 's it like non-finite RCs [cf. Sag 1997] all Manner, Degree, Respect PPs [cf. later] 4.2 Variable stranding contexts:

17. Type StrandedPied piped WH-RCN69439508 %1486 Free RCN1362138 %991 DirectQN1035108 %955 Indir QN66773 %9010 CleftN84957 %1486 Sum 382502884

18. Footnote: ? pied piped free RC data? (9) This has tended to obscure to what extent Beckett 's early writings possess a coherent, though dislocated rhetoric of their own... = obscure the extent to which... [!But: specific PP type (degree); cf. later!] 4.2 Variable stranding contexts:

19. Interestingly: Statistical analysis revealed ClauseType * Formality interaction 4.2 Variable stranding contexts:

20. Free RC / Indir Q / Direct Q: not affected by level of formality

21. WH-RC: affected by level of formality

22. Cleft-RC: affected by level of formality

23. Best Goldvarb model for data: (Fit: X-square(7) = 4,006, p = 0,7784 R 2 = 0,99 / adjusted-multiple R 2 = 0,99 Cross-validation estimate of accuracy = 0,922) significant factors:  PP-types  Clause*Formal 4.2 Variable stranding contexts:

24. with respect to pied piping: <0.5 = inhibiting pied piping / favouring stranding >0.5 = favouring pied piping / inhibiting stranding 4.2 Variable stranding contexts:

25. PP type relationship (p = 0.000) prepositional "X" "V-X-P" idioms subcategorized PP obligatory complement 0,169 optional complements 0,333 movement accompaniment means/instrument cause/reason/result 0,547 position in time affected location direction position/location 0,941 P strand  P piped 

26. 4.2 Variable stranding contexts: Clause*Formal relationship (p = 0.000) Free RC Indirect Q Direct Q 0,028 less formal * WH-RC/Cleft-RC 0,134 more formal * WH-RC/Cleft-RC 0,904 P strand  P piped 

27. Gries 2002: P placement affected by 1) processing effort 2)prescriptive grammar rules Yes, but also: 3)idiosyncratic combination of both! 4.2 Variable stranding contexts:

28. processing: stranding more complex than pied piping since 1)Hawkins 2004: potential processing problems (11) Who i did John see *i Bill talk to i (12) To whom i did John see Bill talk i 2) Stranding defers filler-gap identification beyond verbal head of clause 4.2 Variable stranding contexts:

29. “Gap sites and nodes containing them that are predictable on the basis of conventionalized co- occurrence of their subcategorizers are easier to process than adjunct gaps and adjunct clauses.” (Hawkins 2004: 213) 4.2 Variable stranding contexts:

30. “Gap sites and nodes containing them that are predictable on the basis of conventionalized co- occurrence of their subcategorizers are easier to process than adjunct gaps and adjunct clauses.” (Hawkins 2004: 213) explains effect of factors in PP type: lexically specified PPs favour stranding stranding with adjunct PP: semantic factors (cf. below) 4.2 Variable stranding contexts:

31. In languages that have filler-gap structures for both relative clauses and wh-questions, if a gap is grammatical for a relative clause filler in an FGD of complexity n, then a gap will be grammatical for a wh-question filler in an FGD of complexity n. (Hawkins 2004: 200) 4.2 Variable stranding contexts:

32. In languages that have filler-gap structures for both relative clauses and wh-questions, if a gap is grammatical for a relative clause filler in an FGD of complexity n, then a gap will be grammatical for a wh-question filler in an FGD of complexity n. (Hawkins 2004: 200) partly explains effect of Clause*Formal: Free-RC/Q less complex than RC  favour P strand yet: level of formality interaction effect? 4.2 Variable stranding contexts:

33. Note: if only processing effect  only need for one general P strand construction Yet: level of formality only associated with Cleft-/WH-RCs  !require extra P strand and P piped constructions for these clause types! 4.2 Variable stranding contexts:

34. As the ICE-GB data showed both stranding and pied piping occur mostly in relative clauses  closer look at RC data [further constraints beyond formality?] 5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses

35. 1.relativizer: all that/Ø-tokens in ICE-GB stranded 176 that+P stranded -token (10)  a data source on that I can rely 177 Ø+P stranded -token (11)  a data source on Ø I can rely  ICE-GB result: expected  implications: (2) = (3)? / that  WH- 5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses

36. 2.X-PP relationship: ICE-data showed: difference between adjunct PPs claim: P stranding restricted to PPs which add thematic information to predicates/events = processing constraint: allows integration of P within VP 5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses

37. 2.X-PP relationship: Categorical effect of non-θ-WH-PP Adjuncts -tokens: a)just P+WH / no that/Ø+P in ICE-GB: e.g. manner adjunct PPs: (12)a. the ways in which the satire is achieved b.  the ways which/that/Ø the satire is achieved in 5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses

38. 2.X-PP relationship: Categorical effect of θ-WH-PP Adjuncts -tokens: b)just P+WH / but that/Ø+P in ICE-GB: e.g. locative PP adjuncts (13)a. … the world that I was working in and studying in b. … the world in which I was working and studying 5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses

39. Claim: comparison of WH- vs that/Ø shows: P can only be stranded if: PP adds thematic information to predicates/events [= can be semantically integrated by head of RC] e.g.: manner & degree adjuncts: compare events “to other possible events of V-ing” (Ernst 2002: 59)  don’t add thematic participant  P strand with these: systematic gap 5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses

40. Claim: comparison of WH- vs that/Ø shows: P can only be stranded if: PP adds thematic information to predicates/events [= can be semantically integrated by head of RC] e.g.: locative adjuncts:  add thematic participant  WH+P with these: accidental gap 5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses

41. Comparison of WH- vs that/Ø good evidence, but: “negative data” problem  further corroborating evidence needed  Introspection: Magnitude Estimation study 5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses

42. relative judgements (reference sentence) informal, restrictive RCs tested for: P-PLACEMENT(P strand, P pied-piped ) RELATIVIZER (WH-, that-, Ø-) X-PP (V Prep, PP Temp/Loc_Adjunct, PP Manner/Degree_Adjunct ) tokens counterbalanced: 6 material groups a 18 tokens + 36 filler = 54 tokens tokens randomized (Web-Exp-software) N = 36 BE native speakers (sex: 18m, 18f / age: 17-64) 6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I

43. 18 filler sentences: ungrammatical a.That’s a tape I sent them that done I’ve myself (word order violation; original source: ) b.There was lots of activity that goes on there (subject contact clause; original source: ) c.There are so many people who needs physiotherapy (subject-verb agreement error; original source: ) 6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I

44. ANOVA: significant effects P-PLACEMENT: F(1,33) = 4.536, p < 0.05 RELATIVIZER: F(2,66) = 17.149, p < 0.001 P-PLACEMENT*X-PP: F(2,66) = 9.740, p < 0.001 P-PLACEMENT*RELATIVIZER: F(2,66) = 4.217, p < 0.02 6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I

45. Fig. 1: Magnitude estimation result for P + relativizer P+WH >> P+that > P+Ø

46. Fig. 2: Magnitude estimation result for P + relativizer compared with fillers P+that & P+Ø = ungrammatical fillers  violation of “hard constraint” (Sorace & Keller 2005)

47. Fig. 3: Magnitude estimation result for relativizer + P WH + P= that + P = Ø + P V Prep > PP Temp/Loc > PP Man/Deg

48. Fig. 3: Magnitude estimation result for relativizer + P V Prep > PP Temp/Loc > PP Man/Deg >> ungrammatical filler  violation of “soft constraint” (Sorace & Keller 2005)

49. 6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I Corroborating evidence: corpus: man/deg PPs: no P stranded (not even with that/  )  semantic constraint on P stranded experiment: man/deg PPs worst environment for P stranded yet:better than ungrammatical fillers (soft constraint violation: processing effect)

50. 6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I What type of hard constraint is P + that? Sag 1997: case assignment restriction *P + that = *P + who  new Magnitude Estimation experiment

