Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:36:51.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pied-piping in cognition1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2017

RICHARD HUDSON
RICHARD HUDSON*
Affiliation:
University College London
*
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UKr.hudson@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper offers an analysis of pied-piping within the theoretical framework of Word Grammar. This framework combines cognitive linguistics with dependency grammar, so it assumes that the full power of domain-general cognition is available for syntax, and that syntactic structure can be conceived as a network of relations between individual words. In this network, words are related by at least two kinds of link: dependencies and ‘landmark’ links that determine word order. To handle the special characteristics of pied-piping, the analysis also includes a single special relation, ‘pipee’, which links the ‘piper’ (the wh-type word) to the word which replaces it in the landmark structure. The analysis is applied in detail to English, and then compared with previous analyses and extended to accommodate both the pied-piping with inversion found in Meso-American languages, and the boundary markers found in other languages.

Keywords

cognitive linguisticsdependencylandmarknetworkpied-pipingpreposition strandingWord Grammar
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , 01 February 2018 , pp. 85 - 138
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

This paper has benefited from extensive discussion with And Rosta, Nik Gisborne and Stefan Müller, as well as from detailed and enormously helpful comments by two independent Journal of Linguistics referees. I am deeply grateful to all five.

References

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Briscoe, Ted, Copestake, Ann & De Paiva, Valeria. 1993. Inheritance, defaults, and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Broadwell, George. 1999. Focus Alignment and Optimal Order in Zapotec. Proceedings from the Parasession of the Chicago Linguistic Society 35 (CLS 35), 15–27.Google Scholar
Broadwell, George. 2006. Alignment, precedence and the typology of pied piping with inversion. In Butt, Miriam & Holloway King, Tracy (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference Universität Konstanz, 51–70.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2010. Against the existence of pied-piping: Evidence from Tlingit. Linguistic Inquiry 41.4, 563–594.Google Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2012. Pied-piping: Introducing two recent approaches. Language and Linguistics Compass 6.12, 816–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, Alan. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1980. Some arguments for higher nodes in syntax: A reply to Hudson’s ‘Constituency and dependency’. Linguistics 18, 485–488.Google Scholar
Duran-Eppler, Eva. 2011. Emigranto: The syntax of German–English code-switching. Vienna: Braumüller.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32, 429–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gazdar, Gerald & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1981. Subcategorisation, constituent order, and the notion ‘head’. In Moorttgat, Michael, van der Hulst, Harry & Hoekstra, Teun (eds.), The scope of lexical rules, 107–123. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert. 2007. Introducing cognitive linguistics. In Geeraerts & Cuyckens (eds.), 3–21.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.). 2007a. The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2010. The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Golomb, Julie, Peelle, Jonathan, Addis, Kelly, Kahana, Michael & Wingfield, Arthur. 2008. Effects of adult aging on utilisation of temporal and semantic associations during free and serial recall. Memory & Cognition 36.5, 947–956.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan. 2002. Preposition stranding in English: Predicting speakers’ behaviour. Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics 12, 230–241.Google Scholar
Guasti, Maria Teresa & Shlonsky, Ur. 1995. The acquisition of French relative clauses reconsidered. Language Acquisition 4, 257–276.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc, Chomsky, Noam & Tecumseh Fitch, W.. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569–1579.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1999. Processing complexity and filler–gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75.2, 244–285.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heck, Fabian. 2008. On pied-piping: Wh-movement and beyond. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, Fabian. 2009. On certain properties of pied-piping. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 75–111.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2008. English relative clauses and Construction Grammar: A topic which preposition placement can shed light on?In Trousdale, Graeme & Gisborne, Nikolas (eds.), Constructional explanations in English grammar, 77–112. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2011. Preposition placement in English: A usage-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 2006. Pied piping. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 3, 569–630. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Clause type and illocutionary force. In Huddleston & Pullum et al., 851–945.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. . 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Peterson, Peter. 2002. Relative constructions and unbounded dependencies. In Huddleston & Pullum et al., 1031–1096.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1990. English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1998. English grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2003. Trouble on the left periphery. Lingua 113, 607–642.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2004. Are determiners heads? Functions of Language 11, 7–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2010. An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2013a. A cognitive analysis of John’s hat . In Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David & Scott, Alan (eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession, 149–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2013b. Pied-piping in Word Grammar. In Yaguchi, Michiko, Takagi, Hiroyuki, Igarashi, Kairi, Watanabe, Tsutomu, Maekawa, Takafumi & Yoshimura, Taiki (eds.), Kyoto Working Papers in English and General Linguistics: Special issue in honour of Professor Kensei Sugayama on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 3–19. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. In press. French pronouns in cognition. In Hippisley, Andrew & Gisborne, Nikolas (eds.), Defaults in morphological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johansson, Christine & Geisler, Christer. 1998. Pied-piping in spoken English. In Renouf, Antoinette (ed.), Explorations in corpus linguistics, 67–82. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney. 1966. Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney. 1998. Pathways of the brain: The neurocognitive basis of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2007. Cognitive Grammar. In Geeraerts & Cuyckens(eds.), 421–462.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Luger, George & Stubblefield, William. 1993. Artificial intelligence: Structures and strategies for complex problem solving, 2nd edn. New York: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McDaniel, Dana, McKee, Cecile & Bernstein, Judy. 1998. How children’s relatives solve a problem for Minimalism. Language 74, 308–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 1999. An HPSG-analysis for free relative clauses in German. Grammars 2, 53–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perera, Katharine. 1984. Children’s writing and reading: Analysing classroom language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reisberg, Daniel. 2007. Cognition: Exploring the science of the mind, 3rd edn. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Roberge, Yves & Rosen, Nicole. 1999. Preposition stranding and que-deletion in varieties of North American French. Linguistica Atlantica 21, 153–168.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Rosta, Andrew. 1997. English syntax and Word Grammar Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Rosta, Andrew. 2005. Structural and distributional heads. In Sugayama, Kensei & Hudson, Richard (eds.), Word Grammar: New perspectives on a theory of language structure, 171–203. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Sprenger, Simone, Levelt, Willem & Kempen, Gerard. 2006. Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 54, 161–184.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trotta, Joe. 2001. Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of theory and description (Language & Computers), Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy. 2007. Iconicity. In Geeraerts & Cuyckens(eds.), 394–418.Google Scholar