Cover not available
Article published In:
The Structure of the English NP: Synchronic and diachronic explorations
Edited by Kristin Davidse
[Functions of Language 23:1] 2016
► pp. 84–119

The Great Complement Shift revisited

The constructionalization of ACC-ing gerundives

 | University of Santiago de Compostela
This paper examines the history of the ACC-ing gerundive, a subtype of verbal gerund differing formally from both bare gerundives (I enjoyed reading the paper) and POSS-ing gerundives (I was surprised at Jane’s arriving late) in having an overt subject argument either in the common case, if it is a full noun phrase (Two people worrying about each other, with no external diversion, brews a deadly atmosphere) or in the accusative case, if it is a personal pronoun (You can’t prevent me telling the truth). Findings from a corpus-based study show that early instances of ACC-ing gerundives most often functioned as preverbal sentential subjects and served as arguments to causative predicates such as brew, make and oblige. Based on this evidence, it is argued that ACC-ing 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).
Published online: 16 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.23.1.05fan
References (87)
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.
COLMOBAENG = Corpus of Late Modern British and American English Prose. For details, see Fanego (2012).
COPC = Century of Prose Corpus 1680–1780. For details, see Milic (1995).
DOE = Healey, Antonette diPaolo (ed.). 2008. The 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
F-LOB = Mair, Christian (comp.). 1999. The Freiburg - LOB Corpus of British English. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.Google Scholar
Frown = Mair, Christian (comp.). 1999. The Freiburg-Brown Corpus of American English. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.Google Scholar
HC = Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. For details, see Kytö (1996 [1991]).
MED = Kurath, Hans & Sherman M. Kuhn et al. (eds.). 1952–2001. Middle English Dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. 1884–1997. 3rd edn. in progress: OED Online , March (2000); Simpson, John A. (ed.).Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt. 1982. The genitive v. the of-construction: A study of syntactic variation in 17th century English. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel & Leslie K. Arnovik. 2011 [2006]. The English language: A linguistic history. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2008. Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 121. 55–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 1191. 1728–1755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. English ing-clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics 481. 1153–1193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 881. 601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2014. Constrained confusion: The gerund/participle distinction in Late Modern English. In Marianne Hundt (ed.), 224–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donner, Morton. 1986. The gerund in Middle English. English Studies 671. 394–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 2006. The English gerund-participle: A comparison with the infinitive. New York, NY: Lang.Google Scholar
Expósito, María Cruz. 1996. La estructura del sintagma nominal en el inglés de la Cancillería: 1400–1450. Barcelona: Kadle Books.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1990. Finite complement clauses in Shakespeare’s English, Part 2. Studia Neophilologica 621. 129–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Infinitive complements in Shakespeare’s English. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela: Servizo de Publicacións.Google Scholar
. 1996b. The gerund in Early Modern English: Evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Folia Linguistica Historica 171. 97–152.Google Scholar
. 1998. Developments in argument linking in early Modern English gerund phrases. English Language and Linguistics 21. 87–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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 logoGoogle Scholar
. 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
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
. 1989. The origin and spread of the Accusative and Infinitive Construction in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 81. 143–217.Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren, Hendrik De Smet & Liesbet Heyvaert. 2015. What it means to verbalize: The changing discourse-functions of the English gerund. Journal of English Linguistics 431. 36–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne (ed.). 2014. Late Modern English syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jack, George B. 1988. The origins of the English gerund. NOWELE 121. 15–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909–1949. A Modern English grammar on historical principles. 7 vols1. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. Reprinted, London: Allen & Unwin, 1961, 1965, 1970.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 2006. Internal and external factors in language change: Present participle converbs in English and Norwegian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 1071. 447–469.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
Kisbye, Torben. 1971–1972. An historical outline of English syntax. Parts I and II. Aarhus: Akademisk Boghandel.Google Scholar
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
. 2004. Text, Textsorte, Sprachgeschichte. Englische Partizipial- und Gerundialkonstruktionen 1100 bis 1700. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google 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.Google Scholar
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
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2005. The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1990. Infinitival complement clauses in English. A study of syntax in discourse. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Milic, Louis T. 1995. The Century of Prose Corpus: A half-million word historical data base. Computers and the Humanities 291. 327–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. Gary. 2002. Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Part I: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Naro, Anthony J. 1981. The social and structural dimensions of a syntactic change. Language 571. 63–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1985. Complementation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. II: Complex constructions, 42–140. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1904. A grammar of Late Modern English. Part I: The sentence. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Río-Rey, Carmen. 2002. Subject control and coreference in Early Modern English free adjuncts and absolutes. English Language and Linguistics 61. 309–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1995. On the replacement of finite complement clauses by infinitives in English. English Studies 761. 367–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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
. 2014. On the changing status of that-clauses. In Marianne Hundt (ed.), 155–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 1998. Change and continuity in the English language: Studies on complementation over the past three hundred years. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
. 2000. Corpora and complementation: Tracing sentential complementation patterns of nouns, adjectives and verbs over the last three centuries. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
. 2011. Changes in complementation in British and American English: Corpus-based studies on non-finite complements in recent English. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Söderlind, Johannes. 1951–1958. Verb syntax in John Dryden’s prose. Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequist.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril. 2003. Present participles in the history of English and Norwegian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 1041. 179–195.Google Scholar
Tajima, Matsuji. 1985. The syntactic development of the gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.Google Scholar
. 1996. The common-/objective-case subject of the gerund in Middle English. NOWELE 28/291. 569–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik De Smet & Lobke Ghesquière. 2013. Introduction: On multiple source constructions in language change. Special issue of Studies in Language 37(3). 473–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, Frederikus Theodorus. 1963–1973. An historical syntax of the English language. 3 parts in 4 vols. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe. 2006. Die Große Komplementverschiebung: Außersemantische Einflüsse auf die Entwicklung satzwertiger Ergänzungen im Neuenglischen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the methodology of historical syntax. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Fanego, Teresa
2023.  Tomorrow I’ll go (a) shopping: on the history of the Expeditionary Go construction and its relation to the absentive. Folia Linguistica 57:s44-s1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Fanego, Teresa
2024. “Don’t go getting into trouble again!”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 25:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Fanego, Teresa
2024. English motion and progressive constructions, and the typological drift from bounded to unbounded discourse construal. Language Sciences 101 ► pp. 101598 ff. DOI logo
Romasanta, Raquel P.
2023. A morphosyntactic approach to language contact in African varieties of English. Studia Neophilologica 95:1 ► pp. 146 ff. DOI logo
García‐Castro, Laura
2020. Finite and non‐finite complement clauses in postcolonial Englishes. World Englishes 39:3 ► pp. 411 ff. DOI logo
Lívia Körtvélyessy & Pavol Štekauer
2020. Complex Words, DOI logo
Körtvélyessy, Lívia & Pavol Štekauer
2020. Onomatopoeia. In Complex Words, ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo
ROHDENBURG, GÜNTER
2020. The Complexity Principle at work with rival prepositions. English Language and Linguistics 24:4 ► pp. 769 ff. DOI logo
SERRANO-LOSADA, MARIO
2020. Analogy-driven change: the emergence and development of mirativeend upconstructions in American English. English Language and Linguistics 24:1 ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
Gentens, Caroline & Juhani Rudanko
2019. The Great Complement Shift and the role of understood subjects: The case of fearful. Folia Linguistica 53:1 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Rickman, Paul & Juhani Rudanko
2018. Introduction. In Corpus-Based Studies on Non-Finite Complements in Recent English, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 august 2024. 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.