Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 39:1 (2015) ► pp.199–229

Why is there a Present-Day English absolute?

| University of Leuven
| University of Lille

This paper examines the divergent evolutions of the Absolute Construction (AC) in the history of the Germanic languages, with a focus on English and Dutch, and provides an explanation of why only the English AC retained its frequency and productivity rate. Three language-internal factors are appealed to in order to account for this divergence: (i) increased with-augmentation of ACs results in fuzzy boundaries with the more frequently used gerunds as well as (regular) prepositional postmodifying constructions; (ii) the overall higher frequency in English of constructions with -ing-forms (gerunds, free adjuncts, and progressives) invites structural priming; and (iii) a possible typological shift of English from strictly bounded construal to a mixture of bounded and unbounded construal. An additional language-external factor is found in different prescriptivist traditions. English never really opposed the use of ACs whereas prescriptivism in other Germanic languages emphatically did.

Keywords: English, absolute construction, historical linguistics, Germanic, Dutch, non-finites, corpus linguistics, syntax, (un)boundedness, structural priming, ing-clauses
Published online: 15 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.1.07pol
References
Bauer, Brigitte
2000 Archaic syntax in Indo-European: The spread of transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin & New York: 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? SPRIKreports321. ([URL]).Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Karen Ebert & Casper de Groot
2000 The progressive in Europe. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense & aspect in the languages of Europe, 517–558. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad
2009 Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanpain, Kristin
2012 Academic writing: A resource for researchers. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn
1986 Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 181. 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
BNC: The British National Corpus, later part 20th century
100 m words. Department of Linguistics, University of Oxford. ([URL])
Callens, Margareta, Hendrik Neel & Sabine Van Bogaert
2004 Nieuw talent voor taal aso 6 - handleiding. Berchem: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Carroll, Mary & Monique Lambert
2003 Information structure in narratives and the role of grammaticised knowledge: A study of adult French and German learners of English. In Christine Dimroth and Marianne Starren (eds.), Information structure and the dynamics of language acquisition, 267–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen
2000 Progressive markers in Germanic languages. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense & aspect in the languages of Europe, 605–653. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Hubert Cuyckens
2013 The development of free adjuncts in English and Dutch. Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 160–195.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E
2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, et al.
1997 Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Deurne: Plantyn.Google Scholar
Haff, Marianne Hobæk
2010 A contrastive analysis of absolute constructions in French, German and Norwegian. Lingvisticæ Inverstigationes 33(2). 208–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K
2004 An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hannay, Mike & J. Lachlan Mackenzie
2002 Effective writing in English: A sourcebook. Bussum: Coutinho.Google Scholar
Holmes, Philip & Ian Hinchliffe
1994 Swedish: A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huber, Magnus, Magnus Nissel, Patrick Maiwald & Bianca Widlitzki
2012 The Old Bailey Corpus: Spoken English in the 18th and 19th centuries. [URL] (accessed 04 June 2013).
Innsbruck Corpus of Middle English Prose
7.8m words. Manfred Markus, et al., Universität Innsbruck. ([URL]).
Johansson, Lars
2000 Viewpoint operators in European languages. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense & aspect in the languages of Europe, 27–187. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin
2006 Internal and external factors in language change: Present participle converbs in English and Norwegian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 107(4). 447–469.Google Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas
2004 Text, Textsorte, Sprachgeschichte: Englische Partizipial- und Gerundialkonstruktionen 1100 bis 1700. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Komen, Johannes 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
König, Ekkehard
1994 English. In Ekkehard König & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The Germanic languages, 532–565. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd
1988 Freie Adjunkte und absolute Konstruktionen im Englischen und Deutschen. Papiere zur Linguistik 38(1). 61–89.Google Scholar
1991 Free adjuncts and absolutes in English: problems of control and interpretation. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
1995 Adverbial participial clauses in English. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König, Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective, 189–237. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula
2014 Knitting and splitting information. Medial placement of linking adverbials in the history of English In Simone E. Pfenninger, Olga Timofeeva, Anne-Christine Gardner, Alpo Honkapohja, Marianne Hundt & Daniel Schreier (eds.), Contact, variation, and change in the history of English, 11–38. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loebell, Helga & Kathryn Bock
2003 Structural priming across languages. Linguistics 41(5). 791–824. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M. & S. Kelter
1982 Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology 141. 78–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, B
2009 The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English: Information structure and syntax in interaction. English Language and Linguistics 13(1). 97–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, B. & M. Starren
2012 A typological switch in early Modern English – and the beginning of one in Dutch? Leuvense bijdragen 98(1). 98–126.Google Scholar
Lundin, Katarina
2003 Small clauses in Swedish: Towards a unified account. Lund: Studentlitteratur. ([URL]).Google Scholar
Nicol, Janet
1996 Syntactic priming. Language and cognitive processes 111. 675–679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter
2010 The functions of weorðan and its loss in the past tense in Old and Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 14(3). 457–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Constructions and environments: Copular, passive and related Constructions in Old and Middle English (Oxford Studies in the History of English 4). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semanticization and frequency: On the changing textual functions of [BE Ving] from Old to Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics. (accepted)
Pickering, Martin J. & Victor S. Ferreira
2008 Structural priming: A critical review.’ Psychological Bulletin 134(3). 427–459. (accessed online at: [URL]) DOI: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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]).
Quirk, Ralph, et al.
1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ross, Charles Hunter
1893 The Absolute Participle in Middle and Modern English. PMLA 8(3). 245–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2006 Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis (Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs 177). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swan, Toril
2003 Present participles in the history of English and Norwegian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 1041. 179–195.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg & Erik Andersson
1999 Svenska Akademiens Grammatik. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien och författarna.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
2013 Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Horst, Johannes
2008 Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Syntaxis I & II. Leuven: Universitaire Pers.Google Scholar
van de Pol, Nikki & Hubert Cuyckens
2013a In absolute detail: The development of English absolute constructions from adverbial to additional-context marker. ICAME, Santiago de Compostella 22-26 May 2013.Google Scholar
2013b Gradualness in change in English augmented absolutes. In A. Giacalone Ramat, C. Mauri & P. Molinelli (eds.), Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 The diffusion of English absolutes: A diachronic register study. In K. Davidse, C. Gentens, L. Ghesquière & L. Vandelanotte (eds.), Corpus interrogation and grammatical patterns (Studies in Corpus Linguistics). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van de Pol, Nikki
2012 Between copy and cognate: The origin of absolutes in Old and Middle English. In M. Robbeets & L. Johanson (eds.), The Origins of Bound Morphology. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans & Marit Westergaard
2012 Syntax and information structure: Verb-second variation in Middle English. In Anneli Meurman-Solin, Maria Jose Lopez-Couso & Bettelou Los (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English, 87–118. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Wilderode, Anton
1968 De dubbelfuit. Antwerpen: Standaard.Google Scholar
Vandekerckhove, José, Bea Claeys, Bert Cruysweegs, et al.
Frappant Nederlands aso 6: Studieboek. Kalmthout: Pelckmans.
von Stutterheim, Christiane, Martin Andermann, Mary Carroll, Monique Flecken & Barbara Schmiedtová
2012 How grammaticized concepts shape event conceptualization in the early phases of language production: Insights from linguistic analysis, eye tracking data and memory performance. Linguistics 50(4). 833–869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weiner, E.J. & W. Labov
1983 Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 191. 29–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Brodahl, Kristin Klubbo
2022. Being as big as small clauses get: the syntax of participial adjuncts in German and English. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 25:3 ► pp. 273 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
Molenaers, Marie
2023. On the survival of the Spanish absolute construction: a qualitative diachronic study based on a corpus of translations from Latin. Folia Linguistica 57:s44-s1 ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
PETRÉ, PETER
2016. Grammaticalization by changing co-text frequencies, or why [BE Ving] became the ‘progressive’. English Language and Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 june 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.