51. informal, restrictive RCs, just V Prep tested for: P-PLACEMENT(P strand, P pied-piped, P doubled ) RELATIVIZER (who, whom, that-, Ø-) COMPLEXITY (simple, long-distance Ø- and that-C) tokens counterbalanced: 36 material groups a 36 tokens + 48 filler = 84 tokens tokens randomized (Web-Exp-software) N = so far: 13 BE native speakers in progress  no in-depth statistical analysis 7. Magnitude Estimation: RC II

52. Fig. 4: Magnitude estimation result for all relativizers

53. P + that  P + who

54. 7. Magnitude Estimation: RC II if experiment shows *P + that  *P + who  3 separate constructions?: (that i )... P i wh- i... P i P wh- i... t i

55. In addition to PP-types and Formality effects, variable corpus data (450 finite WH-token) exhibited two more effects (Hoffmann fc.): 1.NP-contained PPs favour pied piping 0.964 2.restrictive RC favour pied piping: (weight: 0.592) nonrestrictive RC clearly inhibit pied piping (i.e. favour stranding; weight: 0.248) (Model: Fit:X-square: p = 0,5610 / R 2 = 0,92 / multiple adjusted R 2 = 0,90 / Cross-validation estimate of accuracy = 0.916) 8. Corpus Study III: Variable RC data

56. Note: both processing effects 1.NP-contained PPs favour pied piping: NP itself contained in VP: P strand  complexity  [cf. also Cowart 1997] 2.nonrestrictive RC favour stranding: filler-gap identification process in non-restrictive relative clauses less complex than in restrictive relative clauses (Hawkins 2004: 240ff.)  less complexity  P strand  8. Corpus Study III: Variable RC data

57. Preposition stranding: non-canonical English structure some properties of P stranding attributable to processing complexity: Q > RC non-restrictive > RC restrictive V Prep > thematic PP Adjunct > non- thematic PP Adjunct others call for specific constructions: formality effect with RCs that-/  -RCs 8. Conclusion

58. 9. References Aarts, B. 2000. "Corpus linguistics, Chomsky and Fuzzy Tree Fragments". In Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt, eds. 2000. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 5-13. Bard, E.G. et al. 1996. “Magnitude Estimation of Linguistic acceptability”. Language 72:32-68. Bergh, G. & A. Seppänen. 2000. “Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: A historical survey”. English Language and Linguistics 4:295-316. Cowart, W. 1997. Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgements. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Gries, S.Th. 2002. “Preposition stranding in English: Predicting speakers' behaviour”. In V. Samiian, ed. Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics. Vol. 12. California State University, Fresno, CA, 230-241 Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

59. 9. References Hoffmann, T. 2005. "Variable vs. categorical Effects: Preposition pied piping and stranding in British English relative clauses". Journal of English Linguistics 33,3: 257-297. Hoffmann, T. fc. “’I need data which I can rely on’. Corroborating Empirical Evidence on preposition placement in English relative clauses”. W. Sternefeld et al., eds. Linguistic Evidence 2006. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Huddleston, R. et al. 2002. “Relative constructions and unbound dependencies”. In: G.K. Pullum & R. Huddleston, eds. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1031-1096. Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nelson, G. et al. 2002. Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Pesetsky, D. 1998. “Some principles of sentence production”. In: Pilar Barbosa et al., eds. Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 337-83.

60. 9. References Pickering, M. & G. Barry. 1991. “Sentence processing without empty categories”. Language and Cognitive Processes 6:229-259. Quirk, R. et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Robinson, J. et al. 2001. “GOLDVARB 2001: A Multivariate Analysis Application for Windows”. Sag, I.A. 1997. “English relative constructions”. Journal of Linguistics 33:431-484. Sampson, G. 2001. Empirical Linguistics. London, New York: Continuum. Trotta, J. 2000. Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, GA: Rodopi. Van der Auwera, J. 1985. “Relative that — a centennial dispute”. Journal of Linguistics 21:149-179.