Abstract
This study present a corpus-based comparison of two aspectual-sematic classification models proposed in theoretical literature (unidimensional vs. bidimensional) by applying them to a set of nominal and verbal gerunds from the Modern English period. It (i) summarises the differences between unidimensional and bidimensional classification models and (ii) the potential problems associated with them. Despite the difficulties of studying semantic aspect in Present-day as well as historical data, this study will argue that, (iii) at least for deverbal nominalization patterns, it is possible to take a bidimensional approach and maintain a clear distinction between, on the one hand, aspect features of the nominalized situation (stativity/dynamicity, durativity/punctuality, and telicity/atelicity), and temporal boundedness of that situation. The question of which semantic classification model to use, then, is not so much one of which one is practically feasible in a corpus analysis, but rather which one is best suited to describe the attested variation. In order to determine the best model (in terms of parsimony and descriptive accuracy), (iv) the models were compared by means of ‘akaike weights’. To describe the variation between nominal and verbal gerunds in Early and Late Modern English, the bidimensional model outperformed the unidimensional one, showing that (v) the aspectual-semantic distinctions between Modern English nominal and verbal gerunds are a matter of both aspect and temporal boundedness.
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to Liesbet Heyvaert, Hendrik De Smet, Charlotte Maekelberghe, and Folgert Karsdorp for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper. I would also like to thank one anonymous reviewer, who had some particularly insightful comments on the first submitted version of this article.
References
Akaike, Hirotugu. 1983. Information measures and model selection. Proceedings of the 44th Session of the International Statistical Institute 1. 277–291.Search in Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2013. Nominal vs. Verbal -ing constructions and the development of the English progressive. English Linguistics Research 2(2). 126–140.10.5430/elr.v2n2p126Search in Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Gianina Iordăchioaia & Elena Soare. 2010. Number/aspect interactions in the syntax of nominalizations: A distributed morphology approach. Linguistics 46. 537–574.10.1017/S0022226710000058Search in Google Scholar
Allen, Robert L. 1966. The verb system of Present-Day American English. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Andersen, Øivin. 2007. Deverbal nouns, lexicalization and syntactic change. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 30. 55–86.10.1017/S0332586507001655Search in Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9. 5–16.10.1002/9780470758335.ch13Search in Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate. 1981. Semantics and syntax of nominalizations. In Jeroen A. G. Groenendijk, Theo M. V. Janssen & M. B. J. Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 1–28. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Search in Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber & Ingo Plag. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. (ed.). 2012. The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2013. Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263936.003.0008Search in Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of aspectual systems: aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1991. The mass/count distinction and aktionsart: the grammar of iteratives and habituals. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6. 47–69.10.1075/bjl.6.04briSearch in Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 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.Search in Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1998. Aspectuality and countability: a cross-categorial analogy. English Language and Linguistics 2(1). 37–63.10.1017/S136067430000068XSearch in Google Scholar
Bromser, Bernd. 1985. Aktionsart in Nomina und Nominalen. In Armin Burkhardt & Karl-Hermann Korner (eds.), Pragmantax: Akten des 20. Linguistischen Colloquiums Braunschweig, 71–83. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111352596.71Search in Google Scholar
Carlson, Lauri. 1981. Aspect and quantification. In Philip J. Tedeschi, Annie Zaenen & Stephen R. Anderson (eds.), Tense and Aspect, 31–64. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004373112_004Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of action nominal. A cross-language study. Lingua 40, 177–201.10.1016/0024-3841(76)90093-0Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs. Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Search 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: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199812752.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
De Swart, Henrietta E. 2012. Verbal aspect across languages. In Robert I. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, 752–780. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0026Search in Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1989. Boundedness and the structure of situations. Leuvense Bijdragen 78. 275–308.Search in Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Search in Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 2006. The Grammar of the English tense System: A comprehensive analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta & McNally. Louise 2012. Telicity, Change, and State: A cross-categorial view of event structure. Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693498.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse. 1995. On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(1). 1–19.10.1007/BF00984959Search in Google Scholar
Donner, Morton. 1986. The gerund in Middle English. English Studies 67, 394–400.10.1080/00138388608598465Search in Google Scholar
Egan, Thomas. 2008. Non-finite Complementation. A usage-based study of infinitive and -ing clauses in English. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789401205542Search in Google Scholar
Ehrich, Veronika. 1991. Nominalisierungen. In Arnim Von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenossischen Forschung, 441–458. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110126969.6.441Search in Google Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio, Rafael Marín & McNally. Louise 2012. From psych verbs to nouns. In Violeta Demonte & Louise McNally (eds.), Telicity, Change and State, 162–183. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693498.003.0007Search 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
Freed, Alice F. 1979. The semantics of English aspectual complementation. Dordrecht, Boston and London: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9475-1Search in Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1974. On aspect theory and homeric aspect. International Journal of American Linguistics 28. 1–44.10.1086/ijal.40.4_p2.42004709Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan. 2015. The most underused statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10(1). 95–125.10.3366/cor.2015.0068Search in Google Scholar
Hoepelman, Jaap & Christian Rohrer. 1980. On the mass-count distinction and the French imparfait and passe simple. In Christian Rohrer (ed.), Time, tense, and quantifiers: proceedings of the Stuttgart Conference on the Logic of Tense and Quantification, 85–112. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111346069.85Search in Google 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.10.1075/cilt.52.10houSearch in Google Scholar
Myung, I. Jae, Malcolm R. Forster & Michael W. Browne (eds.). 2000. Model selection [special issue]. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 44(1). 1–239.10.1006/jmps.1999.1273Search in Google Scholar
Myung, I. Jae & Mark A. Pitt 1997. Applying Occam’s razor in modeling cognition: A Bayesian approach. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 4. 79–95.10.3758/BF03210778Search in Google Scholar
Iordăchioaia, Gianina & Martina Werner. 2015. Aspectual change in English -ing and German -ung nominalizations. Paper Presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), Leiden, September 2–5, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
Jack, George B. 1988. The origins of the English gerund. Nowele 12. 15–75.10.1075/nowele.12.02jacSearch in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. Conceptual semantics and Cognitive Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics 7. 93–129.10.1515/cogl.1996.7.1.93Search in Google Scholar
Janda, Laura. 2008. Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs. Studies in Language 31. 607–648.10.1075/sl.31.3.04janSearch in Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2006. The origin of English gerundial constructions: A case of French influence? In Andrew James Johnston, Ferdinand von Mengden & Stefan Thim (eds.), Language and text: Current perspectives on English and German historical linguistics and philology, 179–195. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1987. Nominal reference and temporal constitution: Towards a semantics of quantity. In Jeroen J. Groenendijk, Martin J. B. Stokhof & Frank J. M. M. Veltman (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Amsterdam Colloquium, Institute of Linguistics, Logic and Information, 153–173. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Search 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, 1st 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, 1st edition, (http://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1969. Towards a semantic description of English. London and Harlow: Longmans, Green & Co.Search in Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do lingusitics with R : Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.195Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar : An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15(1). 1–67.10.1515/cogl.2004.001Search in Google Scholar
Miller, Gary D. 2002. Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita. 1980. The grammar of duration. Studies in Language 4, 201–227.10.1075/sl.4.2.03mitSearch in Google Scholar
Moens, Marc. 1987. Tense, aspect and temporal reference. .PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Search in Google Scholar
Mommer, Kerri E. 1986. Theoretical issues concerning inherent aspect and the perfect in English, Cebaari and Swahili. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Search in Google Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1978. Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 2(3). 415–434.10.1007/BF00149015Search in Google Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1981. Events, processes, and states. In Philip J. Tedeschi, Annie Zaenen & Stephen R. Anderson (eds.), Tense and Aspect, 191–212. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004373112_012Search in Google Scholar
Mustanoja, T. F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Search in Google Scholar
Nordenfelt, L. 1977. Events, Actions, and Ordinary Language. Lund: Doxa.Search in Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2010. Reflections on Manner/Result complementarity. In Edit Doron, Malka Rappaport Hovav & Ivy Sichel (eds.), Syntax, Lexical Semantics, and Event Structure, 21–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jörg. 2002. Recent activity in the theory of aspect: Accomplishments, achievements, or just non-progressive state?. Linguistic Typology 6. 199–271.10.1515/lity.2002.007Search in Google Scholar
Shi, Ziqiang. 1990. On the inherent aspectual properties of NPs, verbs, sentences and the decomposition of perfectivity and inchoativity. Word 41. 47–67.10.1080/00437956.1990.11435813Search in Google Scholar
Siegel, Laura. 1998. Gerundive nominals and the role of aspect. In J. Austin & A. Lawson (eds.), The proceedings of ESCOL 1997. Ithaca: Cornell Linguistics Club publications.Search in Google Scholar
Sleeman, Petra & Ana Maria Brito. 2010. Aspect and argument structure of deverbal nominalizations: A split vP analysis. In Artemis Alexiadou & Monika Rathert (eds.), The Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks, 197–217. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110245875.199Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Carola S. 1997. The parameter of aspect. 2nd edition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5606-6Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B. & Joyce Escobedo 2002. The semantics of to-infinitival vs. -ing verb complement constructions in English. In Mary Andronis, Christopher Ball, Heidi Elston & Sylvain Neuvel (eds.), Proceedings from the Main Session in the Chicago Linguistic Society’s Thirty-Seventh Meeting, 549–564. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk. 2014. Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonym, 487–533. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.18speSearch in Google Scholar
Tajima, Matsuji. 1985. The syntactic development of the gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, 165–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.50.08talSearch in Google Scholar
Taylor, Barry. 1977. Tense and continuity. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 199–220.10.1007/BF00351103Search in Google Scholar
van der Wurff, Wim. 1993. Gerunds and their objects in the Modern English period. In Jakob van Marle (ed.), Historical linguistics. 1991. 363–375. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.107.24wurSearch in Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.10.7591/9781501743726Search in Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-017-2478-4Search in Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan & Simon Farrell. 2004. AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 11(1). 192–196.10.3758/BF03206482Search in Google Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Annette Rosenbach & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30(3). 382–419.10.1075/dia.30.3.04wolSearch in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
