Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:01:10.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developments in argument linking in early Modern English gerund phrases1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2008

Teresa Fanego
Teresa Fanego
Affiliation:
Departamento de Filoloxia Inglesa e AlemanaFacultade de FiloloxiaUniversidade de Santiago de CompostelaE-15704 Santiago de CompostelaSpain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper discusses the internal structure of eModE gerund phrases, with special reference to the verbalization of subjects and objects in the course of the period. It is shown that the gerund's acquisition of common case subjects (‘John looking at me’) and of direct objects (‘by seeing Jane’) correlates with style, the new verbalized complements being recorded first in the more oral and informal registers. Attention is also paid to the influence of absolute participles on the replacement of PossPs (‘John's looking at me’) by NPs as subject arguments, and to the diffusion of direct objects across the various classes of gerunds. The mixed nomino-verbal properties exhibited by many gerundive nominals by the late seventeenth century are considered in detail, and an analysis is proposed which interprets them as determiner phrases (DPs) where the head D can select various categories of complements. Alongside this phrasal type of gerund, it is argued that a clausal one with fully verbal features must also be recognized as part of the grammar of eModE.

Type
Articles
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , May 1998 , pp. 87 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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

Abney, S. (1987). The English noun-phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. (1982). The genitive v. the of-construction: a study of syntactic variation in 17th century English. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1997). Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Nevalainen, T. & Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (eds.), To explain the present: studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. 253–75.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (1994). A lexicalist analysis of gerundive nominals in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 14: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowper, E. A. (1995). English participle constructions. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 40: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. & Davy, D. (1969). Investigating English style. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Deane, P. (1992). Grammar in mind and brain: explorations in cognitive syntax. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R. (1991). A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1993). English historical syntax. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1996). The case of the unmarked pronoun. In Britton, D. (ed.), English historical linguistics 1994. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 287–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. (forthcoming). Syntax. In Romaine, S. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. 4: 1776–present day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donner, M. (1986). The gerund in Middle English. English Studies 67: 394–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, J. (1973). The derived nominals, gerunds, and participles in Chaucer's English. In Kachru, B. B. et al. (eds.), Issues in linguistics: papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana, Chicago and London: University of Illinois Press. 185–98.Google Scholar
Fanego, T. (1996a). The development of gerunds as objects of subject-control verbs in English (1400–1760). Diachronica 13: 29–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, T. (1996b). The gerund in early Modern English: evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Folia Linguistica Historica 17: 97–152.Google Scholar
Görlach, M. (1991). Introduction to early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Originally published in German as Einführung ins Frühneuenglische. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1978.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotti, M. (1996). Robert Boyle and the language of science. Milan: Guerini Scientifica.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding theory. 2nd edn.Oxford, UK, and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. & Campbell, L. (1995). Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazout, I. (1995). Action nominalizations and the lexicalist hypothesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 355–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, T. (1986). Deverbalization and inheritance. Linguistics 24: 549–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1977). X-bar syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1909–1949). A modern English grammar on historical principles. 7 vols. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. [Reprinted, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1961, 1965, 1970.]Google Scholar
Koma, O. (1980). Diachronic syntax of the gerund in English and the X-bar theory. Studies in English Literature (The English Literary Society of Japan) English Number. 59–76.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. (1991). Free adjuncts and absolutes in English: problems of control and interpretation. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. (1996). Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: coding conventions and lists of source texts. 3rd edn.Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change, Vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford, UK, and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C. & Muysken, P. (1988). Mixed categories: nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Miguel, E. de (1996). Nominal infinitives in Spanish: an aspectual constraint. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 41: 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1989). A corpus of early Modern Standard English in a socio-historical perspective. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 90: 67–111.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1993). Early Modern British English. In Rissanen, M., Kytö, M., & Palander-Collin, M.(eds.), Early English in the computer age. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 53–73.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1991). English nominal gerund phrases as noun phrases with verb-phrase heads. Linguistics 29: 763–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1997). Syntactic theory and the structure of English: a minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1991). The noun phrase in early sixteenth-century English: a study based on Sir Thomas More's writings. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1994). The development of the compound pronouns in -body and -one in early Modern English. In Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Studies in early Modern English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 301–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M. (forthcoming). Syntax. In Lass, R. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. 3, 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ritter, E. (1991). Two functional categories in Modern Hebrew noun phrases. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 25, Perspectives on phrase structure: heads and licensing. New York: Academic Press. 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, E. (1992). Cross-linguistic evidence for number phrase. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37: 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., Marvis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D. & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 7: 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Söderlind, J. (1958). Verb syntax in John Dryden's prose, Vol. 2. Uppsala: A.-B. Lundquist.Google Scholar
Tajima, M. (1985). The syntactic development of the gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nan'un-do.Google Scholar
Tajima, M. (1996). The common-/objective-case subject of the gerund in Middle English. Nowele 28/29: 569–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1994a). Possessives and topicality. Functions of Language 1: 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1994b). ‘Subjective’ and ‘objective’ readings of possessor nominals. Cognitive Linguistics 5: 201–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. Th. (1963–1973). An historical syntax of the English language. 4 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wurff, W. van der (1993). Gerunds and their objects in the Modern English period. In van Marle, J. (ed.), Historical linguistics 1991. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 363–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurff, W. van der (1997). Gerunds in the Modern English period: structure and change. History of English (Seoul) 3 (Special Issue for Professor Kim In-Sook). 163–96.Google Scholar
Yoon, J. H. S. (1996). Nominal gerund phrases in English as phrasal zero derivations. Linguistics 34: 329–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar