1
Divide and conquer: the formation and functional dynamics of the Modern English ingclause network
0
ABSTRACT
The present paper offers a detailed, corpus-based analysis of the diachronic development of the
usage profiles of three adverbial non-finite clauses in Modern English: the free adjunct, as in
‘the Parliamentarians remained quiet, guarding the capital’ (PPCMBE), the verbal gerund, as
in ‘by doing so you remove all the disagreeable smell’ (PPCMBE), and the absolute
construction, as in ‘[the] patient felt much better, the pain being less severe’ (PPCMBE). By
treating present-participial adverbial clauses and adverbial gerunds as part of a single adverbial
ing-clause network, instead of as entirely separate constructions, this paper takes a more
inclusive perspective on adverbial ing-clauses than has hitherto been presented in the literature,
and thus sheds new light on the different semantic and functional-pragmatic factors motivating
the formal variation within the ing-clause network. More specifically, by means of two mixed
model logistic regression analyses, we determine the relative impact of the independent
variables of adverbial semantics, position, degree of coreference and length on the language
user’s choice in (i) whether or not to include augmentation (syndesis) and (ii) whether or not to
include an overt subject in the adverbial ing-clause. Rather than a stable status-quo, the resulting
picture is that of a dynamic network within which each of the members continually tries to
establish its own particular niche of usage.
1
INTRODUCTION
An aspect of the English language that has intrigued linguists for over decades is its extensive
use of adverbial ing-clauses. English frequently makes use of non-finite variants of the types
illustrated in (1)-(4) (Kortmann 1995, Killie & Swan 2009):
2
(1) And then, not hearing that there was any danger of a sudden change, I delayed
going to him till the twentieth of July. (PPCEME, 1680)
(2) When lying unconscious from fever in Malta Hospital, some one hung a gold cross
and chain round his neck. (PPCMBE, 1900)
(3) The publick Tranquillity being now settled, our Forces were remanded back to
Nottingham. (PPCMBE, 1740)
(4) Mr Roker mounted another flight of stairs, with Mr Pickwick and Sam Weller
following at his heels. (PPCMBE, 1837)
The constructions shown in (1)-(4) are participial clauses, commonly referred to as free adjuncts
and absolutes (Kortmann 1991, 1995). Free adjuncts, illustrated in examples (1) and (2), have
no overt subject. The implied subject is often (1) but not necessarily (2) coreferential with the
subject of the matrix clause. If free adjuncts are augmented (i.e. introduced by a function word
that makes the adverbial relation explicit), the augmentor is normally a conjunction (2).
Syntactically, free adjuncts function like subordinate or quasi-coordinate clauses. The most
important difference between free adjuncts and absolute constructions, illustrated in (3) and (4)
is that the latter always have an overt subject. This overt subject is typically non-coreferential
with the subject of the matrix clause and can be expressed in the nominative or the oblique case,
the former being the default option. The augmented absolute construction is most commonly
introduced by preposition-like items (4), or by augmentors which are ambiguous between a
prepositional and a conjunctional interpretation (e.g. after and before). In the overwhelming
majority of cases, the augmentor is the preposition with (4) (Kortmann 1995 for Present-day
English; van de Pol & Cuyckens 2013 for older varieties of English). Like free adjuncts,
absolute constructions function syntactically as subordinate or quasi-coordinate clauses.
Besides free adjuncts and absolutes, English also exhibits a third type of adverbial ingclause, namely the adverbial verbal gerund (6)-(8). Adverbial gerunds strongly resemble the
3
adverbial clauses illustrated in (1)-(4), occurring either with (6) or without (7) overt subject.
Still, gerundive adverbial clauses differ from free adjuncts and absolutes in that they do not
have a participial but a nominal origin. These nominal roots are still visible in that adverbial
verbal gerunds are augmented by prepositions instead of conjunctions or conjunctional
prepositions, and in that their (optional) overt subject can occur in the genitive case (8):
(6) But in doing this there is danger of hurting the Scion. (PPCEME, 1696)
(7) I am rather in hopes the magazine article has dropped through, either from my paper
being thought bad, or Macmillan repudiating the thing. (PPCMBE, 187X)
(8) (…) yet by its being ruined in the most needful, it is become impassable (…)
(PPCEME, 1672-1681)
Because of their distinct origins, adverbial verbal gerunds, free adjuncts and absolutes have
mostly been studied in isolation in various synchronic and diachronic studies (Comrie 1976;
Kortmann 1991, 1995; De Smet 2008), this in spite of their striking functional and formal
resemblances. Nevertheless, many linguists have acknowledged the importance of the presence
of one of the constructions in the diachronic development of the others (e.g. Fanego 2004), and
it has even been suggested that the increasing overlap between (adverbial) verbal gerunds and
participial constructions has reinforced the position of free adjuncts and/or absolutes in the
English language, and vice versa (Killie 2006, 2007, Killie & Swan 2009, Fonteyn & Cuyckens
2014, van de Pol & Petré forthcoming). However, the details of this development, and the
precise relations and dynamics between the three constructions remain little understood.
The aim of the present article is to offer a detailed corpus-based analysis of the
(changing) variation between the different types of adverbial ing-clauses in Early and Late
Modern English. Importantly, this paper offers a more inclusive perspective on the history of
English adverbial ing-clauses by treating present-participial adverbial clauses and adverbial
gerunds as not entirely separate constructions, but as part of an adverbial ing-clause network
4
that developed over time. Zooming in on the inner dynamics of the proposed network, we argue
that within this network, language users have the basic choice of (i) including an augmentor to
make the relation between matrix and adverbial clause explicit, and/or (ii) including an overt
subject in the adverbial clause. Both in the choice for augmentation (or syndesis) and the choice
for subject inclusion, it is argued that there are various factors at play, which can be subsumed
under the principles of iconicity and economy (Rohdenburg 1996) to varying extents. By
identifying and carefully examining these different factors in relation to each other by means
of a logistic regression analysis, we arrive at a clearer and broader picture of the usage profiles
of the different construction types in the adverbial ing-clause network.
1.1 THE GERUND-PARTICIPLE DIVIDE
By assuming an inclusive perspective on the study of adverbial ing-clauses, i.e. including
adverbial gerunds alongside adverbial participials, this study joins a larger theoretical
discussion regarding the status of grammatical categories. As pointed out by De Smet, ‘English
ing-clauses pose two major descriptive issues: first, whether the two historically distinct clausetypes of gerunds and participles can be collapsed into a single category, and second, whether
ing-clauses still relate to their phrasal origins as (historical) noun phrases and
adjectival/adverbial phrases’ (2010: 1153). Traditionally, gerunds are classified as
nominalizations, because, in terms of their external syntax (i.e. their distribution), they pattern
like noun phrases. As such, they are separated from participial ing-clauses, which
distributionally pattern like adjectival or adverbial phrases.
Kortmann’s study on adverbial ing-clauses implicitly takes the more traditional stance
towards the gerund-participle divide, as he considers adverbial gerunds to be ‘related but
different constructions’ from the participial adverbial clauses (1991:13-14) and consequently
excludes them from his study. However, Kortmann (1995) does acknowledge that there are
5
certain problems in distinguishing adverbial participles from adverbial gerunds, as both
adverbial constructions are similarly detached from the matrix clause and receive their implied
subject as well as their temporal grounding from their matrix clause. Hence, the sole reason for
distinguishing between the non-finite adverbial clauses in (9), (10) and (11) is the syntactic
status of their preceding linking element, i.e. whether the augmentor is considered a
subordinating conjunction, a preposition, or both:
(9) This cannot be, if the pupils are thrust prematurely upon a foreign literature while
mastering several new vocabularies. (PPCMBE, 1878)
(10) … bycause my Trueth and his Falsehood shall the better appear unto you , I will
declare his Inconstancy in vttering this his Euidence. (PPCEME, 1554)
(11) Thus passed they this night, after having received from the slaves all imaginable
respect and obedience. (PPCEME, 1688)
Kortmann remarks that, while ambiguous examples such as (11) should be classified as
adverbial gerunds from a strictly syntactic point of view, he has grouped them with augmented
adverbial participles as he is ‘approaching these constructions from a comparison of finite and
nonfinite adverbial clauses’ (1995: 200) and ‘adverbial gerunds and adverbial participles
exhibit parallel semantic and pragmatic behaviour’ (Kortmann 1995: 200). The question then
arises, however, why a study on the semantic and discourse-pragmatic behaviour of adverbial
ing-clauses should not include unambiguous adverbial gerunds as instances of augmented ingclauses.
Opposing the traditional view of gerunds and participles as separate categories,
Huddleston and Pullum (2002) argue that they can be conflated into a single category of ‘gerund
participials’, which can occur in complement and non-complement positions. In doing so,
Huddleston and Pullum take a radical stance, suggesting that distributional relations, or, in
Kortmann’s terms, ‘strictly syntactic’ evidence, does not justify the distinction between gerunds
6
and participles. The position taken by Huddleston and Pullum is further strengthened by
semantic evidence, which indicates that gerundive and participial ing-forms cannot be
distinguished on semantic grounds (De Smet 2010: 1169-1171; De Smet & Heyvaert 2011),
and historical evidence, as gerunds and participles engage in a diachronic trend of becoming
less distinctive over time (De Smet 2010: 1171-1182, cf. Section 1.2).
