Pied-piping

Last updated

In linguistics, pied-piping is a phenomenon of syntax whereby a given focused expression brings along an encompassing phrase with it when it is moved. [1]

Contents

The term was introduced by John Robert Ross in 1967. [2] It references the legend of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, where a piper lured rats and children away from their town. In syntactic pied-piping, a focused expression (such as an interrogative word) pulls its host phrase with it when it moves to its new position in the sentence. [3] Metaphorically, the focused expression is the piper, and the host phrase is the material being pied-piped.

Pied-piping is an aspect of syntactic discontinuities and has to do with constituents that can or cannot be discontinuous. [4] Pied-piping is most visible in cases of wh-fronting of information questions and relative clauses, but it is not limited to wh-fronting. It can also occur with almost any type of discontinuity, including extraposition, scrambling, and topicalization. Most, if not all, languages that allow discontinuities employ pied-piping to some extent. However, there are significant differences across languages in this area, with some languages using pied-piping much more than others. [5]

Pied-piping in English

Wh-clauses vs. relative clauses

Wh-clauses

In English, pied-piping occurs when a wh-expression drags its containing phrase with it to the front of the clause. The pied-piped material can be a noun phrase (NP), an adjective phrase (AP), an adverb phrase (AdvP), or a prepositional phrase (PP).

In the following examples, the focused expression is indicated in bold, and the fronted word/phrase in the (b) and (c) sentences is underlined, with the gap marking its canonical position. The material that has been pied-piped is any underlined material that is not bolded. The (b) sentences show the focused expression pied-piping the target phrase, and the (c) sentences show absence of pied-piping. which is often ungrammatical.

1b - Which house did she buy (less f-features).png
(1b) The interrogative word which has pied-piped the noun house.
1c - Which did she buy house (less f-features).png
(1c) which has not pied-piped house resulting in an ungrammatical sentence.
(1) a.  She bought that house.      b.  Which house did she buy ___?     c. *Which did she buy ___ house? [6] 
(2) a.  She is ten years old.     b.  How old is she ___?     c. *How is she ___ old?
(3) a.  John left the scene very slowly.     b.  How slowly did John leave the scene ___?     c. *How did John leave the scene ___ slowly?

Pied-piping also occurs in embedded wh-clauses:

4b - Sam asked whose paper Sarah likes (less f-features).png
(4b) whose has pied-piped the noun paper.
4c - Sam asked whose Sarah likes paper (less f-features).png
(4c) whose moves without pied-piping paper.
(4) a.  Sarah likes someone's paper.     b.  Sam asked whose paper Sarah likes ___.     c. *Sam asked whose Sarah likes ___ paper.

In (4), the possessive interrogative whose is contained within a determiner phrase (DP) that also includes paper. Attempting to move who and the possessive 's is syntactically impossible without also moving the possessive's complement, paper. As a result, (4b) is grammatical while (4c) is not because the focused expression has moved without the target phrase.

Relative clauses

Pied-piping is very frequent in relative clauses, where a greater flexibility about what can or must be pied-piped is discernible: [7] 

(5) a. He likes stories about hobbits.      b. ...hobbits stories about whom he likes ___.     c. ...hobbits about whom he likes stories ___.     d. ...hobbits whom he likes stories about ___.

In English, the pied-piping mechanism is more flexible in relative clauses than in interrogative clauses, because material can be pied-piped that would be less acceptable in the corresponding interrogative clause. [8] 

(6) a.  She laughed because of the face you made.     b. ?Because of what did she laugh ___? - Pied-piping seems marginally acceptable in this matrix wh-clause.      c. *We asked because of what she laughed ___? - Pied-piping is simply bad in this embedded wh-clause.     d. ...the face you made because of which she laughed ___ - Pied-piping is possible in this relative clause.
 (7) a.  Tom likes your picture of Susan.      b.??Your picture of whom does Tom like ___? - Pied-piping seems strongly marginal in this matrix wh-clause.      c. *They know your picture of whom Tom likes ___? - Pied-piping is simply bad in this embedded wh-clause.      d. ...Susan, your picture of whom Tom likes ___ - Pied-piping is possible in this relative clause.

The (d) examples, where pied-piping has occurred in a relative clause, are acceptable. The corresponding wh-clauses in the (b) and (c) sentences are much less acceptable. This aspect of pied-piping (i.e. that it is more restricted in wh-clauses than in relative clauses in English) is poorly understood, especially in light of the fact that the same contrast in acceptability does not occur in closely related languages such as German.

Preposition placement variation

Pied-piping vs. preposition stranding

Pied-piping is sometimes optional with English prepositions (in, of, on, to, with, etc.). In these flexible cases, preposition phrases can be constructed with a continuous structure (pied-piping) or an alternative discontinuous structure (preposition stranding). [9] [10] When pied-piping occurs, the preposition phrase is continuous, because the preposition follows the focused expression to a new position. In preposition stranding, the preposition phrase is discontinuous because the preposition stays in its original position while the focused expression moves away.

The following examples show cases where either pied-piping or preposition stranding can occur.

8b - With whom did Fred speak (less f-features).png
(8b) whom has pied-piped the preposition with.
8c - Whom did Fred speak with (less f-features).png
(8c) Preposition stranding occurs as whom moves without with.
(8) a. Fred spoke with Susan.     b. With whom did Fred speak ___.     c. Who did Fred speak with ___?
(9) a. Fred is waiting for Susan.     b. For whom is Fred waiting ___?     c. Who is Fred waiting for ___?

Influences on variation

In cases where pied-piping and preposition stranding are interchangeable, both types of constructions are generally considered acceptable by native English speakers. [11] However, prescriptive grammar rules specify that the object of a preposition must immediately follow its governing preposition. [12] Preposition pied-piping is favoured in formal registers of English, such as academic writing and printed text. [13] In comparison, pied-piping is disfavoured in colloquial registers. Speakers tend to prefer preposition stranding instead of pied-piping in informal contexts, such as private dialogue and private correspondence. [14]

In (8) and (9) above, the (b) sentences present a formal register, while a colloquial register is observed in the (c) sentences.

Obligatory pied-piping

Although flexibility between pied-piping and preposition stranding exists, they are not always interchangeable. Pied-piping is mandatory in some cases. [15] This occurs with some antecedent nouns (e.g., way, extent, point, sense, degree, time, moment) and some prepositions (e.g., beyond, during, underneath). [16]

The following examples show cases where pied-piping is mandatory. [17]

10b - I like the way in which you wrote this book (less f-features).png
(10b) which has pied-piped the preposition in.
10c - I like the way which you wrote the book in (less f-features).png
(10c) which moves without pied-piping the preposition in.
(10) a.  You wrote this book in that way.      b.  I like the way in which you wrote this book ___.      c. *I like the way which you wrote this book in ___.
(11) a. There is a field beyond the fence.      b. The road ends at the fence, beyond which there is a field ___.      c. *The road ends at the fence, which there is a field beyond ___.

Pied-piping is obligatory to form a grammatically sound sentence in the above (b) sentences, while absence of pied-piping results in an ungrammatical sentence in the (c) sentences.

Contrastively, pied-piping is not acceptable in some cases. This typically occurs with prepositions that are part of a verb's meaning. [18] For example, pied-piping is not acceptable for phrasal verbs such as look after and some idioms such as get rid of. [19] In these cases, preposition stranding is obligatory.

The following examples show cases where pied-piping is not acceptable. [20] 

(12) a.  I'm looking after the cat this weekend.      b.  This is the cat which I'm looking after ___ this weekend. - Preposition stranding is obligatory      c. *This is the cat after which I'm looking ___ this weekend.
(13) a.  We have to get rid of the rotten apple.      b.  Where is the rotten apple which we have to get rid of ___? - Preposition stranding is obligatory      c. *Where is the rotten apple of which we have to get rid ___?      d. *Where is the rotten apple rid of which we have to get ___?

Pied-piping broadly construed

Broadly construed, pied-piping occurs in other types of discontinuities beyond wh-fronting. If one views just part of a topicalized or extraposed phrase as focused, then pied-piping can be construed as occurring with these other types of discontinuities. Assuming that just the bolded words in these examples bear contrastive focus, the rest of the topicalized or extraposed phrase is pied-piped in each (b) sentence of (14) and (15). Similar examples could be produced for scrambling.

(14) a. She called his parents, not her parents.      b. His parents she called, not her parents. - Topicalization can be construed as involving pied-piping.
(15) a. The student whom I know helped, not the student whom you know.       b. The student helped whom I know, not the student whom you know. - Extraposition can be construed as involving pied-piping.

Theoretical approaches to pied-piping

In 1967, Ross defined a number of constraints including the Left Branch Condition. [21] This condition constrains movement of a leftmost NP constituent out of a larger NP. When the leftmost NP moves, pied-piping is necessary in order to ensure that the Left Branch Condition is not violated. [22] At the time, PPs were considered to immediately dominate P and NP, and APs and AdvPs were seen as dominating or being dominated by NPs. [23] Ross' constraints apply to English, but they are not universally applicable to all languages. [24] The fact that pied-piping varies so much across languages is a major challenge facing theories of syntax.

Subjacency Principle

Together with other constraints, the Left Branch Condition was combined into the subjacency condition which governs movement. [25] 

The Left Branch Constraint (adjusted): If a DP is the subject of a larger DP, it cannot be moved out of the larger DP. [26]

In English, this constraint applies to possessive determiners, as seen in the sentences in (4). In these sentences, moving only the DP who, or both who and the possessive D 's (to form whose) violates the Left Branch Constraint. To ensure grammaticality, the larger DP must move whereby the interrogative whose pied-pipes the NP complement paper, seen in (4b).

Other approaches

As theories of syntax evolved, linguists have investigated the phenomenon of pied-piping in English and other languages using different syntactic models. Theoretical approaches to pied-piping have included Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, [27] Optimality Theory and assumptions from the Minimalist Program, [28] and Word Grammar. [29]

Pied-piping across languages

Pied-piping varies across languages. [30] Languages with relatively strict word order, such as English, tend to employ pied-piping more often than languages that have relatively free word order, such as Slavic languages. The following examples from Russian, Latin, and German illustrate variation in pied-piping across languages.

Unlike in English, a pre-noun modifier in Russian (16) and Latin (17) does not need to pied-pipe the noun that it modifies. [31] 

(16) Č′jui ty  čitaješ knigu?      whose you read    book      Whose book are you reading? (lit. Whose you reading book?)
(17) Cuius legis    librum?      whose you.read book      Whose book are you reading? (lit. Whose you.reading book?)

When the word order of Russian in (16) and Latin in (17) is maintained in English, the sentences are unacceptable. This is because pre-noun modifiers must pied-pipe their noun in English. This is explained through the Left Branch Condition, as described in the section above. [32] [33] The Left Branch Condition appears to be absent in Russian and Latin.

Another example illustrating variation in pied-piping across languages is from German. In some cases, relative pronouns in German have the option to pied-pipe a governing zu-infinitive when they are fronted. [34] In (18a), the relative pronoun das pied-pipes the zu-infinitive zu lesen 'to read' to the front of the relative clause. Pied-piping does not occur in (18b). Since both variants are acceptable, pied-piping in such cases is optional. Pied-piping in such constellations is impossible in English, as seen by the contrast between the ill-formed (19a) and the well-formed (19b) ).

(18) a. ...das Buch [das  zu lesen] ich versuchte.            the book which to read   I   tried         the book that I tried to read         b. ...das Buch [das] ich __ zu lesen versuchte.            the book which I      to read  tried         the book that I tried to read
(19) a. *...the book [to read which] I tried __         b. the book [which] I tried to read __

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ For a similar definition of pied-piping, see Crystal (1997;294).
  2. ↑ Ross introduced the concept of pied-piping in his seminal dissertation (1967/86:121ff.).
  3. ↑ For a similar description of pied-piping, see Brattico (2012;71)
  4. ↑ Pied-piping is a concept discussed in many introductory texts to syntax, e.g. Riemsdijk (1986:28ff.), Haegeman (1994: 375f.), Roberts (1997:189).
  5. ↑ Cross-linguistic variation of pied-piping is discussed by Hawkins (1999:277); Hoffmann (2011:56); Hudson (2018:130)
  6. ↑ This article uses asterisks to indicate ungrammatical examples.
  7. ↑ The greater flexibility of pied-piping in relative clauses is noted by, for instance, Culicover (1997:183).
  8. ↑ The differences between pied-piping in wh-clauses and relative clauses are discussed by Horvath (2006:579f).
  9. ↑ Continuous and discontinuous constructions are discussed in Günther (2021:1)
  10. ↑ Pied-piping as it relates to preposition stranding is discussed in the literature frequently, e.g. Riemsdijk and Williams (1986:146f.), Haegeman (1994:375f.), Ouhalla (1994:70), and Radford (2004:106ff.).
  11. ↑ Acceptability judgements of preposition stranding and pied-piping were studied by Radford et al. (2012)
  12. ↑ Prescriptive grammar rules involving prepositions are discussed by Radford et al. (2012:407)
  13. ↑ Preposition placement in formal and informal registers is discussed by Hoffman (2005); Hoffman (2011); Sportiche et al. (2014); Xu (2015)
  14. ↑ Preposition placement in formal and informal registers is discussed by Hoffman (2005); Hoffman (2011); Sportiche et al. (2014); Xu (2015)
  15. ↑ Obligatory cases of pied-piping discussed by Hudson (2018); Sportiche et al. (2014)
  16. ↑ Examples of antecedent nouns and prepositions that require pied-piping are discussed by Hudson (2018:92)
  17. ↑ These examples are similar to ones created by Hudson (2018:92-93)
  18. ↑ Obligatory preposition stranding is discussed by Sportiche et al. (2014)
  19. ↑ Examples of phrasal verbs and idioms are discussed by Hudson (2018:93)
  20. ↑ These examples are similar to ones created by Hudson (2018:93)
  21. ↑ The Left Branch Condition was introduced by Ross (1967:207)
  22. ↑ Ross’ original Left Branch Condition is discussed by Horvath (2006:574)
  23. ↑ The context of Ross’ original Left Branch Condition is discussed by Horvath (2006:574)
  24. ↑ Examples from other languages that contradict Ross' constraints are discussed by Hawkins (1999:244)
  25. ↑ Integration of constraints into subjacency is discussed in Sportiche et al. (2014)
  26. ↑ Adjusted Left Branch Constraint, as defined by Sportiche et al. (2014:278)
  27. ↑ Pied-piping is analyzed using HPSG theory by Pollard & Sag (1994) as discussed in Hudson (2018:85)
  28. ↑ Approaches using Optimality Theory and assumptions from the Minimalist Program are discussed by Cable (2012)
  29. ↑ Pied-piping is analyzed through the Word Grammar theoretical framework by Hudson (2018)
  30. ↑ Cross-linguistic variation of pied-piping is discussed by Hawkins (1999:277); Hoffmann (2011:56); Hudson (2018:130)
  31. ↑ The two examples are taken from Roberts (1997:189).
  32. ↑ Like the concept of pied-piping itself, the Left Branch Condition was first identified by John Robert Ross in his seminal dissertation (1967/86:127).
  33. ↑ The Left Branch Condition is commonly introduced together with the concept of pied-piping, e.g. Riemsdijk and Williams (1986:28ff.) and Roberts(1987:189).
  34. ↑ The examples produced here are similar to those discussed by Osborne (2005:252f.).

Related Research Articles

In language, a clause is a constituent that comprises a semantic predicand and a semantic predicate. A typical clause consists of a subject and a syntactic predicate, the latter typically a verb phrase composed of a verb with any objects and other modifiers. However, the subject is sometimes unvoiced if it is retrievable from context, especially in null-subject language but also in other languages, including English instances of the imperative mood.

In linguistics, X-bar theory is a model of phrase-structure grammar and a theory of syntactic category formation that was first proposed by Noam Chomsky in 1970 reformulating the ideas of Zellig Harris (1951), and further developed by Ray Jackendoff, along the lines of the theory of generative grammar put forth in the 1950s by Chomsky. It attempts to capture the structure of phrasal categories with a single uniform structure called the X-bar schema, basing itself on the assumption that any phrase in natural language is an XP that is headed by a given syntactic category X. It played a significant role in resolving issues that phrase structure rules had, representative of which is the proliferation of grammatical rules, which is against the thesis of generative grammar.

A movement paradox is a phenomenon of grammar that challenges the transformational approach to syntax. The importance of movement paradoxes is emphasized by those theories of syntax that reject movement, i.e. the notion that discontinuities in syntax are explained by the movement of constituents.

In syntactic analysis, a constituent is a word or a group of words that function as a single unit within a hierarchical structure. The constituent structure of sentences is identified using tests for constituents. These tests apply to a portion of a sentence, and the results provide evidence about the constituent structure of the sentence. Many constituents are phrases. A phrase is a sequence of one or more words built around a head lexical item and working as a unit within a sentence. A word sequence is shown to be a phrase/constituent if it exhibits one or more of the behaviors discussed below. The analysis of constituent structure is associated mainly with phrase structure grammars, although dependency grammars also allow sentence structure to be broken down into constituent parts.

In linguistics, wh-movement is the formation of syntactic dependencies involving interrogative words. An example in English is the dependency formed between what and the object position of doing in "What are you doing?" Interrogative forms are sometimes known within English linguistics as wh-words, such as what, when, where, who, and why, but also include other interrogative words, such as how. This dependency has been used as a diagnostic tool in syntactic studies as it can be observed to interact with other grammatical constraints.

Topicalization is a mechanism of syntax that establishes an expression as the sentence or clause topic by having it appear at the front of the sentence or clause. This involves a phrasal movement of determiners, prepositions, and verbs to sentence-initial position. Topicalization often results in a discontinuity and is thus one of a number of established discontinuity types, the other three being wh-fronting, scrambling, and extraposition. Topicalization is also used as a constituency test; an expression that can be topicalized is deemed a constituent. The topicalization of arguments in English is rare, whereas circumstantial adjuncts are often topicalized. Most languages allow topicalization, and in some languages, topicalization occurs much more frequently and/or in a much less marked manner than in English. Topicalization in English has also received attention in the pragmatics literature.

Historically, grammarians have described preposition stranding or p-stranding as the syntactic construction in which a so-called stranded, hanging or dangling preposition occurs somewhere other than immediately before its corresponding object; for example, at the end of a sentence. The term preposition stranding was coined in 1964, predated by stranded preposition in 1949. Linguists had previously identified such a construction as a sentence-terminal preposition or as a preposition at the end. This kind of construction is found in English, and more generally in other Germanic languages.

In syntax, sluicing is a type of ellipsis that occurs in both direct and indirect interrogative clauses. The ellipsis is introduced by a wh-expression, whereby in most cases, everything except the wh-expression is elided from the clause. Sluicing has been studied in detail in the early 21st century and it is therefore a relatively well-understood type of ellipsis. Sluicing occurs in many languages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Empty category</span> Linguistics concept

In linguistics, an empty category, which may also be referred to as a covert category, is an element in the study of syntax that does not have any phonological content and is therefore unpronounced. Empty categories exist in contrast to overt categories which are pronounced. When representing empty categories in tree structures, linguists use a null symbol (∅) to depict the idea that there is a mental category at the level being represented, even if the word(s) are being left out of overt speech. The phenomenon was named and outlined by Noam Chomsky in his 1981 LGB framework, and serves to address apparent violations of locality of selection — there are different types of empty categories that each appear to account for locality violations in different environments. Empty categories are present in most of the world's languages, although different languages allow for different categories to be empty.

