Realizations of the Prepositional Object
Experientially, the unit following the preposition is in many cases seen as a participant in the situation, for reasons of affectiveness among others previously discussed. In such cases idiomatic combination such as run over are interpreted as transitive and the following NG as an Object mediated by a preposition (PO), as in 1.
1 He ran over a rabbit on a country road last night. (NG)
2 I strongly object to what you are insinuating. (nominal clause)
3 He believes in getting things done quickly. (-ing cl.)
4 She certainly likes being waited on, doesn’t she?
Passivization and what/who? questions are usually reliable probes for Objects:
What (animal) was run over?
NGs are the typical realizations of the PO, but nominal clauses and non-finite -ing clauses also occur, and can be probed likewise:
What I strongly object to is what you are insinuating.
What he believes in is getting things done quickly.
Conversely, fronting the whole prepositional phrase is not acceptable in 1:
*Over what did he run?
It is possible though somewhat stilted in 2 and 3:
To what do you object?
In what does he believe?
By contrast, 4, meaning ‘serve’, is easily passivized and is in current use.
Some wh- questions admit only the discontinuous structure (stranding):
What’s the weather like? [*Like what is the weather?]
What have you come for? [*For what have you come?]
Short questions in response to statements are very common in English:
We are leaving tomorrow. Where from?
I have to speak to your headmaster? What about?
Certain PPs which constitute fixed phrases are very rarely discontinuous:
To what extent do they disagree? [*What extent do they disagree to? ]
In which respect do you think I am wrong? [*Which respect do you think I am wrong in?]
• Two-word or three-word prepositions can be discontinuous, though perhaps less often than simple prepositions:
His death was due to natural causes. What was his death due to?
There are certain regulations which There are certain regulations which these
are in conflict with these proposals proposals are in conflict with.
It is clear that verbs which control prepositions do not constitute a homogeneous class. There are various degrees of integration, ranging from the relatively loosely integrated such as smile (at) and wait (for), where the verb can function without a preposition, to those which bond with the preposition to form a new lexical unit (look after, take to). The latter are given separate entries in dictionaries and, in those dictionaries which provide grammatical information, are given different analyses. The PP following Type 3 verbs such as smile and wait is often classified as Prepositional Complement (PC). Cognitive factors of attention and salience intervene to allow some of the NGs in circumstantial PPs to become subjects, as in this house hasn’t been lived in.
According to use in context, one analysis may be more suitable than another.