Despite the evidence in favour of Huddleston and Pullum’s unified gerund-participial,
De Smet (2010) points out that the data do not straightforwardly support the claim that language
users no longer distinguish gerunds from participles. First, Huddleston and Pullum’s claim that
gerunds and participles are morphologically identical ‘only fully holds for standard
noncolloquial written English’ (De Smet 2010: 1164), seeing that in nonstandard varieties of
English, language users distinguish between an /in/- and /iŋ/-realization of the (ING)-morpheme
in a way that largely coincides with the gerund-participle divide. Second, the internal syntax of
gerundive and participial ing-clauses reveals that overt subjects in the possessive case clearly
only associate with ing-clauses in nominal positions, thus separating gerunds from other types
of ing-clauses (De Smet 2010: 1181). If these observations are taken into account, one can only
conclude that the behaviour of ing-clauses is essentially contradictory. Consequently, it seems
that the architecture of the categories gerund and participle should not be considered as one of
absolute unification or separation, but rather that neither the traditional nor the unified account
sufficiently characterizes the representations that speakers/writers actually use. In order to
remedy this discrepancy, De Smet proposes a more tentative in-between solution, suggesting
that language users can generalize over constructions and at the same time differentiate between
them (2010: 1187). In the case of the gerund-participle divide, this means that the gerund can
in fact partake of the formal and functional properties of the participial construction without
being entirely absorbed by them, and vice versa.
7
In line with De Smet’s (2010) proposed architecture of grammatical categories, we will
show that while gerunds and participles maintain syntactic/distributional ties to their phrasal
origins, the research on ing-forms should no longer ignore the important signs that language
users do recognize an (increasingly) strong association between adverbial gerunds and
adverbial participles and conceptualise them as a semantically and pragmatically
interconnected network of non-finite adverbial clauses that transcends the phrasal origins of the
three constructions. By recognizing this ing-clause network as being a generalization over
different constructions from different phrasal sources, our study departs from traditional
approaches to adverbial ing-clauses, which generally limit their scope to those ing-clauses that
can be classified either as gerunds or participles. In what follows, we will first provide a detailed
description of the diachronic development of the different constructions in the proposed
network, describing how the boundaries between the components have become increasingly
vague over time. After establishing and setting out the internal (formal) structure of the network,
we turn to the inner semantic and pragmatic dynamics of the network in Section 2. More
specifically, we will identify the relevant factors that influence (i) augmentation choice and (ii)
subject inclusion within the network. The diachronic changes in the relative impact of these
factors will be determined through two logistic regression analyses, which indicate that the
variation within the ing-clause network came to organise itself according to the cognitive
complexity principle (Rohdenburg 1996) in various ways.
1.2 THE FORMATION OF THE ADVERBIAL ING-CLAUSE NETWORK
From a diachronic perspective, the proposed ing-clause network finds its origins in three
constructions which were originally separate, largely unrelated constructions. The rise of the
network, i.e. the functional and cognitive association between them, is the result of a set of
8
changes in Middle and Early Modern English, which led the three constructions under
investigation to coincide, both formally and semantically.
In the Old English period, gerundive and participial constructions were entirely distinct
and unrelated constructions (Kisbye 1971: 51ff, Tajima 1985: 60ff, Kastovsky 1985: 241-243).
The Old English ‘gerund’, illustrated in (12), was simply an abstract noun in –ing(g)(e) or –
ung(g)(e). This construction was entirely nominal both in terms of its morphosyntactic form as
well as its discursive function, taking determiners, adjectives, and genitive phrases and having
the distribution of a more prototypical noun phrase (Fanego 2004: 7):
(12)
ðurh ðæra sacerda blawunge toburston ða weallas (c1000, Visser 1963-73:
1165)
‘Through the blowing of the priests the walls burst’
The Old English participle, on the other hand, was formed with the -end(e) ending. The first
known instances of the absolute construction were formed with this typical participle ending,
as illustrated in (13). These were usually restricted to the formal minimum, consisting just of a
(pro)noun subject and its predicate without any additional complements. They were adverbial
in nature and were most frequently used to express temporal relations of either simultaneity or
anteriority (Timofeeva 2010).
(13)
se Hælend, heom onlocigendum, upp to heofonum astah (YCOE, Late Old
English)
‘The Saviour, while they were watching, rose up to heaven.’
At the same time, there were some subjectless adverbial-like participles, but these were not
clausal in nature and usually expressed relations such as accompanying circumstance and state
of mind, as in (14) (Killie & Swan 2009: 338):
(14) on þan twelften dæige eorneð mænn geond eall middeneard byfigende &
drædende Cristes tocyme to demene cwican & deaden,... (KillIe & Swan 2009: 350)
9
‘On the twelfth day men will run through all the earth shivering and dreading Christ's
coming to judge the living and the dead,...’
In Middle English, then, both the gerundive and participial constructions were affected by a
first set of changes. First, the -ung ending of the gerunds was gradually replaced by -ing, which
made -ing the sole gerundial ending (Kisbye 1971:54, Dalton-Puffer 1996:90-91). Second, as
the case system disappeared, the genitive phrase that was previously used to express the object
was replaced by a periphrastic of-phrase (Mustanoja 1960: 74-76, Tajima 1985: 60ff.), as in
(15):
(15) Withouten doying of any harme (Tajima 1985: 62)
From 1300 onwards, the first overtly verbal features slipped into the gerundial system, as
gerunds started taking true direct objects instead of periphrastically realized participants
(Tajima 1985: 111-113, illustrated in (16)). Such verbal gerunds first emerged in prepositional
contexts with an adverbial function and often allowed for a controlled reading (Houston 1989;
De Smet 2008: 61):
(16)
In yevyng wityngly noious medicyns to eny man (Jespersen 1909-1949, part
V:116)
‘in knowingly giving harmful medicines to anyone’
At this point, some southern dialects of English started allowing –ing(e) as a present participle
ending (Lass 1992: 146), which would gradually spread to the North. By the fifteenth century,
present participles on -ing(e) became the standard form1. During this transition period, the first
instances of truly clausal free adjuncts, as in example (17), entered the language, possibly due
1
As pointed out by De Smet (2010), there is some evidence of formal feature exchange between gerunds and
participles, viz. with cases where a participial –ende ending is used in what syntactically seems to be a gerund (e.g.
þe þridde is menende his synnes bifore Gode [?a1200]) and cases where the patient argument of a participle is
expressed by means of an of-phrase (e.g. refusing of the othe, I wolde not declare the causes why [1529-1533]).
Both examples indicate that even before the constructions were formally unified, language users strongly
associated them, which could have been a possible cause for the eventual blurring of the gerund-participle divide.
Perek’s (2012) more general conclusion that language users can generalize over alternations even when these do
not have the same formal properties, lends further credence to this observation.
10
to Latin influence. These were predominantly quasi-coordinate clauses in sentence-final
position, but could sometimes take a more adverbial interpretation (Killie & Swan 2009).
Absolute constructions were also steadily becoming more diverse, as they started taking objects
and adverbial complements of their own much more often, which is illustrated in (18). In
addition, they started being used in quasi-coordinate contexts (paraphrasable by an andcoordinated clause with finite verb form), as in example (19) (van de Pol forthcoming). As a
result, the semantic features of the absolute construction started to coincide with free adjuncts.
(17) Therefor thei souʒten Jhesu, and spaken togidere, stondynge in the Temple,... (Killie
& Swan 2009: 351)
(18) Mech joye was mad, euery man supposing þat þis mater schuld haue good ende.
(PPCEME2, 1420-1500)
(19) And the Lorde Bonevyle was be-heddyd, the comyn sayynge that hys longage
causyd hym to dye. (PPCEME2, 1420-1500)
At the same time, free adjuncts became increasingly frequent and more versatile in their
discourse-pragmatic behaviour, occurring not only in sentence-final but also in sentence-initial
and medial position and acquiring the ability to express more informative adverbial relations,
like time and cause, alongside the less informative quasi-coordinate uses (Killie & Swan 2009)
(22). Early Modern absolute constructions, as in (23), likewise continued to expand their
functional abilities by spreading further to the domain of quasi-coordinate relations (van de Pol,
forthcoming):
(22) So that I was fayne to flye to a lytle paryshe callyd Hemsted, thynkynge ther for to
have had some reste (PPCEME, 1555)
(23) And rising from his seat, he went and led her into the bath; it being in vain for her
to resist. (PPCEME, 1688)
11
From 1640 onwards, adverbial verbal gerunds spread to other syntactic environments and
started combining with a broader set of prepositions (after, at, upon, etc.). This greatly increased
the semantic possibilities of adverbial verbal gerunds, which could now easily express a wider
set of temporal relations. Importantly, as some of these prepositions can also function as
conjunctions (Quirk et al. 1985: 196), the typical augmentors of free adjuncts, these new
adverbial gerunds not only increased the semantic overlap with the adverbial participial
constructions, but also further blurred the formal divide between subjectless adverbial gerunds
and free adjuncts. Early Modern English likewise saw the gradual disappearance of the formal
distinctions between adverbial gerunds with overt subject and absolute constructions. The
verbalization of the gerund had spread from bare environments to gerunds with a genitive
subject(oid), as in 'my last kissing you', which then served as bridging contexts for reanalysis,
actualized when verbal gerunds started occurring with oblique subjects, as in (24) (Fanego
2004: 8)2:
(24) It (..) could not immediately relinquish, the brass log, which, on the line being
hauled in, was found to be a good deal injured. (PPCMBE, 1900)
In sum, the historical developments of the three ing-clauses under investigation (summarized
in Figure 1) gradually formed a formal/functional continuum between gerunds without an
explicit subject and free adjuncts, between adverbial verbal gerunds with explicit subject and
absolute constructions, and between absolute constructions and free adjuncts.
2
As pointed out by De Smet (2010: 1174), there are some examples of verbal gerunds with a nominative subject
which look like a further step in the direction of full formal overlap with absolute constructions.
12
Figure 1
Historical development of free adjuncts and absolutes vs. verbal gerunds
From Early Modern English onwards, the three ing-constructions under investigation have
become so formally similar and functionally related that they form an overarching ing-clause
network. As such, the adverbial ing-clause network can be considered a multiple source
construction, as its historical development “entails blending of clearly distinct lineages” (Van
De Velde et al. 2013: 473).
The dynamic interplay and feature exchange between the members of the network are
ensured by the fact that, as result of the described developments, the formal (and functional)
boundaries between them are no longer clear-cut, but gradual and fuzzy. More precisely, each
of the constructions is connected to another by means of a formal continuum. The examples in
(25)-(28) illustrate the continuum between the free adjunct and the verbal gerund:
13
(25) By tapping the bell in various places with a hammer or mallet, (…) it was not
difficult to detect 6 tones. (PPCMBE,1890)
(26) After being ready, we took coach. (PPCEME, 1666)
(27) (…) when seeing them, she would have run in again , but Trefry caught her by the
hand (PPCEME, 1688)
(28) Then, crossing the Thames, he pacified the Eastern Counties. (PPCMBE, 1895)
The construction in (25) illustrates a verbal gerund in adverbial function. Since the augmentor
by is a preposition, the adverbial clause is still clearly recognizable as a gerund and can therefore
unambiguously be categorized as one. In (26), by contrast, the adverbial augmented ing-clause
is introduced by the structurally ambiguous augmentor after, which either functions as a
preposition (e.g. After dinner, we left) or a conjunction (e.g. After we ate, we left), making the
decision of assigning the example to the category of adverbial gerunds or that of free adjuncts
arbitrary. In (27), the augmentor is a straightforward conjunction, and therefore the adverbial
ing-clause can be categorized as a free adjunct. Finally, sentence (28) illustrates a prototypical
unaugmented free adjunct.
Ambiguity between verbal gerunds and absolute constructions, as illustrated in (29)(34), hinges on the case of the expressed subject. In (29), the ing-clause is adverbial, but it is
still clearly gerundial, as the subject 'our' takes the genitive case. In (30), however, the subject
of the ing-clause 'her' is ambiguous between a genitive reading and an oblique reading, which
makes an absolute reading justifiable. In (31) and (32), then, the subjects are in the oblique
case. As a subject in the oblique case is possible for both absolute constructions and verbal
gerunds, these examples are highly ambiguous. The difference between (31) and (32) is that the
augmentor with in (32) is by far the most typical augmentor of the absolute construction, and
as such the construction is considered more typically absolute than the one in (31). Example
(33), then, the ing-clause with oblique subject is unaugmented, making the ing-clause
14
unarguably absolute. Finally, at the end of the verbal gerund – absolute continuum we find
examples such as (34), in which an unaugmented absolute construction takes a nominative
subject.
(29) These three bourgeois elements will eliminate themselves without our having to
lift a finger. (KU Leuven drama corpus, 1970s)
(30) Life was fraught enough for the Stevenses as it was, with the constant care of
Jennifer, without her adding to their problems (BNC, 1990)
(31) …a war in which the objectives can be er successfully attained er without them
changing … (BNC, 1985-1994)
(32) Disks, no,Yeah, I know, but with them not knowing, friend's because there's so
much disk swopping. (BNC, 1985-1994)
(33) You are pointing the finger at him, them being involved in the murders. (BNC,
1990)
(34) But then I think of my big -- fat -- mother, going out there every morning and
yelling at the Gardner and the postman, with this -- this -- poodle clutched in her arms.
And she and this poodle yelling at everyone! (KU Leuven drama corpus, 1968)
Finally, overlap between absolute constructions and free adjuncts depends on the presence or
absence of an overt subject and the overt subject's degree of coreferentiality with the subject of
the matrix clause. Consider the continuum in (35)-(39):
(35) But my stay abroad proving much longer than I expected, when, being returned to
London, I had occasion to make use of this Loadstone for an Experiment, I found it
indeed where I left it. (PPCEME, 1685)
(36) Nothing remarkable happened till the 5th of August; we being still employed in
repairing our Ships and Rigging, and (...) (PPCMBE, 1744)
15
(37) They finding her to drive and not go a-head, they sent our Lieutenant in our Cutter
to desire more Assistance. (PPCMBE, 1744)
(38) Thanne we Descendyng the same way that ower lorde rode vpon palme Sonnday,
And cam to the Place wher the Chyldern of Israellbrake braunches of Olyff trees.
(PPCEME, 1517)
(39) His sisters sent vnto him sayinge: ‘Lorde behold, he whom thou lovest, is sicke’.
(PPCEME, 1534)
In (35), the ing-clause has an overt subject which is not coreferential with the subject of the
matrix clause, and thus represents a prototypical absolute construction. In (36), the overt subject
of the ing-clause is a personal pronoun. While there is still no coreference with the subject of
the matrix clause, there is some semantic identity with the narrator of the story. In (37), the ingclause still has absolute-like qualities as it contains an overt subject, but this subject is fully
coreferential with and formally identical to the subject of the matrix clause, which is more
reminiscent of a free adjunct. Example (38) contains an ing-clause subject that is again fully
coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause, but in this case the construction is also
formally ambiguous between an absolute construction and a free adjunct reading. If an ellipsis
of the matrix clause subject is presupposed (i.e. if the underlying sentence is perceived to be:
'Then we descending, [...] we came...'), an absolute reading might be defended, because the ingclause would be considered to have an overt subject. However, the ing-clause and the matrix
clause do share the same subject and only one of those is formally expressed, which is typical
of a free adjunct. Finally, example (39) illustrates a typical free adjunct with an implied subject
which is fully coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause.
In sum, the diachronic evidence seems to suggest that the constructions in the network
have always been connected through their function as adverbial clauses, and, more recently,
through an increasingly prominent formal continuum. Arguably, both observations point in a
16
similar direction, namely (i) that in a study of the functional (i.e. semantic/pragmatic) behaviour
of adverbial ing-clauses, it seems reasonable to generalize over the phrasal origins of the ingclauses, and (ii) that, on a functional as well as on a formal level, the phrasal origins of the
different constructions play a decreasingly prominent role in distinguishing between the
different constructions.
If the traditional distinctions based on phrasal origins are disregarded, the constructions
in the adverbial ing-clause network can essentially be distinguished based on (a) whether they
take an augmentor in the form of a conjunction or preposition that makes the semantic relation
with the matrix clause explicit (Figure 3) and (b) whether the ing-clause contains its own
expressed subject (Figure 4):
Figure 2
Augmentation patterns in the ing-clause network
17
Figure 3
Subject inclusion in the ing-clause network
2
THE ADVERBIAL ING-CLAUSE NETWORK: FORMS AND FUNCTIONS
Now that we have established the formal make-up of the adverbial ing-clause network, the
question remains how the constructions in the network can be characterized semantically and
discourse-pragmatically. In this section, we wish to identify and describe the different factors
that determine the variation in terms of augmentation and subject inclusion in the ing-clause
network. The data for our study were taken from the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early
Modern English (PPCEME) and the Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English
(PPCMBE). In total, we coded 1764 Early Modern and 1305 Late Modern ing-clauses for their
specific semantics (section 2.1), position (section 2.2), coreference (Section 2.3) and length
(Section 2.4)3.
2.1 SEMANTICS
The first criterion according to which the ing-clauses in our data set were coded was adverbial
semantics. In previous studies (Kortmann 1991, 1995), It has been suggested that ing-clauses
3
For more information on the data and methodology, we refer to Section 3.
18
differ with regard to the amount of explicit coding they need in order to be interpreted
semantically in the intended way. As regards augmentation, for instance, it is easier to infer a
temporal relation between two propositions without the aid of explicit coding, than it is to infer
a concessional one. Based on these differences in interpretational complexity, Kortmann (1991:
121) developed a scale of semantic relations from weakly adverbial to strongly adverbial, i.e.
from least to most informative. This scale of informativeness has an impact on the need for
explicit linking by means of augmentation, as ‘the addition of a conjunction secures to a high
degree that the adjunct in question receives the interpretation intended by the addresser (…)
[and] the need for this addition (…) correlates with the degree of informativeness of the
intended semantic relation’ (Kortmann 1991: 198-199). Kortmann’s reasoning leads to the
expectation that the more informative adverbial relations will require explicit coding in the form
of an augmentor more often than the less informative, weakly adverbial relations (Kortmann
1991: 197).
Kortmann (1991) also stresses that the degree of semantic complexity does not only
determine the in- or exclusion of an explicit linking element, but also interacts with the in- or
exclusion of an overt subject in the ing-clause. Building on Levinson’s (1989) theory
concerning the role of pragmatic inferences in identifying interpropositional relations,
Kortmann argues that the subjectless free adjunct is a minimized form, making it more
appropriate to receive a more informative interpretation than the less minimized absolute
construction (1991: 208-211). In other words, concerning the link between subject inclusion
and semantic relation, Kortmann suggests that the ‘tighter syntactic linkage (via argument
sharing (…)) iconically reflects tighter interclausal semantic linkage’ (1991: 212).
Looking at participial ing-clauses from a diachronic perspective, Killie and Swan (2009)
argue that they were initially restricted to expressing relations of elaboration and accompanying
circumstance, but came to prefer strongly adverbial uses. While free adjuncts may well have
19
followed the path suggested by Killie and Swan (2009), absolutes appear to have undergone the
opposite development from more strongly adverbial to less informative elaboration uses (van
de Pol forthc.). In light of Kortmann’s claims regarding the relation between syntactic and
semantic linkage, these findings suggest that as the network of adverbial ing-clauses formed,
the constructions it contained came to organize themselves according to the principle of
iconicity, with subjectless ing-clauses taking the more informative relations, and constructions
with overt subject being preferred for less informative uses.
For our analysis, we divided the ing-clauses into three large groups of semantic
relations, i.e. CCC-clauses, temporal clauses and elaboration clauses4. The category of CCCclauses contains all ing-clauses that express core adverbial uses, or, using Kortmann's (1991:
121) terminology, highly informative adverbial uses. Ing-clauses within this category have a
relation to their matrix clause that conveys meanings such as reason (41), condition (42),
concession (43), manner (44), instrument (45) and purpose (46).
(41) ... after having been just a year at sea, I obtained my father's permission to give it
up, seeing no reasonable prospect of success in that line. (PPCMBE, 1900)
(42) Observations upon the two bells in the laboratory having settled the modes of
vibration corresponding to the five gravest tones, other bells of the church pattern can
be sufficiently investigated by simple determinations of pitch.(PPCMBE, 1890)
(43) Instead of forcing his way home, at any cost, he retreated westward before Charles.
(PPCMBE, 1895)
(44) The Lecturer here placed his foot on a loop of wire fastened to a support above, and
swung with his whole weight resting upon it for some moments. (PPCMBE, 1859)
(45) Ermine thought it merciful to divert the attack by mentioning Mr. Clare's love of
music. (PPCMBE, 1865)
4
While the data have been coded for semantics in great detail, we have recategorised them into three large
groups in order to focus on the main semantic developments in a way that is statistically verifiable.
20
(46) Others, for preventing any of them from reaching the Bees, direct the fixing of little
Plates of Tin round the Entry. (PPCMBE, 1747)
The second category, that of temporal clauses, consists of the more 'weakly' adverbial uses
(Kortmann 1991: 121), which express a relationship of time, i.e. anteriority (47)-(48) or
accompanying circumstance (49)-(50)5.
(47) ... after having first cleaned your brush well with the curry-comb, begin at the croup
or rump. (PPCMBE, 184x)
(48) ... her husband putting it up at the auction, our relative on the mother's side, Dr.
Glossop, interested in the documents and particulars of the story as he was, had it
knocked down to him... (PPCMBE, 1895)
(49) That poor child Carinthia Jane , when first she beheld Old England's shores, tossing
in the packet-boat on a wild Channel sea, did say it and think it (PPCMBE, 1895)
(50) ... so the combined forces threw themselves on the town and carried it by storm,
the archbishop heading his own party and being wounded in the assault. (PPCMBE,
1905)
The third and final category is that of elaboration clauses. They differ from other ing-clauses in
that they do not express an adverbial relation to their matrix clause. Instead, they simply give
additional information. Elaboration uses may but need not be quasi-coordinate in nature, i.e.
replaceable by an and-coordinated clause with a finite verb form as in (51) (Behrens &
Fabricius-Hansen 2005: 11).
5
Ing-clauses expressing accompanying circumstance and simultaneity were comprised into a single
'accompanying circumstance' group, which is treated as a temporal and hence fully adverbial category. This
choice is motivated by the fact that the distinction between both categories is very ill-defined, and different
decoders may often choose to categorize the same example in different categories. In fact, even researchers who
have chosen to uphold the distinction have mentioned its problematic nature (Kortmann 1991:169, Killie &
Swan 2009: 341). Consequently, to avoid infringing on the potential replicability of the study, we refrained from
grouping simultaneity clauses and accompanying circumstance clauses into different subcategories.
21
(51) The condition of the food may likewise alter its facility of digestion and nutritive
properties, this depending upon its mode of growth, care in collecting and preserving,
cleanliness, and freedom from animal and vegetable parasites. (PPCMBE, 1886)
= ‘AND this depends upon its mode of growth, ...’
In elaboration, as stated by Halliday, ‘one clause elaborates on the meaning of another by further
specifying or describing it’ (2004: 396). In line with this definition, and in order to group
together all non-adverbial uses of ing-clauses, we use the term 'elaboration' more broadly than
some previous studies, viz. as subsuming exemplification (52), addition (53), specification (54)
and elaboration (55) in the narrow sense as used by Kortmann:
(52) [He] continued to be an active parish priest, visiting regularly, preaching, and
taking a share in the service, which he knew by heart ... (PPCMBE, 1865)
(53) The grasses, notwithstanding their wide geographical distribution, are remarkably
uniform in structure, the greatest diversity being in their height ... (PPCMBE, 1886)
(54) And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Send thou men, that they may spy out the
land of Canaan... (PPCMBE, 1885)
(55) And he goes on to tell us the origin of the Welsh oath, Cas Andra`s, tracing it to
Druidical times, Andra`s or Andraste being the fury of the ancient Kymri, to whom they
built temples and offered sacrifices out of fear. (PPCMBE, 1905)
2.2 POSITION
We also coded the data for position in the clause, as positional preferences have been suggested
to reflect different discourse-pragmatic behaviour (Kortmann 1991, 1995, Killie & Swan 2009).
Within the category of (unaugmented) participial ing-clauses, for instance, absolutes have been
claimed to ‘almost exclusively follow (…) their matrix clause’ (Kortmann 1995: 228), while
free adjuncts are much more likely to occur in sentence-initial position. These positional
22
preferences supposedly follow directly from their distinct semantic profiles, which make them
better candidates for a function as preposed or postponed adverbials respectively (Kortmann
1991): preposed adverbial clauses serve a frame-setting function for the information provided
by the matrix clause (Kortmann 1995, Chafe 1984, Thompson 1985, Ramsay 1987) and they
have stronger referential and thematic links to the preceding discourse (Givòn 1990). By
contrast, postponed adverbial clauses serve more as afterthoughts on the preceding clause which
provide additional or specifying information. In view of the different nature of the initial and
final slot, it follows that sentence-initial adverbial clauses will express those adverbial relations
that serve as frame-setting background information, i.e. temporal and causal relations, while
sentence-final adverbial clauses are more likely to express relations that are specificational or
elaborative in nature (Killie & Swan 2009). It thus seems evident that the absolute construction,
which most commonly expresses elaboration semantics, is better suited to function as a
postponed afterthought, whereas the semantically more diverse free adjunct, which commonly
expresses more informative relations, is more likely to fulfill the preposed frame-setting
function (Kortmann 1995: 229).
The relation between semantics and position might also play a role in augmentation
choice. As noted by Kortmann (1991, 1995), Verstraete (2007) and Killie and Swan (2009), the
sentence-initial slot is almost exclusively reserved for the more informative temporal and CCCrelations due to its frame-setting function, while the final slot is much more diverse. One and
the same clause may thus invite a causal/instrument reading in initial position (56a), taking a
less informative elaboration meaning in final position (56b):
(56)
a. Neglecting his friends, John became increasingly lonely.
b. John became increasingly lonely, neglecting his friends.
23
Since the sentence-final slot allows for a much wider range of interpretational possibilities and
is preferred for those relations that fit the ‘afterthought’ function, it seems plausible that
sentence-final clauses with a more informative (temporal or CCC) meaning require
augmentation to be interpreted correctly. In (57), for instance, the augmentor by is needed to
successfully arrive at the cause/instrument reading:
(57) John became increasingly lonely by neglecting his friends.
However, other theories on the processing complexity of adverbial clauses seem to predict that
it is not sentence-final, but sentence-initial ing-clauses that are more likely to take
augmentation. In his ‘performance theory of order and constituency’ (cf. Hawkins 1990, 1992,
1994, 1998, 2000), Hawkins argues that in terms of processing, language users can only
determine the status of a constituent once they have recognized the mother node of the entire
phrase. Parsers prefer constituents with a short recognition domain, meaning that the sooner the
mother node of the constituent is encountered, the easier the utterance can be parsed. In the case
of adverbial clauses, the mother node is typically a subordinate conjunction, which in turn also
dominates the entire complex sentence (Diessel 2005: 455-456). However, if no such
conjunction is present, the parser cannot immediately recognize the mother node of the phrase,
i.e. an initial constituent such as watching tv can only be identified as an adverbial clause ‘if the
sentence continues with a (pro)noun (e.g. Watching TV, he fell asleep)’ but will be recognized
as an NP ‘if the sentence continues with a verb (e.g. Watching TV makes me tired )’ (Diessel
2005: 456). As a result, such conjunctionless or unaugmented adverbial clauses have a much
longer recognition domain and are harder to parse than augmented ones, in which the parser
immediately encounters the mother node in the form of a linking conjunction or preposition.
This difference in parsing complexity is particularly relevant for initial adverbial
clauses, which are shown to be harder to process than sentence-final ones (Hawkins 1992, 1994;
Diessel 2005). In a complex sentence, initial adverbial clauses indicate that the following
24
sentence is biclausal, which means that the parser has to process the entire adverbial clause and
keep it in working memory, until the main clause can be accessed (Diessel 2005: 457). When
the adverbial clause occurs sentence-finally, on the other hand, parsers only recognize the
sentence as being biclausal when they already have access to the matrix clause. According to
Diessel, this difference in processing complexity could account for the observation that final
adverbial clauses are generally longer than sentence-initial ones, since there is ‘no particular
processing pressure to keep them short’ (Diessel 2005: 458). A similar reasoning could lead to
the hypothesis that such processing pressure also stimulates language users to opt for
augmented ing-clauses in initial position, as their recognition domain is shorter than that of
unaugmented ones. As such, the available literature offers us two competing hypotheses: one
claiming that initial ing-clauses will favour augmentation, as they require it to ensure ease of
processing, and the other claiming that it is final ing-clauses which will favour augmentation
more, since they have a wider semantic range and need augmentors to specify one of the
possible interpretations.
In our own analysis, we examined to which extent and in which manner the position
factor plays a role in the variation between ing-clauses with and without overt subject as well
as in the variation between augmented and unaugmented constructions. In essence, we
distinguish three positional categories:
A. Initial position6:
(58)
a. The resistance of the air having been avoided, the glass bottle and gold leaf
all fall exactly in the same time. (PPCMBE, 1859)
b. I had bene drowned if the tide had come, and espyinge a man a good waye of,
I cried as much as I could for helpe. (PPCEME, 1567-68)
6
Note that ‘initial position’ is defined as ‘preverbal’ and ‘pre-subject’ in this study. This means that initial ingclauses can occur either in the absolute beginning of a sentence (58a), after the conjunction between two
combined clauses but before the subject and finite verb of its matrix clause (58b), or after another preposed
adverbial but before the subject and finite verb of its matrix clause (58c).
25
c. The nature of the soil is the chief cause of Moss and Canker, and therefore
without altering the one you can scarce prevent the other. (PPCMBE, 1696)
B. Final position:
(59)
a. (…) two or three Melters have helped her from off the weeds, by bearing her
up on both sides, and guarding her into the deep. (PPCEME, 1676)
b. (…) and so he had the abbay landes given onto hym, and then he made a monk
prior ther, deviding the old possessions of the monastery with hym. (PPCEME,
1535-43))
c. The Latin terms that have to be retained as untranslatable by single words in
English can be explained as they occur, without anyone requiring to master the
entire Latin language. (- PPCMBE, 1878)
C. Medial position7:
(60)
a. The zealous Covenanters of the North, before consenting to give armed
support to the Roundheads, insisted on receiving pledges from their allies.
(PPCMBE, 1895)
b. Mr. Keith seconded her efforts, but the insect was both lively and cunning,
eluding them with a dexterity wonderful in such an apparently over-limbed
creature, until at last it kindly rested for a moment with its wooden peg of a body
sloping, and most of its thread-like members prone upon a newspaper, where
Rachel descended on it with her pocket-handkerchief, and Mr. Keith tried to
inclose it with his hands at the same moment. (PPCMBE, 1865)
7
This category contains clauses that are in preverbal but post-subject position, as in (60a) and (60b), or clauses
that are placed after the finite verb but do not occur in the typically detached sentence-final slot, as in (60c).
26
c. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus by the well.
(PPCMBE, 1881)
2.3 COREFERENCE
The third criterion that we have coded for is degree of coreference. For the purposes of this
paper, the degree of coreference was narrowly defined as the degree of semantic identity
between the subject of the ing-clause and the (implied) subject of the matrix clause. Several
authors have suggested that a link exists between a high degree of coreference and increased
ease of processing (Berent 1975, Kortmann 1991, 1995, van de Pol 2011). Assuming that
structures are determined by the two conflicting forces of economy and explicitness (Diessel
2005:449), ing-clauses with a high degree of coreference (which presumably are easier to
interpret) are hypothesized to be less in need of explicit coding (in the form of either an overt
subject and/or an augmentor) than ing-clauses with a low degree of coreference.
While a variety of categorization systems has thus far been used in the literature to group
tokens according to their different degrees of coreferentiality (e.g. Berent 1975, Río-Rey 2002,
Kortmann 1995), we have decided to work with a slightly adapted version of the system
introduced in Kortmann (1995). Kortmann’s (1995) categorization has four subtypes: 'full
coreference' , where there is full semantic identity between the (implied) subject of the ingclause and an element of the matrix clause, 'part-whole coreference', where there is only partial
identity, 'constituent coreference' and 'no coreference'. The category of constituent coreference
is somewhat less intuitive than the others and is described as follows: 'for this type of subjects
[...], there exists a coreference relation between a nominal part of the subject NP and some
matrix NP or, vice versa, between the subject NP and the nominal part of some matrix NP'
(Kortmann 1995: 211). An example is sentence (61):
27
(61) ...a shaft of sunlight slanted across the judge's bench and the sentence which
followed - the sunlight still remaining- had been a lenient three years... (Kortmann
1995: 212)
Kortmann also makes use of the term 'implied coreference', which was originally introduced by
Berent (1975). In the case of implied coreference (62), 'a noun phrase in one conjunct is
coreferential to an NP which is only implied in the other' (Berent 1975: 15). Applied to the
examples in (62), this means that in (a) 'the location' must be understood as implicitly signifying
'the location of the fire' (b). Unlike Berent, however, Kortmann ranks instances of implied
coreference under the category they would fit into if the implied sentence was analysed instead
of the actual one. As a result, he uses terms such as 'implied constituent coreference' or 'implied
full coreference' to label such examples.
(62)
a. The location being beyond city limits, no equipment could be sent to the fire.
b. The location of the fire being beyond city limits, no equipment could be sent
to the fire. (Berent 1975: 15)
For the purposes of our study, Kortmann’s categories of 'non-coreference', 'part-whole
coreference' and 'full coreference' have been adopted, with the adjustment that the category of
full coreference has been split up into two subcategories: 'subject coreference' and 'object
coreference' (cf. infra). As such, the cline of degrees of coreference maps onto a cline from
most to least easily processable by the reader/hearer8.
8
As the identification of cases of 'implied coreference' is too reliant on the personal interpretation of the reader,
and hard to replicate in follow-up studies, we do not group such instances under one of the three categories
where some degree of coreference is present. Kortmann's category of 'constituent coreference' will not be used
either. This decision has been made based on the fact that the definition of ‘constituent coreference’ is not
exclusively semantic in nature, but also relies on formal features, which is not is the case for the other
coreference categories. Furthermore, ‘constituent coreference’ is not entirely distinct from the other categories
but shows potential overlap with them. In (62 supra), for example, it could also be argued that there is a partwhole relationship between the sunlight and a shaft of sunlight.
28
The category of subject coreference is the most easily processable of the four categories.
In this case, the (implied) subject of the ing-clause is semantically identical to the subject of the
matrix clause (e.g. in (63) her refers back to she).
(63) (…) besides her loosing my linnen and washing dirtily, she hath also grosly abused
me (PPCEME, 1662)
The examples categorized under 'object coreference’ are slightly less easily processable. In
these cases, there is still full coreference between the (implied) subject of the ing-clause and an
element in the matrix clause, but this element is not the matrix clause subject. An example is
(64), where she refers back to the object of the matrix clause her.
(64) Here were several people come to see and take leave of her, she going tomorrow.
(PPCEME, 1666-7)
In the third category, part-whole coreference, there is only partial semantic identity between the
(implied) subject of the ing-clause and an element of the matrix clause. The ing-clause subject
either represents one, or a subset, of a larger group as in (65), or it stands in an inalienable
possession relation to an element of the matrix clause as in (66).
(65) (...) horses, like men, differ in their appetites, some being able to perform a certain
amount of work on a smaller quantity of food than others. (PPCMBE, 1886)
(66) But see Camille Desmoulins, from the Cafe` de Foy, rushing out, sibylline in face;
his hair streaming, in each hand a pistol! (PPCMBE, 1837)
Finally, the category non-coreference indicates the category that requires the highest processing
effort. In this case, there is no semantic identity at all between the (implied) subject of the ingclause and an element of the matrix clause, as illustrated by example (67):
(67) Viewing one of these Creatures, after it had fasted two dayes, all the hinder part
was lank and flaccid. (PPCEME, 1665)
29
2.4 LENGTH
Finally, the choice between an unaugmented ing-clause and a more explicit variant with
augmentation can also be influenced by the syntactic weight (or length) of the adverbial clause.
Evidently, longer linguistic elements have a higher degree of processing complexity than
shorter ones (Hawkins 1992, Rohdenburg 1996). In the case of the ing-clause network, the
expectation would therefore be that augmentation is favoured with long rather than short
adverbial ing-clauses. In this study, we have considered length as a categorical variable, with
all ing-clauses containing five or less words classified as short (68), and all ing-clauses over
five words classified as long (69):
(68) The rapid stream swept us off towards the sea, the night setting in, and we were
soon out of sight of the steamer and the lights of the town. (PPCMBE, 1900)
(69) And now they are together - looking upon us poor mortals struggling on alone in
a most imperfect and sad world. (PPCMBE, 186x)
2.5 DATA & ANALYSIS
The best method to achieve an understanding of the inner dynamics of the ing-clause network,
or, in other words, to investigate the multivariate and probabilistic nature of the choice between
the different constructions, is to fit a regression model (Gries forthc.). As we are addressing two
separate issues, i.e. augmentation as well as subject inclusion, we built two different binary
logistic regression models with mixed effects. The first model concerns the choice between
augmented and unaugmented ing-clauses, indicating in which contexts a linking preposition or
conjunction is (dis)preferred. The second model concerns the choice for subject inclusion,
clarifying in which cases an explicit subject is (dis)preferred. In both models, author
idiosyncrasies and genre are accounted for by means of random effects (Gries forthc.).
30
For the augmentation model, the data set from the PPCEME and PPCMBE was divided
according to whether or not the adverbial clause was linked to the matrix clause by means of a
conjunction or preposition-like element. For the subject inclusion model, the same dataset was
used, but the data were divided based on whether or not the adverbial clause contained an overt
subject. The absolute frequencies for each response variable in each period for the augmentation
and subject inclusion model are presented in Tables 1 and 2 respectively:
1500 – 1570
1640 – 1710
1850 – 1914
augmented
159
237
622
unaugmented
659
709
683
Table 1
Augmented vs. unaugmented ing-clauses
1500 – 1570
1640 – 1710
1850 – 1914
implied subject
693
667
1150
overt subject
125
279
155
Table 2
Subjectless ing-clauses vs. ing-clauses with overt subject
2.5.1
Building the augmentation regression model9
The following list presents the relevant predictors for the variation between augmented and
unaugmented ing-clauses and their levels:
9
-
Semantics: elaboration / temporal / CCC
-
Position: initial / medial / final
glmer(augmentation ~ Sem + Coref + Pos + length + period + Sem:period + Coref:period + Pos:period +
length:period + Pos:Sem + (1|author) + (1|genre), family=binomial, data = ING,
control=glmerControl(optimizer="bobyqa"))
The construction types (i.e. free adjunct, absolute and verbal gerund) have not been added as an independent
variable to the model in order to avoid data separation.
31
-
Coreference: subject / object / part-whole / non-coreference
-
Subject inclusion: overt subject / implied subject
-
Length: long (5+ words) / short (5- words)
-
Period: Early Modern English / Late Modern English
All variables have been set out in Sections 2.1 to 2.4, except for the variable period, which
indicates whether the examples were found in the Early or Late Modern English data set, and
subject inclusion, which distinguishes between ing-clauses with and without overt subject. In
the regression model, the variable period has been reduced to a variable with two levels, namely
ing-clauses found in the Early Modern English datasets (1500-1570 or 1640-1710), and ingclauses from the Late Modern English data set (1850-1914). While it is in itself interesting to
see how the factor period has an impact on the frequency distributions of the different ingclause constructions, the most important function of this variable for our purposes is to include
it in interaction effects with the other variables to see how the influence of the predictors has
shifted over time (as is, for example, done with regard to dative and genitive variability in Wolk
et al. 2013). The independent variable subject inclusion, on the other hand, has been added to
acquire a better picture of the relation between the different types of formal variation that we
attested in the ing-clause network (cf. Section 1.2)
Table 3 presents the augmentation model10, with the binary response variable being the
presence or absence of augmentation in ing-clauses. The figures in the first column are the socalled odds ratios or estimates for the effect the variable has on the response. These odds ratios
quantify the strength of the effect and the direction in which it deviates from the reference level.
10
The overall explanatory power of the augmentation model is assessed by means of its C-value. The C-measure
of a regression model is a value between 0.5 and 1 that serves to indicate the predictive strength of the model,
with C-values over 0.8 being considered of good quality (Speelman 2014, Gries forthc.) and values over 0.7
signifying reportable models. For the augmentation model, the C-value is 0.869, indicating good predictive
power. In addition to the assessment of the predictive strength, the model was tested for goodness of fit and
multicollinearity. To test the model for multicollinearity, the condition number (kappa) was calculated. With a
kappa value of 21.94, the model exhibits moderate but non-problematic collinearity.
32
If the odds ratio has a positive value, it means that there is a positive preference for
unaugmented ing-clauses, while a negative odds ratio indicates a dispreference for
unaugmented ing-clauses with regards to the reference level under consideration. The final
column, then, presents the p-value for each effect, showing which of these effects are
significant. In addition to the fixed main effects, the model also contains a number of interaction
effects, namely the interaction effects between the predictor ‘period’ and the other predictors,
to see which of the effects have shifted over time, the interaction effect between the predictors
‘position’ and ‘semantics’, and between ‘coreference’ and ‘subject inclusion’:
Augmentation Model11
-
Predictors
Semantics
Levels of
categorical
predictors
(Intercept)
CCC
Coreference
Elaboration
Temporal
noncoreference
Length
Object
Part-whole
Subject
Long
Position
Short
Final
Subject
Inclusion
Period
11
-
C-value: 0.8689
AIC: 2795.0
Initial
Medial
Implied subject
Overt subject
Early modern
Odds ratio
0.6825
Reference
level
2.92838
0.43229
Reference
level
1.41634
-0.28151
1.13628
Reference
level
-1.06263
Reference
level
1.12691
2.56472
Reference
level
2.78899
Reference
level
Observations: 3069
Augmented: 1003
Unaugmented: 2066
Standard Z value
p-value
Error
0.2898
2.355
0.01884
*
0.3238
0.19131
8.359
2.260
< 2e-16
0.02384
***
*
0.38086
0.48134
0.26599
3.719
-0.585
4.272
0.00020
0.55865
1.94e-05
***
0.15473
-6.868
6.53e-12
***
0.23894
0.22230
5.716
11.537
2.40e-06
< 2e-16
***
***
0.33778
8.257
< 2e-16
***
***
A comparison between the mixed model presented in this paper and a fixed effects only model shows that the
random factors author and genre caused an increase in the c-value from 0.792 to 0.869 and a decrease of the
AIC from 3127.4 to 2795.0. An Anova test indicated that both random effects made a significant contribution to
the model.
33
Late Modern
-0.47976
0.35347
-1.357
0.17469
Elaboration
:
LME
Temporal : LME
Noncoreference
: LME
Object : LME
Part-whole
:
LME
Subject : LME
Long : LME
-0.06752
0.45267
-0.149
0.88143
-0.29645
Reference
level
0.01983
0.40789
0.21455
-1.382
0.16707
0.51749
0.58635
0.038
0.696
0.96944
0.48665
-0.04507
Reference
level
0.66857
Reference
level
-0.11052
-2.41572
0.31577
-0.143
0.88651
0.20725
3.226
0.00126
***
0.6235
0.27169
-0.421
-8.891
0.67356
< 2e-16
***
Initial :
elaboration
Medial :
elaboration
-2.82711
0.86548
-3.267
0.00109
**
-1.43947
0.58955
-2.442
0.01462
*
Initial : temp
Medial : temp
-0.50018
-0.59571
0.25946
0.26688
-1.928
-2.232
0.04389
0.02561
*
*
-2.948
0.00320
**
-1.691
0.09087
.
-6.431
1.27e-10
***
Interaction
: Period
Short : LME
Final : LME
Initial : LME
Medial : LME
Interaction
Semantics :
position
Interaction
Coreference
: subject
Object coref : -1.58840
0.53884
overt subject
Part-whole coref -0.97815
0.57851
:
Overt subject
-2.71002
0.42142
Subject coref :
overt subject
(Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ / 0.001 ‘**’ / 0.01 ‘*’ / 0.05
Table 3
‘.’)
The augmentation model
The figures presented in Table 3 show a number of significant tendencies regarding the role of
the various predictors in the domain of augmentation. First, the results show that there is a
34
strong preference for expressing elaboration semantics by means of an unaugmented ing-clause
(2.93). Ing-clauses with temporal semantics show a similar but weaker preference for
unaugmented forms when compared to CCC semantics (0.43).
Figure 4
Semantics (AUG)
These results, more or less in accordance with Kortmann’s observations concerning
augmentation patterns in free adjuncts and absolutes, suggest that the degree of interpretative
complexity of the adverbial ing-clause indeed triggers the need for augmentation. As can be
seen in figure 4, CCC- and temporal semantic relations – which have previously been
established as ‘more informative’ and hence harder to process without additional explicit
contextual cues than elaboration relations – are much more likely to occur in the augmented
form than ing-clauses expressing the less informative elaboration relations.
In terms of position, it appears that, overall, the preference for unaugmented ing-clauses
increases in sentence-initial position (1.13) and in medial position (2.56), with a strong decrease
of unaugmented ing-clauses in medial position in Late Modern English (-2.42). These effects
are illustrated in Figure 6. This result goes against the hypothesis that was formulated in Section
35
2.2, which predicted that initial ing-clauses would be more likely to take augmentation, as these
require more processing effort.
Figure 5
Position (AUG)
Rather, it seems that augmentation is more common when a certain semantic relation does not
occur in the position it is typically associated with. In the effect plot illustrated in Figure 6, the
adverbial ing-clauses are considered separately for each semantic class, showing how their
position vis-à-vis the matrix clause has an impact on augmentation choice. While Figure 6 does
not show any valid effects for temporal and elaboration clauses, it does show that temporal
adverbial clauses are more likely to be augmented in medial than in final position, and that
adverbial clauses with CCC-semantics are more likely to take augmentation when they occur
in sentence final position, than when they occur in initial or medial position12:
12
From the coefficients presented in table 3, we can infer that if elaboration semantics occur in initial or medial
position instead of in final position, they will be less likely to be expressed by means of an unaugmented ingclause (-2.83 and -1.44 respectively) than CCC-clauses. A similar but weaker tendency can be observed for
temporal semantics in initial (-0.50) and medial position (-0.59). However, the Effect Plot for these interaction
effects (presented in Figure 6) reveals that these effects cannot be considered valid, as they have overlapping
confidence intervals.
36
Figure 6
Interaction effect position – semantics (AUG)
The effect plot of the variable coreference is presented in Figure 7. Observe that, while the pvalues presented in Table 3 suggest that Object Subject and Subject Coreference are
significantly more likely to be unaugmented than in the case of noncoreference, the large
confidence intervals indicate that this might not be a valid effect:
37
Figure 7
Coreference (AUG)
Overall, it seems the augmentation patterns in the different types of coreference in Early and
Late Modern English do not straightforwardly align to the cognitive complexity cline of
coreference suggested in Section 2.3 (subject < object < part-whole < noncoreference). In other
words, while a bivariate analysis might yield a significant result13, a mixed effect regression
model in fact indicates that there is a certain degree of caution required, as the degree of
coreferential complexity possibly does not have a significant impact on augmentation choice in
the ing-clause network.
However, the interaction effect between coreference and subject inclusion presented in
Figure 8 indicates that augmentation choice seems to behave quite differently in ing-clauses
13
A bivariate analysis of the data indicated that ing-clauses with low coreferential integration into the matrix
clause (‘non-coreference’) required augmentation significantly more often than ing-clauses with object
coreference, part-whole coreference or subject coreference (Chi-squared test, p<0.0001):
augmented
unaugmented
noncoreference
234
359
Other
769
1707
38
with an implied subject on the one hand, and ing-clauses with an overt subject on the other.
With the group of ing-clauses with implied subject, the coreference complexity principle does
hold, as cases where there is no or merely a part-whole relation between an element of the
matrix clause and the implied subject of the ing-clause are more likely to take augmentation
than those with subject or object coreference. Moreover, the effect plot shows that if there is no
coreference relation between ing-clause and matrix clause, ing-clauses with implied subject
require augmentation more often than those with overt subject. A possible explanation for this
observation is that the presence of an overt subject in the ing-clause already serves to facilitate
the processing of the noncoreferential ing-clause, and hence has a smaller need for an additional
elements that ease processing.
Figure 8
Interaction Coreference - Subject Inclusion
39
These findings also shed new light on the function of augmentation in ing-clauses with implied
subject. Concerning subjectless participial ing-clauses, Kortmann argues that ‘augmentation of
free adjuncts serves the primary function of signalling explicitly the circumstantial relation
holding between the adjunct and the matrix clause’ (1995: 227). Yet, by including gerundive
adverbial clauses into the multivariate analyses, it appears that augmentation does serve the
function of aiding processing of ing-clauses with low degrees of coreferentiality.
Finally, the model also indicates that the predictor length has a negative odds ratio,
suggesting that short ing-clauses are less likely to be unaugmented than longer ones (-1.12).
This is illustrated in Figure 9:
Figure 9
Length (AUG)
From the perspective of cognitive complexity, this finding is quite unexpected, as greater
syntactic weight is associated with greater processing complexity, which would lead to a
preference for the more explicit (in this case augmented) option (Rohdenburg 1996). However,
from a diachronic perspective the negative impact of length can be explained by the fact that
40
the prepositionally augmented adverbial clause is still a very new construction (De Smet 2008,
2013) when unaugmented participial ing-clauses were already much more common and wellestablished (Killie & Swan 2009) 14 . As the prepositionally augmented type became more
frequent, the language user gradually allowed the construction to become more complex,
resulting in a less pronounced impact of the factor length in the Late Modern period.
2.5.2
BUILDING THE SUBJECT INCLUSION MODEL
To asses which predictors play a role in determining the likelihood of subject inclusion in
adverbial ing-clauses, another regression model was built. The response variable again is
binary, distinguishing between ing-clauses that do not have their own subject but are controlled
by an element of their matrix clause (implied subject), and ing-clauses that contain their own
subject (overt subject). The relevant predictors are15:
-
Semantics: elaboration / temporal / CCC
-
Coreference: subject / object / part-whole / non-coreference
-
Position: initial / medial / final
-
Augmentation: augmented / unaugmented
-
Period: Early Modern English / Late Modern English
The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 416. Again, the estimates or odds
ratios are displayed in the first column, followed by the standard error and Z-values, and finally
the p-value which indicates whether the observed effect is significant. The predicted odds in
14
Also see Vosberg (2003), who points out that gerundive sentential complements initially are more reluctant to
allow object extraction than the older to-infinitives and that-complements.
15
In contrast to the augmentation model, length was excluded from this model, as there was no convincing
evidence that the length of the adverbial clause in any way influences whether or not the language user prefers
subject inclusion in adverbial clauses.
The construction types (i.e. free adjunct, absolute and verbal gerund) have not been added as an independent
variable to the model in order to avoid data separation.
16
Overall, the model has strong explanatory power, with a C-value of 0.94. As was the case with the
augmentation model, the model was checked for multicollinearity by calculating the condition number (kappa),
which with a value of 13.82 was well below the problematic collinearity threshold.
41
the first column are for ing-clauses with internal subject, which means that a positive value
points to a preference for subject inclusion, while a negative value does the opposite. In addition
to the main effects, the model also includes interaction effects between the predictor ‘period’
and the other predictors to see how the probabilistic effect of the various factors has changed
from Early to Late Modern English:
Subject inclusion Model17
-
Predictors
Semantics
Levels of
categorical
predictors
(Intercept)
CCC
Coreference
elaboration
temporal
noncoreference
Subject
Object
Part-whole
Final
Position
Initial
Medial
Augmentation Augmented
Unaugmented
Early Modern
Period
Late Modern
Interaction
period
semantics
17
-
C-value: 0.938
AIC: 1544.5
Observations: 3069
Implied subject: 2510
Overt subject: 559
Odds ratio
Standard Z value
Error
p-value
-0.65463
Reference
level
-1.06066
0.17728
Reference
level
-4.33584
-1.12750
0.33467
-1.956
0.050462 .
0.27807
0.19088
-3.814
0.929
0.000137 ***
0.353023
0.23913
0.25645
< 2e-16
9.01e-05
-0.07902
Reference
level
0.93559
0.85900
Reference
level
1.45541
Reference
level
-1.10354
0.34130
-18.132
1.10e05
-0.232
0.27026
0.21048
3.462
4.081
0.000537 ***
4.48e-05 ***
0.24942
5.835
5.37e-09
0.42519
-2.595
0.009448 **
1.55226
0.45605
3.404
0.000665 ***
***
***
0.816902
***
:
elaboration :
LME
A comparison between the mixed model presented in this paper and a fixed effects only model shows that the
random factors author and genre caused an increase in the c-value from 0.9 to 0.94 and a decrease of the AIC
from 1775.7 to 1544.5. An Anova test indicated that both random effects made a significant contribution to the
model.
42
temporal : LME -0.68929
0.36334
Object : LME
0.78799
0.48376
Coreference
Part-whole
: 0.82279
0.57593
LME
Subject : LME -0.40106
0.43681
Initial Pos : -1.93284
0.44557
Position
LME
Medial
Pos: 0.74742
0.41893
LME
0.38445
Augmentation Unaugmented : 0.76680
LME
(Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ / 0.001 ‘**’ / 0.01 ‘*’ / 0.05
Table 4
-1.897
1.629
1.429
0.047817 *
0.103337
0.153132
-0.918
-4.338
0.358537
1.44e-05 ***
1.784
0.074402 .
1.995
0.046093 *
‘.’ )
The subject inclusion model
Semantically, the figures reported in Table 4 show that ing-clauses with elaboration semantics
are shown to have a disfavouring effect on subject inclusion (-1.06), but, as the confidence
intervals of CCC- and elaboration semantics overlap, the observed effect is not reliable.
However, the interaction effect for semantics: period (illustrated in Figure 10) shows that over
time the proportions shift, adverbial clauses with an overt subject being the most likely to
express elaboration semantics in Late Modern English (1.55). Although the differences in this
stage are only very subtle, it appears that the constructions in the ing-clause network over time
became more organized in accordance with the iconicity principle, as suggested by Kortmann
(1995), with syntactically less integrated adverbial clauses with an autonomous subject
expressing the semantically less integrated elaboration relations.
43
Figure 10
Semantics (SUBJ)
Subject coreference and object coreference have a disfavouring effect on subject
inclusion. The disfavouring effect is the strongest in the case of subject coreference, i.e. when
the subject of the ing-clause is identical to that of the matrix clause (-4.34)18. This result is
reminiscent of Kortmann’s observation on the distribution of the different coreference degrees
in free adjuncts and absolutes, with subjectless free adjuncts prototypically having subject
coreference and absolutes prototypically taking a subject that is not fully coreferential with the
matrix clause subject:
(…) the prototypical free adjunct (91.5 percent) is controlled by the matrix clause
subject, and that the prototypical absolute has a subject which is not fully coreferential
with the matrix clause subject. This division of labour between free adjuncts and
absolutes in present-day English is not astonishing. It can be seen as the result of a
18
A similar weaker disfavouring effect can be observed for object coreference, but again, the error bars
illustrated in figure 10 indicate that the effect might not hold.
44
historical development which seems only natural from the point of communicational
efficiency (…) (Kortmann 1995: 214)
Or, put differently, the ing-clause network over time organized itself in such a way that, when
the notional subject of the ing-clause is fully coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause,
speakers will opt for a subjectless ing-clause. Ing-clauses with an overt subject, on the other
hand, become increasingly common when there is no full identity between the subject of the
matrix clause and the subject of the ing-clause (also see Rio-Rey 2002). However, while this
sounds like a plausible theory, the actual diachronic development of the relation between
subject inclusion and coreference seems less straightforward. The interaction effect
coreference-period, illustrated in Figure 11, does not provide any solid evidence to support the
theory that the existing division of labour in terms of coreference between constructions with
and without overt subject is the result of a diachronic development. Rather, the figures seem to
suggest that the observed contrast between ing-clauses with subject coreference and noncoreference becomes less pronounced over time, as it becomes more acceptable to use
subjectless ing-clauses when there is no link between the matrix clause and the implied subject
of the ing-clause:
45
Figure 11
Coreference (SUBJ)
Possibly, the growing number of subjectless noncoreference clauses can be explained by
looking at the relation between presence or absence of augmentation and subject inclusion. This
is illustrated in the effect plot in Figure 12:
46
Figure 12
Augmentation (SUBJ)
Figure 12 shows that augmentation is in fact more common with ing-clauses with an implied
subject (1.46), and appears to become even more so over time (0.77). The growing number of
augmented ing-clauses (especially adverbial verbal gerunds) might help to explain why
subjectless ing-clauses start occurring with low coreference relations more frequently, as the
explicit linking element in subjectless ing-clauses has been shown to help in facilitating the
increased processing difficulty of low coreferentiality (cf. Section 2.5.1)19.
Finally, in terms of position, the figures in Table 4 at first sight suggest that subject
inclusion is more common in sentence-initial (0.94) and medial position (0.86), but the error
lines in Figure 13 indicate that this might not a valid effect. Diachronically, we do find some
19
Also note that the interaction effect between Coreference and subject inclusion presented in 2.5.1 complicated
Kortmann’s claim that augmentation serves a somewhat different function for participial ing-clauses with and
without overt subject. Kortmann subsequently strengthens this claim by stating that the hypothesis that
augmentation fulfills these different functions “may also explain why syndetic linkage [i.e. augmentation] is only
marginally found for free adjuncts (5.5 percent), while it is very frequent for absolutes (45 percent)” (1995: 227).
However, if verbal gerunds and categorically ambiguous ing-clauses are taken into account as well,
augmentation becomes much more common with subjectless ing-clauses.
47
significant changes between Early and Late Modern English, as adverbial ing-clauses with
subject become increasingly uncommon in initial position (-1.93):
Figure 13
Position (SUBJ)
These shifts in positional patterning can be understood in light of Kortmann’s (1991) theories
on the relation between the function and discourse-pragmatic behaviour of the adverbial ingclauses, as set out in Section 2.2. The data suggest that, as ing-clauses with overt subject
specialize to expressing specificational or elaborative meanings, they come to serve as
‘afterthoughts’ rather than ‘signposts’ or ‘framesetters’, and hence decreasingly occur in
sentence-initial position, which is reserved for frame-setting background information.
