Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 35:4 (2018) ► pp.487–524

Competing motivations in the diachronic nominalization of English gerunds

| The University of Manchester | Leiden University Centre for Linguistics
| KU Leuven

The present study is an in-depth, corpus-based analysis of the rise and institutionalization of the indefinite nominal gerund in Late Modern English, considering the observed developments in light of their interactions with functionally related constructions. Based on historical data taken from the Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (version 3.1), we argue that the rise of indefinite nominal gerunds constitutes an instance of diachronic nominalization, in which the nominal gerund over time gradually comes to exploit a fuller range of paradigmatic properties associated with the nominal class. At the same time, this study investigates the potential influence of isomorphism on the observed developments. While the results do support the frequently investigated claim that language systems have a (weak) preference for a one-form-one-meaning organization in later stages of their development, the initial emergence of indefinite nominal gerunds can more accurately be explained by allowing system pressure as an enabling force of linguistic innovation. The picture presented in this study serves as evidence that the long-term development of linguistic constructions can be the result of competing – even maximally opposite – forces.

Keywords: gerund, nominalization, isomorphism, system pressure, analogy, functional linguistics, aspect, morphology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology, aims and outcomes
  • 3.Analysis: Innovation or substitution?
    • 3.1The indefinite nominal gerund: Historical developments
    • 3.2Additional evidence: Referential-semantic analysis of bare and indefinite nominal gerunds
  • 4.The rise of indefinite nominal gerunds and its effects on the constructional network
    • 4.1Latinate suffixes
    • 4.2Zero-derivation
    • 4.3Discussion
  • 5.System pressure as a motivation for emergence
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.17015.fon
References
Allen, Robert L.
1966 The verb system of Present-Day American English. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo
1989 Historical and comparative linguistics. 2nd edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1976 Word formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, Rolf Harald & Antoinette Renouf
1996 Chronicling the times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 721. 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Rolf Harald, Ton Dijkstra & Robert Schreuder
1997 Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language 37(1). 94–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna & Spike Gildea
2015 Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Johanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds). Diachronic Construction Grammar, 1–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
1983 English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber & Ingo Plag
2013 The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. & Juliette Blevins
2009 Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933 Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1968 Aspects of language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.Google Scholar
1977 Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.
1991 The mass/count distinction and aktionsart: The grammar of iteratives and habituals. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 61. 47–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 The Aktionsart of deverbal nouns in English. In Pier Marco Bertinetto (ed). Temporal reference, aspect and actionality. Vol. 1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives, 27–42. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
1998 Aspectuality and countability: A cross-categorial analogy. English Language and Linguistics 2(1). 37–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cetnarowska, Bozena
1993 The Syntax, Semantics and Derivation of Bare Nominalisations in English. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1970 Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham: Ginn.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V.
1987 The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In Brian MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 1–33. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy
2009 Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the Dutch dative alternation. Language Sciences 311. 593–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1976 The syntax of action nominals. A cross-language study. Lingua 401. 177–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Sandra A. Thompson
1985 Lexical nominalizations. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 31, 349–398. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cowie, Claire
1998 Diachronic word-formation: A corpus-based study of derived nominalizations in the history of English. Cambridge: University of Cambridge PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1991 Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2000 Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach, 2nd edn. (revised). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Eva & Dagmar Divjak
(eds.) 2015 Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane
1996 The French influence on English morphology: A corpus-based study of derivation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 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(1). 55–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Susanne Flach, Jukka Tyrkkö & Hans-Jürgen Diller
2015 Corpus of Late Modern English texts (version 3.1).Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Frauke D’Hoedt, Lauren Fonteyn & Kristel Van Goethem
2018 The changing functions of competing forms. Cognitive Linguistics 29(2). 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1991 A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
2005 Spatial and temporal boundedness in English motion events. Journal of Pragmatics 37(6). 889–917. DOI logoGoogle 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 271. 67–90.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Chad Langford
2012 Advanced English grammar: A linguistic approach. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Donner, Morton
1986 The gerund in Middle English. English Studies 671. 394–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Wolfgang U. Wurzel, Willi Mayerthaler & Osvald Panagl
(eds.) 1987 Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Studies in language companion series, 101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Einenkel, Eugen
1914 Die Entwicklung des englischen Gerundiums. Anglia 381. 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E.
1973 The derived nominals, gerunds, and participles in Chaucer’s English. In Braj B. Kachru & Robert B. Lees (eds.). Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, 185–189. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Fertig, David
2013 Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga
1992 Syntactic change and borrowing: The case of the accusative-and-infinitive construction in English. In Marinel Gerritsen & Dieter Stein (eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change, 17–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization. Studies in Language 32(2). 336–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren
2016 From nominal to verbal gerunds: A referential typology. Functions of Language 23(1). 82–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Stefan Hartmann
2016 Usage-based perspectives on diachronic morphology: A mixed-methods approach towards English ing-nominals. Linguistics Vanguard 2(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Liesbet Heyvaert
2018 Category change in the English gerund: Tangled web or fine-tuned constructional network?, In Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (eds.), Category change from a Constructional Perspective, 149–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Nikki van de Pol
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, Hendrik De Smet & Liesbet Heyvaert
2015a What it means to verbalize: The changing discourse functions of the English gerund. Journal of English Linguistics 43(1). 36–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren, Liesbet Heyvaert & Charlotte Maekelberghe
2015b How do gerunds conceptualize events? A diachronic study. Cognitive Linguistics 26(4). 583–612. DOI logoGoogle 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 generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John
1980 The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 561. 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2014 On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In Brian MacWhinney, Andrej L. Malchukov & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 197–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet
2003 A cognitive-functional approach to deverbal nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Towards a symbolic typology of -ing nominalizations. In Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture and mind, 493–506. Stanford: CSLI.Google 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
Hiraga, Masako K.
1994 Diagrams and metaphors: Iconic aspects in language. Journal of Pragmatics 221. 5–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas
2017 Construction Grammar as cognitive structuralism: The interaction of constructional networks and processing in the diachronic evolution of English comparative correlatives. English Language and Linguistics 21(2). 349–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Houston, Ann
1989 The English gerund: Syntactic change and discourse function. In Ralph W. Fasold & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), Language change and variation, 173–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, Esa
2005 Analogy as structure and process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jack, George B.
1988 The origins of the English gerund. Nowele 121. 15–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1946 A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part V. Vol. IV: Syntax. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1983 Word formation and the lexicon. In Frances A. Ingeman (ed.), Mid-America Linguistics Conference (MALC) 1982, 3–29. University of Kansas.Google Scholar
2005 Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 113–135. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kisbye, Torben
1971 An historical outline of English syntax. Aarhus: Akademisk boghandel.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
1993 Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja
2006 The origin of English gerundial constructions: A case of French influence? In Andrew J. Johnston, Ferdinand von Mengden & Stefan Thim (eds.), Language and text: Current perspectives on English and German historical linguistics and philology, 179–195. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
2007 Some problems connected with the analysis of gerunds with direct object in Middle English. In Winfried Rudolf, Thomas Honegger & Andrew J. Johnston (eds.), Clerks, wives and historians: Essays on medieval language and literature, 213–233. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Nouns and verbs. Language 63(1). 53–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith
2009 Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert B.
1966 On a transformational analysis of compounds: A reply to Hans Marchand. Indogermanische Forschungen 711. 1–13.Google Scholar
Maekelberghe, Charlotte & Liesbet Heyvaert
2016 Indefinite nominal gerunds, or the particularization of a reified event. English Studies 97(3). 317–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L.
2004 Nominalization, verbalization: Constraining a typology of transcategorial operations. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2006 Constraining nominalization: function / form competition. Linguistics 44(5). 973–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April M. S.
1994 Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine
1912 Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary D.
2002 Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta
2011 Gender differences in English syntax. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander
1978 Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 2(3). 415–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F.
1960 A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Helena Ramoulin-Brunberg & Heiki Manilla
2011 The diffusion of language change in real time: Progressive and conservative individuals and the time depth of change. Language Variation & Change 231. 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel
2014 On parents and peers in constructional networks. Paper presented at Cogling Days 6, Ghent, Belgium, December 12.
Nuyts, Jan & Pieter Byloo
2015 Competing modals: Beyond (inter)subjectification. Diachronica 321. 34–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo
1999 Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, Günther & René Dirven
2007 Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rainer, Franz
1988 Towards a theory of blocking: The case of Italian and German quality nouns. In Geert Booij & Jaap Van Marle (eds.). Yearbook of Morphology 1988, 155–185. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ross, John R.
1973 Nouniness. In Osamu Fujimura (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic research, 137–257. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
Sanders, Gerald
1988 Zero derivation and the overt analogue criterion. In Michael T. Hammond & Michael P. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology, 155–175. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S.
1997 The parameter of aspect. 2nd edition. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte & Elena Smirnova
2017 Workshop proposal for the 50th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea.Google Scholar
Swan, Michael
2005 Practical English usage. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2010 The genitive alternation in a cognitive sociolinguistics perspective. In Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen & Yves Peirsman (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 141–166. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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 291. 569–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 The compound gerund in Early Modern English. In Sheila Embleton, John E. Joseph & Hans-Joseph Niederehe (eds.), The emergence of the modern language sciences: Studies on the transition from historical-comparative to structural linguistics in honour of E.F.K. Koerner, 265–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1988 The relation of grammar to cognition. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, 165–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R.
2000 Possessives in English: An exploration in Cognitive Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2004 The ecology of constructions. In Günther Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation, 49–74. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
Forthcoming. Modeling language change with constructional networks.
van de Velde, Freek
2014 Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.), The extending scope of Construction Grammar, 141–179. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo
1972 Rule Inversion. Lingua 291. 209–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, Frederik Th
1973 An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wurff, Wim van der
1993 Gerunds and their objects in the Modern English period. In Jaap van Marle (ed.), Historical linguistics 1991, 363–375. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang
1987 System-dependent morphological naturalness in inflection. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Willie Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang U. Wurzel (eds.), Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology, 59–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva
2014 From phrase to clause(-like): On the development of present participle and verbal noun in Middle Scots. VIEWS 231, ([URL]).
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Fonteyn, Lauren
2019. A corpus-based view on the (aspectual-)semantics of Modern English nominalizations. Language Sciences 73 ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo
Kuzai, Einat
2022. Situation-bound utterances and constructional networks: The evolution of the Hebrew see-farewell family. Lingua 272 ► pp. 103328 ff. DOI logo
Kuzai, Einat & Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot
2022. Analogical Interference in Constructionalization: The Emergence of the Hebrew Desiderative ba le-X Y. Cognitive Semantics 8:1 ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Kuzai, Einat & Hagit Shefer
2023. Pragmatic overlap and consecutive change: The case of Hebrew (inter)subjective markers yeʃ/en matsav/sikuy. Journal of Pragmatics 207 ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Sokolova, Svetlana
2021. When three is company: The relation between aspect and metaphor in Russian aspectual triplets. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 57:1 ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 april 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.