Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:35:35.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The grammaticalization and subjectification of adverbial -ing clauses (converb clauses) in English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

KRISTIN KILLIE  and
TORIL SWAN
KRISTIN KILLIE
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, [email protected], [email protected]
TORIL SWAN
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present article discusses the development of adverbial -ing clauses, so-called ‘converb clauses’, in English. We argue that Middle English does not have a category of truly subordinate adverbial clauses in -ing, but that such clauses have developed on the basis of semi-coordinate -ing clauses denoting an accompanying circumstance or exemplification/specification. In the course of the Middle English period, such clauses began to be reinterpreted as clauses expressing adverbial relations such as time, condition, cause, purpose, etc. Another likely source of converb clauses is participial relative clauses. We see the development of converb clauses as an instance of grammaticalization, as it involves the development of a grammatical means of expressing a rhetorical function, viz. the ‘Nucleus-Satellite’ relation (Mathiessen & Thompson 1988). This grammaticalization process also involves subjectification, given that the source constructions are propositional, while time and cause clauses have textual and expressive functions/meanings. The grammaticalization process was probably also fed by other participial structures – notably the progressive and the gerund, which were being grammaticalized at the same time – and also nonclausal adverbial structures.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , November 2009 , pp. 337 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Behrens, Bergljot & Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 2005. The relation accompanying circumstance across languages. Conflict between linguistic expression and discourse subordination? SPRIKreports, 32, http://www.hf.uio.no/forskningsprosjekter/sprikGoogle Scholar
Blatt, Franz. 1957. Latin influence on European syntax. The classical pattern of modern Western civilization: Language, 33–69. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnley, J. D. 1986. Curial prose in England. Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies 61 (3), 593–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602–23. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. Frequency of use and the organization of language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Callaway, Morgan. 1901. The appositive participle in Anglo-Saxon. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 16, 141–360.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1984. How people use adverbial clauses. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 10, 437–49.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elisabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.). Cause-condition-concession-contrast. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cristea, Dan. 2005. The Right Frontier Constraint holds unconditionally. In Stede, Manfred, Chiarcos, Christian, Grabski, Michael & Lagerwerf, Luuk (eds.), Salience in discourse: Multidisciplinary approaches to discourse 2005. Münster: Nodus Publikationen, http://thor.info.uaic.ro/~dcristea/cursuri/RPC/MAD-2005-Cristea-final-formatted.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Curme, G. O. 1913. Development of the progressiv [sic] form in Germanic. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 28, 159–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 1999. Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, René & Verspoor, Marjolijn (eds.). 2004. Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics, 2nd edition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgren, E. 1971. Temporal clauses in English. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga & Der Wurff, Wim Van. 2006. Syntax. In Hogg, Richard & Denison, David (eds.), A history of the English language, 109–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, W. A. & Van, R. D. Valin. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, vol. II. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
González-Cruz, Ana I. 2007. On the subjectification of adverbial clause connectives: Semantic and pragmatic considerations in the development of while clauses. In Lenker, Ursula & Meurman-Solin, Anneli (eds.), Connectives in the history of English, 145–66. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.). 1988. Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1984. ‘Subordination’ in universal grammar. In Brugman, Claudia & Macaulay, Monica (eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 10, 510–23.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hanssen, E., Mundal, E. & Skadberg, K.. 1975. Norrøn grammatikk: lydlære, formlære og syntaks i historisk framstilling. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Haspelmath and König (eds.), 1–56.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin and König, Ekkehard (eds.). 1995. Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization. International symposium, Potsdam, 17–19 June, 1999, 83–101. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, Ann. 1989. The English gerund: Syntactic change and discourse function. In Fasold, Ralph W. & Schiffrin, Deborah (eds.), Language change and variation, 173–96. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1968. The clause-complex. In Huddleston, Rodney, Hudson, Richard, Henrici, A. & Winter, Eugene (eds.), Sentence and clause in scientific English. London: Communication Research Centre, University College London.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig & Lysvåg, Per. 1987. Understanding English grammar, vols. 1 and 2. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas. 1991. Between hypotaxis and parataxis: Clauses of reason in Ancrene Wisse. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Historical English syntax, 203–20. Berlin and New York: 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), 447–69.Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 2007. On the history of verbal present participle converbs in English and Norwegian and the concept of change from below. In Elspass, Stephan, Langer, Nils, Scharloth, Joachim & Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Germanic language histories ‘from below’ (1700–2000), 149–62. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killie, Kristin. in prep. Changes in position and discourse function: The grammaticalization of adverbial -ing clauses (converb clauses) in English.Google Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas. 1996. Ausbreitungsmuster syntaktischer Standardisierung bei der Entwicklung englischer Partizipialkonstruktionen (Partizip Präsens) 1450–1700. Anglia 114, 154–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas. 2003. The influence of ‘Latinate’ constructions in Early Modern English: Orality and literacy as complementary forces. In Kastovsky, Dieter & Mettinger, Arthur (eds.), Language contact in the history of English, 171–94. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas. 2004. Text, Textsorte, Sprachgeschichte Englische Partizipial- und Gerundialkonstruktionen 11 bis 1700. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koma, Osumu 1987. On the initial locus of syntactic change: Verbal gerund and its historical development. English Linguistics: Journal of the English Linguistic Society of Japan 4, 311–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2000. Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations. In Couper-Kuhlen & Kortmann (eds.), 341–60.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and semantic change: The conventionalizing of conversational implicature. In Hüllen, Werner & Schulze, Rainer (eds.), Understanding the lexicon: Meaning, sense and world knowledge in lexical semantics, 110–24. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. Free adjuncts and absolutes in English: Problems of control and interpretation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1995. Adverbial participial clauses in English. In Haspelmath and König (eds.), 189–238.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1997. Adverbial subordination: A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamprecht, Adolf. 1989. Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Haiman & Thompson (eds.), 181–225.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mathiessen, Christian & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1988. The structure of discourse and subordination. In Haiman & Thompson (eds.), 275–327.Google Scholar
Miller, D. Gary. 2002. Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1978. Old English ‘oð þæt’ adverb. Notes and Queries 223, 390–4.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1984. The origin of Old English conjunctions: Some problems. In Fisiak, Jaček (ed.), Historical syntax, 271–99. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno. 1960. A Middle English syntax, part I: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1984. Latijnske syntaxis en semantiek. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner.Google Scholar
Pusch, Luise F. 1980. Kontrastive Untersuchungen zum italienischen ‘gerundio’: Instrumental- und Modalsätze und das Problem der Individuierung von Ereignissen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sharpe, Tom. 1975. Porterhouse Blue. London: Pan.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril. 2002. -ende/-ing in the history of English. In Hladky, Josef (ed.), Language and function, 297–313. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril. 2003. Present participles in the history of English and Norwegian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 104, 179–95.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, Winfred P. & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1987. From less to more situated in language: the unidirectionality of semantic change. In Adamson, Sylvia M., Law, Vivien, Vincent, Nigel & Wright, Susan M. (eds.), Papers from the Fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 497–517. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65 (1), 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectification, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs, Meulen, Alice Ter, Reilly, Judy Snitzer & Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.). 1986. On conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert. 1984. A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage. In Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 10, 542–58.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. 2000. Concessive implies causality, though in some other space. In Couper-Kuhlen & Kortmann (eds.), 360–80.Google Scholar