from The Cambridge
Grammar of the English Language:
The category of prepositions
This book employs a definition of the category of prepositions that is
considerably broader than those used in traditional grammars of English. The
purpose of this section is to give an overview of the items that are assigned
to the category of prepositions under our analysis.
❑ Traditional definition
The general definition of a preposition in traditional grammar is that it is a
word that governs, and normally precedes, a noun or pronoun and which expresses
the latter’s relation to another word. ‘Govern’ here indicates that the preposition
determines the case of the noun or pronoun (in some languages, certain
prepositions govern an accusative, others a dative, and so on). In English
those pronouns that have different (non-genitive) case forms almost invariably
appear in the accusative after prepositions, so the issue of case government is
of less importance, and many definitions omit it.
In our framework we substitute ‘noun phrase’ for the traditional ‘noun or
pronoun’. With that modification, the traditional definition can be illustrated
by such examples as the following, where the preposition is underlined.
[1]
i
Max sent a photograph of his new house to his
parents.
ii
They are both very keen on golf.
In [i] the preposition
of relates the NP
his new house to
the noun
photograph (we understand that the new house is depicted in
the photograph), while
to relates the NP
his parents to the
verb
send (we understand his parents to have been the recipients of
the photograph). Similarly, in [ii]
on relates the NP
golf to
the adjective
keen (the semantic relation is like that between direct
object and verb in
They both very much like golf: the semantic role
associated with
golf is that of stimulus for the emotional feeling).
❑ Prepositions as heads
In this book, in keeping with much work in modern linguistics, we adopt a
significantly different concept of prepositions. We take them to be heads of
phrases — phrases comparable to those headed by verbs, nouns, adjectives, and
adverbs, and containing dependents of many different sorts. This change in
conception leads to a considerable increase in the set of words that are
assigned to the category of prepositions. Before turning to a description of
the full membership of the category, we will explain, by reference to words
that are uncontroversially prepositions, why they should be regarded as heads
of phrases taking various kinds of dependent.
Modifiers
Note first that some prepositions can take modifiers like those found in other
phrases:
[2]
i
She died [
two years after their
divorce].
ii
She seems [
very much in control of
things].
iii
It happened [
just inside the penalty
area].
These modifiers, marked with underlining, are found also in AdjPs (
two
years old), NPs (
very much a leader),
and VPs (
She [
just managed
to escape]).
Prepositions followed by constituents that are
not NPs
Secondly, it is not only ‘nouns or pronouns’ (NPs in our terms) that occur
after prepositions:
[3]
i
The magician emerged [
from behind the curtain].
[PP]
ii
I didn't know about it [
until recently]. [AdvP]
iii
We can't agree [
on whether we should call the police].
[interrogative clause]
iv
They took me [
for dead]
. [AdjP]
In [1], one PP (underlined) is embedded inside a larger one (enclosed in
brackets). This parallels the way one NP is embedded inside a larger NP in
a
house that size, or one clause is embedded inside another in
That
she survived is a miracle. In [ii],
until has an AdvP as
complement, instead of the NP that it has in examples like
until last week.
In [iii],
on takes an interrogative clause complement rather than an
NP, as in
We can't agree [
on a course of action]. And
in [iv],
dead is an AdjP, which has a predicative function, with
me
as predicand.
It is important to note that different prepositions license different types of
complement.
Until can take an AdvP but not an interrogative clause,
while
on can take an interrogative clause but not an AdvP, and so on.
This is entirely parallel to the way verbs, nouns, and adjectives select
particular types of complement. And the fact that the AdjP in [3iv] is
predicative means that in the structure of the PP, as in that of the VP (or
clause), we must make a distinction between objects and predicative
complements. Compare:
[4]
OBJECT
PREDICATIVE COMPLEMENT
i a.
She consulted a friend.
b.
She considered him a friend.
[clause]
ii a.
She bought it [
for a friend].
b.
She took him [
for a friend].
[PP]
❑ Extending the membership of the
preposition category
Once it is recognised that prepositions head phrases comparable in structure to
those headed by verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs, we need to take a fresh
look at what words belong in the category. When we do this, we find there are
strong grounds for including a good number of words beyond those that are
traditionally recognised as prepositions.
Traditional grammar's subordinating conjunctions
We have noted that prepositions take complements that are not NPs, such as the
PP, AdvP, interrogative clause, and AdjP in [3]. This conflicts with the
general definition for ‘prepositions’ given in most traditional grammars and
dictionaries, though in practice traditional grammarians would have no
hesitation in classifying
from, until, on, and
for in [3] as
prepositions. Traditional grammarians thus tacitly accept that there can be PP,
AdvP, or AdjP complements of prepositions. They do not, however, allow
declarative content clauses. A word otherwise similar to a preposition but
taking a declarative content clause complement is traditionally analysed as a
‘subordinating conjunction’. This is not a policy that can be justified.
Consider the analogy with verbs that take both NP and declarative content
clause complements:
[5] NP
COMPLEMENT
DECLARATIVE COMPLEMENT
i a.
I remember the
accident. b.
I remember
you promised to help.
ii a.
He left [
after the accident].
b.
He left [
after you
promised to help].
No one suggests that the difference in the category of the complement
between the [a] and [b] examples requires us to assign
remember to
different parts of speech in [i]. It would traditionally be treated as a verb
in both cases. There is no reason to handle
after in [11] any differently:
it can be analysed as a preposition in both cases. Or take the following pairs,
where the complement clause is declarative in [a], and interrogative in [b]:
[6] DECLARATIVE COMPLEMENT
INTERROGATIVE COMPLEMENT
i a.
I assume he saw her.
b.
I wonder whether
he saw her.
ii a.
the fact that he saw her
b.
the question
whether he saw her
iii a.
glad that he saw her
b.
unsure whether he
saw her
iv a.
He left [
after he saw her].
b.
It depends [
on
whether he saw her].
The head words in [i-iii], those in boldface, belong uncontroversially to
the same category in [a] as in [b] (verb, noun, and adjective respectively). We
are proposing that the same applies in [iv]. The difference in the type of
complement between [a] and [b] in [iv] no more justifies a part-of-speech
distinction in the head than the similar difference in [i-iii].
We therefore include in the preposition category all of the subordinating
conjunctions of traditional grammar, with three exceptions. The exceptions are,
first,
whether; second, those occurrences of
if that are
equivalent to
whether (as in
Ask him if he minds); and,
third,
that when it introduces a subordinate clause. These items we
take to be markers of subordination, not heads of the constructions in which
they figure: see Ch. 11, §8.1, for detailed discussion of this issue.
A subset of traditional adverbs
The traditional account does not allow for a preposition without a complement,
but within a framework where prepositions function as heads of phrases, like
verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs, there is again no principled basis for
imposing such a condition. Compare:
[7] WITH
COMPLEMENT
WITHOUT COMPLEMENT
i a.
She was eating an
apple.
b.
She
was eating.
ii a.
She's [
the director of
the company].
b.
She's [
the director].
iii a.
I'm [
certain it's genuine].
b.
I'm [
certain].
iv a.
I haven't seen her [
since the
war].
b.
I haven't seen her [
since].
The presence or absence of a complement has no bearing on the classification
of the head in [i-iii], where in both the [a] and [b] members of the pair
eating
is a verb,
director a noun, and
certain an adjective. There
is no reason to treat [iv] any differently, and we accordingly take
since
as a preposition not only in [a], but also in [b], where traditional grammar
analyses it as an adverb.
[…]
❑ Position of the preposition
relative to its complement
The traditional definition specifies that prepositions usually precede the NP
they govern. Simplified versions often omit the qualification ‘usually’, but it
is indispensable for two reasons. In the first place, a very small number of
English prepositions can follow the complement: compare
notwithstanding the
weather (head + complement) and
the weather notwithstanding
(complement + head) — we deal with these items in §4.2. Secondly, we have to
allow for cases like
What are you looking at?, where the
complement appears in prenuclear position in the clause and the preposition is
said to be stranded — this matter is discussed in §4.1. Preposition stranding
is restricted to various kinds of non-canonical construction such as open
interrogatives, relatives, etc.: in canonical constructions traditional
prepositions (with the minor exception of the
notwithstanding type)
always do precede their complements. But so do verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. The
location of prepositions before their complements is thus not a distinguishing
feature of the category. Moreover, we have argued that not all prepositions
have complements, and where they don't the issue of relative position obviously
doesn't arise.
[…]
The ability of many prepositions to head phrases in complement function is
an important property distinguishing them from adverbs, which can appear as
complements only under extremely restricted conditions. Particularly useful
from a diagnostic point of view are cases where the complement is obligatory.
One such case is the goal complement of certain transitive verbs such as
put
or
place and a few intransitives such as
dart and
slither:
[6]
i a.
I put it in the drawer.
b.
*I put it.
ii a.
He darted behind the curtain.
b.
*He darted.
The [a] examples here have prototypical PPs consisting of preposition + NP
complement. But other forms can be assigned to the PP category on the basis of
their ability to occur in this position. Compare:
[7]
PREPOSITION
ADVERB
i a.
I put it in/downstairs/away.
b. *
I put it adjacently.
ii a.
He darted off/indoors/home.
b
. *
He darted immediately.
Phrases consisting of such words as
in,
downstairs, away, off,
indoors, home by themselves are distributionally like uncontroversial PPs
such as
in the drawer or
behind the curtain, and are
accordingly assigned to the same category. Prototypical adverbs, those formed
from adjectives by suffixation of ·
ly, do not occur in these
positions.
A second case of an obligatory complement is in clauses with the verb
be
as head:
[8]
i a.
Jill is in the office.
b
. *
Jill is.
ii a.
The proposal is without merit.
b.
*The proposal is.
The [b] examples are admissible if elliptical, with a complement recoverable
from the preceding text (
Max isn't in the office, but Jill is __), but
otherwise
be normally requires an internal complement. Leaving aside
the specifying use of
be, which allows complements of just about any
category (cf. Ch. 4, §5.5), adverbs cannot in general function as complement to
be. Where we have morphologically related adjective
–adverb
pairs it is the adjective that is required in this function:
Jill is sad,
not
*Jill is sadly. The fact that the underlined words in [7ia/iia]
can occur as complement to
be is thus further support for their
classification as prepositions: compare
Jill is in/downstairs/*locally.
[…]
There are a small number of adverbs such as
right and
straight
which occur with a certain sense as modifiers of prepositions but not (in
Standard English) of verbs, adjectives, or adverbs:
[9]
i
They pushed it [
right under the bed].
[preposition]
ii
*They were [
right enjoying themselves].
[verb]
iii *
I believe the employees to be [
right trustworthy].
[adjective]
iv
*The project was carried through [
right successfully].
[adverb]
Not all prepositions accept these modifiers — they occur primarily with
prepositions indicating spatial or temporal relations. But they are not
restricted to phrases containing preposition + NP:
[10]
i
They pushed it [
right in/inside].
ii
She ran [
straight upstairs].
The occurrence of such highly restricted modifiers with words like
in,
inside, and
upstairs as well as in uncontroversial PPs thus
provides further evidence for recognising PPs without complements.
[…]
Among the words that do not license NP complements there are a fair number belonging
to the spatial domain that occur as goal complement with such verbs as
come
and
go, and also, in most cases, as locative complement to
be.
[29]
i a.
They went ashore.
b.
They are ashore.
ii a.
I'll take them downstairs.
b.
They are downstairs.
iii a.
Kim is coming home.
b.
Kim is home.
iv a.
Let's put everything indoors.
b.
Everything is indoors.
There are good grounds for putting words of this kind in the preposition
category. In the clause, prototypical adverbs generally occur in adjunct rather
than complement function. They are not entirely excluded from functioning as
complement (cf.
They treat us appallingly, etc.: see Ch. 8.
§2.1), but this usage is relatively exceptional. No adverb in ·
ly
could substitute as goal complement for the underlined words in the [a]
examples in [29]. Leaving aside its specifying use,
be does not
license adverbs in ·
ly as complement, so none could substitute for the
underlined words in the [b] examples either. Notice, moreover, that
ashore,
downstairs, etc., in these [b] examples cannot reasonably said to
‘modify’ the verb. They no more modify the verb than does
young in
They
are young. Thus although they are traditionally analysed as adverbs, it is
arguable that they do not in fact satisfy the traditional definition.
These words are syntactically very like the prepositions in [27] except that
they cannot take NP complements. Compare, for example,
They went/are aboard
and
They went/are ashore. Some of them can be modified by
right
and
straight, as in
They are right downstairs or
We went
straight indoors. We accordingly include these too in the preposition
class.
from A Student's Introduction to English Grammar:
Prepositions vs subordinators
The traditional class of subordinating conjunctions contains (among others) the
words in [5]:
[5]
i
after
before
since
till until
ii a.
although because
if(c) lest provided
though unless
. b.
if(i)
that whether
We need to distinguish two words with the shape
if.
One has a conditional meaning, as in
I'll help you if I can: we
show this above as
if(c).
The other occurs in subordinate interrogative clauses like
See if there
are any vacancies, corresponding to main clause
Are there any
vacancies?: we show it as
if(i). This is a variant of
whether:
compare
See whether there are any vacancies.
The words in [i] traditionally belong to the preposition class as well,
whereas those in [ii] do not. We have argued against a dual classification
treatment of the [i] words, analysing them simply as prepositions that license
different kinds of complement. But once we reconsider the distinction between
prepositions and subordinators we find there are good reasons for reassigning
the words in [iia] as well to the preposition class. This leaves a very small
subordinator class, with
that,
whether and
if(i) as
its main members. The major argument for drawing the boundary between
prepositions and subordinators between [iia] and [iib] is that
that,
whether
and
if(i) function as markers of subordination whereas the other words
in [5] function as heads of the constituents they introduce. Consider the
following examples:
[6]
i a.
I think [
(that) she's probably right].
. b.
I don't know [
whether
they have received our letter yet].
ii a.
She stayed behind for a few minutes [
after the
others had left].
. b.
They complained [
because
we didn't finish the job this week].
In [1] the bracketed constituents are subordinate clauses with
that
and
whether simply marking the subordination: the main clause
counterparts are
She is probably right (declarative) and
Have they
received our letter yet? (interrogative). In this context the
that
is optional (as indicated by the parentheses): the clause is in the position of
complement to
think, so it is not obligatory to mark its subordinate
status in its own structure.
Whether is not omissible because it marks
the clause as interrogative as well as subordinate: it is just with the default
declarative type that the subordinator is often optional.
After and
because in [ii] by contrast are not grammatical
markers of subordination. They have independent meaning, and it is by virtue of
this meaning that we interpret the bracketed constituents as adjuncts of time
and reason respectively. This makes them like heads — just as
after is
head in the time adjunct
after the departure of the others. They are
not themselves part of the subordinate clause; rather, the subordinate clauses
are just
the others had left and
we didn't finish the job this
week, and these function as complement within the phrases headed by
after
and
because.
Prepositions vs adverbs
We begin the task of redrawing the boundaries between prepositions and adverbs
by looking further at words like
before, which can occur either with
an NP complement or without a complement. There are a fair number of words of
this kind; a sample are listed in [7]:
[7]
aboard
above across
after along
behind below
beneath beyond by
down
in
off outside
over
past
round since
through under up
As we have noted, these are traditionally analysed as prepositions when they
have an NP complement but as adverbs when they have no complement:
[8]
TRADITIONAL
PREPOSITION
TRADITIONAL ADVERB
i a.
She went aboard the
liner.
b.
She went aboard.
ii a.
He sat outside her
bedroom.
b.
He sat outside.
It has often been suggested that the traditional adverb category has
something of the character of a classificatory wastebasket, a dumping ground
for words that don't belong in any of the other more clearly defined
categories. This criticism certainly seems valid in the present case.
Aboard
in [ib] and
outside in [iib] don't, on the traditional account,
qualify as prepositions because prepositions are defined in such a way that
they require NP complements. They are obviously not nouns, verbs, adjectives or
conjunctions, so there is nowhere to put them except in the adverb category.
We put it this way because it is important to see that these words do not in
fact satisfy the definition that traditional grammar gives to the adverb
category:
‘An adverb is a word that modifies a verb, an adjective or
another adverb’. They typically occur, for example, in the three functions
given in [3] for PPs:
[9]
DEPENDENT OF NOUN DEPENDENT OF
VERB COMPLEMENT OF
BE
i
the conditions aboard
She went aboard.
She is still aboard.
ii
the temperature outside
He sat outside
He is outside
(Contexts for the first example in each set might be
I won't attempt to
describe [
the conditions aboard] and [
The temperature outside]
was over 40°.)
The first and third of the functions illustrated in [9] are characteristic of
prepositions, but not of adverbs. Let us consider them in turn.
(a) Dependent of nouns
Adverbs do not normally occur as dependents of nouns: in related adjective
–adverb
pairs it is the adjective that appears in this function. No such restriction
applies to prepositions. Compare:
[10]
PP
ADVERB
i a.
She criticised them with tact.
b.
She criticised them tactfully.
ii a. [
A manager with tact] is
needed. b.
*[*
A manager tactfully] is needed.
The underlined expressions in [i] modify the verb, and we see that both PP
and adverb are admissible.
In [ii], however, they modify the noun
manager and here the PP is
admissible but the adverb is not; instead we need an adjective:
a tactful
manager.
(b) Complement of the verb be
Adverbs cannot normally function as complement to
be in
its ascriptive sense: here we again have adjectives, in their predicative use.
As with (a) above, there is no comparable constraint applying to prepositions.
Compare:
[11] PP AS COMPLEMENT OF
BE
ADVP AS COMPLEMENT OF
BE
i a.
The key is under the mat.
b.
*Lucy was enthusiastically today.
ii a.
The meeting is on Tuesday.
b.
*Rain is again.
The [a] examples, with a PP functioning as complement of
be,
are impeccable, but the [b] ones, with an adverb in this function, are
ungrammatical.
Instead of [ib] we have
Lucy was
enthusiastic today, with the corresponding adjective.
Since the adverb
again has no adjective counterpart we cannot correct
[iib] in the same way; for this particular example we could have
It is
raining again, with
again now functioning as modifier to the verb
rain.
The classification of words like
aboard and
outside as
adverbs is thus inconsistent with the traditional definition of that category. The
best way to remove this inconsistency is to amend the definition of
prepositions so that they are no longer required to have an NP complement.
Aboard,
outside and similar words will then be prepositions both when they have NP
complements and when they occur alone. This revision simultaneously gets rid of
the complication of a dual classification for these words and removes them from
the adverb class words which differ radically in their syntactic properties
from genuine adverbs, thus making it a significantly more coherent class.
Notice in particular that with our more restricted class of adverbs, but not
with the larger class of traditional grammar, all functions that can be filled
by adverbs accept some of the most central type, and the type formed from
adjectives by adding ·
ly.
This revision of the traditional analysis is not an original idea of ours. The
core of it was first put forward as early as 1924 by the great Danish
grammarian Otto Jespersen, and it is adopted in much work in linguistics since the
1970s.
One reason why traditional grammarians have not taken it up may have to do with
the etymology, or historical source, of the term 'preposition'. This suggests a
word placed in front of another word — the traditional preposition is a word
placed in front of a noun (or NP, in our analysis). It may therefore seem
undesirable to apply the term to a word which is not positioned in front of an
NP. But there are three points to be made in favour of doing so:
First, prepositions do not always precede their complements: in
What are
you looking for? the preposition
for does not precede its
complement
what (see §5 for more discussion of this construction).
Second, no one worries that the etymology of ‘adverb’ suggests a word dependent
on a verb, although the term applies also to words modifying adjectives, other
adverbs, and so on.
Third, the term 'preposition' is so deeply ingrained in the grammatical
tradition that there would inevitably be a great deal of opposition to a newly
invented replacement; it is better just to recognise that words often change
their meanings, and to accept a change in the meaning of ‘preposition’. The
property of being placed before an NP will still apply in central cases, but
not in all.
