Preposition Stranding in British English: ?Up with how much constraints do you have to put?

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

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

3. 1. Introduction (1) Aboutwhat will I talk? (2) What will I talk about? (1) displacement ofP 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. Strandingi I’ve heard ofi. [preposing] ii. Whati is he talking abouti? [open interrogative] iii. What a great topici he talked abouti! [exclamative] iv. the structure [whichihe talked abouti]. [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 strandingi I’ve heardi. [preposing] ii. About whati is he talkingi? [open interrogative] iii. About what a great topici he talkedi! [exclamative] iv. the structure [about whichihe talkedi ]. [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 [(thati) he talked abouti]. [non-wh relative] vi. the same stuffi as [I talked abouti]. [comparative] vii. His talki was easy [to find fault withi]. [hollow clause] viii. Strandingi has been talked abouti enough]. [passive] (cf. Pullum and Huddleston 2002: 627)

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

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

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

11. 4.1 Categorical stranding contexts 1. Which PP types occur in categorical stranding contexts?

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

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

14. 4.1 Categorical stranding contexts: Passive (5) Prepositional Verb:Maybe his absence is is not properly dealt with<ICE-GB:S1B-044 #60:2:B> (6) Complement PP: King 's Canterbury is beingspoken of very highly at the moment<ICE-GB:S1A-054 #88:1:B> (7) V-X-P idiom: it 'll be taken care of<ICE-GB:S2A-028 #60:2:A> (8) Affected location:One of the benches had been sat upon<ICE-GB:W2F-005 #97:1>

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

16. 4.2 Variable stranding contexts: Preliminaries: several categorical data excluded, e.g.: • all categorical stranding contexts [cf. above] • all that/-RCs [cf. later] • idomatic constructions:What 's it like <ICE-GB:S1A-019 #53:1:B> • non-finite RCs [cf. Sag 1997] • all Manner, Degree, Respect PPs [cf. later]

17. 4.2 Variable stranding contexts:

18. 4.2 Variable stranding contexts: 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 ... <ICE-GB:W2A-004 #22:1> = obscure the extent to which ... [!But: specific PP type (degree); cf. later!]

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

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. 4.2 Variable stranding contexts: Best Goldvarb model for data:(Fit: X-square(7) = 4,006, p = 0,7784R2 = 0,99 / adjusted-multiple R2 = 0,99Cross-validation estimate of accuracy = 0,922) significant factors:  PP-types  Clause*Formal

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

25. 4.2 Variable stranding contexts: Pstrand Ppiped

26. 4.2 Variable stranding contexts: Pstrand Ppiped

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

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

29. 4.2 Variable stranding contexts: “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)

30. 4.2 Variable stranding contexts: “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)

31. 4.2 Variable stranding contexts: 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)

32. 4.2 Variable stranding contexts: 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 Pstrand • yet: level of formality interaction effect?

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

34. 5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses 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?]

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

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

37. 5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses 2. X-PP relationship: Categorical effect of non-θ-WH-PPAdjuncts-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<ICE-GB:S1B-014 #5:1:A> b. the ways which/that/Ø the satire is achieved in

38. 5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses 2. X-PP relationship: Categorical effect of θ-WH-PPAdjuncts-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<ICE-GB:S1A-001 #35:1B> b. … the world in which I was working and studying

39. 5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses 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 Pstrand with these: systematic gap

40. 5. Corpus Study II: Relative clauses 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+Pwith these: accidental gap

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

42. 6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I • relative judgements (reference sentence) • informal, restrictive RCs tested for: P-PLACEMENT (Pstrand, Ppied-piped)RELATIVIZER (WH-, that-, Ø-)X-PP (VPrep, PPTemp/Loc_Adjunct, PPManner/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)

43. 6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I 18 filler sentences: ungrammatical a. That’s a tape I sent them that done I’ve myself (word order violation; original source: <ICE-GB:S1A-033 074>) b. There was lots of activity that goes on there (subject contact clause; original source: <ICE-GB:S1A-004 #067>) c. There are so many people who needsphysiotherapy (subject-verb agreement error; original source: <ICE-GB:S1A-003 #027>)

44. 6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I 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

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 + PVPrep > PPTemp/Loc > PPMan/Deg

48. Fig. 3: Magnitude estimation result for relativizer + P VPrep > PPTemp/Loc > PPMan/Deg >> ungrammatical filler violation of “soft constraint” (Sorace & Keller 2005)

49. 6. Magnitude Estimation: RC I Corroborating evidence: corpus: man/deg PPs: no Pstranded (not even with that/) semantic constraint on Pstranded experiment:man/deg PPs worst environment for Pstrandedyet: 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