Preposition stranding and functional projections
Some facts from acquisition
Rianne Schippers
0012424
Contents
Introductory chapter…………………………………………………………………………………….…..p.1
Chapter one – Preposition stranding and r-pronouns………………………………………….….p.8
Chapter two – Preposition doubling………………….………………………………………….…p.21
Chapter three - A unified analysis? ………………….………………………………………….…p.36
Summary………………….……………………………………………………………………..…….…p.53
References………………….………………………………………………………………………...…p.54
Appendix………………….………………………………………….…………………………………..p.55
Introductory chapter
This thesis treats some cases in the first language acquisition of PPs in Dutch. These cases were discovered while doing a corpus study. In this introductory chapter we will mention the four phenomena we came across. In chapter one and two we will then introduce three of those phenomena properly and discuss then with the use of existing theories. In the last chapter we will try to combine the theories used in chapter one and two to discuss the phenomena to try to arrive at an overall theory.
Next to presenting the four phenomena we will use this introductory chapter to briefly discuss the corpus study we did, give an overview of the rest of the thesis and to introduce some basic concepts we will be using. The basic concepts we want to introduce are those of preposition stranding and pied-piping, since we will be using those across the rest of the thesis. Section 0.1 then introduces those two concepts, section 0.2 discusses the corpus study and introduces the four phenomena and section 0.3 gives an overview of the rest of the thesis.
0.1 Preposition stranding and pied-piping
Languages exhibit the well-known difference between preposition stranding and pied-piping. Take a look at the sentences in (1) and (2). To question the prepositional object for Mary in sentence (1), there are theoretically two ways one can do it; both ways are exhibit in (2).
1John is waiting for Mary.
2a. Whoi is John waiting [PP for ti]?
b. [PP For whom]i is John waiting ti?
In (2a) the complement of the preposition, who,is moved to the front of the sentence to form a question. In sentence (2b) the entire prepositional object, for whom, is moved to the front of the sentence to form the same (or at least a very similar) question. The movement of the complement of the preposition leaving the preposition behind, as in (2a), is called preposition stranding. The movement of the entire prepositional object, as in (2b), is called pied-piping.
Preposition stranding is not possible in all languages. Whereas it is possible in English, as we just saw in (2a), it is not in Romance languages, as we can see in for instance French:
3a. Tu as voté pour ce candidat.
‘You have voted for that candidate.’
b. * [Quel candidat]i as-tu voté [PP pour ti]?
‘ Which candidate have you voted for?’
Stranding the preposition by moving the complement of the preposition, quel candidat, in (3b) results in a ungrammatical sentence.
The language we are investigating in this thesis is Dutch. Dutch is neither like English nor like French. Unlike in French, preposition stranding is possible in Dutch. Unlike in English, preposition stranding is not free. In Dutch preposition stranding is possible but restricted. The exact restrictions on preposition stranding in Dutch will be discussed in chapter one, for now it will suffice to note that only a certain group of complements can strand a preposition. Take a look at the sentences in (4).
4a. Jan wacht op Marie.
Jan waits on Marie
“Jan is waiting for Marie.”
b. * Wiei wacht Jan [PP op ti]?
who waits Jan on t
“Whom is Jan waiting for?”
c. Waari wacht Jan [PP op ti]?
where waits Jan on t
“Whom/what is Jan waiting for?“
The sentence in (4a) is a simple declarative sentence. In (4b) it is attempted to strand the preposition by using the regular animate question word wie. The sentence in (4b) would be the equivalent of the English sentence in (2a). Yet (4b) is ungrammatical where (2a) is not. In order to strand a preposition in Dutch one has to replace the regular animate question word wie with the locative question word waar, as has been done in (4c). This then is an example of the restrictions on preposition stranding in Dutch.
The actual restrictions on preposition stranding are far more complex than exhibited in (4). As been said, however, it will for now suffice to know Dutch allows for preposition stranding, but only in restricted cases. Knowing this, we can now turn to the corpus study we did.
0.2 Corpus study
We carried out a corpus study using two sets of files from the CHILDES database. The first set of files is from the Dutch child Laura and the second set of files are from the Dutch child Sarah. Laura and Sarah both come from the same Dutch family and are sisters. For Laura we examined the files starting from when she was 2 years, 4 months and 1 day old until she was 5 years, 6 months and 12 days old. For Sarah we examined the files starting from when she was 2 years, 4 months and 9 days old until she was 5 years, 2 months and 12 days old. We manually read the files and looked for prepositions in any shape or form. During our search we were mainly interested in preposition stranding, but we decided to record any instance of a preposition we could find. The result is we came across four sets of interesting data, three of which we will discuss in this thesis. In the next subsections we will first present the general results of our corpus study and will then turn to the four sets of data we came across.
0.2.1 General results
The general picture that emerges from our corpus study is that both Laura and Sarah use prepositions grammatically most of the time. There are some interesting ungrammatical usages, which result in the four phenomena we will be introducing in the next subsections. The general statistics of our corpus study are as follows.
In total, Laura uttered 2499 prepositions. Out of those 2499 prepositions, 1839 combined with a DP to form a PP and 272 combined with an r-pronoun to form a PP. There are 91 cases in which Laura stranded a preposition and in 293 cases a preposition occurred without an object. Finally, in 57 cases the preposition seemed to be missing.
Sarah uttered a total of 1907 prepositions. Out of those 1907 prepositions, 1470 combined with a DP to form a PP and 224 combined with an r-pronoun to form a PP. There are 88 cases in which Sarah stranded a preposition and in 80 cases a preposition occurred without an object. There are two cases in which Sarah pied-piped a preposition and 39 cases in which the preposition seemed to be missing.
Out of the 2111 PPs Laura formed, 12 have a structure that is considered ungrammatical in adult Dutch. For Sarah, 14 PPs out of the 1694 she uttered have a structure considered ungrammatical in adult Dutch. Those ungrammatical PPS either exist out of a preposition with an r-pronoun as its complement or out of a DP followed by a preposition where the preposition most definitely is not a postposition.
Of the preposition stranding cases, Laura stranded a preposition ungrammatically in 11 cases and Sarah did so in 13 cases. A preposition would be considered to have been stranded ungrammatically if the restrictions on preposition stranding were not obeyed.
The high amount of cases in which a preposition occurs without an object can probably be explained by topic drop. According to Van Kampen (1997), children acquiring Dutch often drop topics. A lot of the cases in which the object of the preposition is missing could easily be analysed as cases of topic drop.
0.2.2 Four sets of data
During the corpus study on the use of PPs in the first language acquisition of Dutch we came across four different phenomena. Three of those phenomena we will be discussing in chapter one and chapter two. The fourth phenomenon we decided not to include in the rest of this thesis, because it is significantly different from the other three phenomena and would take us too far off to include it. We will briefly introduce the four sets of data, even though we will not be discussing the last set any further. For each set we will indicate what the set contains and whether we found any acquisition pattern in the files.
Preposition stranding
As has been said before, preposition stranding is possible in Dutch but it is restricted to certain constructions. In the files of Laura and Sarah we found cases of preposition stranding that do not obey the restrictions and would be considered ungrammatical in adult Dutch. Laura uttered 11 of those ungrammatical preposition stranding cases and Sarah uttered 13. The examples we picked to be used to discuss this set of data in chapter one can be seen in (5).
5a. ga diei [PP in ti] prikke(Laura 3;7.19)
go that in t prick
‘I will prick in that one’
b. en welkei staat Sarah en ma xxx ma Jacqueline [PP op ti] (Laura 4;1.11)
and which stands Sarah and mom x mom Jacqueline on t
‘And on which one does it say Sarah and mom?’
c. deesi heb papa boekje [PP van ti], van deze(Laura 5;5.14)
this have daddy booklet of, of t this
‘daddy has a booklet on this’
d. want roodi heb ik niet [PP van ti](Sarah 4;7.25)
because red have I not of
‘because I have no red’
e. [DP de tuini], heel hard werken [PP voor ti], he(Laura 4;7.30)
the garden, very hard work for t, he
‘have to work hard on the garden, haven’t you?’
We decided to use those five examples out of the group of 24 we found because they are the most clear.
There does not seem to be a clear acquisition pattern for the use of ungrammatical preposition stranding. Laura’s first utterance was when she was 3 years, 4 months and 25 days old and at her last utterance she was 5 years, 5 months and 14 days old. During the same period she uttered those 11 ungrammatical instances of preposition stranding she uttered 65 grammatical instances. And before she uttered her first ungrammatical instance of preposition stranding, she uttered 11 grammatical instances of preposition stranding. There is no pattern then of Laura starting out with ungrammatical instances of preposition stranding and then later turning to grammatical instances or of a short period of time in which she strands preposition ungrammatically.
Sarah’s first utterance was when she was 2 years, 4 months and 27 days old and at her last utterance she was 5 years, 2 months and 13 days old. This means we found instances of ungrammatical preposition stranding throughout all the files we examined. For Sarah then there is also no pattern of starting out with ungrammatical instances of preposition stranding or of using them for a short period of time.
The pattern that does emerge is that both Laura and Sarah occasionally use an ungrammatical instance of preposition stranding, while at the same time they mainly use grammatical ones.
Using the r-pronoun in the complement position
One of the restrictions on preposition stranding in Dutch is that only the so-called r-pronouns can strand a preposition. The locative question word waar in (4c) would be such an r-pronoun. Next to the fact that r-pronouns can strand a preposition where regular pronouns cannot, as can be seen in (4b) and (4c), r-pronouns cannot be used in the complement position of the preposition where regular pronouns can. In the files we have found cases in which both Laura and Sarah used an r-pronoun in the complement position of the preposition. Laura uttered 12 of such PPs and Sarah uttered 4. The 8 examples from this set we will be discussing in chapter one can be seen in (6) and (7).
6a. naar hier(Sarah 2;5.09)
‘to here’
b. van daar(Sarah 2;6.11)
‘from there’
c. hij wil niet op daar legge(n)(Sarah 2;6.11)
he wants not on there lay
‘he doesn’t want to lie on there’
d. hij wil op daar legge(n)(Sarah 2;6.11)
he wants on there lay
‘he wants to lie on there’
7a. oppe daar is een beetje au(Laura 2;10.13)
on there is a bit ouch
‘it hurts a bit there’
b. jij moet met daar spelletje doen(Laura 3;4.25)
you must with there game do
‘you have to play a game with that’
c. e no eentje op hier(Laura 3;5.26)
and another one on here
‘and another one on here’
d. in daar, in doos(Laura 3;6.09)
‘in there, in box’
We will discuss all of Sarah’s utterances and 4 of the 12 utterances by Laura. We decided to only discuss those four, again because they are the most clear ones.
Again, there does not seem to be an acquisition pattern. At least not for the cases we found in Laura’s files. Laura uttered her first PP with an r-pronoun as its complement when she was 2 years, 7 months and 19 days old and uttered her last when she was 5 years, 1 month and 21 days old. This means we found them throughout the files, making it hard to spot an acquisition pattern.
For the cases we found in Sarah’s files there could be an acquisition pattern. Sarah uttered her first PP with an r-pronoun as its complement when she was 2 years, 5 months and 9 days old and her last when she was 2 years, 6 months and 11 days old. This means she uttered all four instances of a PP with an r-pronoun as its complement in a very short time. This could indicate an acquisition pattern. But because there are only four instances it is hard to tell whether it indeed does indicate an acquisition pattern. On top of that we did not find a similar pattern for Laura. To be on the safe side we will therefore conclude that those four instances being so close together is pure accidental.
Doubling of prepositions
In a language like Hungarian prepositions can sometimes be doubled. An example of such doubling can be seen in (8).
8a. a mögött a ház mögött
dem-nom behind art house-nom behind
“behind THAT house”
The item we are interested in is mögött. As can be seen, mögött follows its complement ház. Hungarian is therefore claimed to have postpositions instead of prepositions. The postposition mögött appears twice in the sentence in (8a). An analysis of this phenomenon will be discussed in chapter two, but the idea roughly is that the first instance of the postposition mögött is a copy of the second. Or put differently, the postposition mögött in (8a) got doubled.
In Dutch such doubling of prepositions does not occur. Yet we did find cases in the files where both Laura and Sarah seem to double a preposition. All the examples of those cases can be seen in (9) and (10).
9a. ik ga tegen daas [?] tegen zeggen(Sarah 3;5.30)
I go against them against say
‘I am going to tell them’
b door een gaatje doorgekro(Sarah 4;3.04)
through a hole through-crawled
‘Crawled through a hole’
c. naar mij naar school gaan(Sarah 4;8.03)
to me to school go
‘I go to school’
d. even uit daaruit(Sarah 4;11.15)
short-while out there-out
‘has to come out of there’
10a. in daa in(Laura 3;8.01)
in there in
‘in there’
b. op se trui een beetje op(Laura 3;8.15)
on his sweater a bit on
‘a bit on his sweater’
c. en dan kan ik op de hierop(Laura 4;4.23)
and then can I on the here-on
‘And then I can go on the thing here’
d. dit hoort ook bij drbij, he(Laura 4;7.02)
this belongs also with here-with, right
‘This also belongs here, doesn’t it?’
As can be seen, there are four examples of preposition doubling for Laura and Sarah each. This means this set of data will be the smallest set of data we will be discussing in this thesis and it is worthwhile bearing in mind just how small it is. However, despite the fact it is a very small set of data it is still worth examining.
Just as with the two other sets of data there does not seem to be an acquisition pattern. Laura doubles her first preposition when she is 3 years, 8 months and 1 day old and her last when she is 4 years, 7 months and 2 days old. Sarah doubles her first preposition when she is 3 years, 5 months and 30 days old and her last when she is 4 years, 11 months and 15 days old. This means for both Laura and Sarah there is a time span of approximately a year in which they double a preposition four times. There is not much that can be said about that.
Mixing van and voor
The last set of data that drew our attention are cases in which Laura and Sarah use the preposition van instead of the preposition voor and use the preposition voor instead of the preposition van. Since this phenomenon, unlike the other three sets, involves the semantics of prepositions we will not discuss it further in this thesis. We would however like to mention the examples we came across. Some of the cases we found can be seen in (11) and (12).
11a. hande(n) foo eendje(Sarah 2;6.11)
hands for duck
‘the duck’s hands’
b. nog (ee)n voor de auto (Sarah 2;8.06)
another one for the car
‘another one of the car’
c. die (i)s van de postbode (Sarah 3;0.19)
that is of the mailman
‘that one is for the mailman’
d. is deze voor mij?(Sarah 3;0.19)
is this for me
‘is this one mine?’
e. ook kleurtjes voor [ / / ] ervan(Sarah 4;9.29)
also colours for [ / / ] there-of
‘and you also got them in colours’
12a. die oo, voor Nienke had.(Laura 2;10.13)
that oh, for Nienke had
‘that oh, that one you got from Nienke’
b. een dootje maak fan jij(Laura 3;4.25)
a present make of you
‘making a present for you’
c. dese kaart heb ik foor [= van] oma en opa krees(Laura 3;5.13)
this card have I for [= of] grandma and grandpa got
‘I got this postcard from grandma and grandpa’