Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T18:33:25.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The meaning of the English present participle1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2011

HENDRIK DE SMET  and
LIESBET HEYVAERT
HENDRIK DE SMET
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Blijde-Inkomststraat 21, PO Box 3308, B-3000 Leuven, [email protected], [email protected]
LIESBET HEYVAERT
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Blijde-Inkomststraat 21, PO Box 3308, B-3000 Leuven, [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While earlier descriptions of the English present participle have tended to be too general or too exclusively focused on its progressive meaning, this article aims to present an account of the meanings of the English present participle that captures their full richness. It starts from the observation that many (though not all) present participle clauses/phrases are paradigmatically related to adjectival phrases, as manifested in their distributional properties (e.g. a challenging year, those living alone). The article analyses the semantic effects that arise from the tension between the verbal semantics of the participial stem and the adjectival semantics of the syntactic slot. These effects involve accommodation of the verbal situation to the requirement that a situation is represented as time-stable and as simultaneous to some contextually given reference time. The progressive meaning is one such semantic effect, but participles may also assume iterative, habitual or gnomic readings. Some construction-specific semantic extensions of this adjectival template are identified and a tentative explanation is offered for them. Those constructions where the present participle has lost its semantic association with adjective phrases, such as the progressive construction and integrated participle clauses, are shown to display loosening or specialization of semantic constraints.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 473 - 498
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & McClelland, John L.. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review 22, 381–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudo-clefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991a. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991b. Tense in English: Its structure and use in discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2010. English -ing-clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics 48, 1153–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. Forthcoming. Spreading constructions: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. In preparation. Participial perception verb complements. Meaning and syntax.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2009. The meaning of -ing: Semantics and pragmatics. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English, London, 14–17 July 2009.Google Scholar
Egan, Thomas. 2008. Non-finite complementation: A usage-based study of infinitive and ing clauses in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & Del Giudice, Alex. 2005. Subject auxiliary inversion: A natural category. Linguistics Review 22, 411–28.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80, 532–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2008. On the constructional semantics of gerundive nominalizations. Folia Linguistica 1 (42), 39–82.Google Scholar
Houston, Ann. 1985. Continuity and change in English morphology: The variable (ING). Doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1940. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. 5: Syntax. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 2006 [1933]. Essentials of English grammar. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 2008. From locative to durative to focalized? The English progressive and ‘PROG imperfective drift’. In Gotti, Maurizio, Dossena, Marina & Dury, Richard (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2006: Syntax and morphology, 69–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kranich, S. 2010. The progressive in Modern English: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization and related changes. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1989. The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1, 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1976. Some problems involving Old English periphrases with beon/wesan and the present participle. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 77, 478–91.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B. & Escobedo, Joyce. 2002. The semantics of to-infinitival vs -ing verb complement constructions in English. In Andronis, M., Ball, C., Elston, H. & Neuvel, S. (eds.), Proceedings from the main session in the Chicago Linguistic Society's thirty-seventh meeting, 549–64. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Strang, Barbara M. H. 1982. Some aspects of the history of the BE + ING construction. In Anderson, John (ed.), Language form and linguistic variation: Papers dedicated to Angus McIntosh, 427–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, Toril. 2003. Present participles in the history of English and Norwegian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 104, 179–95.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1972. A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Visser, Frederikus Theodorus. 1963–73. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar