The different developments of progressive aspect markers be in the middle/midst
of and be in the process of V-ing: mechanisms of change
1. Introduction
Recent theoretical discussions have cautioned researchers against giving a blanket
characterization of grammaticalization to complex and composite changes, without eye for the
smaller processes they consist of (e.g. De Smet 2012). Increasingly, the importance of accounting
for micro-changes and gradualness is being stressed (e.g. Traugott & Trousdale 2010) and
current research focuses on smaller mechanisms and factors of change that may define different
types of grammaticalization paths.
In this article we will describe three different grammaticalization paths, with their distinct
mechanisms and factors of change, that led to very similar outcomes, viz. progressive aspect
markers (henceforth PAMs) be in the middle / midst / process of + V-ing. As illustrated by
examples (1a-c), they all convey in Present-day English that the action expressed by the
following verb-ing form is in progress at some time of orientation (Koops 2004).
(1a)
Please excuse my appearance. I was in the middle of washing my hair. (Google)
(1b)
I'm afraid I'm too busy - I'm in the midst of writing up a report. (Cambridge Dictionary)
(1c)
He was in the process of converting to fly US aircraft for the RAF support (…) when the
war ended. (WB)
The three PAMs developed from two different source structures, viz. complex prepositions in the
middle/midst of + NP, as in (2a-b), to be discussed in Section 2, and complex appositive noun
phrase the process of + NP, e.g. (2c), discussed in Section 3.
(2a)
but she walked out of the room in the middle of the reading (CLMET 1850-1920)
(2b)
truth shall fall in middest of the streets (…) (HC 1570-1640)
(2c)
The same process of injection might be applied to impregnate timber with tar. (CLMET
1780-1850)
For the reconstruction of the grammaticalization paths, a diachronic dataset was compiled,
extracting all tokens of the nouns middle, midst and process and all their possible spelling
variants from the Helsinki Corpus (HC), the Corpus of Early Modern English Texts (CEMET), the
Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (CLMET), and random samples of 500 hits of these nouns
from WordbanksOnline (WB) for British Present-day prose. In total, 1,620 occurrences of middle,
1,507 of midst and 1,457 of process were analysed.
PERIOD
CORPUS
c. 750-1150
c. 1150-1500
Helsinki Corpus
c. 1500-1640
c. 1640-1710
Helsinki Corpus +
Corpus of Early
middle
midst
process
n = 19
n=0
n=0
n = 50
n=0
n = 24
n = 59
n = 82
n = 40
n = 136
n = 139
n = 37
1
Modern English
Texts
c. 1710-1780
Corpus of Late
n = 154
n = 139
n = 18
c. 1780-1850
Modern English
n = 298
n = 335
n = 406
c. 1850-1920
Texts
n = 404
n = 312
n = 432
n = 500
n = 500
n = 500
n = 1,620
n = 1,507
n = 1,457
Wordbanks
c. 1990-2004
Online
(random subset)
TOTAL
Table 1: Overview of the dataset
The theoretical perspective from which we will approach the grammaticalization paths of be
in the middle / midst / process of is the functional-cognitive tradition of construction grammar
(e.g. Langacker 1987, 1991, Halliday 1994, Croft 2001, Fried 2010, Boye & Harder 2012). It has
alerted analysts to the fact that grammaticalization involves the creation of a new
conventionalized expression as part of an overarching change in the larger construction in which
the expression functions (Boye & Harder 2012: 35). Hence, we have to capture the changes in
both the internal functional structure of the changing element and its new external functions in
the larger construction. This entails that the notions of functional-structural reanalysis and,
importantly, also neo-analysis are central to our understanding of changing constructions
(Traugott & Trousdale 2010: 33). For the phenomena being studied in this article they involve
changes in, or creation of new, segments of structure and shifts in the meaningful grammatical
relations (such as modification and complementation) between them (Langacker 1977, 1991).
We also hold the view that collocational relations are part and parcel of constructions as
lexicogrammatical wholes (e.g. Sinclair 1991, Gries & Stefanowitch 2003). The abstract
grammatical combinatorics that relate the components of a construction intrinsically
correspond to selection restrictions on the lexical items realizing the components. Therefore,
changing constructions crucially involve changing lexical sets and co-selection restrictions.
2. Middle/midst: complex preposition phrase as source construction
2.1. Stage 1: Lexical head of (bi)nominal
Middle dates back to early Old English, whereas the earliest attestation of midst is around 1450.
In their earliest, lexical, uses, middle and midst designate a part or point “that is at an equal
distance from the sides, edges, or ends” (OED, middle; B.1) of a larger whole. This part-whole
relation is expressed by a head + genitive in the earliest data, e.g. middle cirican in (3a), or by a
head + postmodifier of + NP2, e.g. þe middel of thy thred (3c). Much rarer in the data are simplex
NPs, such as (3c), in which the whole whose ‘middle’ is referred to can be contextually inferred:
in the middle (of the arch line).
(3a)
ic secgu noman +dinne bro+drum minum in middle cirican (HC 850-950)
2
‘ I say (you) to take that to my brothers in the middle of the church’
(3b)
as endith thy reknyng leyt on end of thy thred & þe middel of thy thred shal kerue the
meridional lyne (HC 1350-1420)
(3c)
I draw an arch line as you see , betwene A. and B, which arch line I deuide in the
middell in the point D. (HC 1500-1570)
These (bi)nominal constructions had from the beginning a strong tendency to occur as
complement of prepositions such as in, on, out of, till, to, in which middle / midst still functioned
as fully lexical heads. The internal analysis of these prepositional phrases is:
(4) prephead ((detpremodifier (N1head (of NP2)postmodifier) complement)
Soon after its emergence, midst began to specialize for a specific subtype of partitive
construction, which also occurred with middle but less frequently. In this subtype, midst / middle
are not a physical part of the reference object (as in 3a-c), but a midpoint in an abstract zone
which has to be mentally construed with reference to the reference object, as in (5a-b). In such
‘abstract’ partitive constructions, midst / middle denote a position “surrounded by” things or
people (OED, midst; A.2.a) or “between two extremes” (OED, middle; B.4).
(5a)
He in the midst of all this sturre and rout, Gan bend his browes, and moue him self
about. (OED 1557, Songes & Sonettes)
(5b)
(they) crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Iesus in the
middest. (CLMET 1570-1640)
Our distinction between true partitives (3a-c) and abstract partitives (5a-b) corresponds
largely to the distinction Givón (1993: 264-265) makes between ‘true possessive’ versus
‘pseudo-possessive phrases’ in his discussion of ‘complex locatives’. Whereas true possessives or
partitives, e.g. (he focused) on the middle of the line, refer to a salient part (e.g. the middle) of a
whole, pseudo-possessives or abstract partitives specify the relation between an entity and a
salient reference area, e.g. (Jesus was crucified) in the midst of two others, in which Jesus is located
vis-à-vis two others. Discursively, with true partitives the middle functions as antecedent of
phoric relations (6a), whereas with abstract partitives the second NP is the antecedent (6b):
(6a)
In the eye tracking experiment, he focused on the middle of the line.
It (= the middle) contained a difficult term.
(6b)
Jesus was crucified in the midst of two others.
They flanked him in a grotesque way.
Yet, this discursive prominence of NP2 does not entail syntactic reorganization: in both true and
abstract partitives, the syntactic head of the construction is NP1 with middle or midst, as shown
by the possibility of eliding a retrievable NP2 in both, as in (3c) and (5b). We therefore view
abstract partitives as (still) a subtype of the binominal construction with middle/midst as lexical
head.
Middle and midst also differ in terms of the pace at which their spatial collocates extended to
temporal ones. Middle is attested in its temporal sense for the first time only c1420, about five
centuries after its emergence with spatial meaning in Old English. We adhere to the view that
lexical meaning does not reside solely in the lexical ‘node’. Rather, the semantic structure of a
lexical item is determined by its co-selection of specific (sets of) collocates (Sinclair 1991). The
3
meaning shift of a node and the extension of its collocates are therefore two sides of the same
process. The gradual attraction of originally spatial middle towards temporal collocates marks a
process of metaphorization based on the conceptual metaphor ‘time is space’ (Traugott & König
1991: 190).
(7)
what is þe bigynnyng of it, and where-of it is causid, and þinke on þe myddil, and also
what eende wole folowe of it. (HC 1420-1500)
Midst skips this phase of slow metaphorization and takes on a temporal meaning almost
immediately from its emergence c1450, occurring with both spatial and temporal collocates.
2.2. Stage II: Complex preposition phrase
The emergence of the complex preposition (CxP) + NP complement can be recognized
semantically by the CxP’s designating a spatial or temporal relation – there is no profiling
anymore of a middle part, point or region – and the impossibility of omitting the final
complement NP which ‘completes’ the CxP (Langacker 1987: 306ff). Middle and midst have been
incorporated into the fixed CxPs in the middle/midst of, which have a function and value very like
a simple preposition (Halliday 1994: 212; Quirk et al: 1985: 669-673, Hoffmann 2005),
indicating that the entity is simply situated somewhere inside and not outside of the “reference
zone denoted by NP2” (Langacker 1987: 242) e.g. at the fair in (8).
(8)
Frank called out presently, Stop thief; and it being in the middle of the fair, it was
impossible (CLMET 1710-1780)
Syntactically, the complex preposition phrase construction distinguishes itself from its source,
preposition + binominal, by distinct syntactic behaviour with regard to topicalization, negation
and substitution of NP1 (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 671-3), as shown in Table 2. Whereas all of these
are possible with simple prepositions followed by a binominal NP (Stage I), topicalization,
negation and substitution are marginal to impossible with in the middle/midst of in Stage II. On
the other hand, in the middle/midst of can only be replaced by a simple preposition in Stage II.
TEST
STAGE I
STAGE II
PREPOSITION + BINOMINAL
COMPLEX PREPOSITION PHRASE
e.g. He was serving from the middle
e.g. He was stuck in the middle of
topicalization of
of the court.
From where was he serving? -
the wilderness.
* Where in the wilderness was
P NP1
From the middle.
he stuck? - In the middle.
He was not serving from the
* He was stuck not in the middle
substitution of
middle of the court, but from the
of the wilderness, but at the
NP1
left.
edge.
substitution of
?/* He is serving from the court.
He was stuck in the wilderness.
negation or
P NP1 of
Table 2: Distinguishing tests for complex preposition phrase
4
In clause structure, the preposition phrase as a whole functions either as an optional clausal
adjunct, specifying the place in or time when the event described by the clause nucleus takes
place, e.g. (9a,) or an obligatory predication adjunct, which completes the meaning of the verb,
e.g. the place where he was laying in (9b) (Quirk et al 1985: 504-511).
(9a)
And dare we for all this lay downe , take our rest , eate our meat securely and carelessly
in the midst of so great and so many ruines? (HC 1500-1640)
(9b)
he … thought to leape a little ditch, … but O! poor Jack hee, basket and all, lay in the
midst of the ditch up to his arme-pits in mud(HC 1570-1640)
Middle worked slowly towards this new constructional stage, which it attained by reanalysis,
in the sense of functional reparsing. The functional structure of the binominal, prephead
((detpremodifier (N1head (of NP2)postmodifier) complement, was reparsed into different units with different
functions, viz.
(10)
in the middle ofpreposition (NP2complement)
The first complex preposition uses were attested only from about 1380 on and bridging
contexts allowing both a binominal and a complex preposition reading were more common than
clear complex preposition uses in Middle and Early Modern English, as shown in Table 3 below.
Collocational extension and fixation were major forces preparing this functional reparsing.
Languages users, whose remarkable memory for collocational patterns is well-known, store
constructional patterns with their abstract grammatical combinatorics and specific lexical sets
(cf. Bybee & Hopper 2001). The language community’s memory of the collocational selection
restrictions going with grammatical structures can be thought of as what Hopper (1987: 155)
called our awareness of ”prior text”. The shift from true to abstract partitives relied on gradual
extension from entities that have clear middle points, like a line (3c), to reference objects
allowing mental construal of a reference zone, e.g. the two crucified criminals in (5b) and the
beginning and end in (6a). The further shift from in + abstract partitive to complex preposition
in the midst of involved a preference for unbounded locations, evoked as regions undefined by
boundaries, such as the fair (8) and many ruins (9a). At the same time, increasingly routinized in
the middle of came to be stored more and more as one unit akin to a complex preposition like in
(the) stead of, which was already entrenched at that time (OED, instead; 1a). The shifts in
conceptualization accompanying the changing lexical selection restrictions enabled the
functional reparsing represented in (10).
Midst manifests the change from binominal to complex preposition phrase in less than a
century: the complex preposition phrase crops up from 1540 on, at which stage it immediately
accounts for half of all the tokens in our data for that period (see Table 4). In the midst of did not
itself engage “in gradual grammaticalization processes” but “grammaticalized by analogy with a
frequent model that did grammaticalize gradually, the grammaticalized behaviour of which [it]
‘copied’ “ (Brems 2007: 317). The mechanism of change for midst thus seems to have been
analogization¸ the attraction of an extant form to an already existing model (Hopper & Traugott
2003: 63-64, Traugott & Trousdale 2010: 38). The analogization process was facilitated by the
predilection of midst for abstract partitives in Stage I.
5
Complex preposition in the middle of starts off with spatial complements, extending slowly
towards temporal complements more than 200 years later.
(11a)
We were in the middle of winter (CLMETEV 1780-1850).
(11b)
beinge taken with Tempest in the midest of the night (CLMETEV 1570-1640)
In the midst of took over these temporal complex preposition uses not long after the spatial ones.
It then took the lead in extending to complement NPs referring to or implying an action or event
from 1550 on, e.g. (12a), followed by in the middle of only in 1630, e.g. (12b). This metaphorical
transfer from spatial objects via temporal concepts to actions and events corresponds to the
conceptual cline from SPACE over TIME to QUALITY (Heine et al 1991: 48-53).
(12a) (…) a great number of Papist being at masse and to heer a sermon preched by an
english Jesuite whose name was Wrighte. In the midst of his sermon the house fell
downe (HC 1620)
(12b) we should in the quietest retirement be less able to sleep or meditate than in the middle
of a sea-fight. (CLMETEV 1632)
The complex prepositions with event nouns still introduce a temporal or spatial adjunct,
answering the question when? or where? but the time or place is defined by the event the noun
refers to. The event in the matrix clause, the house fell downe in (12a), is located in the period
covered by the second event of his sermon. Importantly, the subject of the predicate in the matrix
clause is not co-referential with the subject implied by the event noun in the adjunct. The house
that falls down is not delivering the sermon (12a) and the ones trying to sleep or meditate are
not battling in the sea-fight (12b).
2.3. Stage III: Nominal progressive aspect marker
In the next cycle of change, midst takes the lead by functional-structural reparsing of the clausal
adjunct with event nouns into a construction describing a participant engaged in an event, which
is construed progressively. We refer to it as the nominal progressive aspect marker (PAM)
construction, because the action or event is described or implied by nouns. Nominal PAM
constructions with midst appear around 1550 (13), whereas the first – isolated - example with
middle in the OED dates from 1683 (15 below). The most important factor in the shift – and the
crucial difference with Stage II – is the co-referentiality between the implied subject of the event
noun and the subject or object of the matrix clause. This allows in the midst + event noun to be
read as a second event which the subject is involved in and which serves as a background event
to the main event described in the matrix. Rather than designating a spatial or temporal location,
it constructs a process-participant relation involving the implied subject. The subject may be an
active participant, as in (13a), where we ‘are living’, or a passive participant, as in (13b), where
the speaker ‘is being tempted’. Importantly, (be) in the midst of imposes a progressive aspect
meaning on the event described or implied by NP2, construing it as ongoing and without
beginning or endpoint (Declerck 1991: 157).
In all the early examples, the background event occurs in front of the main event, which
helped trigger the progressive aspect reading, because progressively construed situations are
6
often background events, framing another situation (Comrie 1976: 30,51). Example (13a) seems
to be a context bridging between the two readings. In the midst of life can be understood as a
clausal adjunct indicating a time period, but it can just as plausibly be read as an event whose
subject is presupposed from the matrix: ‘while we are living, we are already destined for death’.
(13a)
In the myddest of lyfe we be in death. (OED 1548–9, Bk. Common Prayer)
(13b) O hevenly Father, yf yt be thy blyssyd will and plesure,… suffer me not to be temptyd
above my strenght, I beseche thee but yn the mydyste of the temptasyon make suche a
waye for my delyverance (CLMET c1555)
The nominal PAM has a predication relation (Croft 2001: 87) to its (implied) subject, and is
internally parsed as:
(14)
((be) in the midst ofPAM) NP process
The development of the nominal PAM construction entailed specific collocational selection
restrictions. It required an event noun, i.e. a nominalization such as temptation, a deverbal noun
such as life, or nouns that metonymically evoke an action, such as story. As the purely spatial and
temporal nouns found with the complex preposition were excluded, a process of collocational
reclustering took place. Persistence of the ‘surrounded by‘ meaning, intensified by the
superlative element in midst (OED, midst; Etymology), attracted emotionally charged collocates
such as desperation, sorrows, temptation (13b), whose expressiveness may have aided the
establishment of the new construction.
In addition to collocational changes, textual factors enabled the functional reparsing of
complex preposition into nominal PAM. Van Rompaey (forthc. b) argues that a crucial role was
played by the typical givenness of the NP, and its anaphoric relation to the preceding discourse.
Such a relation characterized most event noun complements of PrepPs used as clausal adjuncts
(e.g. 12a), the most common pattern of PrepP with event nouns found. The event nouns that
bridged between the CxP phrase reading and the nominal PAM were typically summative nouns.
They encapsulated those elements of the preceding discourse that were replayed as ongoing
background action, e.g. the temptasyon in (13b), to the new state of affairs described in the
matrix clause. This facilitated the shift to progressive aspect marker, as the framing as
background of an ongoing action is a typical discursive function of the progressive.
It was thus a convergence of factors that provided optimal conditions for the functional
reparsing of complex preposition in the midst of into nominal PAM, which took place in the
middle of the 16th century. This was the crucial breakthrough in the development of the PAMs
studied in this article.
About 30 years after clausal adjuncts with midst were reparsed into nominal PAMs,
predication adjuncts were too.
(15a)
While you were in the middest of your sport, I got a time (...) vnmarked by any (OED
a1586, P. Sidney)
(15b) In the midest of the battell (OED 1606, G. Woodcocke)
The mechanism that motivated this functional shift was probably metonymy, operating in
bridging contexts such as (15b) which contain a noun that designates both a location and an
event. The ‘surrounded by/in the thick of’ sense of in the midst of triggered the extension from
7
being located in the battlefield to ‘be battling’, to be “fully engaged in” (OED, midst; 2a) battling.
When such predication adjuncts are preceded by be, all conditions are present for a functional
reinterpration of the structure as a nominal PAM, with the subject of be naturally understood as
the subject of the ongoing action, as in (15a).
In the middle of developed the nominal PAM construction at least three centuries later than in
the midst of after 1850. It had exactly the same immediate source structures as in the midst of
ready to be reparsed, so to speak, but it did not have the extra facilitating factors such as
collocates attracted by the ‘in the thick of’ meaning of midst. When it eventually did acquire the
nominal PAM construction, this can be ascribed to analogization, the copying of the required
structural and collocational features from be in the midst of + NP process.
2.4. Stage IV. Secondary auxiliary + V-ing
A final cycle of functional reinterpration supported by extension took place when be in the
middle/midst of came to be employed within the verb phrase. In this last stage, it is followed by a
verbal gerund and prototypically preceded by be, as in (16).
(16)
As I was yesterday in the middle of removing to my house in the Old Bayley, (…) (OED
1609)
This is a typical case of grammaticalization involving a new host class1 (Himmelmann 2004:
32): whereas the semantic head of the nominal PAM is an event noun, that of the secondary
auxiliary, or verbal PAM, is a verbal gerund. This shift to a new grammatical class was facilitated
by the loss of nominal characteristics of the noun following middle/midst. Both complex
prepositions and nominal PAMs increasingly took deverbal nouns and nominalizations, and in
the 19th century, these nouns lost most of their nominal properties. In an example such as (17),
the verbal noun ending in –ing can be interpreted as a verbal gerund, which opens the way to
adding adjuncts and objects to it. In an example such as (16) the verbal gerund is elaborated by
an adjunct, removing to my house in the Old Bayley, and in (18a) by a direct object, loving me.
(17)
Look here, mother, can't Amy lay the cloth on that half of the table? I'm right in the
middle of my drawing. (CLMETEV 1908)
(18a)
And I don't like you to tell me so warmly about him when you are in the middle of
loving me. (CLMET 1850-1920)
(18b)
McMillan, currently in the midst of preparing for a return to ring action (...) reiterated
the fact that he was not in a hurry to have an AIDS test (WB)
With the semantic and formal features of the nominal PAM in place in the previous stage, the
extension from event nouns to verbal gerunds may appear a relatively small step. Still, with this
extension, the source construction, the nominal PAM, underwent considerable functionalThe establishing of a new host class differs, strictly speaking, from Himmelmann’s (2004) host class
expansion, which he illustrated with the grammaticalization of the demonstrative into the definite
article. The definite article modifies the same types of noun as demonstratives as well as different ones
such as proper names and singletons like the sun. However, the shift from nominal to verbal PAMs
involves two different host classes: nouns versus verbal gerunds.
1
8
structural reorganization both syntagmatically and paradigmatically. Syntagmatically, it is
reparsed into a VP: it is typically preceded by be and lexical V–ing functions as head of the VP:
(19) ((be) in the middle/midst of)aux2 V-ing head
It occurs less commonly without overt subject than the nominal PAM construction, and it is
associated less with framing as background action. It has thus become a general progressive
aspect marker. As a result of the reanalysis, be in the middle/midst of enter the paradigm
(Lehmann 1985: 307) of semi-auxiliaries, where they take on the value that progressive
auxiliary be V-ing originally had, viz. construing events as ongoing without beginning or
endpoint. Be V-ing (Van Rompaey forthc. a) at that time had already started generalizing its
meanings towards expression of the future, modal tentativeness, etc.
Its first attestation in our data is with in the middle in 1609, a good half century after the
emergence of the nominal PAM with in the midst. This early occurrence is an isolated one, which
should perhaps be viewed as a red herring rather than the kicking in of change. It is only in the
third stage of Late Modern English, 1850-1920, that the secondary auxiliaries be in the middle
/midst of V-ing begin to occur. They took the final step towards secondary auxiliary use really
only in the 20th century, which for midst is 300 years after the appearance of its nominal PAM
use. Still, it seems that middle took over the lead again from midst in the formation of secondary
auxiliaries. Be in the middle of V-ing is more commonly used as secondary auxiliary in Presentday English than be in the midst of V-ing, whose most common use remains the nominal PAM
I.
head use
II.
complex preposition
bridging
context
III.
nominal
PAM
IV.
secondary
auxiliary
spatial
NP2
temporal NP2
(result of)
event NP2
(result of)
event NP2
event
V-ing
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
n=8
16.00%
n=8
16.00%
n=1
2.00%
n=1
2.00%
0%
0%
0%
n = 49
83.05%
n=2
3.39%
n=7
11.86%
n=1
1.69%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1640-1710
n = 82
60.29%
n = 17
12.50%
n = 18
13.24%
n=8
5.88%
0%
n=6
4.41%
n=5
3.68%
0%
1710-1780
n = 77
50.00%
n = 35
22.73%
n = 14
9.09%
n = 13
8.44%
n=5
3.25%
n=9
5.84%
n=1
0.65%
0%
1780-1850
n = 107
35.91%
n = 89
29.87%
n = 41
13.76%
n = 34
11.41%
n=9
3.02%
n=8
2.68%
n = 10
3.36%
0%
1850-1920
n = 199
49.26%
n = 79
19.55%
n = 42
10.40%
n = 34
8.42%
n = 21
5.20%
n=4
0.99%
n = 24
5.94%
n=1
0.25%
1990-2005
n = 193
38.60%
n = 91
18.2%
n = 44
8.8%
n = 42
8.4%
n = 51
10.2%
n = 42
8.4%
n = 28
5.60%
n=9
1.80%
spatial
temporal
750-1150
n = 19
100%
0%
1150-1500
n = 32
64.00%
1500-1640
Table 3. Distribution of middle across the constructional stages from Old to Present-day English
9
I.
head use
II.
complex preposition
bridging
context
III.
nominal
PAM
IV.
secondary
auxiliary
spatial
NP2
temporal
NP2
(result of)
event NP2
(result of)
event NP2
event
V-ing
n = 22
26.83%
n = 10
12.20%
n=2
2.44%
n=4
4.88%
n=1
1.22%
0%
n=4
2.88%
n = 17
12.23%
n = 27
19.42%
n=3
2.16%
n = 43
30.93%
n = 22
15.83%
0%
n = 10
7.19%
n=1
0.72%
n = 12
8.63%
n = 24
17.26%
n=3
2.16%
n = 59
42.45%
n = 30
21.58%
0%
1780-1850
n = 75
22.39%
0%
n = 35
10.45%
n = 78
23.28%
n=6
1.79%
n = 73
21.79%
n = 66
19.70%
n=2
0.60%
1850-1920
n = 69
22.12%
0%
n = 17
5.45%
n = 99
31.73%
n=3
0.96%
n = 72
23.08%
n = 52
16.67%
0%
1990-2005
n = 119
23.8%
n=5
1.00%
n = 51
10.20%
n = 60
12.00%
n=9
1.80%
n = 163
32.60%
83
16.66%
10
2%
spatial
temporal
1500-1640
n = 42
51.22%
n=1
1.22%
1640-1710
n = 23
16.55%
1710-1780
Table 4. Distribution of midst across the constructional stages from Middle to Present-day English
(see Tables 3 and 4). The recency of the change suggests that this step was not so easily taken. In
the next section we will propose that analogization with the secondary auxiliary use of in the
process of was involved.
By way of concluding this section, Tables 3 and 4 give the numbers and relative frequencies
of each constructional layer with middle and midst in the main periods of English in our dataset.
3. Process: appositive NP as source construction
3.1. Stage 1: Lexical use
Process came into the English language in the 14th century as a loan word from Anglo-Norman
and Middle French procès with a number of specialized borrowed meanings (OED process; I.2-3),
such as “advance, progress or development” (20a) or “a narrative or account” (20b). From the
17th century on, process acquired the more abstract sense “series (…) or succession (…) of
operations” (OED process; I.8) which result in a change, as in (20c). In a number of its uses,
process occurred in a complex NP in which head process was followed by postmodifying of +
NP2, whose structure is represented in (21). The various meanings of process found in binominal
uses impose specific co-occurrence restrictions, e.g. the meaning ‘progression’ requires forces
that can be seen to progress, and the meaning ‘account’ co-occurs with topics of discourse.
(20a)
It is agayns the process of nature. (OED c1395, Chaucer)
(20b)
For oure proces of þis firste partie of þis sermoun, (OED c1387, Serm. (Corpus
Cambr.))
(20c)
There are Foure Processes [L. Processus] of the Spirit;(OED 1638, Bacon)
(21)
(detpremodifier (N1head (of NP2)postmodifier))
The lexical use has remained predominant throughout the entire history of the noun (see Table
5 below). It is found in all the external functions that NPs can fulfil, i.e. subject or object of the
10
clause, and occasionally complement of a preposition, e.g. against (20a), or postmodifier in a NP,
e.g. a result of a matrimonial process. In contrast with middle / midst, the lexical use of process
does not have any strong predilection for occurrence in preposition phrases, and no predilection
at all for locative phrases with in.
3.2. Stage II: Appositive noun phrase
From the beginning of the 18th century, process appeared as the first NP in a complex appositive
NP, e.g. (22), in which two NPs are in close apposition. They form one intonational unit with
stress on the second nominal (Van Langendonck 2007: 126-131), and the first NP, process,
assigns a basic level categorization to the second nominal. By contrast, in binominal NPs such as
the process of nature in (20a), the first NP is always salient and the second one may be salient.
(22a)
of which the fineness cannot be ascertained but by a process of melting and assaying.
(CLMET 1710-1780)
(22b)
Again the process of breaking up the stag was gone through. (CLMET 1780-1850)
(22c)
Here the process of reformation of character would be carried forward by the same
(…) methods. (CLMET 1850-1920)
About the exact nature of the dependency relation between the two NPs there is no consensus
in the literature. Quirk et al (1972: 638-639) viewed it as a head – postmodifier relation, but in
Quirk et al (1985: 1260-1262) it was typified as a head – complement relation. According to
Langacker (1987: 306ff), a complementation relation has a conceptually incomplete head whose
meaning is elaborated, or ‘completed’, by the complement, as is the case with verbs sanctioning
nominal or clausal complements. The relation between process and the second NP does not seem
to be of that type, as it is one between a characterizing and an identifying unit (Van Langendonck
2007: 131). An alternative analysis suggested by Willy Van Langendonck (p.c.) is to view the first
categorizing NP as a premodifier and the second nominal, which actually designates the event
referred to, as the head. As pointed out by Sinclair (1991: 85-96), the string NP1 of NP2 can code
either head-postmodifier or premodifier-head relations. Arguments that we have the latter in
the case of appositive NPs with process relate to the categorizing nature of the first NP. When
such an NP occurs as predicate nominal in a copular clause, e.g. Melting is a process, it is nonreferential (Kuno 1970). For appositives whose first NP does not have a determiner, e.g.
superstar Gloria Estevan, Quirk et al (1972: 638-639) actually propose a premodifier – head
analysis. We propose that process in appositives such as (22) are also non-referential, as the
definite article in such examples only points forward within the NP itself (Martin 1992: 123).
The premodifier – head analysis of the complex appositive NPs in (22) can be represented as:
(23)
(NP1 of premodifier) NP2head)
This analysis entails that, despite the surface similarity with examples from Stage I such as the
process of nature (21), functional reparsing took place in the transition to Stage II. What is crucial
in the premodifier – head analysis of appositives for the further diachronic development is that
the first categorizing NP is backgrounded both structurally and discursively. It is the second
stressed NP that specifies the nature of the process. The new construction establishes new
11
collocational restrictions between process and the lexical set realizing NP2: process of ascribes a
basic level categorization to various ‘abstract processes of change’.
This collocational reclustering also involved host-class expansion (Himmelmann 2004: 32). As
illustrated by (22), process in the sense of ‘series of events leading to change’ was from the start
in construction with either a deverbal noun, e.g. reformation (22c), or a gerund, e.g. breaking up
(22b). Importantly, both gerunds and nominalizations can themselves be complemented by
subjects and objects of the event they depict. With nominalizations, the participants in the event
are coded with the structural means of NPs, e.g. the patient of the reformation is coded by
postmodifier of character in (22c), while the verbal gerunds used in this construction code their
patients as straight direct objects, e.g. breaking up the stag.
3.3. Stage III: Verbal and nominal PAM construction
Less than a century after the emergence of appositive NPs at the end of the 18th century, process
+ deverbal noun or gerund appeared in a syntagmatic structure to which it was new, viz. (be) in
the process of + V-ing/NP. In (24) (be) in (the) process of + V-ing functions as secondary auxiliary,
and in (25) (be) in (the) process of + deverbal noun functions as nominal PAM. However, in the
data predating the emergence of verbal and nominal PAMs, there were no examples of in
followed by appositive NP.
(24a)
that this granulo-pulpy matter was in process of being converted into ova (CLMET
1780-1850)
(24b)
The couple, in the process of divorcing, appeared at the London premiere of Lee
Evans’s new comedy film mousehunt. (WB)
(25a)
All the modern improvements (…) or are in process of adoption. (CLMETEV 1813)
(25b)
In common with many associations we are now in the process of a major survey of the
views of our tenants (WB)
The result of stage III of process is thus exactly the same as the combined results of stages III
and IV of middle/midst, viz. the emergence of verbal and nominal PAMs. However, the paths and
mechanisms of change are very different. Complex preposition be in the midst of + event noun
was functionally reparsed into the nominal PAM, which in turn was reparsed into the
progressive secondary auxiliary. By contrast, in the appositive NP stage preceding the verbal and
nominal PAMs with process, not one instance of in + complex appositive NP occurs in our data.
PAMs with process can hence not be said to have resulted from reanalysis, or functional
reparsing, in any strict sense. There was no pre-existent string in the process of + nominalization
or gerund, and, as Traugott & Trousdale (2010: 35) note, “one can only ‘re-analyze’ something
that pre-exists”. Therefore, we posit that the PAM construction be in the process of V-ing/event
noun was newly created by the language community by analogy with nominal PAM (be) in the
midst of + event noun. Given that be in the process of V-ing/event noun emerged c1780, the
primary analogical model must have been nominal PAM be in the midst of, which was well
entrenched by then, unlike the nominal PAM be in the middle of and the verbal PAMs with both
midst and middle. Thus, taking the nominal PAM with midst as model, a structure new to the type
process was evolved with the same internal and external functional relations as the model. The
12
creation of this new structure can be referred to as neo-analysis (p.c. Trousdale) and analogy was
crucial to its emergence.
The creation by analogy of the verbal and nominal PAMs with process was very likely
facilitated by the presence of a second, partial, model from the history of process itself. This
model was the unit in (the) process of (26), which was in use as a complex preposition meaning
‘during, in the course of’’ from the end of the 14th century to the turn of the 20th century (OED
process; I.1a). Probably, this complex preposition originated from in + binominal, which, in
contrast with appositives, was used in temporal preposition phrases with in. The now obsolete
idiom in process of time (27), structurally a binominal, played a role in its entrenchment.
(26a)
in process of the seasons (OED 1600, W. Shakespeare)
(26b)
... in the process of some few years, the number of Christians was encreased to five
hundred persons. (CLMETEV 1640-1710)
(26a)
In processe of time she was detected to be one of a naughtie slanderous tongue. (OED
1586, G. Pettie)
That the complex preposition and the idiom in process of time served as partial models for the
PAMs with process is confirmed by the fact that in the early stages they often occurred without
article, as illustrated by (24a) and (25a). By contrast, article omission is almost non-existent in
the secondary auxiliaries be in the midst/middle of V-ing.
Verbal PAMs with process appeared a century earlier than those with middle and midst.
Whereas the evolving of verbal PAMs be in the middle/midst of V-ing required host class
I. head use
borrowed
meanings
1150-1500
n = 19
79.17%
II. appositive noun
phrase
complex
preposition
III. nominal
and verbal
PAM
IV.
secondary
auxiliary
conjunct
‘a series
of events’
(result of)
event NP2
event
V-ing
in (the)
process of
time
event NP2 /
V-ing
event
V-ing
0%
0%
0%
n=5
20.83%
0%
0%
0%
1500-1640
n = 30
75.00%
0%
0%
0%
n = 10
25.00%
0%
0%
0%
1640-1710
n = 20
54.05%
0%
n=3
8.11%
0%
n = 14
37.84%
0%
0%
0%
1710-1780
n = 10
55.56%
n=3
16.67%
n=1
5.56%
n=1
5.56%
n=3
16.67%
0%
0%
0%
1780-1850
n = 14
3.45%
n = 295
72.66%
n = 37
9.11%
n = 38
9.36%
n = 18
4.43%
n=5
1.23%
n=2
0.49%
n=3
0.74%
1850-1920
n=9
2.08%
n = 238
55.09%
n = 89
20.60%
n = 59
13.66%
n = 17
3.94%
n=4
0.93%
n=3
0.69%
n = 13
3.01%
1990-2004
0%
n = 380
77.39%
n = 55
11.20%
n = 31
6.31%
0%
0%
n = 10
2.04%
n = 15
3.05%
Table 5. Distribution of process across the constructional stages from Middle to Present-day English
13
extension from nouns to gerunds, the process of had already been routinized with both
nominalizations and gerunds in the appositive stage. This explains why be in the process of was
the first to develop the verbal PAM construction. Even though in the midst of had realized the
breakthrough to aspectual meaning with the nominal PAM construction c1550, it did not
develop a verbal PAM construction for another 300 years. It is plausible that verbal PAMs be in
the middle/midst of evolved by analogization with be in the process of V-ing. The model of verbal
PAM be in the process of V-ing was needed in order for middle and midst to take this last step.
This is a case of what De Smet (2008: 118) refers to as paradigmatic analogy: analogy operating
between the different paradigms of the constructions with process and those with midst/middle.
In conclusion to this section, Table 5 gives the numbers and relative frequencies of each
constructional layer2 with process in the main periods of English in our dataset.
4. Concluding discussion
In the previous sections we reconstructed the gradually converging grammaticalization paths of
middle, midst and process, which led to a subparadigm of progressive aspect markers (PAMs).
The main theoretical aim we pursued with this description was to identify and define the smaller
mechanisms and processes of change of these different grammaticalization paths.
The specific changes that the different structures with these nouns underwent on their
grammaticalization trajectories towards PAMs were:
(i) reanalysis in the sense of functional reparsing of an existing structure;
(ii) analogization: the attraction of new functional properties to an existing structure;
(iii) neo-analysis by analogy: the creation of a functional structure that is new in the item’s
trajectory of change.
The first two have long been recognized as primary mechanisms of change that often operate in
grammaticalization (Hopper & Traugott 2003: 63-64, Traugott & Trousdale 2010: 38), but less
attention seems to have gone so far to the third type. Here, the precondition for the first two is
not met: there is no pre-existent string whose syntactic and semantic properties lend themselves
to the required new functional relations. In the three mechanisms that can change the functional
structure of a syntagm, the role and importance of analogy differs.
Typical cases of reanalysis in this case study are the reparsing of in + binominal with middle
into complex preposition (CxP) in the middle of + NP, and of CxP in the midst of + NP into
nominal PAM. The reparsing probably involved analogy with entrenched models: language users
may have perceived the general similarities between entrenched in (the) stead of and the new
complex prepositions, and perhaps between an early periphrastic expression such as be on the
point of and the nominal aspectual markers. At the same time, the reparsing was prepared and
enabled by many other processes of change. The reanalysis of in + binominal into CxP in the
middle of + NP was preceded by a particularly long and gradual transition period involving
The last column of Table 5 documents the emergence of in the process as conjunct, as in Walker took
on Ahmed Barada, the reigning world junior champion, and defeated him 6-9, 10-8, 9-1 9-7 … . In the
process, he reduced a baying Egyptian crowd to polite and disappointed applause. (WB) This use did not
play a role in the development of the PAMs with process.
2
14
changes such as metaphorization and abstraction of middle, the emergence of abstract partitives
as distinct from true partitives, and, particularly, very gradual collocational extension. Its
emergence was, moreover, marked by a high frequency of ambiguous contexts. The reparsing
that yielded the nominal PAM with midst was less long in the making, but involved a
convergence of factors providing optimal conditions for the required functional reinterpretation.
The intensified ‘surrounded by‘ meaning of in the midst of attracted collocates (reference zones,
emotionally charged event nouns) that facilitated metaphorical and metonymic shifts to ‘being
engaged in action’. The textually given and fronted clausal adjuncts transformed into the typical
background actions in which progressives tend to be used. We can conclude that the instances of
reanalysis in this case study involved a lot of enabling factors that not only ‘allowed’ the
schematic analogical models of complex preposition and nominal aspectualizer to apply, but also
provided the semantic-pragmatic specifics for the reparsed instances.
Analogization relies more strongly on the ‘pull’ of a model, whose functional and collocational
relations are imparted to a syntagm that has not yet evolved these relations, but has the
necessary semantic and syntactic properties to do so. Yet, the cases studied show that
analogization also operates with different speeds. In the midst of copied its complex preposition
use in no time from in the middle of, but be in the middle/midst of took longer to extend to verbal
PAMs by analogization with be in the process of V-ing. This can probably be explained by the
greater lexicosemantic similarity that exists between in the midst and in the middle than between
be in the midst/middle of and be in the process of.
In neo-analysis by analogy, the role of the analogical model is greatest, as it enables the
creation of a functional structure for a lexical type that did not have any strings with the
required surface properties yet. In the creation more or less ex nihilo of the periphrastic PAMs be
in (the) process of V-ing/NP, a secondary, partial, analogical model could be seen to play a role.
This type of change appears to be much rarer than reanalysis and analogization, but it does
occasionally occur, as also argued by Margerie (2012). Future research will have to further
elucidate its specific nature and the conditions under which it can take place.
REFERENCES
Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and
grammaticalization. Language 88: 1-44.
Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper (eds) 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brems, Lieselotte. 2007. The Synchronic Layering of Size noun and Type Noun Constructions in
English. PhD Thesis. University of Leuven.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: CUP.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP.
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
De Smet, Hendrik. 2008. Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Gerunds,
participles and for…to-infinitives. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Leuven.
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88: 601-633.
Fried, Miriam. 2010. Grammaticalization and lexicalization effects in participial morphology: A
Construction Grammar approach to language change. In Van linden, An et al (eds) Formal
Evidence in Grammaticalization Research, 191-223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar. A Function-Based Introduction. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Halliday, Michael. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Second edition. London: Arnold.
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. From cognition to grammar:
evidence from African languages. In Elizabeth Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds) 149-188.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: opposite or orthogonal? In
Walter Bisang et al (eds) What Makes Grammaticalization – a Look from its Components and its
Fringes, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoffmann, Sebastian, 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions. A corpus-based
study. London: Routledge.
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent Grammar. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the
Berkeley Linguistics. Society, 139-157.
Hopper, Paul, 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Traugott & Bernd
Heine (eds) 17-36.
Hopper, Paul & E. C. Traugott, 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: CUP.
Gries, Stefan & Anatol Stefanowitch. 2003. Collostructions, Investigating the interaction of words
and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8: 209–243.
Koops, Chris. 2004. Emergent aspect constructions in Present-Day English. In Günter Radden &
Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds) Studies in Linguistic Motivation, 121-154. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Kuno, Susumo. 1970. Some properties of non-referential noun phrases. In Roman Jacobson & ,
Shigeo Kawamoto (eds) Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics, 348-373. Tokyo: TEC.
Langacker, Ronald 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In C.N. Li (ed) Mechanisms of Syntactic Change., 57139. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Langacker, Ronald 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical Prequisites.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2, Descriptive Application.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Martin, James. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. In
Lingua e Stile 20: 303-318.
Margerie, Hélène. 2012. The grammaticalization of NP ADJ ADJ/NP1 VB NP2 ADJ patterns. Paper
presented at International Conference on Grammaticalization: Theory and Data. Rouen, 10-11
May.
OED. Oxford English Dictionary. http://www.oed.com.
Quirk, Randolph., Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik, 1972. A Grammar of
Contemporary English. London: Longman.
Quirk, Randolph., Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik, 1985. A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Ekkehard König. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of
grammaticalization revisited. In Elizabeth Traugott & Bernd. Heine (eds) 189-218.
Elizabeth Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds) Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol I, Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and
grammaticalization. How do they intersect? In Elizabeth Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds)
Gradualness, Gradience, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van Langendonck, Willy. 2007. Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin: Mouton.
Van Rompaey, Tinne. Forthc. a. A comparison of progressive be V-ing with be in the middle,
midst, process or act of V-ing: the interaction of lexical and grammatical progressive aspect.
Transactions of the Philological Society.
Van Rompaey, Tinne. Forthc. b. Discourse conditions in language change: from binominal to
aspectualizer be in the middle or midst of V-ing. Language Sciences.
16