Pied-piping Research Articles

Are there different kinds of appositive relative clauses?

Abstract In his latest book on relative clauses, Cinque claims that there are two fundamentally different kinds of appositive (non-restrictive) relative clauses. The unintegrated ones are the typical English type, the integrated ones are found in various languages, including Chinese and Japanese. This second type shares some characteristics with restrictive relatives, and seems to require a different syntactic analysis. Some languages, like Italian, supposedly have both types. A list of a dozen criteria differentiates the two, such as the use of relative pronouns and the possibility of heavy pied piping. However, when we carefully look at Dutch and other languages, the picture starts to blur considerably, and an abundance of (micro)variation shows up. This is problematic. I argue that the suggested criteria do not add up to two natural classes at all and are in fact non-explanatory. Therefore, we need to focus on what is truly fundamental to non-restrictiveness, which leads to a different perspective on the matter.

Preposition Pied Piping and Stranding in Academic and Popular Nigerian English Writing

This paper examined preposition pied piping and stranding in academic and popular Nigerian English writing with a view to determining their pattern of occurrence. Preposition placement has not been studied in Nigerian English and in specific genres. The 160 246-word relevant component of ICE-Nigeria was the sub-corpus used, and the Systemic Theory guided the study. Analysed using a multi-layered qualitative approach, the data comprised 112 cases of pied piping, 64 of stranding and 4 of doubling. Pied piping was dominant over stranding in Academic Writing (78 percent v 22 percent), and stranding was 1.7 times more frequent in Popular Writing than in Academic Writing. Though evenly distributed in Popular Writing (44 each), pied piping was about twice as frequent as stranding in Popular Natural Sciences while stranding was virtually non-existent in Academic Natural Sciences. Whereas to-infinitive and passive clauses were stranding favourite sites (21 and 15 respectively), only in wh-relative clauses did pied piping operate and in which was the prominent sequence. In Academic Writing prepositions were pied-piped and stranded at an average of 3.83 and 1.82 per form respectively, but the rates were 3.31 and 3.1 in Popular Writing. Whereas in was the most pied-piped preposition and was 5.2 times more likely to be pied-piped than stranded, up was the most stranded form and its stranding relative to pied piping was infinitely more. Subtle differences in the genres’ degree of formality explain the disparities in the distribution of pied piping and stranding in the sub-corpus analysed.

Two Factors of Reconstruction: Pied-piping and Dependency

Two Factors of Reconstruction: Pied-piping and Dependency

The Acquisition of Preposition Stranding and Pied Piping in Interrogatives by Arab Jordanian EFL Speakers

<p>The current study aimed primarily at investigating the acquisition of preposition stranding and pied piping by Jordanian EFL speakers. As secondary purposes, the study attempted to supply convincing accounts for the occurrence of preposition stranding and pied piping based on previous literature carried out on this area of language. The study also sought to show any instances of Null preposition phenomenon as acquiring preposition stranding and pied piping. In collecting the data needed for the study, grammaticality judgment and correction task was employed. The task consisted of 21 sentences; 15 of which were incorrect as a result of absence of prepositions and 6 were correct. 355 Jordanian EFL students from ten universities took part in this study. The results of the study indicated that, there were no statistical significant difference between the use of preposition stranding and pied piping among the respondents. More specifically, the respondents produced nearly equal rates of preposition stranding and pied piping. In addition, the results showed that transfer from Arabic is the best possible account for use of pied piping since both Arabic and English permit pied piping in interrogative clauses. In contrast, the frequent emergence of preposition stranding can be justified by salience factor. Lastly, the results revealed a strong evidence for the presence of Null preposition in the language of Jordanian EFL speakers. </p>

A Promotion Analysis of Wolof Clefts

Abstract. This article investigates the syntax of cleft clauses in Wolof. I argue that Wolof clefts are derived by the movement of the clefted constituent to the cleft position. Evidence for the movement anlaysis comes from several general and language‐specific reconstruction tests: island sensitivity, idiom chunk reconstruction, reconstruction for Principle A and Principle C, quantifier binding, negative polarity item reconstruction, and the properties of Wolof subjunctive clauses and clitics. I compare Wolof clefts to English clefts throughout and, following work going back to Schachter 1973, suggest that English clefts are also derived by overt movement of the clefted item. Using quantifier float, clausal pied piping and a wh‐copy construction, I argue that movement of the clefted item in Wolof is successive cyclic. Finally, I examine the relation between movement, Superiority, and (Strong and Weak) Crossover by comparing Wolof, English, and Yoruba.

On the Operator Movement in Korean Comparatives: Is It LBE or Pied-piping?

On the Operator Movement in Korean Comparatives: Is It LBE or Pied-piping?

Interrogative Possessors and the Problem with Pied-Piping in Chol

January 01 2009 Interrogative Possessors and the Problem with Pied-Piping in Chol In Special Collection: CogNet Jessica Coon Jessica Coon MIT Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Author and Article Information Jessica Coon MIT Online Issn: 1530-9150 Print Issn: 0024-3892 © 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology2009 Linguistic Inquiry (2009) 40 (1): 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.165 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Jessica Coon; Interrogative Possessors and the Problem with Pied-Piping in Chol. Linguistic Inquiry 2009; 40 (1): 165–175. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.165 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsLinguistic Inquiry Search Advanced Search This content is only available as a PDF. © 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology2009 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

LF PIED PIPING

LF PIED PIPING

Clausal pied piping: A problem for GB

To summarize, then, the distribution of clausal pied piping data seems to obey the descriptive constraint (41), repeated here. (41) Clauses with lexical subjects cannot be pied piped. In earlier sections of this paper, it was shown that pied piped clauses with PRO subjects appear to yield well-formed S-structure and LF representations, in accordance with their grammatical status. I have suggested that the exclusion of pied piped clauses with [+WH] subjects should be handled by the ECP, given the LF derivation proposed in section 2. But the exclusion of pied piped clauses with [−WH] lexical subjects poses a problem for the GB framework assumed here. Moreover, the proposals considered in section 5 were also shown to be unable to account for the entire array of data. It is hoped that future research will provide a more comprehensive account of the paradigm represented by (1)–(2) above.