Aspect

Moving from referential semantics to aspectual semantics, this chapter investigates the differences between nominal and verbal gerunds in terms of their aspectual potential. After presenting an overview of the semantic classifications adopted in studies of verbal aspect, a corpus study indicates that compared to verbal gerunds, nominal gerunds prefer a temporally bounded, “completed” or “holistic” construal (e.g. It happened after [the falling of the Berlin Wall]) over ongoing or “sequential” construal (e.g. She is working on [writing her first book] vs. She is working on [the writing of her first book]). These findings are discussed in light of the proposed categorical status of nominal and verbal gerunds.

Conceptual (In)Dependence and the Diachronic Nominalization of ing-Forms

In this final empirical chapter, it is shown that nominal and verbal gerunds differ in terms of their preferences for the type of verb that forms the head of nominal and verbal gerunds, with the more clause-like verbal gerund being more likely to be formed with a semantically light—and hence highly conceptually dependent—verb (e.g. Taking a shower vs. *The taking of a shower). Chapter 7, finally, also considers the semantic differences and similarities between ing-nominals with nominal and clausal structure from a broader perspective, including deverbal nominalizations in -ing that do not refer to events (and hence are not traditionally considered as nominal gerunds).

Introduction

The central topic of the present study is to offer a new perspective on perhaps the best-known types of transcategorial shift, commonly referred to as nominalization and verbalization. As explained in this introductory chapter, the ultimate aim of this study is to present the first elaborate attempt to determine what it “means” to nominalize or to verbalize. This chapter sets out the specificalities of the aims (both theoretical and methodological/descriptive) of this study and briefly introduces the construction that lies at the heart of the empirical chapters (i.e., the English gerund), followed by an overview of the chapter contents.

Discourse Function

Taking a slightly different perspective on reference compared to the previous chapter, this chapter considers nominal and verbal gerunds in light of their discourse-functional behavior. It is argued that nouns and verbs have a different status as referents in discourse. Nouns (or nominals) serve as discourse participants, while verbs serve as relators between participants in the clauses they head. As a result, nominals tend to be anaphorically tracked in their entirety, while clauses are anaphorically accessed for their internal participants (e.g. Helping refugees is important. [It is the right thing to do] vs. [They need your help]). Nominal gerunds seem to increasingly resemble prototypical nominals in this respect, while verbal gerunds retain a clause-like internal accessibility.

Conclusions

The concluding chapter synthesizes the results of the preceding analyses. It highlights that the most important functional-semantic categorial shift that has taken place within the English gerundive system did not affect the morphosyntactically verbalizing component; instead, it affected the “original” nominal gerund, which started to functionally assimilate to more prototypical members of the nominal class. It is explained that in earlier stages, the English gerund exhibited functional hybridity, using an exclusively nominal form to realize more nominal as well as more clausal functions; but with the rise of the verbalized gerund, this functional hybridity started to be gradually sorted out. What emerges from the discussions of the case studies is that adopting a model of functional-semantic categoriality allows one to tackle the remaining lacunae in understanding this history of the English gerund, and perhaps, in the not-so-distant future, of “categoriality in language change” more generally.

Reference Types

The first case study, presented in this chapter, investigates how nominal and clausal constructions differ in terms of their reference and grounding strategies. In earlier stages of English, both nominal and verbal gerunds could rely on so-called “indirect clausal grounding” to establish their referent, receiving a specified subject as well as a temporal location from the matrix clause in which they are embedded (e.g., both He closed the deal [by signing the contract] as well as [by signing of the contract] were possible). While present-day verbal gerunds still frequently rely on indirect clausal grounding, nominal gerunds lost this grounding strategy in Modern English and presently exclusively use nominal grounding mechanisms (i.e., (in)definite articles, possessives, demonstratives) to establish reference (e.g., [The/His] signing of the contract).

The English Gerund

This chapter gives an overview of the history of the English gerund, describing the attested morphosyntactic developments and assessing the functional explanations that have been provided to explain the observed changes in its structural makeup. It gives an overview of the remaining lacunae in our understanding of how the English gerund developed, and suggests how these lacunae can be addressed. At the end of this chapter, a different functional approach to the history of the English gerund is presented, which is based on the functional-semantic model of categoriality presented in Chapter 2. Here, it is set out how the abstract nominal and verbal/clausal functional values can be defined as testable symptomatic usage patterns. These “symptomatic usage patterns” serve as the underlying basis for the hypothesis tested in the empirical chapters.

Transcategorial Shift

This chapter discusses the literature dealing with the formal and functional features of the major grammatical categories noun and verb, focusing on the so-called “mixed” or “hybrid” structures known as deverbal nominalizations. It is argued that, to understand the peculiarities of these much-discussed constructions and, more generally, to investigate whether abstract linguistic concepts such as “noun” and “verb” are—as suggested in functionalist and cognitive linguistics—to a certain extent “iconic,” we should adopt an approach that devotes attention to structural as well as functional-semantic properties. The discussion will lead to the presentation of a theoretical model of functional-semantic nominality and verbality/clausality, which will serve as the core for further investigation of the functional-semantic organization of the English gerundive system.