From phrase to clause(-like): on present participle and verbal noun in Middle Scots

Eva Zehentner, Vienna

ICAME 35, Nottingham 2014

a verbal noun in -ung/-ing

• To digolnesse and to stilnesse becom δære godcundan sceawunge

ancorlifes.

‘came to the privacy and solitude of the divine contemplation of an

anchoret’s life’

(Ælfred, Bede [Smith] 605, II)

• He ongan arweorþian δa drowunge haligra martyra.

‘He began to honour the suffering of the holy martyrs’

(Ælfred, Bede (Smith) 407, i)

• δa wæs gefylled Hieremias witegung.

‘Then was fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah’

(Ælfric, Hom. i., 80, 18)

Introduction (II)

b present participle in -Vnd(e)

• Her forδferde se wellwillenda bisceop Aδelwold

‘in this year died the benevolent bishop Athelwold’

(O.E. Chronicles, an. 984)

• wæs gehwæþer oδrum lifigende laδ

‘each one was hostile to the other while living’

(Beowulf 814)

• þus cweδende, he forþferde.

‘speaking thus, he died’

(O.E. Gospels, Luke 23, 46)

Introduction (III)

Introduction (I)

Old English

2 distinct categories,2 forms

-ung/-ing VS. -Vnd(e)

Present Day Englisho ‘gradience’ “from deverbal nouns via verbal nouns to participles”

(Quirk et al. 1985: 1290-1292)

o merged category of ‘gerund-participles’ → “distinction between gerund and present participle can't be sustained” (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 80-83; 1220-1222)

Introduction (IV)

[1] some paintings of Brown(’s)

[4] Brown’s deft painting of his daughter is a delight to watch

[6] Brown’s deftly painting his daughter is a delight to watch

[8] I watched Brown painting his daughter

[10] Painting his daughter, Brown noticed that his hand was shaking

[13] The silently painting man is Brown

[14] Brown is painting his daughter

(Quirk et al. 1985)

Introduction (V)

Old English

2 distinct categories,2 forms

-ung/-ing VS. -Vnd(e)

PDE

1 category with 2 poles, 1 form

-ing

2 main phenomena involved:

Agenda

(A) ‘clausalisation’/ ‘re-verbalisation’: from phrase to non-finite clause

(B) formal/ functional merger of present participle and verbal noun

Is there a correlation or even a causal relationship between these two phenomena?

Should there be a causal influence, in which direction does it go?

Prime example: infinitive

• Stanes asendan seocnysse ge[tacnað].

‘To throw stones signifies sickness’

(AS Prognostics 3 (Cockayne); Mitchell 1985)

• Das häufige Beobachten des Kindes macht Spaß.

‘?The frequent observing of the child is fun’

• Häufig das Kind beobachten macht Spaß.

‘To frequently observe the child is fun’

• Das Aufsätze schnell Hinschreiben ist sein größter Ehrgeiz.

‘*The quickly writing the essays is his greatest ambition’

(Ehrich 1991)

Phenomenon A - Clausalisation (I)

Phenomenon A - Clausalisation (II)

- genitive (of-) object → accusative (direct) object

- nominal → verbal modification

- tense/voice marking

- loss of determiner slot/ referential function

- addition of subjects

....

o gradual dissociation from phrasal origins o complex reconfiguration of phrase syntax → clause syntax

o a-typicality of non-finites, inherent ambiguity as de-verbalisations (events vs. objects/properties) ‘form follows function’

a

• Hí heora lufigendne gemaciaþ weligne écelíce.

‘they make the lover of them rich eternally’

(ÆCHom. ii. 88. 29; Mitchell 1985)

• ða arn he to cyrcan [...], fulluhtes biddende.

‘then he ran to the church, asking for baptism’

(ÆCHom ii. 498.29; Mitchell 1985)

• Com se Hǽlend on Galileam Godes ríces gódspell bodigende.

‘The saviour came to Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom of God’

(Mk. Bos. 1, 14: Ps. Lamb. 2, 6.; Bosworth & Toller 1898)

Clausalisation - Participle (I)

present participle

• Đa eaðmodan heortan and ða forhtgendan and ða bifigendan and ða

cwacigendan and ða ondrædendan heora Scyppend, ne forhogað ða næfre

God ne ne forsyhð.

‘The humble and fearing and trembling and quaking hearts and those

fearing their creator, God will never despise nor disregard’(Blick. Hom. 107.20; Callaway 1901)

• And swa styrigende ís seo sawul [...]

‘and so active is the soul...’(Æ 18, 131; Swan 2003)

• & he wæs bodigende on galilea ge-samnungum

‘and he was preaching in Galilee congregations’

(OELuke 4, 44; Swan 2003)

Clausalisation - Participle (II)

Possible contexts for reanalysis:

• ðurh ðæra sacerda blawunge toburston ða weallas.

‘through the blowing of the priests, the walls broke down’(c1000; Visser 1963-73)

• se sceal ðæs pundes spendunge Gode ágifan

‘he must repay the spending of the pound to God’(Homl. Th. ii. 556, 29; Bosworth & Toller 1898)

• Sain Jon was [...] bisi [...] in casting kirc werkes

‘Saint John was busy planning church works’(c1300, Engl. Metr. Hom. 112/2-4; Tajima 1985)

• in telling ther jvdgments frielie

‘in voluntarily telling their judgements’(Official correspondence, 1662)

• You’re not so bothered about them not visiting you anymore.(CB; De Smet 2008)

Clausalisation - Verbal noun (I)

b verbal noun

• þe biginnyng of wysdome is dredyng of our Lord

‘the beginning of wisdom is dreading our lord’

(a1359 Midland Prose Psalter 10.9; cf.Tajima 1985; Fanego 2004)

• þe teares þe man wepeð for longenge to heuene

‘the tears that man weeps in longing for heaven’

(?a1200 Old English Homilies 151/17-18; cf.Tajima 1985; Fanego 2004)

cf. PDE belief in God vs. to believe in God

Clausalisation - Verbal noun (II)

Possible contexts for reanalysis (cf. Fanego 2004):

formal & functional approximation

o purely phonological causes (formal convergence followed by

functional convergence)?

o syntactic/semantic syncretism (functional convergence

triggers formal convergence)?

Phenomenon B - Merger (I)

-ing-suffix replaces original -Vndfrom 1200 onwards (South of England)

ongoing (cf. De Smet 2010)

Scots: formal merger delayed (e15th ct. - e18th ct.)

Phenomenon B - Merger (II)

Scraipand amang the as be auenture He fand ane iolie iasp, richt precious, Wes castin furth in sweping of the hous [Scratching in the ashes, he by adventure found a bright jasper, flawlessly precious [which] was thrown out in the sweeping

of the house] (early 16th ct., quoted in Macafee 2004: 7.8.10)

It is as absurd to a Southern Scot to hear eating used for both his eiting and eitandas it is to an Englishman to hear will used for both his will and shall. When he is told that "John was eating," he is strongly tempted to ask what kind of eating he proved to be?

(Murray 1873: 211, n1)

Is there a correlation or even a causal relationship betweenthese two phenomena (i.e. between clausalisation and merger)?

Should there be a causal influence, in which direction does it go?

Possible correlation/causality? (I)

clausalisation → merger

“[a]s different clause types get dissociated from their phrasal origins and lose their phrasal

functionality, they also lose what separates them as clauses, and in developing the features

that any clause is supposed to have, they gradually become more and more similar. If at

this point clause-internal syntax and verbal morphology are insufficiently distinctive to

keep different non-finite clause-types apart, mergers are to be expected”

(De Smet 2010: 1187)

1

the verbal characteristics of the participle [became] dominant [only] after the change -ende > -ing had taken place” (Swan 2003: 186)

“[the merger] caused the verbal force of the present participle to be extended to the noun in -ing” (Kisbye 1971: 55)

“[i]t is obviously due to this change [i.e. the merger] that ing-nominals are prevented from a gradual shift in terms of nominalization [as occurred in German]” (Demske 2002: 88)

Possible correlation/causality? (II)

2 merger → clausalisation

challenged by Scots evidence?→ no merger, no clausalisation!

(cf. Fanego 1996, Jack 1988)

Corpus study - data and methods (I)

Sub-period Words

S0 1450 - 1500 85,100

S1 1500 - 1570 201,800

S2 1570 - 1640 305,900

S3 1640 - 1700 241,400

TOTAL 1450 - 1700 834,200

Table 1 Periodisation of the texts included in the HCOS; number of words per period (taken and adapted from Meurman-Solin 1995: 50)

HCOS = Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots (1450-1700)

• Anneli Meurman-Solin (University of Helsinki)• 830,000 words, 80 texts, 15 genres

• 15,539 present participles/ verbal nouns

Corpus study - data and methods (II)

Classification scheme:

based on Quirk et al.‘s (1985) gradience model tokens ranked according to ‘phrasalness’ or ‘clausalness’

i. de-verbal nouns: some paintings of Brown(’s)

ii. verbal nouns: Brown’s deft painting of his daughter is a delight to watch.

iii. gerundial constructions: Brown’s deftly painting his daughter is a delight to watch.

iv. nominal participles: I watched Brown painting his daughter.

v. adjectival participles:

va) attributive: The painting man is Brown

vb) relative: The man silently painting his daughter is Brown

vi. adverbial participles: Painting his daughter, Brown noticed that his hand was shaking.

vii. verbal participles: Brown is painting his daughter.

Corpus study - data and methods (II)

Classification scheme:

based on Quirk et al.‘s (1985) gradience model tokens ranked according to ‘phrasalness’ or ‘clausalness’

i. de-verbal nouns: some paintings of Brown(’s)

ii. verbal nouns: Brown’s deft painting of his daughter is a delight to watch.

iii. gerundial constructions: Brown’s deftly painting his daughter is a delight to watch.

iv. nominal participles: I watched Brown painting his daughter.

v. adjectival participles:

va) attributive: The painting man is Brown

vb) relative: The man silently painting his daughter is Brown

vi. adverbial participles: Painting his daughter, Brown noticed that his hand was shaking.

vii. verbal participles: Brown is painting his daughter.

(more) phrasal

Corpus study - data and methods (II)

Classification scheme:

based on Quirk et al.‘s (1985) gradience model tokens ranked according to ‘phrasalness’ or ‘clausalness’

i. de-verbal nouns: some paintings of Brown(’s)

ii. verbal nouns: Brown’s deft painting of his daughter is a delight to watch.

iii. gerundial constructions: Brown’s deftly painting his daughter is a delight to

watch.

iv. nominal participles: I watched Brown painting his daughter.

v. adjectival participles:

va) attributive: The painting man is Brown

vb) relative: The man silently painting his daughter is Brown

vi. adverbial participles: Painting his daughter, Brown noticed that his hand was

shaking.

vii. verbal participles: Brown is painting his daughter.

(more) clausal

Results - Clausalisation of participle (I)

Figure 1 Type-related frequency distribution of the present participle (-and & -ing) from S0 to S3

Figure 2 Type-related proportional frequency distribution of the present participle (-and & -ing) from S0 to S3

Results - Clausalisation of participle (II)

Figure 3 Proportional frequency distribution of present participles with more

phrasal behaviour in comparison to participles with more clausal

behaviour (95% confidence intervals)

o ‘clausal’ present participles significantly more frequent

o significantly and stably higher proportion of all participles

(χ2-test [goodness of fit], for all periods: p < 0.01; Cramer’s V > 0.6)

Results - Clausalisation of verbal noun (I)0

.00

.20

.40

.60

.81

.0

Sub-periods

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f g

eru

nd

s (

95

% c

on

fid

en

ce

in

terv

als

)

S0 S1 S2 S3

Figure 4 Proportional frequency distribution of verbal nouns showing

‘verbal behaviour’, i.e. governing a direct object or taking

adverbial modification (including negation by ‘not’) from S0 to

S3 (95% confidence intervals)

Period/ feature dirObj

T N

advMod

T N

dirObj+adverb

T N

TOTAL

T N

S0 2 0.24 3 0.35 1 0.12 6 0.71

S1 43 2.13 6 0.3 3 0.15 52 2.58

S2 417 13.63 24 0.79 29 0.95 470 15.37

S3 630 26.1 28 1.16 24 0.99 682 28.25

o very few tokens in S0

o significant increase only in transition from S1 to S2

o most advanced ‘clausal feature’: ability to take direct object

Results - Clausalisation of verbal noun (II)

Sub-periods

No

rma

lise

d to

ken

fre

qu

en

cy

S0 S1 S2 S3

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

passive gerunds

perfective gerunds

Figure 5 Frequency distribution of passive and perfective

gerunds (S0-S3)

e.g. of being persecuted (spam3a)of your haveing receaved it (spriv3)

o increase of more clausal constructions

o slow development

o far from well established!

(cf. Donner 1986; Emonds 1973)

Results - Merger 0

.00

.20

.40

.60

.81

.0

Sub-periods

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

rese

nt p

art

icip

les in

-in

g (

95

% c

on

fid

en

ce

in

terv

als

)

S0 S1 S2 S3

Figure 6 Proportion of all participles taken up by present participles

in -ing from S0 to S3 (95% confidence intervals)

o variation rather high already in S0 (20% -ing; not restricted to text/ genre/ function)

o rise of -ing from early 15th ct. on (cf. Gardela 1999; Agutter 1990; King 1997)

o signficant steady increase throughout period

o extinction imminent by 1700 (Beal

1997; Dons & Moessner 1999)

o initial processes in forms’ clausalisation outside time span covered by corpus; clausalisation more or less advanced(cf. Callaway 1929; Tajima 1985; Fanego 2004)

Discussion (I)

o ultimate source of more clausal features: reanalysis of syntactically ambiguous patterns(cf. Fanego 2004; De Smet 2008, 2010)

- atypicality as de-verbalisations, ‘form follows function’

o functional approximation (as both constructions become more clausal) is accompanied by an approximation on the formal level

- ultimately leads to complete morphological collapse (in most varieties)

- merger is eased by morphological and phonological closeness of forms (reductions of vowels in final unstressed syllables)

o show increasing predominance of clausal features for both participle and verbal noun

o support correlation, suggest causality

o refute (among others)

Swan (2003: 186): “the verbal characteristics of the participle [became] dominant [only] after the change -ende > -ing had taken place”

Kisbye (1971: 55): “[the merger] caused the verbal force of the present participle to be extended to the noun in -ing”

o lend quantitative support to Jack (1988), Fanego (2004)

Discussion (II)

1 clausalisation → merger?

The data:

BUT(formal) merger not the endpoint?!

o variety of features only developed after formal coalescence

progressive participle: one of prime domains in PDE, only gradually increasing in MS

clausalisation of verbal noun onlyin progress

tense and voice distinctions extremely rare

Discussion (III)

Figure 2 Type-related proportional frequency distribution of the present participle (-and & -ing) from S0 to S3

o suggest a considerable influence of merger on further clausalisation / firmer establishment of clausal features of participle and verbal noun

o support/ substantiate

Jack (1988: 27): “it is likely that [the] merger of the two forms did promote the use of the gerund” (cf. also Fanego 1996: 102)

Demske (2002): merger crucial factor in almost diametric development of verbal nouns in German and English

o suggest similar causal influence for more clausal types of participle

Discussion (IV)

merger → (further) clausalisation? 2*

The data:

Discussion (V)

independent clausalisation

merger (functional and formal approximation)

further clausalisation

further merging (cf. Fischer 1992, Fanego 2004, De Smet’s 2010 data on PDE -ing-forms

causal influence of clausalisation on merging

BUT reinforcing/ contributing effect of merger on

further clausalisation

Conclusion (I)

o 2 phenomena have to be viewed in connection/ cannot be treated separately

o complex interplay of phenomena rather than mono-directional influence

o MUTUAL and CONTINUAL influence

o language-specific factors:

anglicisation processes

involvement of infinitive

status of evidence (i.e. to which extent can Scots data be drawn on to explain processes in the history of English?)

o general issues:

categorisation (what constitutes ‘verbhood’, ‘nounhood’, ‘adjectivehood’...?)

.....

Conclusion/ shortcomings (II)

Thank you!

Conclusion (II)

Agutter, Alexandra. 1990. “Restandardisation in Middle Scots”. In Sylvia Adamson; Vivien Law; Nigel Vincent; Susan Wright (eds.). Papers from the 5th ICEHL. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1-12.

Beal, Joan. 1997. “Syntax and morphology”. In Charles Jones (ed.). The Edinburgh history of the Scots language. Edinburgh: EUP, 335-377.

Bosworth, Joseph; Toller, T. Northcote. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon. http://bosworth.ff.cuni.cz/ (18 Apr 2014).

Callaway, Morgan. 1929. “Concerning the origin of the gerund in English”. In Kemp Malone; Martin B. Ruud (eds.). Studies in English philology: a miscellany in honor of Frederick Klaeber. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 32-49.

Demske, Ulrike. 2002. “Nominalization and argument structure in Early New High German”. ZAS Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27, 67-90.

De Smet, H. 2008. Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 12, 55-102.

De Smet, H. 2010. English -ing-clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics 48 (6), 1153-1193.

Donner, Morton. 1986. “The gerund in Middle English”. English Studies 67, 394-400.Dons, Ute; Moessner, Lilo. 1999. “The present participle in Middle Scots”. Scottish Language 18, 17-33.Ehrich, Veronika. 1991. “Nominalisierungen”. In Arnim von Stechow; Dieter Wunderlich (eds.). Semantics: an

international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: de Gruyter, 441-458.Emonds, Joseph. 1973. “The derived nominals, gerunds, and participles in Chaucer’s English”. In Braj Kachru (ed.).

Issues in linguistics: papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 185-198.Fanego, T. 1996. The gerund in Early Modern English: Evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Folia Linguistica Historica

17, 97-152. Fanego, T. 2004. On reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change: The rise and development of English verbal

gerunds. Diachronica 21 (1), 5- 55.

References (selected)

Conclusion (II)

Fischer, Olga. 1992. “Syntax”. In Norman Blake (ed.). The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 2: 1066-1476. Cambridge: CUP, 207-398.

Gardela, Wojciech. 2011. “Spelling variants of the present participle in a selection of Northern English and Scots texts of the late 14th and the 15th centuries”. In Frans Gregersen (ed.). Language variation - European perspectives III: selected papers from the 5th International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 5), Copenhagen, June 2009. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 201-214.

Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP.Jack, G. 1988. The origins of the English gerund. NOWELE 12, 15-75. King, Anne. 1997. “The inflectional morphology of Older Scots”. In Charles Jones (ed.). The Edinburgh history of the

Scots language. Edinburgh: EUP, 156-181.Kisbye, T. 1971. An historical outline of English syntax. Part I. Aarhus: Akademisk Boghandel. Lass, R. 1992. Phonology and morphology. In N. Blake (ed.). The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 2:

1066-1476. Cambridge: CUP, 23-155. Macafee, C. 2004. A history of Scots to 1700. Dictionary of the Scots language. http://www.dsl.ac.uk/ (18 Apr 2014).Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 1995. “A new tool: the Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots (1450–1700)”. ICAME Journal 19, 49-

62. http://icame.uib.no/ij19/solin.pdf (18 Apr 2014).Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. Vol. 1: Concord, the parts of speech, and the sentence. Oxford: Clarendon.Mossé, F. 1957. Réflexions sur la genèse de la «forme progressive»”. In S. Korninger (ed.). Studies in English

language and literature. Wien: Braumüller, 155-174. Murray, J. 1873. The dialect of the southern counties of Scotland. London: Asher. Poutsma, H. 1923. The infinitive, the gerund and the participles of the English verb. Groningen: P. Noordhoff .Quirk, R.; Greenbaum, S. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Swan, Toril. 2003. “Present participles in the history of English and Norwegian”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 104,

179-195.Tajima, Matsuji. 1985. The syntactic development of the gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.

References (selected)