Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 25:3 (2018) ► pp.363–391

Adapting to survive

The English absolute and its new functional niche

| University of Leuven
This paper traces the semantic development of the English absolute construction from Old to Present-day English on the basis of extensive corpus data. It is observed that the absolute construction developed from a solely adverbial, strictly subordinate construction into a construction with a much larger range of functions, including quasi-coordinate constructions whose ‘addition’ function comes close to that of and-coordinated finite clauses. This development involves an expansion of clausal status (from subordinate to anywhere between subordinate and quasi-coordinate) and a semantic expansion from typically adverbial meanings to any type of additional information. The process is claimed to have been facilitated by Middle English case loss and arguments for this facilitating role of case loss are adduced. It is then shown how these quasi-coordinate absolute constructions became more and more important as an absolute construction-function over time, as they were well-suited to the absolute construction’s high degree of syntactic independence. This evolution appears to have taken an opposite direction from the development of free adjuncts (Killie & Swann 2009: 339). This observation fits in well with the proposal that English ing-clauses form a network (Fonteyn & van de Pol 2015) in which each member maintains its own functional niche, rather than engaging in competition with one another.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Absolutes and free adjuncts identified
    • 2.2Data
    • 2.3Semantic categorization
      • 2.3.1The five categories of AC semantics
      • 2.3.2A syntactic and functional interpretation of AC semantics
      • 2.3.3Dealing with semantic indeterminacy
  • 3.The semantic history of ACs
    • 3.1Global development
    • 3.2Zooming in on Old and Middle English: Case syncretism as an enabling factor
    • 3.3The inverse development of free adjuncts
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpora
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.15046.pol
References

Corpora

BNC The British National Corpus, later part 20th century, 100 m words. Department of Linguistics, University of Oxford. [URL].
OBC: Huber, Magnus, Magnus Nissel, Patrick Maiwald & Bianca Widlitzki 2012 The Old Bailey Corpus. Spoken English in the 18th and 19th Centuries. [URL].
Innsbruck Corpus of Middle English Prose
1150–1500, 7.8m words. Compiled by Manfred Markus. [URL].
PPCEME: The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English 1500–1710, 1.7 m words. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn, [URL].
PPCMBE: The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English 1700–1914, 1 m words. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn, [URL].
PPCME2: The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, second edition 1150–1500, 1.2 m words. Compiled by Anthony Kroch and Ann Taylor. [URL]
YCOE: Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk & Frank Beths 2003 The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose. University of York. [URL].
The Leuven Drama Corpus
1965–1972, 1m words. Compiled by D. Geens, L. K. Engels and W. Martin.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2013 Historical-comparative reconstruction. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale, The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 329–344. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte
2000 Archaic syntax in Indo-European. The spread of transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Bergliot & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen
2005 The relation accompanying circumstance across languages. Conflict between linguistic expression and discourse subordination? SPRIKreports 32. Available online at [URL].
Berent, G. P.
1973 Absolute constructions as ‘subordinate clauses’. In Claudia Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark & Ann Weiser (eds.), You take the high node and I’ll take the low node. Papers from the Comparative Syntax Festival, 147–154. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2003 Subordination. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalisation in language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
2004 An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hannay, Mike & J. Lachlan Mackenzie
2002 Effective writing in English: A sourcebook. Bussum: Coutinho.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1995 The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in a cross-linguistic perspective, 1–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2013 Constructional change in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Stefan Th. Gries
2009 Assessing frequency changes in multi-stage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24(4). 385–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
2002 The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1965 A Modern English grammar on historical principles: Part V. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin & Toril Swan
2009 The grammaticalization and subjectification of adverbial -ing clauses (converb clauses) in English. English Language and Linguistics 131. 337–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klemola, Juhani & Markku Filppula
1992 Subordinating uses of and in the history of English. In Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas
2004 Text, textsorte, sprachgeschichte: Englische Partizipial- und Gerundialkonstruktionen 1100 bis 1700. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Komen, J. H. M.
1994 Over de ontwikkeling van absolute constructies. Amsterdam: Buijten en Schipperhejn.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Johan van der Auwera
1990 Adverbial participles, gerunds and absolute constructions in the languages of Europe. In Johannes Beclert, Giuluano Bernini & Claude Budart (eds.), Toward a typology of European languages, 337–355. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd
1991 Free adjuncts and absolutes in English: Problems of control and interpretation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1995 Adverbial participial clauses in English. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross- linguistic perspective, 189–237. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leino, Jaakko
2013 Information Structure. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 329–344. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
1989 A review of relevance. Journal of Linguistics 251. 455–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce
1985 Old English syntax. Oxford: Clarendon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller-Lancé, Johannes
1994 Absolute Konstruktionen vom Altlatein bis zum Neufranzösischen: Ein Epochenvergleich unter Berücksichtigung von Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Pol, Nikki van de
2012 Between copy and cognate: The origin of absolutes in Old and Middle English. In Martine Robbeets & Lars Johanson (eds.), The origins of bound morphology, 297–322. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
2016 The development of the absolute construction in English: Between bird’s eye view and magnifying glass. Leuven: University of Leuven PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Pol, Nikki van de & Hubert Cuyckens
2013 Gradualness in change in English augmented absolutes. In: Anna Giacalone Ramat, Caterina Mauri & Piera Molinelli (eds.), Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface, 341-366. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
2014 The diffusion of English absolutes: A diachronic register study. In Kristin Davidse, Caroline Gentens, Lobke Ghesquière & Lieven Vandelanotte (eds.), Corpus interrogation and grammatical patterns [Studies in Corpus Linguistics], 341–365. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pol, Nikki van de & Lauren Fonteyn
2014 All for one and one for all: The formation, evolution and functions of Modern English ing-clauses. Paper presented at ICEHL, Leuven, 14–18 July 2014.
2015 Divide and conquer: The formation and functional dynamics of the Modern English ing-clause network. English Language and Linguistics 201. 185–219.Google Scholar
Río-Rey, Carmen
2002 Subject control and coreference in Early Modern English free adjuncts and absolutes. English Language and Linguistics 6(2). 309–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppel, Antonia
2013 Absolute constructions in Early Indo-European [Cambridge Classical Studies]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T.
1985 The semantic variability of absolute constructions. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timofeeva, Olga
2010 Non-finite constructions in Old English with special reference to syntactic borrowing from Latin. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 80. Jyväskylä: WS Bookwell Oy.Google Scholar
2012 Latin absolute constructions and their Old English equivalents: Interfaces between form and information structure. In Anneli Meurman-Solin, Maria José Lopez-Couso & Bettelou Los, Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English, 228-242. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
2013 Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, Frederikus Theodorus
1973 An historical syntax of the English language. Vol. II1. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar