Whereas some scholars have tried to show that preposition pied piping is virtually obligatory with WH-relativizers in standard present-day British English relative clauses (RCs), others have stressed that preposition pied piping and stranding are both viable options. Researchers who assume a choice between the two options claim that factors such as the syntactic function of the prepositional phrase (PP) or the level of formality restrict the stranding-pied piping alternation. To test the actual influence of the various proposed factors, a GOLDVARB analysis was carried out on data extracted from the British Component of the International Corpus of English. As the results show, pied piping is by far the more frequent variant in written and spoken English, but the syntactic function of the PP, the level of formality, the type of phrase in which the PP is contained, and the restrictiveness of the entire RC have significant effects on the placement of the preposition.
Allen, Cynthia. 1980. Topics in Diachronic Syntax. New York: Garland.
2.
Ball, Catherine N.1996. A Diachronic Study of Relative Markers in Spoken and Written English. Language Variation and Change8:227-258.
3.
Bengtsson, P.1996. Prepositional Relatives in English: A Diachronic Case Study of Three Authors. Unpublished paper. Department of English, Göteborg University.
4.
Bergh, Gunnar, and Aimo Seppänen. 2000. Preposition Stranding with Wh-Relatives: A Historical Survey. English Language and Linguistics4:295-316.
5.
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variations across Speech and Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
7.
Brown, Keith, and Jim Miller. 1991. Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure. 2nd ed.London: Routledge.
8.
Burchfield, R. W.1996. The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage. 3rd ed.Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
9.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language: Vol. 2. 1066-1476, edited by Norman Blake, 207-408. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, William Koopman, and Wim van der Wurf. 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Freeman, Daniel H., Jr.1987. Applied Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker.
14.
Görlach, Manfred. 1994. Einführung ins Frühneuenglische. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: C. Winter.
15.
Guy, Gregory R., and Robert Bayley. 1995. On the Choice of Relative Pronouns in English. American Speech70 (2): 148-162.
16.
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2005. Preposition Stranding in English Relative Clauses: A Topic Which Magnitude Estimation Can Shed Light On? Manuscript in preparation.
17.
Hornstein, Norbert, and Amy Weinberg. 1981. Case Theory and Preposition Stranding. Linguistic Inquiry12 (1): 55-91.
18.
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. The Clause: Complements. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, edited by Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Rodney Huddleston, 213-321. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Peter Peterson. 2002. Relative Constructions and Unbound Dependencies. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, edited by Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Rodney Huddleston, 1031-1096. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Jespersen, Otto. 1961. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles: Vol. 3. Syntax. London: Allen & Unwin.
21.
Johansson, Christine, and Christer Geisler. 1998. Pied Piping in Spoken English. In Explorations in Corpus Linguistics, edited by Antoinette Renouf, 67-82. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
22.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1996. An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage. Harlow, UK: Longman.
23.
Lu, Bingfu. 2002. How Does Language Encode Performance Limitation into its Structure. http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewhu/China/chunk.doc
24.
McDaniel, Dana, Cecile McKee, and Judy B. Bernstein. 1998. How Children’s Relatives Solve a Problem for Minimalism. Language74:308-334.
25.
Nelson, Gerald, Sean Wallis, and Bas Aarts. 2002. Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
26.
Olofsson, Arne. 1981. Relative Junctions in Written American English. Göteborg: ACTA Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
27.
Paolillo, John C.2002. Analyzing Linguistic Variation: Statistical Models and Methods. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
28.
Pesetsky, David. 1998. Some Optimality Principles of Sentence Production. In Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, edited by Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 337-383. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Rodney Huddelston. 2002. Prepositions and Prepositional Phrases. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, edited by Geoffrey K. Pullum and Rodney Huddleston, 597-661. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Quirk, Randolph. 1957. Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies38:97-109.
31.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
32.
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Robinson, John S., Helen R. Lawrence, and Sali A. Tagliamonte. 2001. GOLDVARB 2001: A Multivariate Analysis Application for Windows. http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/lang/webstuff/goldvarb/
35.
Ross, John R.1986. Infinite Syntax!Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
36.
Schmied, Josef. 1991. Relative Constructions in British and Indian English. Ph.D. diss., University of Bayreuth.
37.
Sigley, Robert J. 1997. Choosing Your Relatives: Relative Clauses in New Zealand English. Ph.D. diss., Victoria University of Wellington.
38.
Sigley, Robert J.2003. The Importance of Interaction Effects. Language Variation and Change15:227-253.
39.
Trotta, Joe. 2000. Wh-Clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
40.
Ungerer, Friedrich, Gerhard E. H. Meier, Klaus Schäfer, and Shirley B. Lechler. 1996. A Grammar of Present-Day English. Stuttgart: Klett.
41.
Van den Eynden, Nadine. 1996. Aspects of Prepositional Placement in English. In Speech Past and Present: Studies in English Dialectology in Memory of Ossi Ihalainen, edited by Juhani Klemola, Merja Kytö, and Matti Rissanen, 426-446. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
42.
Van der Auwera, Johan. 1985. Relative that—A Centennial Dispute. Journal of Linguistics21:149-179.
43.
Weiner, E. S. C.1983. The Oxford Guide to English Usage. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
44.
Young, Richard, and Robert Bayley. 1996. VARBRUL Analysis for Second Language Acquisition Research. In Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Variation, edited by Robert Bayley and Dennis R. Preston, 253-306. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
