Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:07:57.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Juho Ruohonen and Juhani Rudanko, Infinitival vs gerundial complementation with afraid, accustomed, and prone: Multivariate corpus studies. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021. Pp. xiii + 161. ISBN 9783030567576.

Review products

Juho Ruohonen and Juhani Rudanko, Infinitival vs gerundial complementation with afraid, accustomed, and prone: Multivariate corpus studies. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021. Pp. xiii + 161. ISBN 9783030567576.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2022

Uwe Vosberg
Uwe Vosberg*
Affiliation:
University of Kiel
*
English Department University of Kiel Leibnizstr. 1024118 Kiel Germany [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. 929 - 936
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author, 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Rohdenburg, Günter. 1998. Attributive adjectives like similar and different involving prepositional complements. In Kühlwein, Wolfgang (ed.), Language as structure and language as process. In honour of Gerhard Nickel on the occasion of his 70th birthday, 63–79. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 205–49. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2016. Testing two processing principles with respect to the extraction of elements out of complement clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 20, 463–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2018. The use of optional complement markers in present-day English: The role of passivization and other complexity factors. In Kaunisto, Mark, Höglund, Mikko & Rickman, Paul (eds.), Changing structures: Studies in constructions and complementation (Studies in Language Companion Series 195), 129–49. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia. 2009. New departures. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English, 364–423. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2015. Rhythmic influence on grammar: Scope and limitations. In Vogel, Ralf & de Vijver, Ruben van (eds.), Rhythm in cognition and grammar: A Germanic perspective (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 286), 179–205. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe. 2006. Die Große Komplementverschiebung: Außersemantische Einflüsse auf die Entwicklung satzwertiger Ergänzungen im Neuenglischen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe. 2009. Non-finite complements. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English, 212–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe & Rohdenburg, Günter. 2019. The rivalry between far from being + predicative item and its counterpart omitting the copula in Modern English. In Claridge, Claudia & Bös, Birte (eds.), Developments in English historical morpho-syntax, 287–307. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar