Cover not available

In:Constructions in Contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 30] 2021
► pp. 339–374

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Something I was dealing with

Preposition placement in multilingual constructicons

 | Shanghai Normal University
Published online: 3 June 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.30.11jac
Abstract
This contribution adopts a usage-based construction grammar approach to describe the word order variation between fronting (e.g., something with which I was dealing) and stranding (e.g., something which I was dealing with) in English as a second language. Using regression analysis, preposition placement in relative clauses is correlated with multiple usage-based variables, including specific lexical items and strings (e.g., with which, deal with). The results suggest that learners acquire a network of form-meaning constructions which represent their language use at multiple levels of schematicity, ranging from lexically specific prototypes to cross-linguistically shared representations. Moreover, effects of proficiency and lexical strings indicate that constructions remain adaptable to usage throughout learners’ lifetime and involve predictive knowledge, suggesting a dynamic view of constructions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Preliminary considerations
    • 2.1Descriptive redundancy and cross-linguistic representation
    • 2.2What preposition placement depends on
  • 3.The current study
    • 3.1Method
    • 3.2Results
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Summary of findings
    • 4.2Usage-based construction grammar view
    • 4.3Predictability and adaptability of constructions
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
References (105)
References
Andor, D. et al. (2016). Globally normalized transition-based neuralnetworks. arXiv:1603.06042. Retrieved from [URL], date of access July 17, 2017.
Baayen, H. R. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of fourword combinations. Psychological Science, 19 (3), 241–248. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bannard, C., Rosner, M., & Matthews, D. (2017). What’s worth talking about? Information theory reveals how children balance informativeness and ease of production. Psychological Science, 28 (7), 954–966. PMID: 28598257. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and salience in second-language acquisition. Language Learning, 3, 385–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Batchelor, R. E., & Chebli-Saadi, M. (2011). A reference grammar of French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beckner, C. et al. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59, 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2011). Die Konstruktion von Sprache im Spracherwerb. In A. Lasch, & A. Ziem (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III: Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze (pp. 165–180). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergh, G., & Seppänen, A. (2000). Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: A historical survey. English Language and Linguistics, 4 (2), 295–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of written and spoken English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
BNC Consortium. (2007). The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML edition). Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Retrieved from [URL], date of access November 3, 2017.
Bybee, J. (2002). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givón (Ed.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp. 109–134). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 37 (4), 575–596. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chater, N., McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2016). Language as skill: Intertwining comprehension and production. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 244–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, D., & Manning, C. (2014). A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (emnlp) (pp. 740–750). Version 3.5.2. Retrieved from [URL], date of access July 17, 2017. Doha, (pp.740–750).
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). The corpus of contemporary American English. Available from [URL]
De Bruyne, J., & Pountain, C. J. (1995). A comprehensive Spanish grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dabrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 296–322). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Frequency and lexical specificity in grammar: A critical review. In H. Behrens, & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Experience counts: Frequency effects in language (pp. 209–238). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Hilpert, M. (2016). Frequency effects in grammar. In Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Durrant, P., & Doherty, A. (2010). Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6 (2), 125–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P. et al. (2009). Duden: Die Grammatik: Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch (8th ed.). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistic, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42 (3), 375–396. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. F. (2010). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine, & H. Narrog (Eds.), Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 313–341). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frank, S. L., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Hierarchical and sequential processing of language. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33 (9), 1213–1218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, S. (n.d.). LOCNESS: Louvain corpus of native English essays. Available from [URL]
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2009). International corpus of learner English. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (Ed.). (1996). Comparing English worldwide: The international corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2002). Preposition stranding in English: Predicting speakers’ behaviour. In V. Samiian (Ed.), Proceedings of the western conference on linguistics (pp. 230–41). Fresno: Department of Linguistics at California State University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning, 65 (S1), 228–255. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Kootstra, G. J. (2017). Structural priming within and across languages: A corpus-based perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20 (2), 235–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International journal of corpus linguistics, 9 (1), 97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gunji, T. (1987). Japanese phrase structure grammar: A unification-based approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guy, G. R., & Bayley, R. (1995). On the choice of relative pronouns in English. American Speech, 70 (2), 148–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. T. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27 (2), 220–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Bernolet, S. (2017). The development of shared syntax in second language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20 (2), 219–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2008). Language integration in bilingual sentence production. Acta Psychologica, 128 (3), 479–489. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language, 75 (2), 244–285. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Diessel, H. (2017). Entrenchment in construction grammar. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 57–74). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2014). Reflections on constructions across grammars. Constructions and Frames, 6 (2), 137–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: A diasystematic approach to common structures. In K. Braunmüller, & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp. 241–258). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014a). Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Åfarli, & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2005). Variable vs. categorical effects: Preposition pied piping and stranding in British English relative clauses. Journal of English Linguistics, 33 (3), 257–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Corpora and introspection as corroborating evidence: The case of preposition placement in English relative clauses. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2 (2), 165–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). ‘I need data which I can rely on’: Corroborating empirical evidence on preposition placement in English relative clauses. In S. Featherston, & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base (pp. 161–183). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). English relative clauses and construction grammar: A topic which preposition placement can shed light on? In G. Trousdale, & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 77–112). Berlin: De Gruyter.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Preposition placement in English: A usage-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Obtaining introspective acceptability judgements. In M. Krug, & J. Schlüter (Eds.), Research methods in language variation and change (pp. 99–118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). English comparative correlatives: Diachronic and synchronic variation at the lexicon-syntax interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Weinberg, A. (1981). Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry, 12 (1), 55–91. Retrieved from [URL]
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jach, D. (2018a). A usage-based approach to preposition placement in English as a second language. Language Learning, 68 (1), 271–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018b). Preposition placement in English as a second language: A usage-based approach (Doctoral dissertation, University of Jena).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson, C., & Geisler, C. (1998). Pied piping in spoken English. In A. Renouf (Ed.), Explorations in Corpus Linguistics (pp. 67–82). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kao, R.-R. (2001). Where have the prepositions gone? A study of English prepositional verbs and input enhancement in instructed SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 39 (3), 195–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krug, M. (1998). String frequency: A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics, 26 (4), 286–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). How not to disagree: The emergence of structure from usage. In K. Boye, & E. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language, usage and language structure (pp. 107–143). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levshina, N. (2015). How to do linguistics with R. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106 (3), 1126–1177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levy, R., & Andrew, G. (2006). Tregex and tsurgeon: Tools for querying and manipulating tree data structures. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on language resources and evaluation (pp. 2231–2234). Version 3.5.2. Retrieved from [URL], date of access July 17, 2017.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maiden, M., & Robustelli, C. (2013). A reference grammar of modern Italian. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. (1985). Syntactic markedness and language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (1), 15–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2011). Learning simple statistics for language comprehension and production: The CAPPUCCINO model. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1619–1624). Boston: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Acquiring formulaic language: A computational model. The Mental Lexicon, 9 (3), 419–436. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McDaniel, D., McKee, C., & Bernstein, J. B. (1998). How children’s relatives solve a problem for minimalism. Language, 74 (2), 308–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nakagawa, S., Johnson, P. C. D., & Schielzeth, H. (2017). The coefficient of determination R2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 14 (134). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from [URL]
Radford, A. (2009). Analysing English sentences: A minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rezai, M. J. (2006). Preposition stranding and pied-piping in second language acquisition. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics, 8, 110–128.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rhee, S.-C., & Jung, C. K. (2012). Yonsei English learner corpus (YELC). In Proceedings of the first Yonsei English corpus symposium (pp. 26–36). Seoul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Runnqvist, E., Gollan, T. H., Costa, A., & Ferreira, V. S. (2013). A disadvantage in bilingual sentence production modulated by syntactic frequency and similarity across languages. Cognition, 129 (2), 256–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R., & Johnson, C. R. (2016). Framenet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Retrieved from [URL]
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274 (5294), 1926–1928. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2018). Unifying entrenched tokens and schematized types as routinized commonalities of linguistic experience. In Yearbook of the German cognitive linguistics association (Vol. 6, 1, pp. 167–182). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2012). Formulaic language and collocation. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–10). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schoonbaert, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). The representation of lexical and syntactic information in bilinguals: Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 56 (2), 153–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sohn, H.-M. (2001). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Takami, K. (1988). Preposition stranding: Arguments against syntactic analyses and an alternative functional explanation. Lingua, 76 (4), 299–335. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Preposition stranding: From syntactic to functional analyses. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1998). The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Havard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., & Baayen, H. R. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 151–173). London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trotta, J. (2000). Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of theory and description. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, H. C. (1978). A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dodrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, N. (2015). Grammar, rhetoric and usage in English: Preposition placement 1500–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Boas, Hans C. & Steffen Höder
2025. Diasystematic Construction Grammar at work. In Constructions in Contact 3 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 40], ► pp. 22 ff. DOI logo
Spina, Stefania, Aivars Glaznieks & Andrea Abel
2025. Intensification in written L2 Italian. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 11:2 ► pp. 276 ff. DOI logo
Hendrikx, Isa & Kristel Van Goethem
2024. Dutch compound constructions in additional language acquisition. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue