Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T06:44:18.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A topic which I want to know more about – preposition placement in finite WH-relative clauses in World Englishes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2024

VICTORIA MUẞEMANN*
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Linguistics Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt Universitätsallee 1 85072 Eichstätt Germany victoria.mussemann@ku.de

Abstract

The present article analyzes the use of preposition stranding (the world which we live in) and pied-piping (the world in which we live) in finite WH-relative clauses in twelve varieties of English. In the light of previous studies, it assumes that the strength of processing constraints and formality effects that drive speakers’ constructional choices should correlate with Dynamic Model stages (Schneider 2007). However, drawing on data from the International Corpus of English (ICE) and using mixed-effects logistic regression analysis, the study shows that processing factors affect speakers of all Dynamic Model stages in a very similar way. At the same time, clear differences between variety stages are observed with respect to formality and topic, which strongly affect Phases IV and V but not Phase III. These results are interpreted from a Usage-based Construction Grammar perspective.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The present study was funded by a German Research Foundation (DFG) grant (HO 3904/7-1).

References

Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias, Th, Stefan. Gries & Joybrato Mukherjee. 2014. The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide 35(1), 731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bohmann, Axel. 2019. Variation in English worldwide: Registers and global varieties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buregeya, Alfred. 2019. Kenyan English. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Alan Cruse, D.. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, Alice & Lutz, Richard. 1985. Measuring syntactic complexity relative to discourse context. In Zwicky, Arnold M., Dowty, David R. & Lauri Karttunen (eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical Perspectives, 2666. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayag, Danilo T. 2016. Preposition stranding and pied-piping in Philippine English: A corpus-based study. In Leitner, Gerhard, Hashim, Azirah & Hans-Georg Wolf (eds.), Communicating with Asia: The future of English as a global language, 102–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Department of Statistics Singapore. 2021. Census of population 2020: Statistical release 1. Demographic characteristics, education, language and religion. www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/reference/cop2020/cop2020-sr1/census20_stat_release1 (accessed 10 June 2023).Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2004. The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, Tanguy, Paquot, Magali & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2023. Alternation phenomena and language proficiency: The genitive alternation in the spoken language of EFL learners. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 19(3), 427–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Paquot, Magali. 2008. Too chatty: Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction 1(1), 4161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney & Nelson, Gerald. 1996. The International Corpus of English (ICE) Project. World Englishes 15(1), 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2002. Preposition stranding in English: Predicting speakers’ behaviour. In Samiian, Vida (ed.), Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics, vol. 12, 230–41. Fresno, CA: California State University.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2021. (Generalized linear) mixed-effects modeling: A learner corpus example. Language Learning 71(3), 757–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grün, Bettina & Hornik, Kurt. 2011. topicmodels: An R package for fitting topic models. Journal of Statistical Software 40(13), 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75(2), 244–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Grafmiller, Jason. 2017. Stability and fluidity in syntactic vriation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Journal of English Linguistics 45(1), 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2006. Corpora and introspection as corroborating evidence: The case of preposition placement in English relative clauses. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2), 165–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2007. ‘I need data which I can rely on’: Corroborating empirical evidence on preposition placement in English relative clauses. In Featherston, Sam & Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, 161–84. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2011. Preposition placement in English: A usage-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2013. Obtaining introspective acceptability judgements. In Schlüter, Julia & Krug, Manfred (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change, 99118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2022. Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Construction Grammar: Introduction. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 112. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert & Weinberg, Amy. 1981. Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 12(1), 5591.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D., Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Peterson, Peter. 2002. Relative constructions and unbounded dependencies. In Huddleston, & Pullum, et al., 1031–96.Google Scholar