3
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have offered a new approach to the study of non-finite adverbial ing-clauses
by moving beyond the traditional boundaries of lexical categories and regarding free adjuncts,
absolutes and adverbial verbal gerunds as constituents of a higher-order generalization of
48
adverbial ing-clauses that optionally take augmentation and/or an expressed subject. As such,
the present study differs from the existing studies of the functional, pragmatic and semantic
profile of non-finite (adverbial) ing-clauses, which have thus far mainly treated gerundive and
participial clauses in isolation. Moreover, by using multivariate statistical techniques in the
form of two logistic regression models, we were able to provide more solid evidence for, but
also to weaken or refute previous claims on the factors determining subject inclusion and
augmentation choice.
With regard to augmentation, the degree of interpretative complexity of the adverbial
ing-clause triggers the need for augmentation to varying extents. First, in line with the
observations made by Kortmann (1991, 1995), the analysis indicates that augmentation is more
common when the adverbial clause expresses cognitively more complex or more informative
temporal and CCC-relations than in the case of elaboration semantics, and this effect appears
to become stronger over time. Moreover, by including the interaction effect between position
and semantics, we were able to determine that temporal and especially CCC-clauses have an
additional preference for augmentation when they occur in sentence-final position, a slot which
is typically associated with elaborative afterthoughts rather than frame-setting temporal or
causal background information. By contrast, the results of the multivariate analysis suggested
that the degree of processing complexity of the coreference relation between the matrix and
subordinate clause subject only significantly impacted augmentation choice with ing-clauses
with an implied (covert) subject.
Subject inclusion, in its turn, is also to a certain extent determined by semantic iconicity
factors, as the syntactically less integrated constructions with an overt subject specialize to
express the less informative, less semantically integrated elaboration uses. These semantic
developments are possibly linked to the observed shift in the discourse-pragmatic preferences
of these overt subject constructions, since they decreasingly occur in sentence-initial position.
49
The strongest effect in the subject inclusion model is – as was already stated for Present-day
English free adjuncts and absolutes by Kortmann (1991, 1995) – the degree of coreference
between the subject of the adverbial and the matrix clause, with fully coreferential subjects in
the adverbial clause remaining unexpressed, and non-coreference leading to subject inclusion.
However, a closer look at the interaction between period and coreference suggest that it is not
straightforwardly the case that the observed division of labour between ing-clauses with and
without overt subject in Present-day English resulted from a historical development towards
communicational efficiency (Kortmann 1995). Rather, it appears that, over time, the
‘minimized’ subjectless constructions became much more dominant than those with an overt
subject, leading them to become increasingly acceptable in non-coreferential contexts.
If we bring together the evidence on the historical development, conceptual status and
semantic and discourse-pragmatic features of adverbial ing-clauses, we can discern two
different forces of change. First, the once clearly distinct categories of adverbial verbal gerunds,
free adjuncts and absolutes underwent a series of changes that increased the formal and
functional similarities between the constructions, which in turn stimulated further attraction
between them. As a result, in Modern English the three types of adverbial ing-clauses had
become formally and functionally so alike that it is reasonable to say that they had become part
of an overarching network in the language user’s mind. Thus, in the spirit of De Smet (2010),
we argue that, while participial clauses and verbal gerunds cannot simply be collapsed into a
single category, it does seem to be the case that free adjuncts, absolutes, and adverbial verbal
gerunds are strongly interrelated, and over time came to be conceptually grouped as an
adverbial ing-clause network. This network of adverbial ing-clauses and how it relates to other
higher-order generalizations and its phrasal origins is illustrated in Figure 14:
50
Figure 14
The triangular adverbial ing-clause network, its relation to higher order
generalizations and its relation to its phrasal origins
In addition, our statistical analysis has shown that, after the different ing-clauses attracted each
other and came to form a network as a result of the formal and functional expansion of and
resulting overlap between all three members, new functional differences started to emerge. In
other words, as soon as the formal and functional ties between the three different sources
became obvious enough to conceptually group them together as one type of adverbial ing-clause
with optional subject and augmentor, the constructions were again reorganised in such a way
that each subtype, i.e. (un)augmented or with(out) overt subject, filled its own particular niche
of usage. These findings are reminiscent of Traugott and Trousdale’s (2013: 18) observation
that there are basically two options when expansion and overlap create a possibility for
51
competition in the ‘constructional space’: either one (or several) of the constructions involved
decline (Leech et al. 2009) or competing constructions may come to be preferred in particular
niches (Torres Cacoullos and Walker 2009). It is the latter that we find exemplified by the
English ing-clauses, where each subtype has not only survived, but has also taken up its own
prototypical usages despite the blurred boundaries between the three members.
4
REFERENCES
Berent, Gerald P. 1975. English absolutes in functional perspective. In Grossman, Robin E. &
L. James San. Papers from the parasession on functionalism. A paravolume to Papers
from the eleventh regional meeting of the CLS, 10-33. Chicago: CLS.
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.
De Smet, Hendrik. 2010. English ing-clauses and their problems: the structure of grammatical
categories. Linguistics 48.6, 1153-1193.
De Smet, Hendrik. 2013. Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of
complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses.
Linguistics 43, 449-470.
Fanego, Teresa. 2004. On reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change: the rise and
development of English verbal gerund'. Diachronica 21.1, 5-55.
Fonteyn, Lauren & Hubert Cuyckens. 2014. The development of free adjuncts in English and
Dutch. In Adams, Michael Paul, Brinton, Laurel & Robert Fulk (Eds.), Historical
Accounts of English: Critical Approaches to Methodology and Evidence, 15-50.
Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
52
Gries, Stefan Th. Forthc. The most underused statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multilevel (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10.1.
Hawkins, John A. 1992. Syntactic weight and information status in word order variation.
Linguistische Berichte (special issue 4), 196–219.
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Houston, Ann. 1989. The English gerund: syntactic change and discourse function. In Ralph
W. Fasold and Deborah Schiffrin (eds.). Language change and variation, 173-196.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jespersen, Otto. 1940. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part V. Vol. IV:
Syntax. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1992. “Semantics and Vocabulary”. In Hogg (ed.) The Cambridge History
of the English Language, Volume 1, 290-408. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Killie, Kristin. 2006. Internal and External Factors in Language Change: Present Participle
Converbs in English and Norwegian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 107, 447-469.
Killie, Kristin. 2007. On the history of verbal present participle converbs in English and
Norwegian and the concept of change from below. In S. Elspass, N. Langer, J.
Scharloth & W. Vandenbussche (eds.). Germanic language histories ‘from below’
(1700-2000), 149-162. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Killie, Kristin & Toril Swan. 2009. The grammaticalization and subjectification of adverbial –
ing clauses (converb clauses) in English. English Language and Linguistics 13, 337363.
53
Kisbye, Torben. 1971. An historical outline of English syntax. Aarhus: Akademisk boghandel.
Kohnen, Thomas. 2004. Text, Textsorte, Sprachgeschichte: Englische Partizipial- und
Gerundialkonstruktionen 1100 bis 1700. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. Free adjuncts and absolutes in English: problems of control and
interpretation. London & New York: Routledge.
Kortmann, Bernd. 1995. Adverbial participial clauses in English. In M. Haspelmath and E.
König eds. Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 189237.
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Nicholas Smith. 2009. Change in
Contemporary English : a grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mustanoja, Tauno Frans. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
Perek, Florent. 2012. Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar:
Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive linguistics 23, 601-635.
PPCEME: The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English, 1500-1710, 1.7 m
words. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, first edition,
(http://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).
PPCMBE: The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English, 1700-1914, 1 m
words. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, first edition,
(http://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Río-Rey, Carmen. 2002. Subject control and coreference in Early Modern English free adjuncts
and absolutes. English Language and Linguistics 6.2, 309-323.
Tajima, Matsuji. 1985. The syntactic development of the gerund in Middle English. Tokyo:
Nan'un-do.
54
Thompson, Sandra A. 1983. Grammar and Discourse: The English Detached Participial
Clause. In Klein-Andreu (ed.). Discourse perspectives on syntax, 43-64. New York:
Academic Press.
Timofeeva, Olga. 2010. Non-finite constructions in Old English with special reference to
syntactic borrowing from Latin. In Juhani Härmä, Jarmo Korhonen and Terttu
Nevalainen (eds.) Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 80. Jyväskylä:
WS Bookwell Oy.
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & James A. Walker. 2009. The present of the English future:
grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85, 321-354.
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and
Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van de Pol, Nikki and Hubert Cuyckens. 2013. Gradualness in change in English augmented
absolutes. In Giacalone Ramat A., Mauri C., Molinelli P. (Eds.). Synchrony and
Diachrony: A dynamic interface. Studies in Language Companion Series, 341-365.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van de Pol, Nikki & Peter Petré. forthcoming. Why is there a Present-day English absolute?.
Studies in Language.
Van De Velde, Freek, De Smet, Hendrik & Lobke Ghesquière. 2013. On multiple source
constructions in language change. Studies in Language 37.3, 473-489.
Verstraete, Jean Christophe. 2007. Rethinking the coordinate-subordinate dichotomy:
Interpersonal grammar and the analysis of adverbial clauses in English. Berlin-New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Visser, Frederikus Theodorus. 1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden:
Brill.
55
Vosberg, Uwe. 2003. The role of extractions and horror aequi in the evoluyion of –ing
complements in Modern English. In Rohdenburg, Gunther & Britta Mondorf (eds.)
Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 305-327. Berlin: Mouton De
Gruyter.
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. Dative
and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional
variation and change. Diachronica 30.3, 382 –419.