Preposition stranding or p-stranding is 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. [1] [2] Linguists had previously identified such a construction as a sentence-terminal preposition [3] or as a preposition at the end. [4]
Preposition stranding is found in English and other Germanic languages, [5] [6] [7] [8] as well as in Vata and Gbadi (languages in the Niger–Congo family), and certain dialects of French spoken in North America.[ citation needed ]
P-stranding occurs in various syntactic contexts, including passive voice, [9] wh-movement, [10] [11] and sluicing. [10] [11]
Wh-movement—which involves wh-words like who, what, when, where, why and how—is a syntactic dependency between a sentence-initial wh-word and the gap that it is associated with. Wh-movement can lead to P-stranding if the object of the preposition is moved to sentence-initial position, and the preposition is left behind. P-stranding from wh-movement is observed in English and Scandinavian languages. The more common alternative is called pied piping, a rule that prohibits separating a preposition from its object, for instances in Serbo-Croatian and Arabic languages. English and Dutch use both rules, providing the option of two constructions in these situations.
An open interrogative often takes the form of a wh- question (beginning with a word like what or who).
P-stranding in English allows the separation of the preposition from its object, while pied piping allows carrying the preposition along with the wh- object. [11] From the examples below, we can see the two options.
P-stranding in Danish is banned only if the wh-word is referring to nominative cases. [12] "Peter has spoken with <whom>", the wh-word <whom> is the accusative case. Therefore, p-stranding is allowed.
Welk
which
bosi
foresti
liep
walked
hij
he
___i
___i
in?
into?
'What forest did he walk into?'
Waar
where
praatten
talked
wij
we
over?
about?
'What did we talk about?'
Qui
who
ce-que
that
t’as
2SG.have
fait
made
le
the
gâteau
cake
pour?
for
'Who did you make the cake for?'
Wh-movement in Greek states that the extracted PP must be in Spec-CP, [14] which means the PP (me) needs to move with the wh-word (Pjon). It can thus be seen that Greek allows pied piping in wh-movement but not prepositional stranding.
Pied-piping is the only grammatical option in Spanish to construct oblique relative clauses. [15] Since pied-piping is the opposite of p-stranding, p-stranding in Spanish is not possible (* indicates ungrammaticality).
P-stranding in EA is possible only by using which-NPs that strand prepositions and follow them with IP-deletion.
The preposition (fi) should be moved together with the wh-word (ʔaj) to make this sentence grammatical. [11]
It should be:
P-stranding in wh-movement sentences is normally banned in LA. However, a recent study found that a preposition seems to be stranded in a resumptive wh-question. [16]
Sluicing is a specific type of ellipsis that involves wh-phrases. In sluicing, the wh-phrase is stranded while the sentential portion of the constituent question is deleted. It is important to note that the preposition is stranded inside the constituent questions before sluicing. Some languages allow prepositional stranding under sluicing, while other languages ban it. [10] [11] The theory of preposition stranding generalization (PSG) suggests that if a language allows preposition stranding under wh-movement, that language will also allow preposition stranding under sluicing. [17] PSG is not obeyed universally; examples of the banning of p-stranding under sluicing are provided below.
Prepositional stranding under sluicing is allowed in English because prepositional phrases are not islands in English. [18]
Peter
Peter
har
has
snakket
talk.PP
med
with
en
one
eller
or
anden,
another
men
but
jeg
I
ved
know.PRES
ikke
not
hvem
who
Peter
Peter
har
has
snakket
talk.PP
med. [11]
with
'Peter was talking with someone, but I don't know who.'
Juan
Juan
ha
has
hablado
talk.PP
con
with
una
a
chica
girl
pero
but
no
not
sé
know
cuál
which
Juan
Juan
ha
has
hablado
talk.PP
con. [10]
with
'Juan talked with a girl, but I don't know which.'
John
John
ʃərab
drank
gahwa.
coffee
wijja
with
sˤadiq,
friend
bəs
but
maa
not
ʕərf
1.know
ʔaj
which
sˤadiq
friend
John
John
ʃərab
drank
gahwa
coffee
wijja. [11]
with
'John drank coffee with a friend, but I don't know which friend.'
Ali
Ali
tekəllem
talked.3MS
mʕa
with
waħed
someone
lakin
but
ma-ʕrafna-š
NEG-knew.1P-NEG
man
who
(hu)
(PN.he)
illi
that
Ali
Ali
tekəllem
talked.3MS
mʕa-ah. [11]
with-him
'Ali talked with someone, but we didn't know who.'
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 only mean into when used postpositionally. When postpositions, such adpositions can be stranded:
[...]
[...]
dat
that
hij
he
zo'n
such-a
donker
dark
bos
forest
niet
not
in
into
durft
dares
te
to
lopen
walk
[...]
[...]
'[...] that he doesn't dare walk into such a dark forest [...]'
Pseudopassives (prepositional passives or passive constructions) are the result of the movement of the object of a preposition to fill an empty subject position for a passive verb. The phenomenon is comparable to regular passives, which are formed through the movement of the object of the verb to subject position. In prepositional passives, unlike in wh-movement, the object of the preposition is not a wh-word but rather a pronoun or noun phrase:
Relative clauses in English can exhibit preposition stranding with or without an explicit relative pronoun:
To standard French ears, all of those constructions sound quite alien and are thus considered 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)'.
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 and thereby strand the postposition: [20]
Wij
We
praatten
talked
er
there
niet
not
over.
about.
'We didn't talk about it.'
Some regional varieties of German show a similar phenomenon to some Dutch constructions with da(r)- and wo(r)- forms. That is called a split construction (Spaltkonstruktion). Standard German provides composite words for the particle and the bound preposition. The split occurs easily with a composite interrogative word (as shown in the English example) or with a composite demonstrative word (as shown in the Dutch example).
For example, the demonstrative davon ('of that / of those / thereof'):
Ich
I
kann
can
mir
me
davon
thereof
nichts
nothing
leisten.
afford.
'I can't afford any of those.'
Ich
I
kann
can
mir
me
da
there-[clipped]
nichts
nothing
von
of
leisten.
afford.
'I can't afford any of those.'
Again, although the stranded postposition has nearly the same surface distribution as a separable verbal prefix (herbekommen is a valid composite verb), 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:
Although preposition stranding has been found in English since the earliest times, [21] it has often been the subject of controversy, and some usage advisors have attempted to form a prescriptive rule against it. In 1926, H. W. Fowler noted: "It is a cherished superstition that prepositions must, in spite of the incurable English instinct for putting them late [...] be kept true to their name & placed before the word they govern." [22]
The earliest attested disparagement of preposition stranding in English is datable to the 17th-century grammarian Joshua Poole, [3] but it became popular after 1672, when the poet John Dryden 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. [23] [24] In his earlier writing, Dryden himself had employed terminal prepositions but he systematically removed them in later editions of his work, explaining that when in doubt he would translate his English into Latin to test its elegance. [4] Latin has no construction comparable to preposition stranding.
Usage writer Robert Lowth wrote in his 1762 textbook A Short Introduction to English Grammar that the construction 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." [25] However Lowth used the construction himself, including a humorously self-referential example in this passage ("is strongly inclined to"), and his comments do not amount to a proscription.
A stronger view was taken by Edward Gibbon, who not only disparaged sentence-terminal prepositions but, noting that prepositions and adverbs are often difficult to distinguish, also avoided phrasal verbs which put on, over or under at the end of the sentence, even when these are clearly adverbs. [4] [b] By the 19th century, the tradition of English school teaching had come to deprecate the construction, and the proscription is still taught in some schools at the beginning of the 21st century. [26]
However, there were also voices which took an opposite view. Fowler dedicated four columns of his Dictionary of Modern English Usage to a rebuttal of the prescription:
The fact is that the remarkable freedom enjoyed by English in putting its prepositions late & omitting its relatives is an important element in the flexibility of the language. [...] That depends on what they are cut with is not improved by conversion into That depends on with what they are cut; & too often the lust of sophistication, once blooded, becomes uncontrollable, & ends with, That depends on the answer to the question as to with what they are cut." [4]
Criticizing the controversy over preposition stranding, American linguist Donald Ringe stated: [27]
The original reason for the objection, apparently, was that Latin has no such construction (or, with a bit more sophistication, that few other languages have such a construction). In other words, people who objected to preposition stranding were insisting that English grammar should be like Latin. That's perverse - English isn't Latin and isn't even descended from Latin...
— Donald Ringe, An Introduction to Grammar for Language Learners, Epilogue
Overzealous avoidance of stranded prepositions was sometimes ridiculed for leading to unnatural-sounding sentences, including the quip apocryphally attributed to Winston Churchill: This is the sort of tedious nonsense up with which I will not put. [28]
Today, most sources consider it to be acceptable in standard formal English. [26] [29] [30] As O'Conner and Kellerman point out: "Great literature from Chaucer to Milton to Shakespeare to the King James version of the Bible was full of so called terminal prepositions." [29] Mignon Fogarty ("Grammar Girl") says, "nearly all grammarians agree that it's fine to end sentences with prepositions, at least in some cases." [31]
In grammar, the dative case is a grammatical case used in some languages to indicate the recipient or beneficiary of an action, as in "Maria Jacobo potum dedit", Latin for "Maria gave Jacob a drink". In this example, the dative marks what would be considered the indirect object of a verb in English.
A grammatical case is a category of nouns and noun modifiers that corresponds to one or more potential grammatical functions for a nominal group in a wording. In various languages, nominal groups consisting of a noun and its modifiers belong to one of a few such categories. For instance, in English, one says I see them and they see me: the nominative pronouns I/they represent the perceiver and the accusative pronouns me/them represent the phenomenon perceived. Here, nominative and accusative are cases, that is, categories of pronouns corresponding to the functions they have in representation.
A passive voice construction is a grammatical voice construction that is found in many languages. In a clause with passive voice, the grammatical subject expresses the theme or patient of the main verb – that is, the person or thing that undergoes the action or has its state changed. This contrasts with active voice, in which the subject has the agent role. For example, in the passive sentence "The tree was pulled down", the subject denotes the patient rather than the agent of the action. In contrast, the sentences "Someone pulled down the tree" and "The tree is down" are active sentences.
English grammar is the set of structural rules of the English language. This includes the structure of words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and whole texts.
Adpositions are a class of words used to express spatial or temporal relations or mark various semantic roles. The most common adpositions are prepositions and postpositions.
The pronoun who, in English, is an interrogative pronoun and a relative pronoun, used primarily to refer to persons.
In grammar, the prepositional case and the postpositional case - generalised as adpositional cases - are grammatical cases that respectively mark the object of a preposition and a postposition. This term can be used in languages where nouns have a declensional form that appears exclusively in combination with certain prepositions.
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.
A relative pronoun is a pronoun that marks a relative clause. An example is the word which in the sentence "This is the house which Jack built." Here the relative pronoun which introduces the relative clause, which modifies the noun house. A relative pronoun plays the role of a noun phrase within that clause. For example, in the relative clause "which Jack built," "which" is a pronoun functioning as the object of the verb "built."
Relative clauses in the English language are formed principally by means of relative words. The basic relative pronouns are who, which, and that; who also has the derived forms whom and whose. Various grammatical rules and style guides determine which relative pronouns may be suitable in various situations, especially for formal settings. In some cases the relative pronoun may be omitted and merely implied.
An adpositional phrase is a syntactic category that includes prepositional phrases, postpositional phrases, and circumpositional phrases. Adpositional phrases contain an adposition as head and usually a complement such as a noun phrase. Language syntax treats adpositional phrases as units that act as arguments or adjuncts. Prepositional and postpositional phrases differ by the order of the words used. Languages that are primarily head-initial such as English predominantly use prepositional phrases whereas head-final languages predominantly employ postpositional phrases. Many languages have both types, as well as circumpositional phrases.
Traditional grammar is a framework for the description of the structure of a language or group of languages. The roots of traditional grammar are in the work of classical Greek and Latin philologists. The formal study of grammar based on these models became popular during the Renaissance.
In French, pronouns are inflected to indicate their role in the sentence, as well as to reflect the person, gender, and number of their referents.
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.
Hindustani, the lingua franca of Northern India and Pakistan, has two standardised registers: Hindi and Urdu. Grammatical differences between the two standards are minor but each uses its own script: Hindi uses Devanagari while Urdu uses an extended form of the Perso-Arabic script, typically in the Nastaʿlīq style.
In linguistics, an inflected preposition is a type of word that occurs in some languages, that corresponds to the combination of a preposition and a personal pronoun. For instance, the Welsh word iddo is an inflected form of the preposition i meaning "to/for him"; it would not be grammatically correct to say *i ef.
English prepositions are words – such as of, in, on, at, from, etc. – that function as the head of a prepositional phrase, and most characteristically license a noun phrase object. Semantically, they most typically denote relations in space and time. Morphologically, they are usually simple and do not inflect. They form a closed lexical category.
A coverb is a word or prefix that resembles a verb or co-operates with a verb. In languages that have the serial verb construction, coverbs are a type of word that shares features of verbs and prepositions. A coverb takes an object or complement and forms a phrase that appears in sequence with another verb phrase in accordance with the serial construction. A coverb appears to be subordinate to a main verb and fulfills a function similar to that of a preposition.
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.
In the traditional grammar of Modern English, a phrasal verb typically constitutes a single semantic unit consisting of a verb followed by a particle, sometimes collocated with a preposition.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)