Jach, Daniel. 2018. A usage-based approach to preposition placement in English as a second language. Language Learning 68(1), 271304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jach, Daniel. 2021. Preposition placement in multilingual constructicons: Something I was dealing with. In Boas, Hans C. & Höder, Steffen (eds.), Constructions in contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition, 339–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Johansson, Christine & Geisler, Christer. 1998. Pied piping in spoken English. In Renouf, Antoinette (ed.), Explorations in Corpus Linguistics, 6782. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1), 6399.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. Language 55(2), 333–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter & Oesterreicher, Wulf. 2012. Language of immediacy – language of distance: Orality and literacy from the perspective of language theory and linguistic history. In Lange, Claudia, Weber, Beatrix & Göran Wolf (eds.), Communicative spaces. Variation, contact, and change. Papers in honour of Ursula Schaefer, 441–73. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1975. Empirical foundations of linguistic theory. In Austerlitz, Robert (ed.), The scope of American linguistics: Papers of the first golden anniversary symposium of the Linguistic Society of America, held at the University of Massachussets, Amherst on July 24 and 25, 1974, 77134. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.Google Scholar
Landis, J. Richard & Koch, Gary G.. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1), 159–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Meteyard, Lotte & Davies, Robert A.I.. 2020. Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. Journal of Memory and Language 112, 104092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Douglas C. & Peck, Elizabeth A.. 1992. Introduction to linear regression analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Patrick, Peter L. 2004. Jamaican Creole: Morphology and syntax. In Kortmann, Bernd & Schneider, Edgar W. (eds.), A handbook of varieties of English: A multimedia reference tool, vol. 2, 407–38. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Huddleston, Rodney D.. 2002. Prepositions and prepositional phrases. In Huddleston, & Pullum, et al., 597661.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Riedel, Kristina. 2010. Relative clauses in Haya. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 53, 211–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2), 149–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooy, Van, Bertus, Lize Terblanche, Haase, Christoph & Schmied, Joseph. 2010. Register differentiation in East African English: A multidimensional study. English World-Wide 31(3), 311–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1986. Infinite syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie, Grafmiller, Jason & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2017. Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 28(4), 673710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Helmut. 1994. Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing. Manchester. www.cis.uni-muenchen.de/~schmid/tools/TreeTagger/ (accessed 26 April 2021).Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steyvers, Mark & Griffiths, Tom. 2007. Probabilistic topic models. In Landauer, Thomas K., McNamara, Danielle S., Dennis, Simon & Kintsch, Walter (eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis, 427–48. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2014. Relative clauses in Southeast Asian Englishes. Journal of English Linguistics 42(3), 245–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2015. Adverbial relative clauses in World Englishes. World Englishes 34(4), 620–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2004. On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In Purnelle, Gérard, Fairon, Cédrick & Anne Dister (eds.), Le poids des mots. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis, vol. 2, 1032–9. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Heller, Benedikt & Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2016. Around the world in three alternations: Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide 37(2), 109–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trotta, Joe. 2000. Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of theory and description. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhrig, Peter. 2022. Large-scale multimodal corpus linguistics – The big data turn. Habilitation thesis, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.Google Scholar
Wanner, Anja. 2009. Deconstructing the English passive. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, Lester, Nicholas & Martinez-Garcia, Maria T.. 2014. That-variation in German and Spanish L2 English. Language and Cognition 6(2), 271–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, Th, Stefan. Gries & Nicholas Lester. 2018. Optional that in complementation by German and Spanish learners. In Tyler, Andrea, Huang, Lihong & Hana Jan (eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research, 99120. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie & Th, Stefan. Gries. 2019. Particle placement in learner language. Language Learning 69(4), 873910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, Richard. 2009. Multidimensional analysis and the study of World Englishes. World Englishes 28(4), 421–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuur, Alain F., leno, Elena N., Walker, Neil J., Saveliev, Anatoly A. & Smith, Graham M.. 2009. Mixed effects modelling for nested data. In Zuur, Alain F., leno, Elena N., Walker, Neil J., Saveliev, Anatoly A. & Smith, Graham M. (eds.), Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R, 101–42. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar