Preposition stranding

Last updated

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]

Contents

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 and P-stranding

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.

Preposition stranding allowed under wh-movement

In English

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.

  • Which town did you come from? [11]
    • From which town did you come?
  • English allows prepositional stranding under regular wh-movement Which town did you move from syntax tree.png
    English allows prepositional stranding under regular wh-movement
    What are you talking about? [a]
    • About what are you talking?

In Danish

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.

Hvem

whom

har

has

Peter

Peter

snakket

speak.PP

med?

with

[11]

 

Hvem har Peter snakket med?

whom has Peter speak.PPwith

'Whom has Peter spoken with?'

In Dutch

  • Directional constructions

Welk

which

bosi

foresti

liep

walked

hij

he

___i

___i

in?

into?

Welkbosi liep hij ___iin?

whichforesti walked he ___iinto?

'What forest did he walk into?'

  • R-pronouns

Waar

where

praatten

talked

wij

we

over?

about?

Waar praatten wij over?

where talked we about?

'What did we talk about?'

In French

  • Standard French requires
    • Pour qui est-ce que tu as fait le gâteau?
    • For whom did you bake the cake?
  • Some dialects, such as Prince Edward Island French, permit [13]

Qui

who

ce-que

that

t’as

2SG.have

fait

made

le

the

gâteau

cake

pour?

for

Qui ce-que t’as fait le gâteau pour?

who that 2SG.have made the cake for

'Who did you make the cake for?'

Preposition stranding disallowed under wh-movement

In Greek

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.

*Pjon

who

milise

she.speak.PAST

me?

with

[10]

 

*Pjon milise me?

who she.speak.PAST with

'Who did she speak with?'

In Spanish

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).

*Qué

which

chica

girl.SG

ha

has

hablado

talk.PP

Peter

Peter

con?

with

[10]

 

*Qué chica ha hablado Peter con?

which girl.SG has talk.PP Peter with

'Who has Peter talked with?'

In Arabic

Emirati Arabic (EA)

P-stranding in EA is possible only by using which-NPs that strand prepositions and follow them with IP-deletion.

ʔaj

which

Mʊkaan

place

laag-et

met-2MS

John

John

fi?

at

[11]

 

ʔaj Mʊkaan laag-et John fi?

which place met-2MS John at

'Which place did you meet John at?'

The preposition (fi) should be moved together with the wh-word (ʔaj) to make this sentence grammatical. [11]

It should be:

f-ʔaj

at-which

Mʊkaan

place

laag-et

met-2MS

John?

John

[11]

 

f-ʔaj Mʊkaan laag-et John?

at-which place met-2MS John

'At which place did you meet John at?

Libyan Arabic (LA)

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]

man

who

Ali

Ali

tekəllem

talked.3MS

mʕa?

with

[11]

 

man Ali tekəllem mʕa?

who Ali talked.3MS with

'Who did Ali talk with?'

Sluicing and p-stranding

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.

Preposition stranding under sluicing

English allows prepositional stranding under sluicing John laughed at someone but I don't know who he laughed at syntax tree.png
English allows prepositional stranding under sluicing

In English

Prepositional stranding under sluicing is allowed in English because prepositional phrases are not islands in English. [18]

  • John laughed at someone, but I don't know who he laughed at. [10]

In Danish

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 har snakket med en eller anden, men jeg ved ikke hvem Peterharsnakketmed. [11]

Peter has talk.PP with one or another but I know.PRES not who Peterhastalk.PPwith

'Peter was talking with someone, but I don't know who.'

In Spanish

Juan

Juan

ha

has

hablado

talk.PP

con

with

una

a

chica

girl

pero

but

no

not

know

cuál

which

Juan

Juan

ha

has

hablado

talk.PP

con. [10]

with

Juan ha hablado con una chica pero no sé cuál Juanhahabladocon. [10]

Juan has talk.PP with a girl but not know which Juanhastalk.PPwith

'Juan talked with a girl, but I don't know which.'

In Arabic

Emirati Arabic

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 ʃərab gahwa. wijja sˤadiq, bəs maa ʕərf ʔaj sˤadiq Johnʃərabgahwawijja. [11]

John drank coffee with friend but not 1.know which friend Johndrankcoffeewith

'John drank coffee with a friend, but I don't know which friend.'

Libyan Arabic

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 tekəllem mʕa waħed lakin ma-ʕrafna-š man (hu) illiAlitekəllemmʕa-ah. [11]

Ali talked.3MS with someone but NEG-knew.1P-NEG who (PN.he) thatAlitalked.3MSwith-him

'Ali talked with someone, but we didn't know who.'

P-stranding in other situations

Directional constructions

In Dutch

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:

  • short-distance movement:

[...]

[...]

dat

that

hij

he

zo'n

such-a

donker

dark

bos

forest

niet

not

in

into

durft

dares

te

to

lopen

walk

[...]

[...]

[...] dat hij zo'ndonkerbos niet in durft te lopen [...]

[...] that he such-adarkforest not into dares to walk [...]

'[...] that he doesn't dare walk into such a dark forest [...]'

  • Another way to analyze examples like the one above would be to allow arbitrary "postposition + verb" sequences to act as transitive separable prefix verbs (e.g. in+lopeninlopen), 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[...].)

Pseudopassives

In English

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:

  • This bed looks as if it has been slept in. [a] [19]

In French

  • Some dialects permit proposition-stranding.
    • Robert a été parlé beaucoup de au meeting.
    • 'Robert was much talked about at the meeting.'
  • Standard French bans it.
    • On a beaucoup parlé de Robert au meeting.

Relative clauses

In English

Relative clauses in English can exhibit preposition stranding with or without an explicit relative pronoun:

  • This is the bookthat I told you about. [a]
  • This is the book I told you about.

In French

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)'.

  • Some dialects permit
    • 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 requires
    • Tu ne connais pas la fille dont je te parle.
  • Another more widespread non-standard variant is
    • Tu ne connais pas la fille que je te parle.

R-pronouns

In Dutch

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.

Wij praatten er niet over.

We talked there not about.

'We didn't talk about it.'

Split construction

In German

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'):

  • Standard German requires

Ich

I

kann

can

mir

me

davon

thereof

nichts

nothing

leisten.

afford.

Ich kann mir davon nichts leisten.

I can me thereof nothing afford.

'I can't afford any of those.'

  • Some dialects permit

Ich

I

kann

can

mir

me

da

there-[clipped]

nichts

nothing

von

of

leisten.

afford.

Ich kann mir da nichts von leisten.

I can me there-[clipped] nothing of 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:

  • 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.
    • Also, pronunciation allows distinguishing an actual usage of a verb like herbekommen from a split construction her bekommen.

Controversy

In English

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]

Sources

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 In transformational approaches to syntax, it is commonly assumed that the movement of a constituent out of a phrase leaves a silent trace, in this case following the preposition: Whati are you talking about ___i?
    This bed looks as if iti has been slept in ___i.
    This is the bookithati I told you about ___i.
  2. For more on the distinction between verbs with particles (called adverbs in older texts) and those with prepositional phrases, see English phrasal verbs#Types

See also

Related Research Articles

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.

<i>Who</i> (pronoun) English pronoun

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hindustani grammar</span> Grammatical features of the Hindustani lingua franca

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English prepositions</span> Prepositions in the English language

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.

<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 consisting of a verb followed by a particle, sometimes collocated with a preposition.

References

  1. "preposition stranding" . Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  2. "stranded preposition" . Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  3. 1 2 "Prepositions, Ending a Sentence With". Miriam Webster . Retrieved 2022-01-13.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Fowler, Henry Watson (1926). "Preposition at end". A Dictionary of Modern English Usage . OUP. p. 458. (cited from the revised ed. 1940).
  5. Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2005). A Student's Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. ISBN   0-521-61288-8. pages 137–38.
  6. Roberts, Ian G. (2007). Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford UP. ISBN   978-0-19-925398-2. page 238.
  7. Maling, Joan; Zaenen, Annie (1985). "Preposition-Stranding and Passive". Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 8 (2): 197–209. doi:10.1017/S0332586500001335. S2CID   145476590. page 197.
  8. Michael Nguyen (19 October 2021). "Hvornår er præpositionsstranding i dansk umuligt?". Ny Forskning i Grammatik (in Danish) (28). doi:10.7146/NFG.VI28.128787. ISSN   2446-1709. Wikidata   Q109265906.
  9. Rohdenburg, G (2017). "Formal asymmetries between active and passive clauses in Modern English: The avoidance of preposition stranding with verbs featuring omissible prepositions". Anglia. 135 (4): 700–744. doi:10.1515/ang-2017-0068. S2CID   165895615.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Griffiths, James; Güneş, Güliz; Lipták, Anikó; Merchant, Jason (2021-10-01). "Dutch preposition stranding and ellipsis: 'Merchant's Wrinkle' ironed out". The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics. 24 (3): 269–318. doi: 10.1007/s10828-021-09129-1 . hdl: 1887/3246915 . ISSN   1572-8552. S2CID   243809446.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Alaowffi, Nouf Yousef; Alharbi, Bader Yousef (2021-06-24). "Preposition stranding under sluicing: Evidence from Hijazi Arabic". Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 17 (2): 941–957. doi: 10.52462/jlls.65 . ISSN   1305-578X. S2CID   237819725.
  12. Law, Paul (2006). "Chapter 51: Prepositional Stranding". The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Vol. 1. pp. 632–685. doi:10.1002/9780470996591.ch51.
  13. King, Ruth (2000-12-21). The Lexical Basis of Grammatical Borrowing: A Prince Edward Island French case study. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Vol. 209. John Benjamins. p. 139. doi:10.1075/cilt.209. ISBN   978-90-272-9951-2.
  14. Michelioudakis, Sitaridou, Dimitris, Ioanna (2016). "Recasting the typology of multiple wh-fronting: Evidence from Pontic Greek". Glossa. 1: 1–33. doi: 10.5334/gjgl.72 . S2CID   55766150.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. PERPIÑÁN, SILVIA (2014). "L2 Grammar and L2 Processing in the Acquisition of Spanish Prepositional Relative Clauses". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 18 (4): 577–596. doi:10.1017/S1366728914000583. S2CID   145188813.
  16. Algryani, A. (2012). He Syntax of Ellipsis in Libyan Arabic: A generative analysis of sluicing, Vp ellipsis, stripping and negative contrast (dissertation).
  17. NYKIEL, JOANNA (2016). "Preposition stranding and ellipsis alternation". English Language & Linguistics. 21: 27–45. doi:10.1017/S1360674315000477. S2CID   124592131.
  18. Merchant (2000-01-01). "Islands and LF-movement in Greek sluicing". Journal of Greek Linguistics. 1 (1): 41–64. doi: 10.1075/jgl.1.04mer . ISSN   1569-9846. S2CID   92992108.
  19. Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1433–1436. ISBN   0-521-43146-8.
  20. van Riemsdijk, Henk; Kenesei, Istvan; Broekhuis, Hans (2015). Syntax of Dutch: adpositions and adpositional phrases. Amsterdam University Press. pp. 294ff. ISBN   978-9048522255. Archived from the original on 2016-08-26.
  21. O'Conner and Kellerman 2009. p. 22. "It's perfectly natural to put a preposition at the end of a sentence, and it has been since Anglo-Saxon times."
  22. Fowler, Henry Watson (1926). "Preposition at end". A Dictionary of Modern English Usage . OUP. p. 457. (cited from the revised ed. 1940). Similarly Burchfield in the 1996 version: "One of the most persistent myths about prepositions in English is that they properly belong before the word or words they govern and should not be placed at the end of a clause or sentence." Burchfield 1996. p. 617.
  23. Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   0-521-43146-8.
  24. John Dryden, "Defense of the Epilogue" to The Conquest of Granada.
  25. Lowth, Robert (1794) [Digitalized version of book published in 1794]. A Short Introduction to English Grammar: With Critical Notes. J.J. Tourneisin. pp.  133–134. Retrieved 5 August 2016.
  26. 1 2 Cutts 2009. p. 109.
  27. Ringe, Don (2018-08-23). An Introduction to Grammar for Language Learners (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108605533. ISBN   978-1-108-60553-3.
  28. "A misattribution no longer to be put up with". Language Log. 12 December 2004. Archived from the original on 7 September 2015. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  29. 1 2 O'Conner and Kellerman 2009. p. 21.
  30. Fogarty, Mignon (4 March 2010). "Top Ten Grammar Myths". Grammar Girl: Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing. Archived from the original on 13 March 2011. Retrieved 28 May 2011.
  31. Fogarty, Mignon (2011). Grammar Girl Presents the Ultimate Writing Guide for Students. New York: Henry Holt & Company. pp. 45–46. ISBN   978-0-8050-8943-1.

Further reading