Article published in:
English Text Construction
Vol. 8:2 (2015) ► pp. 207–235

A multifactorial approach to gerundial and to-infinitival verb-complementation patterns in native and non-native English

This multifactorial corpus-based study focuses on verb-complementation constructions (Marcus started to draw a picture vs. Marcus started drawing a picture) and contrasts 3,119 occurrences of gerundial and to-infinitival constructions across native and non-native (ESL) English varieties. Using logistic regression modeling, I analyze how grammatical contexts constrain the syntactic choices of American and Hong Kong English speakers. The regression model reveals a level of complexity in the uses of gerundial/to-infinitival complements that had so far remained unnoticed. Specifically, speakers make syntactic decisions based on comprehensive grammatical contexts rather than single isolated semantic parameters (as previously reported). Further, for the two types of speakers different grammatical features play an influential role in the association of a given predicate with a particular complement type. This suggests that the two speaker populations do not share the same abstract knowledge of the semantic and morpho-syntactic constraints associated with each of the investigated type of complementation. Ultimately, this study shows that combining cognitively oriented theoretical frameworks with rigorous empirical corpus approaches helps distinguish what motivates native and ESL speakers’ syntactic choices.
Keywords: multifactorial approach, native vs. non-native English varieties, gerundial vs. to-infinitival complementation constructions, logistic regression
Published online: 03 December 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.8.2.04des
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Corpora, Constructions, New Englishes [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 100], Crossref logo
Deshors, Sandra C. & Stefan Th. Gries
2016. Profiling verb complementation constructions across New Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21:2 ► pp. 192 ff. Crossref logo
García‐Castro, Laura
2020. Finite and non‐finite complement clauses in postcolonial Englishes. World Englishes 39:3 ► pp. 411 ff. Crossref logo
Kaunisto, Mark & Juhani Rudanko
2019.  In Variation in Non-finite Constructions in English, ► pp. 105 ff. Crossref logo
Kaunisto, Mark & Juhani Rudanko
2019.  In Variation in Non-finite Constructions in English, ► pp. 131 ff. Crossref logo
Romasanta, Raquel P.
2021. Substrate Language Influence in Postcolonial Asian Englishes and the Role of Transfer in the Complementation System. English Studies ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 august 2021. 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.

References

Reference

Arppe, Antti
2008 Univariate, Bivariate and Multivariate Methods in Corpus-based Lexicography: A Study of Synonymy. Ph.D. dissertation. Publications of the Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald
2008 Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Randi Reppen
1998 Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
1999 ­Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1968 Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 2 (2): 119–127.Google Scholar
Bourke, James Mannes
2007 Verbal complementation: A pedagogical challenge. Reflections on English Language Teaching 6 (1): 35–50.Google Scholar
Bruthiaux, Paul
2003 Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 13 (2): 159–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, Kenneth P. & David R. Anderson
2004 Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research 33: 261–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, Michael J.
2007 The R Book. Chichester, England: Wiley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2000 Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1991 A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Deshors, Sandra C.
2012 A multifactorial study of the uses of may and can in French-English interlanguage. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Sussex.
2014a A case for a unified treatment of EFL and ESL: A multifactorial approach. English World-Wide 35 (3): 274–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014b Constructing meaning in L2 discourse: The case of modal verbs and sequential dependencies. In Subjectivity and Epistemicity: Stance Strategies in Discourse and Narration, Dylan Glynn & Mette Sjölin (eds.). Lund: Lund University Press, 329–348.Google Scholar
2015 A multifactorial approach to linguistic structure in L2 spoken and written registers. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11 (1): 19–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik
2013 Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Antti Arppe
2013 Extracting prototypes from exemplars: What can corpus data tell us about concept representation? Cognitive Linguistics 24 (2): 221–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick. C.
2008 Phraseology: The periphery and the heart of language. In Phraseology in Learning and Teaching, Fanny Meunier & Sylviane Granger (eds.). Amsterdam and ­Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. & Nuria Sagarra
2011 Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33 (4): 589–624. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Field, Andy, Jeremy Miles & Zoë Field
2012 Discover Statistics Using R. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
2003 Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (5): 219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & Devin Casenhiser
2006 English constructions. In Handbook of English Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell, 343–358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney
1996 Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
2003 Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle ­Placement. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Sandra C. Deshors
2014 Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: Two suggestions. Corpora 9 (1): 109–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 EFL and/vs. ESL? A multi-level regression modeling perspective on bridging the paradigm gap. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1 (1): 130–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch
2004 Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1): 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanie Wulff
2009 Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7: 163–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, Braj B.
(ed.) 1982 The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. University of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago.Google Scholar
Kaleta, Agnieszka
2012 The English gerund vs. the to-infinitive: The case of aspectual constructions. Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings 1: 323–341. Available at http://​www​.uk​-cla​.org​.uk​/files​/proceedings​/Kaleta​.pdf (last accessed on 26 June 2014).Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
2000 Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Li, Eden & Ahmar Mahboob
2012 English Today: Forms, Functions, and Uses. Hong Kong: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Michael & Ronald Carter
2001 Ten criteria for a spoken grammar. In New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms, Eli Hinkle & Sandra Fotos (eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 51–75.Google Scholar
Martinez-Garcia, Maria T. & Stefanie Wulff
2012 Not wrong, yet not quite right: Spanish ESL students’ use of gerundial and infinitival complementation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 22 (2): 225–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato & Sebastian Hoffmann
2006 Describing verb-complementational profiles of New Englishes: A pilot study of Indian English. English World-Wide 27: 147–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato & Marianne Hundt
2011 Exploring Second-language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging the Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato & Marco Schilk
2008 Verb-complementational profiles across varieties of English: Comparing verb classes in Indian English and British English. In The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present, Terttu Nevalainen, Irma Taavitsainen, Päivi Pahta & Minna Korhonen (eds.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 163–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nam, Christopher, Sach Mukherjee, Marco Schilk & Joybrato Mukherjee
2013 Statistical analysis of varieties of English. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 176: 777–793. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael
1985 Complementation. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Complex Constructions (vol. 2), Timothy Shopen (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42–110.Google Scholar
Olavarría de Ersson, Eugenia & Philip Shaw
2003 Verb complementation patterns in Indian standard English. English World-Wide 24 (2): 137–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team
2010 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Available at http://​R​-project​.org (last accessed on 19 December 2014).
Rohdenburg, Günter
2003 Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 205–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schilk, Marco, Tobias Bernaisch & Joybrato Mukherjee
2012 Mapping unity and diversity in South Asian English lexicogrammar. In Mapping Unity and Diversity World-wide: Corpus-based Studies of New Englishes, Marianne Hundt & Ulrike Gut (eds.). Amsterdam and ­Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 137–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schilk, Marco, Joybrato Mukherjee, Christopher Nam & Sach Mukherjee
2013 Complementation of ditransitive verbs in South Asian Englishes: A multifactorial analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9 (2): 187–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Michael B. & Joyce Escobedo
2002 The semantics of to-infinitival vs. -ing verb complement constructions in English. In Proceedings from the Main Session in the Chicago Linguistics Society’s Thirty-Seventh Meeting, Mary Andronis, Christopher Ball, Heidi Elston & Sylvain Neuvel (eds.). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 549–564.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries
2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2): 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1957 Verbs and times. Linguistics in Philosophy 66 (2): 143–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Frederick T.
1956 Gerund versus infinitive. English Language Teaching 11: 11–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie & Stefan Th. Gries
2011 Corpus-driven methods for assessing complexity and accuracy in learner production. In Researching Task Complexity: Task Demands, ­Task-based Language Learning and Performance, Peter Robinson (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 61–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar