Corpus and Experimental Data as Corroborating Evidence: The Case of Preposition Placement in English Relative Clauses

1
Corpus and Experimental Data as Corroborating
EvidenceThe Case of Preposition Placement in
English Relative Clauses
Thomas Hoffmann (University of Regensburg)

• Linguistic Evidence Empirical, Theoretical, and
  Computational Perspectives University of
  Tübingen, 02.02.-04.02.2006

2
1. Introduction Corpus vs. Introspection

• We do not need to use intuition in justifying
  our grammars, and as scientists, we must not use
  intuition in this way. (Sampson 2001 135)
• You dont take a corpus, you ask questions.
  You can take as many texts as you like, you can
  take tape recordings, but youll never get the
  answer. (Chomsky in Aarts 2000 5-6)
• ? Which type of data are we left with then?

3
1. Introduction Corpus vs. Introspection

• A corpus and an introspection-based approach to
  linguistics can be gainfully viewed as being
  complementary. (McEnery and Wilson 1996 16)
• ? corpus and introspection data
  corroborating evidence
• ? case study P placement in English Relative
  clauses

4
1. Introduction What to Expect

• corpora vs. introspection?
• categorical corpus data (ICE-GB corpus)
• Magnitude Estimation experiment
• variable corpus data (ICE-GB corpus)
• conclusion

5
2. Corpora and Introspection

• Arguments against corpus data
• performance problem
• negative data problem
• homogeneity problem
• ? only use introspection

6
2. Corpora and Introspection

• Arguments against corpus data ? no corpus
• performance problem yet performance result
  of competence modern corpora representative
• negative data problem yet only additional
  (different) data needed
• homogeneity problemyet empirical claim that
  needs to be investigated
• ? use corpora additional data type

7
2. Corpora and Introspection

• Arguments against introspection data
• unnatural data problem
• irrefutable data problem
• illusion problem
• stability problem
• ? only use corpora

8
2. Corpora and Introspection

• Arguments against introspection data ? no
  introspection
• unnatural data problemyet only additional
  (context) data needed
• irrefutable datayet depends only on
  collection method
• illusion problem yet only additional
  (natural) data needed
• stability problem yet empirical claim that
  needs to be investigated
• ? use corpora additional data type

9
2. Corpora and Introspection

• Corpora and introspection are corroborating
  evidence

10
3. Case Study Preposition Placement

• I want a data source ...
• (1) a. which I can rely on
• stranded preposition
• b. on which I can rely
• pied-piped preposition
• driving question
• data source for empirical analysis of (1a,b)?

11
4. Empirical Study I Corpus Data

• Corpus used
• International Corpus of English ICE-GB (Nelson
  et al. 2002)(educated Present-day BE, written
  spoken)
• Analysis tool
• GOLDVARB computer programme (logistic
  regression Robinson et al. 2001)
• relative influence of various contextual factors
  (weights lt0.5 inhibiting factors gt0.5
  favouring)

12
4. Empirical Study I Corpus Data I

• Pstrand/pied-piped token tested for
• finiteness
• restrictiveness
• relativizer
• XP contained in (V / N, e.g. entrance to sth. /
  Adj, e.g. afraid of sth.)
• level of formality
• X-PP relationship (Vprepositional, PPLoc_Adjunct,
  PPMan_Adjunct )
• except 2 all factors discussed in literature
  before, but not w.r.t. interdependence (e.g.
  Bergh, G. A. Seppänen. 2000 Trotta 2000)

13
4.1 Categorical corpus data

• raw ICE-GB P-placement data
• 1074 finite relative clauses
• 659 (61.4) tokens pied piped
• 415 (38.6) tokens stranded
• as expected many categorical effects
• ? accidental vs. systematic gaps?

14
4.2 Categorical corpus data that/Ø ? WH-relatives

• relativizer
• all that/Ø-tokens in ICE-GB stranded
• 176 thatPstranded-token
• (2) ?a data source on that I can rely
• 177 ØPstranded-token
• (3) ?a data source on Ø I can rely
• ? ICE-GB result expected
• ? implications (2) (3)? / that ? WH-

15
4.3 Categorical corpus data Constraints on
Pstrand

• 2. X-PP relationship
• Literature (e.g. Bergh, G. A. Seppänen. 2000
  Trotta 2000)
• Pstranding favoured with complement PP
• disfavoured with adjunct PP
• ICE-GB data
• Pstranding restricted to PPs which
• add thematic information to predicates/events

16
4.3 Categorical corpus data Constraints on
Pstrand

• 2. X-PP relationship
• categorical effect of WH-PPAdjuncts-tokens
• a) just PWH / no that/ØP in ICE-GB
• manner, degree, frequency respect PPs,
  e.g.
• a. the ways in which the satire is achieved
  ltICE-GBS1B-014 51Agt
• b. ? the ways which/that/Ø the satire is
  achieved in

