Chapter published in:
Category Change from a Constructional Perspective
Edited by Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé and Gudrun Vanderbauwhede
[Constructional Approaches to Language 20] 2018
► pp. 149–178

Chapter 6
Category change in the English gerund

Tangled web or fine-tuned constructional network?

This study considers the diachronic categorial shift from nominal (NG) to verbal gerunds (VG) in Middle English in terms of Langacker’s functional account of noun phrases and clauses as ‘deictic expressions’. The analysis shows that the Middle English gerund was essentially formally nominal but functionally hybrid, thus exhibiting ‘form-function friction’. This friction furthered a split in the gerundive system between a verbal component associated with clausal deixis, alongside a nominal component, which specialized in nominal deixis; but this split is not absolute. The constructionist idea of language as a network of (inter)paradigmatically connected constructions helps to explain why the verbal gerund seems to simultaneously drift away from and again partake in the deictic behaviour of the nominal category.
Keywords: Middle English, construction grammar, nominalization, verbalization, gerund
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Goals and methodology
  • 3.Gerunds: Nominal and clausal deixis
    • 3.1Qualitative analysis: Types of deixis
    • 3.2Quantitative analysis: The rise of clausal deixis in bare nominal and verbal gerunds
  • 4.Reflections on category change: Is the verbalization of the gerund a case of constructionalization?
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 March 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.06fon
References
Aarts, B.
(2007) Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
(Eds.) (2009) Contexts and Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B.
(2011) Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 183–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(1991) Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dal, I.
(1952) Zur Entstehung des englischen Participium Praesentis auf ‑ing . Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, 16, 5–116.Google Scholar
De Smet, H.
(2008) Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics, 12, 55–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) English ‑ing – clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics, 48(6), 1153–1193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, H., & Heyvaert, L.
(2011) The meaning of present participles. English Language and Linguistics, 15, 473–498. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H., & Van de Velde, F.
(2013) Serving two masters: Form-function friction in syntactic amalgams. Studies in Language, 37(3), 534–565. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Travelling features: multiple sources, multiple destinations. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG8). University of Osnabrück 3–6 September 2014.Google Scholar
Fanego, T.
(1996) The gerund in Early Modern English: Evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Folia Linguistica Historica, 17, 97–152.Google Scholar
(1998) Developments in argument linking in Early Modern English gerund phrases. English Language and Linguistics, 2(1), 87–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) On reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. Diachronica, 21(1), 5–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, L.
(2016) From nominal to verbal gerunds: A referential typology. Functions of Language, 23(1), 82–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, L., & van de Pol, N.
(2016) Divide and conquer: The formation and functional dynamics of the Modern English ing-clause network. English Language and Linguistics. Retrieved from: http://​journals​.cambridge​.org​.kuleuven​.ezproxy​.kuleuven​.be​/article​_S1360674315000258 doi: Crossref
Fonteyn, L., Heyvaert, L., & Maekelberghe, C.
(2015) How do gerunds conceptualize events? A diachronic study. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 583–612. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Francis, E. J., & Michaelis, L. A.
(Eds.) (2003) Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1961) Categories of the theory of grammar. Word, 17(3), 241–292. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, S.
(2014) “Nominalization” taken literally: A diachronic corpus study of German word-formation patterns. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 26, Special Issue “New Territories in Word-Formation”, 123–156.Google Scholar
Heyvaert, L.
(2000) Gerundive nominalization. In A. Foolen, & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam 1997 (pp. 103–121). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) A cognitive-functional approach to deverbal nominalization in English. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) On the constructional semantics of gerundive nominalizations. Folia Linguistica, 42(1), 39–82.Google Scholar
Horn, G. M.
(1975) On the nonsentential nature of the POSS-ING construction. Linguistic Analysis, 1(4), 333–387.Google Scholar
Houston, A.
(1989) The English gerund: Syntactic change and discourse function. In R. W. Fasold, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), Language change and variation (pp. 173–196). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R.
(2007) Language networks. The new Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jack, G.
(1988) The origins of the English gerund. Nowele, 12, 15–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1940) A Modern English grammar on historical principles (Vol. 5). London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D.
(1985) Deverbal nouns in Old and Modern English: From stem-formation to word-formation. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical semantics: Historical word formation (pp. 221–261). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Killie, K., & Swan, T.
(2009) The grammaticalization and subjectification of adverbial -ing clauses (converb clauses) in English. English Language and Linguistics, 13(3), 337–363. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kisbye, T.
(1971) An historical outline of English syntax. Aarhus: Akademisk Boghandel.Google Scholar
Kohnen, T.
(1996) Ausbreitungsmuster syntaktischer Standardisierung bei der Entwicklung englischer Partizipialkonstruktionen (Partizip Präsens) 1450–1700. Anglia, 114, 154–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) The influence of ‘Latinate’ constructions in Early Modern English: Orality and literacy as complementary forces. In D. Kastovsky, & A. Mettinger (Eds.), Language contact in the history of English (pp. 171–194). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
(2004) Text, Textsorte, Sprachgeschichte. Englische Partizipial- und Gerundialkonstruktionen 1100 bis 1700. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
LEON0.3
=Petré, P. (2013) LEON: Leuven English Old to New, Version 0.3.Google Scholar
Malouf, R.
(2000) Verbal gerunds as mixed categories in head-driven phrase structure grammar. In R. D. Borsley (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics. Volume 32. The nature and function of syntactic categories (pp. 133–166). San Diego: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Milsark, G. L.
(1988) Singl ‑ing . Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 611–634.Google Scholar
PPCEME
=Kroch, A., Beatrice, S., & Delfs, L. (2004) Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Early Modern English. www​.ling​.upenn​.edu​/hist​-corpora​/PPCEME​-RELEASE​-1/.
PPCMBE
=Kroch, A., Santorini, B., & Diertani, A. (2010) Penn parsed corpus of Modern British English. Retrieved from: http://​www​.ling​.upenn​.edu​/hist​-corpora​/PPCMBE​-RELEASE​-1​/index​.html
Pullum, G. K.
(1991) English nominal gerund phrases as noun phrases with verb-phrase heads. Linguistics, 29, 763–799. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, G.
(2003) Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In G. Rohdenburg, & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 205–250). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, P.
(1976) A nontransformational account of gerundive nominals in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 205–241.Google Scholar
Tajima, M.
(1985) The syntactic development of the gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nanun-do.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.
(2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, D.
(2007) Schematicity. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 82–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F.
(2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 141–179). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Vosberg, U.
(2003) The Role of extractions and horror aequi in the evolution of ‑ing complements in Modern English. In G. Rohdenburg, & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 305–328). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Hye Suk J.
(1996) Nominal gerund phrases in English as phrasal zero derivations. Linguistics, 34(2), 329–356.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Fonteyn, Lauren & Charlotte Maekelberghe
2018. Competing motivations in the diachronic nominalization of English gerunds. Diachronica 35:4 ► pp. 487 ff. Crossref logo
Maekelberghe, Charlotte
2022.  In English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 221], ► pp. 136 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.