Preposition stranding

In English

In English, preposition stranding is found, for instance in open interrogatives, wh relatives, and passive constructions sometimes known as pseudopassives.

In wh-constructions, the object of the preposition is a wh-word in deep structure but is fronted as a result of the wh-movement. It is commonly assumed, in transformational approaches to syntax, that the movement of a constituent out of a phrase leaves a silent trace. In the case of wh-movement leaving a stranded preposition, the wh-word is fronted to the beginning of the interrogative clause, leaving a trace after the preposition:

Pseudopassives are the result of the movement of the object of a preposition to fill an empty subject position for a passive verb. This phenomenon is comparable to regular passives, which are formed through the movement of the object of the verb to subject position. In pseudopassives, unlike in wh-movement, the object of the preposition is not a wh-word but rather a pronoun or noun phrase:

Relative clauses in English can also exhibit preposition stranding, whether with a complementizer introducing the clause or without:

Overzealous avoidance of stranded prepositions leads to unnatural-sounding sentences, especially when the preposition is part of an idiomatic phrasal verb, such as the following, apocryphally attributed to Winston Churchill. Note the verb is the phrasal verb "put up with", split to humorous effect:

There are verbal idioms in English that include more than one preposition, so it is possible to have more than one stranded preposition, for instance in the sentence

An extreme example of a sentence with five prepositions at the end:

«A father of a little boy goes upstairs after supper to read to his son, but he brings the wrong book. The boy says, "What did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to out of up for?"»

Even more extreme:

«What did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to from out of about 'Down Under' up for?»

Opinions for and against

Preposition stranding was in use long before any English speakers objected to it. Many sources consider it to be acceptable in standard formal English. "Great literature from Chaucer to Milton to Shakespeare to the King James version of the Bible was full of so called terminal prepositions."

Mignon Fogarty ("Grammar Girl") says, "nearly all grammarians agree that it's fine to end sentences with prepositions, at least in some cases." Fowler's Modern English Usage says that "One of the most persistent myths about prepositions in English is that they properly belong before the word or words they govern and should not be placed at the end of a clause or sentence."

The proscription against preposition stranding in English was probably first created by the poet John Dryden in 1672 when he objected to Ben Jonson's 1611 phrase "the bodies that those souls were frighted from". Dryden did not explain why he thought the sentence should be restructured to front the preposition. Other grammarians have supported the practice by analogy with Latin, such as Robert Lowth, who used the construction when he wrote in his 1762 textbook A Short Introduction to English Grammar that it was more suitable for informal than for formal English: "This is an Idiom which our language is strongly inclined to; it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing; but the placing of the Preposition before the Relative is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated Style." The proscription is still taught in schools at the beginning of the 21st century.

In Dutch

There are two kinds of preposition stranding constructions in Dutch, both of which in fact involve the stranding of postpositions.

Directional constructions

The first case involves directional constructions. A number of common Dutch adpositions can be used either prepositionally or postpositionally, with a slight change in possible meanings; for example, Dutch in can mean either in or into when used prepositionally, but can only mean into when used postpositionally. When postpositions, such adpositions can be stranded:

wh-movement: Welk bos_i liep hij ____i in?

short-distance movement: [...] dat hij zo'n donker bos niet in durft te lopen [...]

Another way to analyze examples like the first one above would be to allow arbitrary "postposition + verb" sequences to act as transitive separable prefix verbs (e.g. in + lopen → inlopen); but such an analysis would not be consistent with the position of in in the second example. (The postposition can also appear in the verbal prefix position: [...] dat hij zo'n donker bos niet durft in te lopen [...].)

R-pronouns

Dutch prepositions generally do not take the ordinary neuter pronouns (het, dat, wat, etc.) as objects. Instead, they become postpositional suffixes for the corresponding r-pronouns (er, daar, waar, etc.): hence, not *over het (about it), but erover (literally thereabout). However, the r-pronouns can sometimes be moved to the left, thereby stranding the postposition:

Wij praatten er niet over.

Waar praatten wij over?

In German

Some regional varieties of German show a similar phenomenon to some Dutch constructions with da(r)- and wo(r)- forms. This is called a split construction ("Spaltkonstruktion"). Standard German provides composite words for the particle and the bound preposition. The split occurs easily with a composite interrogative word (as shown in the English example) or with a composite demonstrative word (as shown in the Dutch example).

For example the demonstrative "davon" (of that / of those / thereof):

Standard German requires – Ich kann mir davon nichts leisten.

Some dialects permit – Ich kann mir da nichts von leisten.

For emphasis it can move to the front – Da kann ich mir nichts von kaufen.

Similarly for the interrogative word "woher" (from where / from what):

Standard German requires – Woher hat Marie das Kleid bekommen.

Some dialects permit – Wo hat Marie das Kleid her bekommen

literally, Where has Marie the skirt from gotteni.e., Where has Marie got the skirt from

Again, although the stranded postposition has nearly the same surface distribution as a separable verbal prefix ("herbekommen" is a valid composite verb), it would not be possible to analyze these Dutch and German examples in terms of the reanalyzed verbs *overpraten and *vonkaufen, for the following reasons:

The stranding construction is possible with prepositions that never appear as separable verbal prefixes (e.g., Dutch van, German von).

Stranding is not possible with any kind of object besides an r-pronoun.

Prefixed verbs are stressed on the prefix; in the string "von kaufen" in the above sentences, the preposition cannot be accented.

and pronunciation allows to distinguish an actual usage of a verb like "herbekommen" from a split construction "her bekommen".

In French

A few non-standard dialects of French seem to have developed preposition stranding as a result of linguistic contact with English. Preposition stranding has been found in areas where the Francophone population is under intense contact with English, including certain parts of Alberta, Northern Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Louisiana. It is found (but heavily decried) in very informal Quebec French. For example, Prince Edward Island French permits all three types of preposition stranding:

Wh-movement: Qui est-ce que tu as fait le gâteau pour?

Pseudopassives: Robert a été parlé beaucoup de au meeting.

Relative clauses: Tu connais pas la fille que je te parle de.

To standard French ears, these constructs all sound quite alien, and are thus considered as barbarisms or "anglicismes". However, not all dialects of French allow preposition stranding to the same extent. For instance, Ontario French restricts preposition stranding to relative clauses with certain prepositions; in most dialects, stranding is impossible with the prepositions à (to) and de (of).

A superficially similar construction is possible in standard French in cases where the object is not moved, but implied, such as Je suis pour ("I'm all for (it)") or Il faudra agir selon ("We'll have to act according to (the situation)").