Preposition stranding: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:17, 16 January 2015 editBeland (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators236,623 edits clarify jargon with an example which is also an incoming redirect← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:14, 16 January 2015 edit undoBeland (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators236,623 edits →Preposition stranding in English: distribute citation requests (some references are already present) and update linkNext edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:

	==Preposition stranding in English==		==Preposition stranding in English==
			{{See\|English usage controversies}}
	{{Unreferenced section\|date=March 2011}}
	{{See\|Disputes in English grammar}}

	In English, preposition stranding is commonly found in three types of constructions: ], ], and ]s.		In English, preposition stranding is commonly found in three types of constructions: ], ], and ]s.{{fact}}

	*In Wh-constructions, the object of the preposition is a ] in deep structure but is fronted as a result of the ]. It is commonly assumed in ] approaches to syntax that the movement of a constituent out of a phrase leaves a silent ]. In the case of Wh-movement leaving a stranded preposition, the Wh-word is fronted to the beginning of the interrogative clause, leaving a trace after the preposition:		*In Wh-constructions, the object of the preposition is a ] in deep structure but is fronted as a result of the ]. It is commonly assumed in ] approaches to syntax that the movement of a constituent out of a phrase leaves a silent ]. In the case of Wh-movement leaving a stranded preposition, the Wh-word is fronted to the beginning of the interrogative clause, leaving a trace after the preposition:
Line 25:		Line 24:
	::This is the sort of tedious nonsense '''up with which''' I will not put.		::This is the sort of tedious nonsense '''up with which''' I will not put.

	Natural English occasionally uses sentences that involve many stranded prepositions in a row, such as in the following ~~statement~~ said by a young boy to his mother, who has just brought a book up from downstairs to read to her son. The boy wanted a different book.		Natural English occasionally uses sentences that involve many stranded prepositions in a row,{{fact}} such as in the following example said by a young boy to his mother, who has just brought a book up from downstairs to read to her son. The boy wanted a different book.

	::'''What'''<sub>1</sub> did you bring '''that book'''<sub>2</sub> that '''I'''<sub>3</sub> didn't want to be read '''to'''___<sub>3</sub> '''out of'''___<sub>2</sub> up '''for'''___<sub>1</sub>?		::'''What'''<sub>1</sub> did you bring '''that book'''<sub>2</sub> that '''I'''<sub>3</sub> didn't want to be read '''to'''___<sub>3</sub> '''out of'''___<sub>2</sub> up '''for'''___<sub>1</sub>?

Revision as of 20:14, 16 January 2015

Preposition stranding, sometimes called P-stranding, is the syntactic construction in which a preposition with an object occurs somewhere other than immediately adjacent to its object - for example, ending a sentence with a preposition. (The preposition is then described as stranded, hanging or dangling.) This construction is widely found in Germanic languages, including English and the Scandinavian languages. Whether or not German and Dutch exhibit legitimate preposition stranding is considered debatable. Preposition stranding is also found in languages outside the Germanic family, such as Vata and Gbadi, two languages in the Niger–Congo family, and certain dialects of French spoken in North America.

Preposition stranding in English

Further information: English usage controversies

In English, preposition stranding is commonly found in three types of constructions: Wh-questions, pseudo-passives, and relative clauses.

In Wh-constructions, the object of the preposition is a Wh-word in deep structure but is fronted as a result of the Wh-movement. It is commonly assumed in transformational approaches to syntax that the movement of a constituent out of a phrase leaves a silent trace. In the case of Wh-movement leaving a stranded preposition, the Wh-word is fronted to the beginning of the interrogative clause, leaving a trace after the preposition:

What_i are you talking about ____i?

Pseudopassives are the result of the movement of the object of a preposition to fill an empty subject position for a passive verb. This phenomenon is comparable to regular passives, which are formed through the movement of the object of the verb to subject position. In pseudopassives, unlike in Wh-movement, the object of the preposition is not a Wh-word but rather a noun or noun phrase:

This chair_i was sat on ____i.

Relative clauses in English can also exhibit preposition stranding, whether with a complementizer introducing the clause or without:

This is the book_i that_i I told you about ____i.

This is the book_i I told you about ____i.

Overzealous avoidance of stranded prepositions leads to unnatural-sounding sentences, especially when the preposition is part of an idiomatic phrasal verb, such as the following, apocryphally attributed to Winston Churchill. Note the verb is the phrasal verb "put up with," split to humorous effect:

This is the sort of tedious nonsense up with which I will not put.

Natural English occasionally uses sentences that involve many stranded prepositions in a row, such as in the following example said by a young boy to his mother, who has just brought a book up from downstairs to read to her son. The boy wanted a different book.

What₁ did you bring that book₂ that I₃ didn't want to be read to___₃ out of___₂ up for___₁?

The up in the preceding example is not actually a stranded preposition, but an adverb of movement. It can, of course, be moved to a position earlier in the sentence, sacrificing a little of the naturalness, whereas the true stranded prepositions really only occur at the end in all but the most formal speech. The sentence now ends in a string of four words that are all stranded prepositions.

What₁ did you bring up that book₂ that I₃ didn't want to be read to___₃ out of___₂ for___₁?

Origin of proscription against preposition stranding

The proscription against preposition stranding in English was created by John Dryden in 1672 when he objected to Ben Jonson's 1611 phrase the bodies that those souls were frighted from. Dryden did not explain why he thought the sentence should be restructured to front the preposition. Robert Lowth in his 1762 book, A Short Introduction to English Grammar (pages 127–128), used the construction when he wrote that it was more suitable for informal than for formal English: "This is an Idiom which our language is strongly inclined to; it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing; but the placing of the Preposition before the Relative is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated Style." Other grammarians have supported the practice by analogy with Latin.

Preposition stranding in French

A few non-standard dialects of French seem to have developed preposition stranding as a result of linguistic contact with English. Preposition stranding is found in areas where the Francophone population is under intense contact with English, including certain parts of Alberta, Northern Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Louisiana. It is found (but heavily decried) in very informal Quebec French. For example, Prince Edward Island French permits all three types of preposition stranding:

Wh-movement: Qui est-ce que tu as fait le gâteau pour?

Whom did you bake the cake for?

Standard French: Pour qui est-ce que tu as fait le gâteau?

Pseudopassives: Robert a été parlé beaucoup de au meeting.

Robert was much talked about at the meeting.

Standard French: On a beaucoup parlé de Robert au meeting.

Relative clauses: Tu connais pas la fille que je te parle de.

You don't know the girl that I'm talking to you about.

Standard French: Tu ne connais pas la fille dont je te parle.

Another, more widespread non-standard variant: Tu ne connais pas la fille que je te parle.

To standard French ears, these constructs all sound quite alien, and are thus considered as barbarisms or "anglicismes". However, not all dialects of French allow preposition stranding to the same extent. For instance, Ontario French restricts preposition stranding to relative clauses with certain prepositions; in most dialects, stranding is impossible with the prepositions à (to) and de (of).

A superficially similar construction is possible in standard French in cases where the object is not moved, but implied, such as Je suis pour ("I'm all for (it)") or Il faudra agir selon ("We'll have to act according to (the situation)").

Preposition stranding in Dutch and German

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

There are two kinds of preposition stranding constructions in Dutch, both of which in fact involve the stranding of postpositions.

Directional constructions

The first case involves directional constructions. A number of common Dutch adpositions can be used either prepositionally or postpositionally, with a slight change in possible meanings; for example, Dutch in can mean either in or into when used prepositionally, but can only mean into when used postpositionally. When postpositions, such adpositions can be stranded:

Wh-movement: Welk bos_i liep hij ____i in?

literally, Which forest_i walked he ____i into?

i.e., What forest did he walk into?

short-distance movement: dat hij zo'n donker bos niet in durft te lopen

literally, that he such-a dark forest not into dares to walk

i.e., that he doesn't dare walk into such a dark forest

Another way to analyze examples like the first one above would be to allow arbitrary "postposition + verb" sequences to act as transitive separable prefix verbs (e.g. in + lopen → inlopen); but such an analysis would not be consistent with the position of in in the second example. (The postposition can also appear in the verbal prefix position: dat hij zo'n donker bos niet durft in te lopen .)

R-pronouns

The second case of preposition stranding in Dutch is much more widespread. Dutch prepositions generally do not take the ordinary neuter pronouns (het, dat, wat, etc.) as objects. Instead, they become postpositional suffixes for the corresponding r-pronouns (er, daar, waar, etc.): hence, not *over het (about it), but erover (literally thereabout). However, the r-pronouns can sometimes be moved to the left, thereby stranding the postposition:

Wij praatten er niet over.

literally, We talked there not about.

i.e., We didn't talk about it.

Waar praatten wij over?

literally, Where talked we about?

i.e., What did we talk about?

Some regional varieties of German show the same phenomenon with da(r)- and wo(r)- forms. For example:

Standard German requires Ich kann mir davon nichts leisten.

literally, I can me thereof nothing buy.

i.e., I can't afford to buy any of those.

Some dialects permit Ich kann mir da nichts von leisten.

literally, I can me there- nothing of buy.

i.e., I can't afford to buy any of those.

Alternatively, one might (in those dialects) also say Da kann ich mir nichts von kaufen.

literally, There- can I me nothing of buy.

i.e., I can't afford to buy any of those.

Again, although the stranded postposition has nearly the same surface distribution as a separable verbal prefix, it would not be possible to analyze these Dutch and German examples in terms of the reanalyzed verbs *overpraten and *vonkaufen, for the following reasons:

The stranding construction is possible with prepositions that never appear as separable verbal prefixes (e.g., Dutch van, German von).
Stranding is not possible with any kind of object besides an r-pronoun.
Prefixed verbs are stressed on the prefix; in the string "von kaufen" in the above sentences, the preposition cannot be accented.

References

Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2005). A Student's Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. ISBN 0-521-61288-8. pages 137-38.
Roberts, Ian G. (2007). Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford UP. ISBN 0-19-925398-6. page 238
Maling, Joan; Zaenen, Annie (1985). "Preposition-Stranding and Passive". Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 8 (02): 197–209. doi:10.1017/S0332586500001335. page 197.
"A misattribution no longer to be put up with". Language Log. 12 December 2004. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 2002, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, p. 627f.
John Dryden, "Defense of the Epilogue" to The Conquest of Granada.
McWhorter, John. "Freedom From, Freedom To". New Republic. Retrieved 2 December 2014.
King, Ruth. 2000. The Lexical Basis of Grammatical Borrowing: a Prince Edward Island French Case Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN 90-272-3716-6
"Quoi ce-qu'elle a parlé about?". Language Log. October 10, 2003. Retrieved 2007-03-22.

Misplaced Pages