Prepositional Constructions Research Articles

Possessive Relatives and (Heavy) Pied-Piping

This article discusses the phenomenon of pied-piping in restrictive relative clauses in the Germanic languages Dutch, German, and English. Since it concerns possessive relatives primarily, an integrated approach to the syntax of relativization and attributive possession is sought for. Possessive relatives directly reflect the three basic types of attributive possession, namely, the prepositional, the genitive, and the possessive pronoun construction. It is claimed that the promotion theory of relative clauses can be successfully combined with an analysis of possession in which the prepositional construction is taken to be the basis for the other types. Furthermore, it is shown that heavy pied-piping is normally dependent on the presence of a prepositional phrase. In general, pied-piping is claimed to be a possible consequence of overt or covert head movement. Finally, the effect of the so-called R-transformation on pied-piping and preposition stranding in relative clauses is discussed. The different possibilities shown by English, Dutch, and German are argued to be consequences of the theoretical possibilities of creating a syntactic relation, namely, by XP movement, overt head movement, or covert movement.

The extraposition of prepositional objects of adjectives in Dutch

In this article I present a corpus-based analysis of Dutch extraposition constructions that contain an adjective which combines with a prepositional object. I discuss two models that explain extraposition constructions in general: the minimalist model of Koster (1994) and Zwart (1993), and the functionalist model of Vandenbosch (1985). Though both models constitute useful approaches to extraposition constructions in Dutch, they cannot account for the most important finding of the corpus investigation, namely that the prepositional object of some adjectives occurs more frequently in extraposition constructions than the prepositional object of other adjectives. I argue that this result can only be explained by the underlying analogy between constructions in which the adjective combines with a prepositional object and constructions in which the adjective combines with a pronominal adverb. Also, I show that the methodology of the corpus investigation(s), the results, and the interpretation of the results can be neatly integrated into the framework of radical construction grammar (Croft 2001).

Going out (of) the window?

A corpus-based study of competing prepositional constructions in American and British English

Accessibilité Pronominale Des Dét. N1 de (DÉT.) N2

The analysis of pronominal anaphora in dét. N1 de (dét.) N2 requires on the one hand a preliminary study of anaphora and of the relations supported by de, and on the other hand, an examination of referential functioning of propositional constructions. The analysis of the relations supported by de is seldom enough to determine whether the whole structure, or just a part of it, is favoured. Thus, the notion of "head" which underlies the principle of pronoun accessing and the preselective clauses must take into account the way of determining the different components of the Dét. N1 de (dét.) N2. The role of determiners is therefore essential : those introducing N2 just as well as those preceding the whole prepositional construction because they all can contribute to making the whole complex structure, or part of it, salient. Examining the distribution of the determiners does not allow us to list all the possible and impossible anaphoras ; it simply aims at building up an access and preference scale based on the notions of salience and accessibility. The identification of references requires a treatment taking many other factors into account: conceptual agreement in gender, immediate or remote contexts, argumentative structure, shared information, extra-linguistic and encyclopedic knowledge...

Handling a Tricky Verb: Es handelt sich um "handeln"

One of the common words that often create difficulties for advanced students or students in reading courses is handeln. The word is listed as number 560 in J. Alan Pfeffer's Basic (Spoken) German Word List and is also included in Grundwortschatz Deutsch of the Klett-Verlag. The difficulties in properly using and/or translating handeln are due to semantic and syntactic factors: handeln has a wider range of meanings than any of its potential English equivalents, and it is used with a number of superficially similar prepositional constructions which mostly cannot be intermingled, e.g. handeln an, handeln in, handeln mit, handeln um, and handeln von. This combination of difficulties is not uncommon when one deals with German and English at an advanced level. An additional difficulty in dealing with handeln is that one of its major constructions (sich handeln um) is listed incompletely in most reference works which I consulted, including Wahrig's Deutsches W6rterbuch, Duden Stilworterbuch, Muret-Sanders, Meill and Arndt's ABC der schwachen Verben, and also advanced grammar books such as A. E. Hammer's German Grammar and Usage. The one exception is the Collins Dictionary, published by Klett. As can be expected, various introductory books (for good reason) deal with only partical aspects of the verb. We shall begin with a listing of the possible meanings of handeln. Additional comments have been added in parentheses where they seemed useful. This list is fairly exhaustive, not because all these meanings and/or constructions should be taught, but to help the teacher avoid confusions and pitfalls:

Aspects of empty categories in Xhosa within the theory of government and binding

The approach to subject- and object-verb agreement within the government-binding (GB) theory of transformational generative grammar is reviewed. The principles of this approach are applied in the analysis of agreement in Xhosa. It is shown that the phonologically null element or empty category, pro, plays a major role in Xhosa syntax. A crucial question concerning subject- and object-verb agreement is: What is the syntactic status of the subjectival and objectival concord in Xhosa? In the case of subject-verb agreement, constructions are examined, both in which the subjectival concord co-occurs with a lexical NP subject and in which it does not. Similarly, in the case of the clitic, constructions are reviewed in which the clitic is associated with an object NP, and in which it is not. The argument applied in the analysis of subject- and object-verb agreement, is extended to the analysis of modifier-verb agreement, agreement in prepositional phrases, copulative constructions and possessive constructions. T...

The Location of Biblical Makkedah

The location of has been most elusive for those involved in biblical research and the historical geography of Israel. Proposals for its identification, which have ranged all over the Shephelah and Philistia, include Mughar (map coordinates 129138) in the northern Philistine plain (Conder and Kitchener 1883:411-413; Warren 1884:443; Garstang 1931:181; Press 1952:596), Deir edh-Dhibban (139120) and Tell e~-Sari (Tel Zafit, 135123) in the western Shephelah (Albright 1923:14, n. 14; 1924:9), Kh. el-Kheishum (tIorvat Hushsham, 145126) in the central Shephelah (Abel 1938:378), Tell Bornat (Tel Burna, 138115) in the southwestern Shephelah (Kallai 1958:155; 1967:320), Kh. Beit Maqdum (147104) in the southern Shephelah (Holzinger 1901:39; Elliger 1934:57), and even one site far to the north in the Ephraimite foothills, QalCat el-Muwaqdah (151148; Ben-Shem 1960:88). More recent studies (Aharoni 1967:195, n.59; Broshi 1968:303; Kaufman 1970:143; Weippert 1971:30, n. 80; Soggin 1972:126) consider Makkedah's location unknown. occurs nine times in the book of Joshua, distributed among five separate contexts or episodes. The passages most influential in the scholarly search for are those associated with Azekah in the narrative of Joshua's victory at Gibeon (Josh. 10). The Israelites, after routing the confederated forces of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish and Eglon at Gibeon chased them by the way of the ascent of Beth-horon, and smote them as far as ('31) Azekah and [as far as] ('311) Makkedah (vs. 10). Azekah (Tell Zakariyehffel CAzeqa, 144123) lies about 25 kms. south of Lower Beth-horon (Beit cOr etTai}tii, 158144). This passage has led many writers (Abel 1938:379; Wright 1946:110, n. 13; Broshi 1968; Kaufman 1970:143) to assume the proximity of Azekah and and hence to seek in the vicinity of Azekah. This is the same line of thought that led to the identification of with Mughar (Warren 1884:443). The patristic evidence and the association with Lachish in Josh. 15:41, however, require that be located farther south. So the problem before us is to try and harmonize these apparently conflicting lines of evidence. First of all, it should be noted that the prepositional construction in Josh. 10:10, '31' •••'31, normally presents two termini, the second of which lies, not near, but beyond the first (contra Ben-Shem 1960: 87-88). A useful example is Josh. 16:3 where the southern boundary of the sons of Joseph is said to continue (':11) Lower Beth-horon and unto ('311) Gezer. The latter of these two sites (Tel Gezer; 142140)was about 15 kms. beyond Lower Beth-horon. Other examples can be cited for comparison, e.g. Neh. 3:16, 24,31; 1 Sam. 17:52a, b; and possibly 1Kgs. 18:45. Therefore, the statement in Josh. 10:10 merely indicates that should be beyond Azekah for someone coming from Beth-horon.

Reception training effects on the production of modeled language constructions

Several previous studies have reported that first-grade-age children increase their usage of prepositional phrases when exposed to novel (inverted) prepositional constructions. The hypothesis was tested that such anomalous increases could be eliminated by discrimination training on the two prepositional forms. One group of first-grade subjects (age 72 months) was trained to respond differentially to sentences containing either familiar or novel prepositional constructions, while a control group received only exposure to the same sentences. As predicted, when later exposed to the modeling of novel constructions, children in the pretrained group did not increase their frequency of familiar prepositional phrases, while those in the control group did.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF MODELLING ON MORPHEMIC AND SYNTACTIC FEATURES AS A FUNCTION OF FAMILY INCOME AND AGE1

Children were asked to describe pictures in alternation with an adult model who used either descriptive adjectives in one condition or no adjectives in another condition. No reinforcement or instructions to imitate were given. The variables of age and family income were also studied in a 2 × 2 × 3 factorial design. The effect of modelling on the children's use of adjectives was significant, as were the main effects for family income and age. All two‐ and three‐way interactions were also significant. The significant interactions reflect the fact that the modelling effect was less strong for the preschool children, especially for those from low‐income families. Inspection of the individual data for these subjects suggests that the effect was weak and inconsistent across subjects. These results only partially confirm the stronger effects found by Lahey (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1971, 4, 19–22) using a similar population. Clear modelling effects on descriptive adjectives were found with second‐ and fourth‐grade children at both economic levels, however. In the second part of the experiment, the effect of modelling on prepositional constructions was studied using the same procedure and design. Although a statistical test of the modelling effect was significant, no clear evidence for the influence of modelling on prepositional constructions was found.

Auditory discrimination of novel prepositional constructions as a function of age and syntactic background.

Auditory discrimination of novel prepositional constructions as a function of age and syntactic background.

Transformations and Their Use in the Resolution of Syntactic Homomorphy: Prepositional ot Constructions in Contemporary Standard Russian

Transformations and Their Use in the Resolution of Syntactic Homomorphy: Prepositional ot Constructions in Contemporary Standard Russian

An examination of verbal adverbs teaching Lithuanians the Russian language

We use the method of collation to review the main verbal adverbs in the Russian language and the usage cases. Furthermore, an indication of some of the Lithuanian language usage features: verbal adverbs in indirect narrative speech and compound present perfect and present perfect continuous tenses, as well as some verbal adverbs word groups, etc. In these cases, other (participial) verb and noun forms or constructions are generally used in Russian. Thus the various Lithuanian tenses, verb categories, and modalities have other means of expression in Russian: changing verb gender or infinitive, modal words, prepositional construction, composite sentence structure, etc.

Some Syntactical Criteria of Translation Greek

This is especially true in the use of prepositions. While it has often been remarked 1) that translation Greek tends to use a larger amount of prepositions than does Greek which is not a translation of a Semitic original, it has not been sufficiently noted that the relative infrequency of certain prepositions is especially characteristic of translation Greek and stands in sharp contrast to normal prose Greek style. A detailed study of the relative frequency of prepositions in relation to the frequency of sv, the most frequently used preposition in translation Greek, will reveal that whenever the following prepositional constructions occur with the following relative frequencies or less, the style is characteristic of translation Greek, rather than original Greek: