This corpus study compares the use of Danish prepositions in the writing of L1 users of Danish to that of L2 users of Danish (with English as their L1). It examines to what extent non-standard usage is a specific L2 phenomenon and to what degree the challenges with prepositions are shared between the L1 and L2 group. We analyze the distribution and characteristics of non-standard usage involving four frequent Danish prepositions: til ‘to’, i ‘in’, på ‘on’, and for ‘for’. The results show that L2 texts are characterized by a larger share of non-standard tokens and by confusion of prepositions and non-prepositions. Yet, both L1 texts and L2 texts have non-standard usage and both have possible English calques. Based on the similarities between the two groups, we recommend that future studies include naturally occurring L1 production as a baseline for describing characteristics of L2 production.

The article proposes a novel analysis of NPN constructions, exemplified by English expressions like back to back and year after year. An NPN is typically composed of two identical bare singular count nouns with a preposition between them. Previous research tends to treat NPNs as highly idiosyncratic. While acknowledging some idiosyncrasies, the present contribution shows that NPNs exhibit a considerable degree of regularity and compositionality. A widespread view that bare singulars normally do not function as arguments is shown to rest on weak foundations. As a consequence, the present approach is able to show that NPNs are, at the core, NPs with PP modifiers. Nominal NPNs have this basic structure, while adverbial NPNs involve an extra layer of semantics and are exocentric constructions. A distinction between nominal types and instances is employed to account for the semantics of bare singulars. NPNs exhibit two kinds of emergent meanings, leading to chain NPNs and twin NPNs. The different semantic structures of these NPN subtypes explain why some NPNs can have nominal in addition to adverbial functions. The data comes mostly from Norwegian. Details differ between languages, but central parts of the analyses can be assumed to hold for other languages as well.

The origins of prepositional phrase structure in Finnic languages shows little evidence of being contact-induced. However, whether language contact has influenced the structure at a later stage is debatable. The current paper provides new findings on the topic of contact-induced change by comparing the distribution of prepositions in Estonian dialects with the respective contact languages. The purpose is to determine whether the usage frequency of prepositions is higher in areas mainly in contact with prepositional Indo-European languages. The topic is approached from a corpus-based, frequency-driven viewpoint. The results show a small, gradual decrease in the use of prepositions from the northeastern to the western dialect areas. Thus, the uneven but regular distribution of prepositions in Estonian dialects cannot be explained with language contact. This evidence supports the general understanding that adpositions are an unlikely class to be influenced by contact.

In this paper, we present an analysis of so-called determinerless PPs in German, i.e. prepositional phrases that allow singular count nouns to occur without an accompanying determiner, despite other rules in the grammar requiring the presence of the determiner. The analysis is based on annotated corpus data, which are fed into a statistical classifier (applying logistic regression). Superficially, the syntax of bare prepositional phrases is difficult to capture, and intuitions cannot be easily elicited. The analysis is based on data sets for two pairs of German prepositions: mit ‘with’ and ohne ‘without’, and über ‘over, above’ and unter ‘under, below’. The results of the classifiers applied to annotated data indicate which syntactic, morphological and semantic features are responsible for determiner omission. We are able to detect common properties of all four prepositions, as well as preposition-specific, and idiosyncratic properties. The apparently unsystematic conditions for determiner omission can be discerned by tracing the interaction of these properties.

This paper provides evidence that medial adjunct PPs in English are possible. On the basis of corpus data, it is shown that sentence-medial adjunct PPs are not unacceptable and are attested. Our corpus data also reveal a sharp asymmetry between negative and non-negative adjunct PPs. The analysis of the corpus revealed the following pattern: Non-negative adjunct PPs such as at that time resist medial position and instead tend to be postverbal; negative adjunct PPs such as at no time appear medially rather than postverbally. In the second part of the paper, we broaden the empirical domain and include negative complement PPs in the discussion. It is shown that when it comes to the licensing of question tags, English negative complement PPs, which are postverbal, pattern differently from postverbal negative adjunct PPs. That is, sentences with a postverbal negative adjunct PP pattern with negative sentences in taking a positive question tag, while sentences containing a postverbal negative argument PP pattern with affirmative sentences in taking a negative tag. To account for the observed adjunct–argument asymmetry in the licensing of question tags, we propose that clauses are typed for polarity and we explore the hypothesis that a polarity head in the left periphery of the clause is crucially involved in the licensing of sentential negation.

Fundamental to spatial knowledge in all species are the representations underlying object recognition, object search, and navigation through space. But what sets humans apart from other species is our ability to express spatial experience through language. This target article explores the language of objects and places, asking what geometric properties are preserved in the representations underlying object nouns and spatial prepositions in English. Evidence from these two aspects of language suggests there are significant differences in the geometric richness with which objects and places are encoded. When an object is named (i.e., with count nouns), detailed geometric properties – principally the object's shape (axes, solid and hollow volumes, surfaces, and parts) – are represented. In contrast, when an object plays the role of either “figure” (located object) or “ground” (reference object) in a locational expression, only very coarse geometric object properties are represented, primarily the main axes. In addition, the spatial functions encoded by spatial prepositions tend to be nonmetric and relatively coarse, for example, “containment,” “contact,” “relative distance,” and “relative direction.” These properties are representative of other languages as well. The striking differences in the way language encodes objects versus places lead us to suggest two explanations: First, there is a tendency for languages to level out geometric detail from both object and place representations. Second, a nonlinguistic disparity between the representations of “what” and “where” underlies how language represents objects and places. The language of objects and places converges with and enriches our understanding of corresponding spatial representations.

This article examines how the official legal record, presumably an institutional space consisting of Standard American English (SAE), can become a record of a regional variety of English. Utilizing theory from language contact situations, interactional sociolinguistics, and critical discourse analysis, it describes and explains how a prestigious societal institution, often analyzed as imposing its powerful voice on those less powerful, exhibits some permeability as it absorbs at least a few discursive representations of a less dominant bilingual and bicultural group. Traces of the Spanish-English contact situation, biculturalism, and Latino life find their way into the official discursive space via stereotype, topic, lexical items, prepositions, and some verbal constructions. The discussion covers why some legal arenas are more impervious to linguistic and cultural diversity (or “accented English”) than are others. The conclusion discusses what such representations might mean for Latina women.The National Science Foundation's Law and Social Science Program (SBR#-9709938) and the Social Science Research Council's Sexuality Research Fellowship Program provided funding for data collection for this study. I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and Barbara Johnstone for their comments and critiques on earlier versions of this article. While any remaining errors or oversights are mine alone, the reviewers' and editor's linguistic knowledge and insight have helped to make the work stronger and clearer. Also, I am grateful to Florida State University's Winthrop-King Foundation for paying Ms. Shelley Bayless to help me codify and count data. And finally, I must thank my mother, Angela M. Trinch, for being there when both of my children were born so that I could work on this article.