1887
The Structure of the English NP
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper examines the history of the ACC- gerundive, a subtype of verbal gerund differing formally from both bare gerundives () and POSS- gerundives ( Jane’s ) in having an overt subject argument either in the common case, if it is a full noun phrase (Two people ) or in the accusative case, if it is a personal pronoun ( me ). Findings from a corpus-based study show that early instances of ACC- gerundives most often functioned as preverbal sentential subjects and served as arguments to causative predicates such as , and . Based on this evidence, it is argued that ACC- gerundives have emerged as an intersection of a number of pre-existing constructions, most especially a subtype of absolute participle, now obsolete, that encoded causative (factive) semantics and preceded its superordinate clause. The development of the new gerundive subtype from this participial source, which proceeded as a succession of small discrete steps, can be fruitfully accounted for as a case of constructional change, along the lines proposed in Hilpert (2013) and Traugott & Trousdale (2013).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23.1.05fan
2016-06-09
2018-09-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ARCHER
    = A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. Version 3.2 (1990–1993/2002/2007/2010/2013). Originally compiled under the supervision of Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan at Northern Arizona University and University of Southern California; modified and expanded by subsequent members of a consortium of universities.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. COLMOBAENG
    = Corpus of Late Modern British and American English Prose. For details, see Fanego (2012).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. COPC
    = Century of Prose Corpus 1680–1780. For details, see Milic (1995).
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DOE = Healey, Antonette diPaolo
    (ed.) 2008The Dictionary of Old English: A-G on CD-ROM. Fascicle G and Fascicles A to F (with Revisions). Toronto: University of Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. F-LOB = Mair, Christian
    (comp) 1999The Freiburg - LOB Corpus of British English. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Frown = Mair, Christian
    (comp) 1999The Freiburg-Brown Corpus of American English. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. HC
    = Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. For details, see Kytö (1996 [1991]).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. MED = Kurath, Hans & Sherman M. Kuhn et al.
    (eds.) 1952–2001Middle English Dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. OED
    = Oxford English Dictionary 1884–1997 3rd edn. in progress: OED Online , March (2000); Simpson, John A . (ed.).
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Altenberg, Bengt
    1982The genitive v. the of-construction: A study of syntactic variation in 17th century English. Lund: CWK Gleerup.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, Douglas , Stig Johansson , Geoffrey Leech , Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
    1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolinger, Dwight L
    1977Meaning and form. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brinton, Laurel & Leslie K. Arnovik
    2011 [2006]The English language: A linguistic history. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Croft, William
    2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Declerck, Renaat
    1991A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. De Smet, Hendrik
    2008 Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics12. 55–102. doi: 10.1017/S136067430700250X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067430700250X [Google Scholar]
  17. 2009 Analysing reanalysis. Lingua119. 1728–1755. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2010 English ing-clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics48. 1153–1193. doi: 10.1515/ling.2010.038
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.038 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2012 The course of actualization. Language88. 601–633. doi: 10.1353/lan.2012.0056
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0056 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2013Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2014 Constrained confusion: The gerund/participle distinction in Late Modern English. In Marianne Hundt (ed.), Late Modern English syntax,224–238. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139507226.017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507226.017
  22. Donner, Morton
    1986 The gerund in Middle English. English Studies67. 394–400. doi: 10.1080/00138388608598465
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00138388608598465 [Google Scholar]
  23. Duffley, Patrick J
    2006The English gerund-participle: A comparison with the infinitive. New York, NY: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Expósito, María Cruz
    1996La estructura del sintagma nominal en el inglés de la Cancillería: 1400–1450. Barcelona: Kadle Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fanego, Teresa
    1990 Finite complement clauses in Shakespeare’s English, Part 2. Studia Neophilologica62. 129–149. doi: 10.1080/00393279008588047
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00393279008588047 [Google Scholar]
  26. 1992Infinitive complements in Shakespeare’s English. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela: Servizo de Publicacións.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1996a The development of gerunds as objects of subject-control verbs in English (1400–1760). Diachronica13. 29–62. doi: 10.1075/dia.13.1.03fan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.13.1.03fan [Google Scholar]
  28. 1996b The gerund in Early Modern English: Evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Folia Linguistica Historica17. 97–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1998 Developments in argument linking in early Modern English gerund phrases. English Language and Linguistics2. 87–119. doi: 10.1017/S1360674300000708
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674300000708 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2004a On reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change: The rise and development of English verbal gerunds. Diachronica21. 5–55. doi: 10.1075/dia.21.1.03fan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.21.1.03fan [Google Scholar]
  31. 2004b Some strategies for coding sentential subjects in English: From exaptation to grammaticalization. Studies in Language28. 321–361. doi: 10.1075/sl.28.2.03fan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.28.2.03fan [Google Scholar]
  32. 2010 Variation in sentential complements in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century English: A processing-based explanation. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-century English, 200–220. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511781643.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781643.012 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2012 COLMOBAENG: A corpus of late Modern British and American English Prose. In Nila Vázquez (ed.), Creation and use of historical English corpora in Spain, 101–117. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Fischer, Olga
    1988 The rise of the for NP to V construction: An explanation. In Graham Nixon & John Honey (eds.), An historic tongue: Studies in English linguistics in memory of Barbara Strang, 67–88. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 1989 The origin and spread of the Accusative and Infinitive Construction in English. Folia Linguistica Historica8. 143–217.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Fonteyn, Lauren , Hendrik De Smet & Liesbet Heyvaert
    2015 What it means to verbalize: The changing discourse-functions of the English gerund. Journal of English Linguistics43. 36–60. doi: 10.1177/0075424214564365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424214564365 [Google Scholar]
  37. Garrett, Andrew
    2012 The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. In Dianne Jones , John Whitman & Andrew Garrett (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcome, 52–72. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Goldberg, Adele E
    1995A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hilpert, Martin
    2013Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  41. Houston, Ann
    1989 The English gerund: Syntactic change and discourse function. In Ralph W. Fasold & Deborah Schriffin (eds.), Language change and variation, 173–196. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.52.10hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.52.10hou [Google Scholar]
  42. Huddleston, Rodney , Geoffrey K. Pullum et al.
    2002The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hundt, Marianne
    (ed.) 2014Late Modern English syntax. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139507226
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507226 [Google Scholar]
  44. Jack, George B
    1988 The origins of the English gerund. NOWELE12. 15–75. doi: 10.1075/nowele.12.02jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.12.02jac [Google Scholar]
  45. Jespersen, Otto
    1909–1949A Modern English grammar on historical principles. 7 vols. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. Reprinted, London: Allen & Unwin, 1961, 1965, 1970.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kastovsky, Dieter
    1985 Deverbal nouns in Old and Modern English: From stem-formation to word-formation. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical semantics – Historical word-formation, 221–261. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Killie, Kristin
    2006 Internal and external factors in language change: Present participle converbs in English and Norwegian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen107. 447–469.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Killie, Kristin & Toril Swan
    2009 The grammaticalization and subjectification of adverbial -ing clauses (converb clauses) in English. English Language and Linguistics13. 337–363. doi: 10.1017/S1360674309990141
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674309990141 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kisbye, Torben
    1971–1972An historical outline of English syntax. Parts I and II. Aarhus: Akademisk Boghandel.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kohnen, Thomas
    2001 The influence of ‘Latinate’ constructions in Early Modern English: Orality and literacy as complementary forces. In Dieter Kastovsky & Arthur Mettinger , (eds.), Language contact in the history of English, 171–194. Frankfurt: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2004Text, Textsorte, Sprachgeschichte. Englische Partizipial- und Gerundialkonstruktionen 1100 bis 1700. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Kortmann, Bernd
    1991Free adjuncts and absolutes in English: Problems of control and interpretation. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 1995 Adverbial participial clauses in English. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective, 189–237. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Kytö, Merja
    1996 [1991]Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Coding conventions and lists of source texts, 3rd edn. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Langacker, Ronald W
    1987Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2008Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  57. Lass, Roger
    1992 Phonology and morphology. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. 2: 1066–1476, 23–155. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Los, Bettelou
    2005The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274765.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274765.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mair, Christian
    1990Infinitival complement clauses in English. A study of syntax in discourse. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Milic, Louis T
    1995 The Century of Prose Corpus: A half-million word historical data base. Computers and the Humanities29. 327–337. doi: 10.1007/BF02279525
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02279525 [Google Scholar]
  61. Miller, D. Gary
    2002Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Mitchell, Bruce
    1985Old English syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198119357.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198119357.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  63. Mustanoja, Tauno F
    1960A Middle English syntax. Part I: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Naro, Anthony J
    1981 The social and structural dimensions of a syntactic change. Language57. 63–98. doi: 10.1353/lan.1981.0020
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1981.0020 [Google Scholar]
  65. Noonan, Michael
    1985 Complementation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. II: Complex constructions, 42–140. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Poutsma, Hendrik
    1904A grammar of Late Modern English. Part I: The sentence. Groningen: Noordhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Río-Rey, Carmen
    2002 Subject control and coreference in Early Modern English free adjuncts and absolutes. English Language and Linguistics6. 309–323. doi: 10.1017/S1360674302000254
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674302000254 [Google Scholar]
  69. Rohdenburg, Günter
    1995 On the replacement of finite complement clauses by infinitives in English. English Studies76. 367–388. doi: 10.1080/00138389508598980
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00138389508598980 [Google Scholar]
  70. 2006 The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system. In Christiane Dalton-Puffer , Nikolaus Ritt , Herbert Schendl & Dieter Kastovsky (eds.), Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500–2000, 143–166. Frankfurt: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 2014 On the changing status of that-clauses. In Marianne Hundt (ed.), Late Modern English syntax,155–181. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139507226.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507226.013
  72. Rudanko, Juhani
    1998Change and continuity in the English language: Studies on complementation over the past three hundred years. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 2000Corpora and complementation: Tracing sentential complementation patterns of nouns, adjectives and verbs over the last three centuries. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 2011Changes in complementation in British and American English: Corpus-based studies on non-finite complements in recent English. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Salmon, Vivian
    1986 The spelling and punctuation of Shakespeare’s time. In Stanley Wells & Gary Taylor (eds.), William Shakespeare: The complete works. Original-spelling edition, xlii–lvi. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Söderlind, Johannes
    1951–1958Verb syntax in John Dryden’s prose. Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequist.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Swan, Toril
    2003 Present participles in the history of English and Norwegian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen104. 179–195.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Tajima, Matsuji
    1985The syntactic development of the gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 1996 The common-/objective-case subject of the gerund in Middle English. NOWELE28/29. 569–578. doi: 10.1075/nowele.28‑29.39taj
    https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.28-29.39taj [Google Scholar]
  80. Thompson, Sandra A
    1983 Grammar and discourse: The English detached participial clause. In Flora Klein-Andreu (ed.), Discourse perspectives on syntax, 43–65. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
    2010 Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect?In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 19–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.90.04tra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90.04tra [Google Scholar]
  82. 2013Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  83. Van de Velde, Freek , Hendrik De Smet & Lobke Ghesquière
    2013 Introduction: On multiple source constructions in language change. Special issue of Studies in Language37(3). 473–489. doi: 10.1075/sl.37.3.01int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.01int [Google Scholar]
  84. Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla
    1997Syntax. Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  85. Visser, Frederikus Theodorus
    1963–1973An historical syntax of the English language. 3 parts in 4 vols. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Vosberg, Uwe
    2006Die Große Komplementverschiebung: Außersemantische Einflüsse auf die Entwicklung satzwertiger Ergänzungen im Neuenglischen. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Warner, Anthony
    1982Complementation in Middle English and the methodology of historical syntax. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23.1.05fan
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error