Cover not available
Part of
English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective: Current issues
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Evelien Keizer
[Studies in Language Companion Series 221] 2022
► pp. 135–168

From noun to verb

Modeling variation in the English gerund system

| KU Leuven

This chapter reassesses the paradigmatic relations between present-day English nominal and verbal gerunds by examining their variation potential at an abstract-schematic level as well as at token-level. Results show that functional overlap is mainly instigated by verbal gerunds taking up more typically nominal uses, thus creating the conditions for variation with the nominal gerund. However, a collexeme analysis reveals that there is actually very little lexical overlap between both gerund types, as nominal gerunds are more restricted in terms of the verbs they can derive from. Thus, while paradigmatic links between nominal and verbal gerunds are present on an abstract-semantic level, their distinct lexical profiles confirm their reorientation to other constructional families.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A constructionist approach to relations in the gerund system
    • 2.1The constructionist network
    • 2.2The verbal gerund conundrum: Taxonomic relations in the gerund system
    • 2.3Nominal and verbal gerunds: Horizontal relations in the gerund system
  • 3.Functional overlap: Hierarchical configural frequency analysis
    • 3.1Methodology
    • 3.2Results: The attraction scenario
  • 4.Lexical overlap: Distinctive collexeme analysis
    • 4.1Methodology
    • 4.2Results: The alternation scenario
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Corpora
Published online: 21 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.221.04mae
References
Aarts, Bas
2004 Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28(1): 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Syntactic Gradience. The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Iordachioaia, Gianina, Cano, Mariangeles, Martin, Fabienne & Schäfer, Florian
2013 The realization of external arguments in nominalizations. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 16: 73–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis
2001 Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Audring, Jenny
2019 Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure 12(3): 274–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo
2013 The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas
2014 Boundary permeability: A parameter for linguistic typology. Linguistic Typology 18(3): 489–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert
2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper
2012 Epistemic Meaning: A Crosslinguistic and Functional-Cognitive Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & Harald Baayen
2007 Predicting the dative alternation. In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer & Joost Zwarts (eds), 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Thompson, Sandra
1997 Three frequency effects in syntax. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure, 378–388. Berkeley CA: BLS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cacoullos, Renata T. & Walker, James
2009 The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85(2): 321–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert
2006 Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions 1: 1–28.Google Scholar
2009 Can we factor out free choice? In Describing and Modeling Variation in Grammar, Andreas Dufter, Jürg Fleischer & Guido Seiler (eds), 183–202. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2003 Subordination. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, D’Hoedt, Frauke, Fonteyn, Lauren & Van Goethem, Kristel
2018 The changing functions of competing forms: attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29(2): 197–234. DOI logoGoogle 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 12: 55–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 English -ing-clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics 48: 1153–1193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1991 A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
2006 The Grammar of the English tense System: A Comprehensive Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demske, Ulrike
2002 Nominalization and argument structure in Early New High German. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 27: 67–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denis, Derek & Tagliamonte, Sali
2017 The changing future: Competition, specialization and reorganization in the contemporary English future temporal reference system. English Language and Linguistics 22(3): 403–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger & Hilpert, Martin
2016 Frequency effects in grammar. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Mark Aronoff (ed.). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger
2015 Usage-based construction grammar. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Eva Dabrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds), 295–321. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 The Grammar Network. How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. & Hengeveld, Kees
1991 The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of perception-verb complements. Linguistics 29: 231–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
2006 Complementation: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick
2002 Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. SSLA 24: 297–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Eye, Alexander
1990 Introduction to Configural Frequency Analysis: The Search for Types and Antitypes in Cross-classifications. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1985 Mental Spaces. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul & O’Connor, Mary C.
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64: 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga
1992 Syntactic change and borrowing: The case of the accusative-and-infinitive construction in English. In Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change, Marinel Gerritsen & Dieter Stein (eds), 17–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Hartmann, Stefan
2016 Usage-based perspectives on diachronic morphology: A mixed-methods approach towards English ing-nominals. Linguistics Vanguard 2(1): 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Heyvaert, Liesbet
2018 Category change in the English gerund: Tangled (web or fine-tuned constructional network? In Category Change from a Constructional Perspective [Constructional Approaches to Language 20], Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (eds), 149–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & van de Pol, Nikki
2016 Divide and conquer: The formation and functional dynamics of the Modern English -ing-clause network. English Language and Linguistics 20(2): 185–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren, Heyvaert, Liesbet & Maekelberghe, Charlotte
2015 How do gerunds conceptualize events? A diachronic study. Cognitive Linguistics 26(4): 583–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren
2019 Categoriality in Language Change: The Case of the English Gerund. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1972 Some remarks on the action nominalization in English. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 83–98. Waltham MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2019 Mapping out particle placement in Englishes around the world. A case study in comparative sociolinguistic analysis. Language Variation and Change 30(3): 385–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2004 Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T.
2003 Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan
2004 HCFA 3.2. A program for R.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf
1998 Mixed nominalizations, short verb movement and object shift in English. In Proceedings of Nels 28, Kiyomi Kusomoto & Pius N. Tamanji (eds), 143–157. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Stefan
2014 Constructing a schema: Word-class changing morphology in a usage-based perspective. GCLA 2: 235–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Grafmiller, Jason
2017 Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Journal of English Linguistics 45(1): 3–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet, Maekelberghe, Charlotte & Buyle, Anouk
2019 Nominal and verbal gerunds in Present-day English: Aspectual features and nominal status. Language Sciences 73: 32–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet
2008 On the constructional semantics of gerundive nominalizations. Folia Linguistica 42(1): 9–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2009 The German mit-predicative construction. Constructions and Frames 1(1): 29–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2007 Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 437–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard
2007 Language Networks. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jack, George
1988 The origins of the English gerund. Nowele 12: 15–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
1993 Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1989 The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1: 85–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger
1992 Phonology and morphology. In The Cambridge history of the English Language, Vol. 2: 1066–1476, Norman Blake (ed.), 23–155. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert B.
1960 The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington IN: IURC.Google Scholar
Maekelberghe, Charlotte
2018 Present-day English gerunds: A multi-layered referential model. Folia Linguistica 52(1): 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 The English gerund revisited: Exploring semantic differences through collocational analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 15(1): 205–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 The Present-day English Gerund System. A Cognitive-Constructionist Account. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel & Morris, Caroline
2018 Derivation without category change: A network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. In Category Change from a Constructional Perspective [Constructional Approaches to Language 20], Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (eds), 47–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent
2015 Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar. Experimental and Corpus-Based Perspective [Constructional Approaches to Language, 17]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfänder, Stefan & Behrens, Heike
2016 Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
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), 205–249. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette
2014 English genitive variation – The state of the art. English Language and Linguistics 18(2): 215–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul
1976 Parts of speech systems. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 3–61. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte & Smirnova, Elena
2020 Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 27]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte & Zehentner, Eva
2019 A convent of sisters without a mother superior? Discussing abstract nodes in the constructional network. Paper presented at the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (ICLC15), Nishinomiya, Japan.
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, Tagliamonte, Sali & Todd, Simon
2017 Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: The dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tajima, Matsuji
1985 The Syntactic Development of the Gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme
2015 Multiple inheritance and constructional change. In On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change [Benjamins Current Topics 79], Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquière, Freek Van de Velde (eds), 19–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek
2014 Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In The Extending Scope of Construction Grammar, Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds), 141–179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1968 Adjectives and Nominalizations [Papers on Formal Linguistics 5]. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe
2003 The role of extractions and horror aequi in the evolution of -ing complements in Modern English. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds), 305–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva & Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2020 Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In Sommerer & Smirnova (eds), 168–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar

Corpora

Davies, Mark
2004 BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus (1980s–1993). [URL]
2008- Corpus of Contemporary American English (Davies 2008–). [URL]
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Gillmann, Melitta
2024. Allostructions and stancetaking: a corpus study of the German discourse management constructions Wo/wenn wir gerade/schon dabei sind . Cognitive Linguistics 35:1 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Maekelberghe, Charlotte & Isabelle Delaere
2023. Functional hybridity in translation. Languages in Contrast 23:2 ► pp. 252 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 march 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.