Preposition Placement in English: A Usage-based Approach

Cover......Page 1
Half-title......Page 3
Series-title......Page 4
Title......Page 7
Copyright......Page 8
Contents......Page 9
Figures......Page 12
Tables......Page 16
Abbreviations......Page 19
Acknowledgements......Page 21
1.1 Preposition placement: The need for corroborating evidence......Page 23
1.2 World Englishes, usage-based linguistics and preposition placement......Page 25
1.3 Outline......Page 29
2.1 ‘What counts as evidence in Linguistics’......Page 31
2.2 Exhibit A: Corpus data......Page 36
2.2.1.1 ICE-GB......Page 37
2.2.1.2 ICE-EA......Page 39
2.2.2 Forensic tools I: Goldvarb, R, Coll.analysis 3 and HCFA......Page 40
2.3.1 Experiment design......Page 48
2.3.2 Methodology: Magnitude Estimation......Page 50
2.3.3 Forensic tools II: SPSS......Page 54
3.1 Construction-specific constraints......Page 57
3.1.1 Relative clauses......Page 58
3.1.2.1 Beyond bound relative clauses......Page 62
3.1.2.2 Bound relative clauses: Secondary effects......Page 69
3.1.3 Different variable effects across clause types......Page 73
3.1.4 Diachronic and typological evidence......Page 78
3.2.1 PP complements vs PP adjuncts......Page 87
3.2.2 Types of PPs: The complement–adjunct cline......Page 88
3.2.3.1 Obligatorily pied-piped prepositions......Page 94
3.2.3.2 Obligatorily stranded prepositions......Page 96
3.2.3.3 Antecedents which induce obligatory pied-piping......Page 97
3.3 Level of formality......Page 98
3.4 PPs embedded in NPs and AdjPs......Page 106
3.5 Complexity......Page 115
3.5.1 Gries’s multivariate corpus study (2002)......Page 116
3.5.2 Complexity-related and -specific factors......Page 118
3.6 Second-language effects: Kenyan English......Page 120
3.6.1 L2 language learning......Page 121
3.6.2 General properties of L2 preposition placement......Page 123
3.6.3 English in Kenya: Focus on preposition placement......Page 126
4.1 Coding decisions......Page 135
4.2.1 ICE-GB results......Page 142
4.2.2 ICE-EA results......Page 147
4.2.3 HCFA: ICE-GB vs ICE-EA......Page 151
4.3.1.1 Non-standard ICE-EA tokens......Page 155
4.3.1.2 Accidental and systematic gaps I......Page 156
4.3.1.3 Idiosyncratic effects: Obligatorily stranded prepositions and the effect of to be......Page 159
4.3.1.4 Categorical PP types: Accidental and systematic gaps II......Page 163
4.3.1.5 Obligatorily pied-piping PP types......Page 168
4.3.2 Logistic regression analysis......Page 169
4.4 Relative clauses......Page 179
4.4.1 Non-finite relative clauses......Page 180
4.4.2 Categorically pied-piping PPs......Page 182
4.4.3 Logistic regression analysis......Page 187
4.4.4 HCFA: Stranded finite relative clauses......Page 192
4.5 Summary......Page 194
5.1 Preposition placement in simple relative clauses......Page 197
5.1.1 British English......Page 199
5.1.2 Kenyan English......Page 205
5.2 Preposition placement in relative clauses of varying complexity......Page 210
5.2.1 British English......Page 214
5.2.2 Kenyan English......Page 225
5.3 Preposition placement in interrogative clauses......Page 234
5.3.1 British English......Page 236
5.3.2 Kenyan English......Page 241
5.4 Summary......Page 246
6.1 Construction Grammar: A descriptively and explanatorily adequate linguistic theory......Page 248
6.2 Preposition placement: The minimum complete-inheritance construction network......Page 258
6.2.1 Variable preposition placement......Page 263
6.2.2 English relative clauses and Construction Grammar......Page 269
6.2.3 Categorically stranding contexts......Page 279
6.3 Preposition placement: The enriched usage-based construction network......Page 286
7 Conclusion: The verdict......Page 298
Appendix......Page 301
References......Page 302
Index......Page 317