Preposition Pied Piping and Stranding in Academic and Popular Nigerian English Writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examined preposition pied piping and stranding in academic and popular Nigerian English writing with a view to determining their pattern of occurrence. Preposition placement has not been studied in Nigerian English and in specific genres. The 160 246-word relevant component of ICE-Nigeria was the sub-corpus used, and the Systemic Theory guided the study. Analysed using a multi-layered qualitative approach, the data comprised 112 cases of pied piping, 64 of stranding and 4 of doubling. Pied piping was dominant over stranding in Academic Writing (78 percent v 22 percent), and stranding was 1.7 times more frequent in Popular Writing than in Academic Writing. Though evenly distributed in Popular Writing (44 each), pied piping was about twice as frequent as stranding in Popular Natural Sciences while stranding was virtually non-existent in Academic Natural Sciences. Whereas to-infinitive and passive clauses were stranding favourite sites (21 and 15 respectively), only in wh-relative clauses did pied piping operate and in which was the prominent sequence. In Academic Writing prepositions were pied-piped and stranded at an average of 3.83 and 1.82 per form respectively, but the rates were 3.31 and 3.1 in Popular Writing. Whereas in was the most pied-piped preposition and was 5.2 times more likely to be pied-piped than stranded, up was the most stranded form and its stranding relative to pied piping was infinitely more. Subtle differences in the genres’ degree of formality explain the disparities in the distribution of pied piping and stranding in the sub-corpus analysed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".