Gerundive

Abstract: Introduction 1. Case Checking and Accord 2. Tense and Nonfinite Clauses 3. Null Subjects and Control 4. Plain and Conjugated Infinitives 5. West Greenlandic 6. Small Clauses and ECM 7. The ECM Innovation in English 8. Infinitives in Older English 9. The -Ing Participle and Perception Complements 10. English Gerundials 11. History of English Gerundials 12. Infinitive, Gerundive, Participle Primary Sources Editions of Older English Texts

Abstract: The book presents a systematic theoretical account of the fundamental constructional mechanisms that underlie deverbal nominalization in general, and it makes an original descriptive contribution by discussing a number of nominalization systems in detail. The main theoretical motif is that nominalization strongly calls for a functional rather than purely structural approach. The book goes more deeply into a number of functional constructs needed to model nominalization (drawn from Cognitive Grammar and Systemic-Functional Grammar) and it elaborates on the internal functional organization of nominal and clausal structure [e.g. the notions of type specification, instantiation and grounding (Langacker 1991) are discussed in detail and shown to be crucial for the analysis of deverbal nominalization]. It is argued that deverbal nominalizations are basically re-classifications of verbal predicates into nominal constructions. This re-classification either applies at word rank or it involves the rank shift (Halliday 1966) of a clause-like unit, with its internal structure preserved (e.g. signing the contract quickly). The re-classified unit then adopts a specific nominal strategy, with some form of nominal determination and quantification (e.g. her signing the contract quickly). The descriptive part of the book zooms in on nominalizations that are derived at word rank (deverbal -er nominals) and on nominalizations applying to 'a temporal clausal heads' (e.g. John's playing the piano) and finite clauses. Of the gerundive and finite types of nominalization, those that function in factive contexts are focused on. In the analysis of deverbal -er nominals a case is made for a 'subject' analysis of the system and an elaborate discussion of the clausal middle construction (e.g. this book reads easily) - which is argued to show systematic resemblances with non-agentive -er nominals - is included. Of the remaining nominalization types (John's playing the piano; playing the piano; the fact that he plays the piano; that he plays the piano ), especially the nominal behaviour (e.g. proper name vs. common noun strategy) and (in the case of gerundive nominals) the various structural and semantic subtypes that can be distinguished among them are discussed.

Abstract: This paper starts out from the observation that the semantic labels of 'fact' and 'action' (Lees 1968[1960]) that are traditionally used in the description of English gerundive nominalizations (e.g. I worry that my posing the question defines me as a depressive) cannot distinguish gerundives from so-called action -ing nouns (e.g. Saddam's targeting of Israel) and also fail to capture the more subtle semantic distinctions within the system of gerundive nominalization. The descriptive analysis that is presented tries to move beyond the action/fact dichotomy, is firmly grounded in the nominal-constructional properties of the system and covers all subtypes of gerundive nominalization. Building on Schachter (1976), it argues that gerundive -ing nominalizations have shifted from the representational semantics of action -ing nouns to a more schematic, constructional semantics: gerundives, it is suggested, nominalize either a type or kind of process, with no subject implied, or they nominalize an instance of a process, characterized by the (clausal-)constructional link which it implies between the process type and a subject (Davidse 1997, Heyvaert 2003). The system of gerundive nominalization exploits all nominal-constructional options which it has within the structure of the NP to encode the absence or presence of this subject. Gerundives thus opt for non-specific, generic reference to encode the name of a type or class of process (with no subject implied) or to encode an instance with generic reference. They use specific (definite or indefinite) reference to designate a specific, non-generic instance. The subject is either included in the nominalized clausal unit (and in the oblique case), or it is encoded through nominal means: in the form of bare definite reference of the gerundive NP (signalling control by the matrix clause or anaphoric/exophoric reference with the co(n)text), or in the form of a possessive/genitive determiner. The analysis that is proposed sheds new light on previously undifferentiated categories of gerundive nominalization (such as the control type of bare gerundives), as well as points to interesting resemblances between gerundive nominalization and diachronic changes in other systems of deverbal nominalization. Crucially, it also allows for a better understanding of the semantics of the system and its differences with action -ing nominals, whose nominal-constructional options do not revolve around encoding the presence or absence of a subject but instead allow for a wide range of modifying elements and determiners.