Syntactic movement is the means by which some theories of syntax address discontinuities. Movement was first postulated by structuralist linguists who expressed it in terms of discontinuous constituents or displacement. Some constituents appear to have been displaced from the position in which they receive important features of interpretation. The concept of movement is controversial and is associated with so-called transformational or derivational theories of syntax. Representational theories, in contrast, reject the notion of movement and often instead address discontinuities with other mechanisms including graph reentrancies, feature passing, and type shifters.

In linguistics, grammaticality is determined by the conformity to language usage as derived by the grammar of a particular speech variety. The notion of grammaticality rose alongside the theory of generative grammar, the goal of which is to formulate rules that define well-formed, grammatical, sentences. These rules of grammaticality also provide explanations of ill-formed, ungrammatical sentences.

In linguistics, locality refers to the proximity of elements in a linguistic structure. Constraints on locality limit the span over which rules can apply to a particular structure. Theories of transformational grammar use syntactic locality constraints to explain restrictions on argument selection, syntactic binding, and syntactic movement.

Pied-piping with inversion is a special word order phenomenon found in some languages, such as those in the Mesoamerican linguistic area.

A resumptive pronoun is a personal pronoun appearing in a relative clause, which restates the antecedent after a pause or interruption, as in This is the girli that whenever it rains shei cries.

In linguistics, crossover effects are restrictions on possible binding or coreference that hold between certain phrases and pronouns. Coreference that is normal and natural when a pronoun follows its antecedent becomes impossible, or at best just marginally possible, when "crossover" is deemed to have occurred, e.g. ?Who1 do his1 friends admire __1? The term itself refers to the traditional transformational analysis of sentences containing leftward movement, whereby it appears as though the fronted constituent crosses over the expression with which it is coindexed on its way to the front of the clause. Crossover effects are divided into strong crossover (SCO) and weak crossover (WCO). The phenomenon occurs in English and related languages, and it may be present in all natural languages that allow fronting.

Extraposition is a mechanism of syntax that alters word order in such a manner that a relatively "heavy" constituent appears to the right of its canonical position. Extraposing a constituent results in a discontinuity and in this regard, it is unlike shifting, which does not generate a discontinuity. The extraposed constituent is separated from its governor by one or more words that dominate its governor. Two types of extraposition are acknowledged in theoretical syntax: standard cases where extraposition is optional and it-extraposition where extraposition is obligatory. Extraposition is motivated in part by a desire to reduce center embedding by increasing right-branching and thus easing processing, center-embedded structures being more difficult to process. Extraposition occurs frequently in English and related languages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English clause syntax</span> Clauses in English grammar

This article describes the syntax of clauses in the English language, chiefly in Modern English. A clause is often said to be the smallest grammatical unit that can express a complete proposition. But this semantic idea of a clause leaves out much of English clause syntax. For example, clauses can be questions, but questions are not propositions. A syntactic description of an English clause is that it is a subject and a verb. But this too fails, as a clause need not have a subject, as with the imperative, and, in many theories, an English clause may be verbless. The idea of what qualifies varies between theories and has changed over time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English phrasal verbs</span> Concept in English grammar

In the traditional grammar of Modern English, a phrasal verb typically constitutes a single semantic unit composed of a verb followed by a particle, sometimes combined with a preposition. Alternative terms include verb-adverb combination, verb-particle construction, two-part word/verb or three-part word/verb and multi-word verb.

In linguistics, a relativizer is a type of conjunction that introduces a relative clause. For example, in English, the conjunction that may be considered a relativizer in a sentence such as "I have one that you can use." Relativizers do not appear, at least overtly, in all languages; even in languages that do have overt or pronounced relativizers, they do not necessarily appear all of the time. For these reasons it has been suggested that in some cases, a "zero relativizer" may be present, meaning that a relativizer is implied in the grammar but is not actually realized in speech or writing. For example, the word that can be omitted in the above English example, producing "I have one you can use", using a zero relativizer.

Henk van Riemsdijk is a Dutch linguist and professor emeritus at Tilburg University.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.