Cover not available
Part of
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

Something I was dealing with

Preposition placement in multilingual constructicons

 | Shanghai Normal University
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.
Keywords: English as a second language, preposition placement, usage-based, construction grammar, corpus, regression
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
Published online: 3 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.30.11jac
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logo.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. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and salience in second-language acquisition. Language Learning, 3, 385–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Batchelor, R. E., & Chebli-Saadi, M. (2011). A reference grammar of French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C. et al. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle 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
Bergh, G., & Seppänen, A. (2000). Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: A historical survey. English Language and Linguistics, 4 (2), 295–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of written and spoken English. London: Longman.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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). DOI logo
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Berlin: De Gruyter.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
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
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H., & Hilpert, M. (2016). Frequency effects in grammar. In Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, P. et al. (2009). Duden: Die Grammatik: Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch (8th ed.). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.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
Frank, S. L., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Hierarchical and sequential processing of language. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33 (9), 1213–1218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Greenbaum, S. (Ed.). (1996). Comparing English worldwide: The international corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon.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
Gries, S. T., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning, 65 (S1), 228–255. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gunji, T. (1987). Japanese phrase structure grammar: A unification-based approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guy, G. R., & Bayley, R. (1995). On the choice of relative pronouns in English. American Speech, 70 (2), 148–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. T. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27 (2), 220–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Bernolet, S. (2017). The development of shared syntax in second language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20 (2), 219–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2008). Language integration in bilingual sentence production. Acta Psychologica, 128 (3), 479–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language, 75 (2), 244–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2014). Reflections on constructions across grammars. Constructions and Frames, 6 (2), 137–142. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). Phonological elements and diasystematic construction grammar. Constructions and Frames, 6 (2), 202–231. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
(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.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Preposition placement in English: A usage-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). English comparative correlatives: Diachronic and synchronic variation at the lexicon-syntax interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Jach, D. (2018a). A usage-based approach to preposition placement in English as a second language. Language Learning, 68 (1), 271–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Preposition placement in English as a second language: A usage-based approach (Doctoral dissertation, University of Jena).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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Levshina, N. (2015). How to do linguistics with R. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106 (3), 1126–1177. DOI logoGoogle 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
Maiden, M., & Robustelli, C. (2013). A reference grammar of modern Italian. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. (1985). Syntactic markedness and language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (1), 15–35. DOI logoGoogle 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
(2014). Acquiring formulaic language: A computational model. The Mental Lexicon, 9 (3), 419–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D., McKee, C., & Bernstein, J. B. (1998). How children’s relatives solve a problem for minimalism. Language, 74 (2), 308–334. DOI logoGoogle 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). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G., Wallis, S., & Aarts, B. (2002). Exploring natural language: Working with the British component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2009). Sequential learning and the interaction between biological and linguistic adaptation in language evolution. Interaction Studies, 10 (1), 5–30. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2012). Formulaic language and collocation. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–10). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, H.-M. (2001). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Takami, K. (1988). Preposition stranding: Arguments against syntactic analyses and an alternative functional explanation. Lingua, 76 (4), 299–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). Preposition stranding: From syntactic to functional analyses. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1998). The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Havard University Press.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
Trotta, J. (2000). Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of theory and description. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, H. C. (1978). A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dodrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, N. (2015). Grammar, rhetoric and usage in English: Preposition placement 1500–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

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 4 july 2024. 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.