17
4.3 Categorical corpus data Constraints on
Pstrand

• 2. X-PP relationship
• categorical effect of WH-PPAdjuncts-tokens
• b) just PWH / but that/ØP in ICE-GB
• subcat. PP (put sth. in/into/under)
• locative, affected loc., direction PP
  adjuncts
• a. the world that I was working in and
  studying in ltICE-GBS1A-001 351Bgt
• b. the world in which I was working and
  studying

18
4.3 Categorical corpus data Constraints on
Pstrand

• Claim comparison of WH- vs that/Ø shows
• P can only be stranded if PP adds thematic
  information to predicates/events
• manner degree adjunctscompare events to
  other possible events of V-ing (Ernst 2002 59)
  
• frequency respect adjuncts have scope over
  temporal information (frequency) and truth value
  of entire clause (respect)
• ? dont add thematic participant ? Pstrand
  with these systematic gap

19
4.3 Categorical corpus data Constraints on
Pstrand

• Claim comparison of WH- vs that/Ø shows
• P can only be stranded if PP adds thematic
  information to predicates/events
• subcat. PP loc., affected loc., direction PP
  adjuncts
• ? add thematic participant ? WHP with these
  accidental gap

20
4.3 Categorical corpus data Constraints on
Pstrand

• Claim comparison of WH- vs that/Ø shows
• P can only be stranded if PP adds thematic
  information to predicates/events
• Comparison of WH- vs that/Ø good evidence, but
• still negative data problem
• further corroborating evidence needed
• Introspection Magnitude Estimation study

21
5. Empirical Study II Magnitude Estimation

• relative judgements (reference sentence)
• informal, restrictive RCs tested for
• P-PLACEMENT (Pstrand, Ppied-piped)RELATIVIZER
  (WH-, that-, Ø-)X-PP (VPrep, PPTemp/Loc_Adjunct,
  PPManner/Degree_Adjunct)
• tokens counterbalanced 6 material groups a 18
  tokens 36 filler 54 tokens
• tokens randomized (Web-Exp-software)
• N 36 BE native speakers (sex 18m, 18f / age
  17-64)

22
5. Empirical Study II Magnitude Estimation

• 18 filler sentences ungrammatical
• a. Thats a tape I sent them that done Ive
  myself (word order violation original source
  ltICE-GBS1A-033 074gt)
• b. There was lots of activity that goes on there
  (subject contact clause original source
  ltICE-GBS1A-004 067gt)
• c. There are so many people who needs
  physiotherapy (subject-verb agreement error
  original source ltICE-GBS1A-003 027gt)

23
5. Empirical Study II Magnitude Estimation

• ANOVA significant effects
• P-PLACEMENT F(1,33) 4.536, p lt 0.05
• RELATIVIZER F(2,66) 17.149, p lt 0.001
• P-PLACEMENTX-PP F(2,66) 9.740, p lt 0.001
• P-PLACEMENTRELATIVIZER F(2,66) 4.217, p lt
  0.02

24
5. Empirical Study II Magnitude Estimation

• ANOVA not significant
• AGE F(1,33) 2.760, p gt 0.10
• GENDERF(1,33) 1.495, p gt 0.20
• ? indicates homogeneity of subjects

25
5. Empirical Study II Magnitude Estimation

• Post-hoc Tukey test P-PlaceRelativizer
• Ppied-piped WH- gtgt that p lt 0.001 WH-
  gtgt ? p lt 0.001 that gt ? p lt 0.010
• Pstrand no difference WH- that ? p gtgt
  0.100

26
5. Empirical Study II Magnitude Estimation

• Post-hoc Tukey test P-PlaceX-PP
• Ppied-piped PPMan/Deg gt VPrep p lt
  0.010 PPMan/Deg PPTemp/Loc p 0.100
  VPrep PPTemp/Loc p gt 0.100
• Pstrand no difference VPrep gt PPTemp/Loc gt
  PPMan/Deg p lt 0.001

27
Fig. 1 Magnitude estimation result for P
relativizer PWH gtgt Pthat gt PØ
28
Fig. 2 Magnitude estimation result for P
relativizer compared with fillers Pthat PØ
ungrammatical fillers ? violation of hard
constraint (Sorace Keller 2005)
29
Fig. 3 Magnitude estimation result for
relativizer P WH P that P Ø PVPrep gt
PPTemp/Loc gt PPMan/Deg
30
Fig. 3 Magnitude estimation result for
relativizer P VPrep gt PPTemp/Loc gt PPMan/Deg gtgt
ungrammatical filler? violation of soft
constraint (Sorace Keller 2005)
31
6. Corroborating Evidence

• Corroborating evidence
• corpus man/deg PPs no Pstranded (not even with
  that/?)? semantic constraint on Pstranded
• experimentman/deg PPs worst environment for
  Pstranded yet better than ungrammatical fillers
  (soft constraint violation)

32
7. Empirical Study III Corpus Data II

• Constraints on variable corpus data (354 finite
  WH-token)
• Goldvarb identified 3 independent factors (Log
  likelihood -88.437 Significance 0.004 Fit
  X-square(27) 27.977, accepted, p 0.2040)
• 1. level of formality (as expected)
• 2. type of PP contained in (as expected)
• 3. restrictiveness (unexpected)
• restrictive RC favour pied piping (weight
  0.592)
• nonrestrictive RC clearly inhibit pied piping
  (i.e. favour stranding weight 0.248)

33
7. Empirical Study III Corpus Data II

• (6) And uhm he left me there with this packet of
  Durex which I hadn't got a clue what to do
  with to be totally honest ltICE-GBS1B-049
  1671Bgt
• reasons for restrictiveness effect
• 1. weaker semantic ties of non-restrictive
  clause with antecedent (pause/comma)
• 2. Pied-piped P receives connective function
• ? functionalisation of preposition placement
  in WH-relative clause

34
8. Conclusion

• corpus and introspection data corroborating
  evidence
• corporafrequency/context effects (e.g. level of
  formality)unexpected patterns (e.g.
  restrictiveness)categorical data ? require
  further investigation
• ?
• introspection differentiation of accidental
  gaps (WHP with PPTemp/Loc)systematic gaps (XP
  with PPMan/Deg)detection of degrees of
  ungrammaticality

35
9. References

• Aarts, B. 2000. "Corpus linguistics, Chomsky and
  Fuzzy Tree Fragments". In Christian Mair and
  Marianne Hundt, eds. 2000. Corpus Linguistics and
  Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA
  Rodopi, 5-13.
• Bard, E.G. et al. 1996. Magnitude Estimation of
  Linguistic acceptability. Language 7232-68.
• Bergh, G. A. Seppänen. 2000. Preposition
  stranding with wh-relatives A historical
  survey. English Language and Linguistics
  4295-316.
• Cowart, W. 1997. Experimental Syntax Applying
  Objective Methods to Sentence Judgements.
  Thousand Oaks Sage.
• Huddleston, R. et al. 2002. Relative
  constructions and unbound dependencies. In G.K.
  Pullum R. Huddleston, eds. The Cambridge
  Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge
  Cambridge University Press, 1031-1096.
• Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language
  Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford
  Oxford University Press.
• Levine, R. I.A. Sag. 2003. WH-Nonmovement.
  lthttp//www-csli.stanford.edu/saggt, 04.07.2004.

36
9. References

• Nelson, G. et al. 2002. Exploring Natural
  Language Working with the British Component of
  the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam,
  Philadelphia Benjamins.
• McEnery, T. and A. Wilson. 1997. Corpus
  Linguistics. Edinburgh Edinburgh University
  Press.
• Pesetsky, D. 1998. Some principles of sentence
  production. In Pilar Barbosa et al., eds. Is
  the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition
  in Syntax. Cambridge, MA MIT Press, 337-83.
• Penke, M. A. Rosenbach. 2004. "What counts as
  evidence in linguistics? An introduction".
  Studies in Language 28,3 480-526.
• Pickering, M. G. Barry. 1991. Sentence
  processing without empty categories. Language
  and Cognitive Processes 6229-259.
• Quirk, R. et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of
  the English Language. London Longman.
• Robinson, J. et al. 2001. GOLDVARB 2001 A
  Multivariate Analysis Application for Windows.
  lthttp//www.york.ac.uk/depts/lang/webstuff/goldvar
  b/manualOct2001gt

37
9. References

• Sag, I.A. 1997. English relative constructions.
  Journal of Linguistics 33431-484.
• Sampson, G. 2001. Empirical Linguistics. London,
  New York Continuum.
• Schütze, Carson T. 1996. The Empirical Base of
  Linguistics Grammaticality Judgements and
  Linguistic Methodology. Chicago Chicago
  University Press.
• Sorace, Antonella and Frank Keller. 2005.
  "Gradience in linguistic data". Lingua 115,11
  1497-1525.
• Trotta, J. 2000. Wh-clauses in English Aspects
  of Theory and Description. Amsterdam and
  Philadelphia, GA Rodopi.
• Van der Auwera, J. 1985. Relative that a
  centennial dispute. Journal of Linguistics
  21149-179.