Abstract
This article offers a cognitive perspective on the evolution of the semantics of English nominal gerunds (NG) (I regret the signing of the contract) and verbal gerunds (VG) (I regret signing the contract). While the formal differences between NGs and VGs are well documented, their semantics remains largely unexplored territory. The perspective that is taken here is centered on the linguistic notion of reference and various aspects of the conceptualization involved in it. As they formally hover between more nominal and more clause-like internal properties, gerunds form an interesting test case for the cognitive perspective on referentiality. Our corpus analysis describes how the situations that NGs and VGs refer to are conceptualized as deictic expressions grounded in the speech event in Present-day English, and how this has changed since the Early Modern period. It is shown that only a multi-layered model of referentiality can account for the subtle differences found between NGs and VGs: while no fundamental shifts are found with regard to the traditional referential subtypes (specific, non-specific, generic), NGs and VGs do turn out to differ in their choice for either nominal or clausal grounding mechanisms, in their status as existentially stable or flexible entities and in the mental spaces in which they situate the events that they conceptualize.
Funding statement: Funding: Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) (Grant/Award Number: ‘G0A5412N’), KU Leuven Research Council (Grant/Award Number: ‘13/045’).
Acknowledgement
Lauren Fonteyn, Liesbet Heyvaert and Charlotte Maekelberghe are joint first authors of this paper. The work for this paper has been made possible by the financial support from the FWO-project The development of nominal and verbal gerunds from Middle to Late Modern English: Towards a semantic and discourse-functional analysis and from the project The use of nominal and verbal gerunds in Present-day English. A multifunctional comparative analysis, funded by the KU Leuven Research Fund. We are grateful to Hendrik De Smet for the many interesting conversations we have had on the English gerund in general and the referential analysis of it in particular.
References
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Aspects of language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.Search in Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 1998. Aspectuality and countability: A cross-categorial analogy. English Language and Linguistics 2(1). 37–63.10.1017/S136067430000068XSearch in Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1988. On the semantic composition of English generic sentences. In Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee & Raymond Turner (eds.), Properties, types and meaning. Vol. II: Semantic issues, 167–192. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing.10.1007/978-94-009-2723-0_5Search in 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.Search in Google Scholar
Collins COBUILD corpus. Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Conrad, Bent. 1982. Referring and non-referring phrases: A study in the use of the gerund and the infinitive (Publications of the Department of English, University of Copenhagen, Vol. 11). Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 1997. The subject-object versus the agent-patient asymmetry. Leuvense Bijdragen (Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology) 86(4). 413–431.Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2004–. BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ (accessed May 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ (accessed May 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Search in Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2007. Nominal gerunds in 16th-century English. The function of the definite article. Folia Linguistica Historica 28(1). 77–113.10.1515/flih.2007.77Search in 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 12(1). 55–102.10.1017/S136067430700250XSearch in Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2013. Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation (Oxford Studies in the History of English 3). New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199812752.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Freek Van de Velde. 2013. Serving two masters: Form-function friction in syntactic amalgams. Studies in Language 37(3). 534–565.10.1075/bct.79.04desSearch in Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith S. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review 75(3). 281–304.10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199857999.003.0001Search in Google Scholar
Donner, Morton. 1986. The gerund in Middle English. English Studies 67, 390–400.10.1080/00138388608598465Search in Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 1992. The English infinitive. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 2000. Gerund versus infinitive as complement of transitive verbs in English: The problems of “tense” and “control”. Journal of English Linguistics 28. 221–248.10.1177/00754240022005018Search in Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 2003. The gerund and the to-infinitive as subject. Journal of English Linguistics 31(4). 324–352.10.1177/0075424203257833Search in Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 2006. The English gerund-participle: A comparison with the infinitive (Berkeley insights in linguistics and semiotics 61). New York: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 2014. Reclaiming control as a semantic and pragmatic phenomenon. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.251Search in Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1996a. The gerund in Early Modern English: Evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Folia Linguistica Historica 17. 97–152.10.1515/flih.1996.17.1-2.97Search in Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1996b. The development of gerunds as objects of subject-control verbs in English (1400–1760). Diachronica 13. 29–62.10.1075/dia.13.1.03fanSearch in Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2004. On reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change: The rise and development of English verbal gerunds. Diachronica 21. 5–55.10.1075/dia.21.1.03fanSearch in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren. In press. From nominal to verbal gerunds: A referential typology. Functions of Language.Search in Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Liesbet Heyvaert. In press. Category change in the English gerund: Tangled web or fine-tuned constructional network? In Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evy Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren, Hendrik De Smet & Liesbet Heyvaert. 2015. What it means to verbalize: The changing discourse function of the English gerund. Journal of English Linguistics 43(1). 1–25.10.1177/0075424214564365Search in Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1970. Some remarks on the action nominalization in English. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 83–98. Waltham: Ginn.Search in Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.17Search in Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.syn2Search in Google Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2003. A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110903706Search in Google Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2004. Towards a symbolic typology of -ing nominalizations. In Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture and mind, 493–506. Stanford: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2008. On the constructional semantics of gerundive nominalizations. Folia Linguistica: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae 42(1). 39–82.10.1515/FLIN.2008.39Search in 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). 385–401.10.1093/llc/fqn012Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1985. The iconicity of the universal categories ‘noun’ and ‘verbs’. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax(Typological Studies in Language 6)151–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.6.08hopSearch in Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530Search in Google Scholar
Jack, George. 1988. The origins of the English gerund. Nowele 12. 15–75.10.1075/nowele.12.02jacSearch in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Komen, Erwin, Rosanne Hebing, Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los. 2014. Quantifying information structure change in English. In Kristin Bech & Kristine Gunn Eide (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in Germanic and Romance languages, 81–110. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins10.1075/la.213.04komSearch in Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Lauren Delfs. 2004. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, first edition, http://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/.Search in Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Ariel Diertani. 2010. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, first edition, http://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Concept, image, symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110857733Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald, 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214369Search in Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1968 [1960]. The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington: IURC.Search in Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Maekelberghe, Charlotte. 2015. Present-day English nominal and verbal gerunds. A multi-layered referential framework. Manuscript in preparation.Search in Google Scholar
Maekelberghe, Charlotte, Lauren Fonteyn & Liesbet Heyvaert. 2014. Indefinite and bare nominal gerunds from Middle to Present-day English – exploiting the nominal paradigm? Paper presented at the International Society for the Linguistics of English Conference, University of Zürich, 24–27 August.Search in Google Scholar
Maekelberghe, Charlotte & Liesbet Heyvaert. In press. Indefinite nominal gerunds, or the particularization of a reified event. English Studies.10.1080/0013838X.2015.1131910Search in Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & René Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/clip.2Search in Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. A nontransformational account of gerundive nominals in English. Linguistic Inquiry 7(2). 205–241.Search in Google Scholar
Tajima, Matsuji. 1985. The syntactic development of the gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
van der Wurff, Wim. 1993. Gerunds and their objects in the Modern English period. In Jaap van Marle (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1991 Papers from the 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam, August 12–16, 1991 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 107), 363–375. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.107.24wurSearch in Google Scholar
van der Wurff, Wim. 1997. Deriving object-verb order in late Middle English. Journal of Linguistics 33, 485–509.10.1017/S0022226797006531Search in Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.10.7591/9781501743726Search in Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19. 245–274.10.1093/jos/19.3.245Search in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.18Search in Google Scholar
Willemse, Peter. 2005. Nominal reference-point contructions: Possessive and esphoric NPs in English. Leuven: University of Leuven unpublished PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton
