Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff

Online
ISSN
2199-174X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Usage-based perspectives on diachronic morphology: A mixed-methods approach towards English ing-nominals

Lauren Fonteyn / Stefan Hartmann
Published Online: 2016-08-05 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0057

Abstract

This paper illustrates how different methodological approaches can be combined to reveal complex patterns of constructional variation and change in the diachronic development of English ing-nominals. More specifically, we argue that approaching the data from a schema-based (rather than morpheme-based) perspective shows that nominal gerunds in English, from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, have undergone a semantic drift towards more “nouny” construal variants. This hypothesis is supported not only by raw frequency counts, but also by association measures and by a detailed analysis of hapax legomena.

Keywords: word-formation change; usage-based linguistics; collostructional analysis; historical linguistics; corpus linguistics

References

  • Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional structure in nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Alexiadou, Artemis. 2013. Nominal vs. verbal -ing constructions and the development of the english progressive. English Linguistics Research 2(2). 126–140.Google Scholar

  • Andersen, Øivin. 2007. Deverbal nouns, lexicalization and syntactic change. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 30(1). 55–86.Google Scholar

  • Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar, Vol. 1. (Linguistic Inquiry, Monographs). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber & Ingo Plag. 2013. The Oxford Reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Vol. 83. (Topics in English Linguistics). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Booij, Geert E. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Booij, Geert E. 2012. The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, Harald. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Geert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991, 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. Harald. 1994. Productivity in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 9(3). 447–469.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics, 899–919. (HSK 29.2). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, Harald & Rochelle Lieber. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29. 801–843.Google Scholar

  • Borer, Hagit. 2012. In the event of a nominal. In Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj & Tal Siloni (eds.), The theta system. Argument structure at the interface, 103–149. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Coussé, Evie. 2014. Lexical expansion in the HAVE and BE perfect in Dutch A constructionist prototype account. Diachronica 31. 159–191.Google Scholar

  • Demske, Ulrike. 2000. Zur Geschichte der ung-Nominalisierung im Deutschen: Ein Wandel morphologischer Produktivität. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 122. 365–411.Google Scholar

  • Demske, Ulrike. 2002. Nominalization and argument structure in early new High German. In Ewald Lang & Ilse Zimmermann (eds.), Nominalisations, 67–90. (ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 27). Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar

  • De Smet, Hendrik. 2010. English -ing-clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics 48(6).Google Scholar

  • Gaeta, Livio & Davide Ricca. 2006. Productivity in Italian word-formation. Linguistics 44(1). 57–89.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.Google Scholar

  • Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Hartmann, Stefan. 2014a. The diachronic change of German nominalization patterns: An increase in prototypicality. In Gabriella Rundblad, Aga Tytus, Olivia Knapton & Chris Tang (eds.), Selected papers from the 4th UK cognitive linguistics conference, 152–171. London: UK Cognitive Linguistics Association.Google Scholar

  • Hartmann, Stefan. 2014b. “Nominalization” taken literally: A diachronic corpus study of German word-formation patterns. Italian Journal of Linguistics 26(2). 123–155.Google Scholar

  • Hartmann, Stefan. 2014c. Constructing a schema: Word-class changing morphology in a usage-based perspective. In Martin Hilpert & Susanne Flach (eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Vol. 2, 235–252. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Hartmann, Stefan. 2016. Wortbildungswandel. Eine diachrone Korpusstudie zu deutschen Nominalisierungsmustern. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Hilpert, Martin. 2006. Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2). 243–256.Google Scholar

  • Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. (Constructional Approaches to Language, 7). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

  • Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What Makes grammaticalization?, Vol. 158, 21–42. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60. 703–752.Google Scholar

  • Jespersen, Otto. 1946. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part V, Vol. IV: Syntax. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar

  • Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.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. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/ppche-release-2016/PPCEME-RELEASE-3.

  • Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Ariel Diertani. 2010. Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCMBE-RELEASE-1/index.html.

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. München: Beck.Google Scholar

  • Panagl, Oswald. 1987. Productivity and diachronic change in morphology. In Wolfgang U. Dressler (ed.), Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology, 127–151. (Studies in Language Companion Series 10). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg. 2001. A conceptual analysis of English -er nominals. In Martin Pütz, Susanne Niemeier & René Dirven (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics, 149–200. (Cognitive Linguistics Research 19.2). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Säily, Tanja. 2011. Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7(1). 119–141.Google Scholar

  • Sauer, Hans. 2004. Lexicalization and demotivation. In Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Morphology, 1625–1636. (HSK 17.2). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Scherer, Carmen. 2006. Was ist Wortbildungswandel? Linguistische Berichte 205. 3–28.Google Scholar

  • Sleeman, Petra & Anna 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, Vol.23, 199–217. (Interface Explorations). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2006. Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony: A comment. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2). 257–262.Google Scholar

  • The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/

  • Urdang, Laurence, Alexander Humez & Howard Zettler. 1982. Suffixes and other word-final elements of English. Detroit: Gale Research.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-05-19

Accepted: 2016-05-30

Published Online: 2016-08-05

Published in Print: 2016-12-01


Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 2, Issue 1, 20160057, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0057.

Export Citation

© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Liesbet Heyvaert, Stefan Hartmann, and Hubert Cuyckens
Language Sciences, 2018

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in