Cover not available

Article published In: Diachronica
Vol. 35:4 (2018) ► pp.487–524

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Competing motivations in the diachronic nominalization of English gerunds

 | The University of Manchester | Leiden University Centre for Linguistics
 | KU Leuven
Published online: 17 January 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.17015.fon
Abstract
The present study is an in-depth, corpus-based analysis of the rise and institutionalization of the indefinite nominal gerund in Late Modern English, considering the observed developments in light of their interactions with functionally related constructions. Based on historical data taken from the Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (version 3.1), we argue that the rise of indefinite nominal gerunds constitutes an instance of diachronic nominalization, in which the nominal gerund over time gradually comes to exploit a fuller range of paradigmatic properties associated with the nominal class. At the same time, this study investigates the potential influence of isomorphism on the observed developments. While the results do support the frequently investigated claim that language systems have a (weak) preference for a one-form-one-meaning organization in later stages of their development, the initial emergence of indefinite nominal gerunds can more accurately be explained by allowing system pressure as an enabling force of linguistic innovation. The picture presented in this study serves as evidence that the long-term development of linguistic constructions can be the result of competing – even maximally opposite – forces.
Résumé
Cette étude propose une analyse approfondie (partant d’un corpus) de la naissance et de la stabilisation du gérondif nominal indéfini en anglais moderne tardif (Late Modern English). On y examine les évolutions observées dans la perspective de leurs interactions avec des constructions voisines dans le réseau langagier. En nous basant sur des données historiques prises du Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (version 3.1), nous soutenons que l’essor des gérondifs nominaux indéfinis constitue un cas de nominalisation diachronique, où le gérondif nominal commence progressivement à exploiter un éventail plus riche de propriétés paradigmatiques associées à la classe nominale. Cette étude examine également l’influence potentielle de l’isomorphisme sur les évolutions observées. Si les résultats étayent l’affirmation souvent répétée selon laquelle les systèmes langagiers ont une préférence (faible) pour l’organisation ‘une forme correspond à un sens’ dans les étapes ultérieures de l’évolution, l’émergence initiale des gérondifs nominaux indéfinis s’explique mieux en considérant l’évolution interne du système comme source d’innovation linguistique. L’image qui est présentée dans cette étude prouve que l’évolution à long terme des constructions linguistiques peut résulter de différentes forces compétitives, qui peuvent s’opposer radicalement.
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Beitrag befasst sich im Rahmen einer detaillierten korpusbasierten Analyse mit der Entstehung und Institutionalisierung des unbestimmten nominalen Gerundiums im Spätneuenglischen, wobei beobachtete Entwicklungen vor dem Hintergrund ihrer Interaktionen mit im Sprachnetzwerk benachbarten Konstruktionen beschrieben werden. Auf der Basis historischer Daten aus dem Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (Version 3.1) wird dafür argumentiert, dass der Anstieg des unbestimmten nominalen Gerundiums als Prozess diachroner Nominalisierung verstanden werden kann, in dessen Verlauf sich das nominale Gerundium allmählich ein breiteres Spektrum substantivischer Eigenschaften aneignet. Gleichzeitig wird überprüft, inwiefern diese Entwicklungen von Isomorphie beeinflusst sind. Die Ergebnisse untermauern die vieluntersuchte These, dass Sprachsysteme eine (schwache) Tendenz zu einer eindeutigen Zuordnung von Form und Bedeutung haben, ebenso jedoch, dass die anfängliche Entstehung unbestimmter nominaler Gerudia noch genauer erklärt werden, wenn Systemdruck als Antriebskraft linguistischer Innovation berücksichtigt wird. Dieser Beitrag zeigt damit, dass die langfristige Entwicklung linguistischer Konstruktionen aus konkurrierenden – ja sogar entgegengesetzten – Prinzipien resultieren kann.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology, aims and outcomes
  • 3.Analysis: Innovation or substitution?
    • 3.1The indefinite nominal gerund: Historical developments
    • 3.2Additional evidence: Referential-semantic analysis of bare and indefinite nominal gerunds
  • 4.The rise of indefinite nominal gerunds and its effects on the constructional network
    • 4.1Latinate suffixes
    • 4.2Zero-derivation
    • 4.3Discussion
  • 5.System pressure as a motivation for emergence
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (113)
References
Allen, Robert L. 1966. The verb system of Present-Day American English. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. 2nd edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, Rolf Harald & Antoinette Renouf. 1996. Chronicling the times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 721. 69–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, Rolf Harald, Ton Dijkstra & Robert Schreuder. 1997. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language 37(1). 94–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna & Spike Gildea. 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Johanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds). Diachronic Construction Grammar, 1–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber & Ingo Plag. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. & Juliette Blevins. 2009. Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Aspects of language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1995. The Aktionsart of deverbal nouns in English. In Pier Marco Bertinetto (ed). Temporal reference, aspect and actionality. Vol. 1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives, 27–42. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1998. Aspectuality and countability: A cross-categorial analogy. English Language and Linguistics 2(1). 37–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cetnarowska, Bozena. 1993. The Syntax, Semantics and Derivation of Bare Nominalisations in English. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham: Ginn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1987. The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In Brian MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 1–33. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2009. Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the Dutch dative alternation. Language Sciences 311. 593–611. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of action nominals. A cross-language study. Lingua 401. 177–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Sandra A. Thompson. 1985. Lexical nominalizations. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 31, 349–398. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cowie, Claire. 1998. Diachronic word-formation: A corpus-based study of derived nominalizations in the history of English. Cambridge: University of Cambridge PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach, 2nd edn. (revised). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Eva & Dagmar Divjak (eds.). 2015. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1996. The French influence on English morphology: A corpus-based study of derivation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2008. Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 12(1). 55–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Susanne Flach, Jukka Tyrkkö & Hans-Jürgen Diller. 2015. Corpus of Late Modern English texts (version 3.1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Frauke D’Hoedt, Lauren Fonteyn & Kristel Van Goethem. 2018. The changing functions of competing forms. Cognitive Linguistics 29(2). 197–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Spatial and temporal boundedness in English motion events. Journal of Pragmatics 37(6). 889–917. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. The grammar of the English tense system: A comprehensive analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2002. Nominalization and argument structure in Early New High German. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 271. 67–90.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Chad Langford. 2012. Advanced English grammar: A linguistic approach. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donner, Morton. 1986. The gerund in Middle English. English Studies 671. 394–400. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Wolfgang U. Wurzel, Willi Mayerthaler & Osvald Panagl (eds.). 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Studies in language companion series, 101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Einenkel, Eugen. 1914. Die Entwicklung des englischen Gerundiums. Anglia 381. 1–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1973. The derived nominals, gerunds, and participles in Chaucer’s English. In Braj B. Kachru & Robert B. Lees (eds.). Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, 185–189. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fertig, David. 2013. Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntactic change and borrowing: The case of the accusative-and-infinitive construction in English. In Marinel Gerritsen & Dieter Stein (eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change, 17–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Stefan Hartmann. 2016. Usage-based perspectives on diachronic morphology: A mixed-methods approach towards English ing-nominals. Linguistics Vanguard 2(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Liesbet Heyvaert. 2018. Category change in the English gerund: Tangled web or fine-tuned constructional network?, In Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (eds.), Category change from a Constructional Perspective, 149–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Nikki van de Pol. 2016. Divide and conquer: The formation and functional dynamics of the Modern English -ing-clause network. English Language and Linguistics 20(2). 185–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren, Hendrik De Smet & Liesbet Heyvaert. 2015a. What it means to verbalize: The changing discourse functions of the English gerund. Journal of English Linguistics 43(1). 36–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren, Liesbet Heyvaert & Charlotte Maekelberghe. 2015b. How do gerunds conceptualize events? A diachronic study. Cognitive Linguistics 26(4). 583–612. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 561. 515–540. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In Brian MacWhinney, Andrej L. Malchukov & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 197–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2003. A cognitive-functional approach to deverbal nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Towards a symbolic typology of -ing nominalizations. In Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture and mind, 493–506. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. Assessing frequency changes in multi-stage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24(4). 385–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hiraga, Masako K. 1994. Diagrams and metaphors: Iconic aspects in language. Journal of Pragmatics 221. 5–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017. Construction Grammar as cognitive structuralism: The interaction of constructional networks and processing in the diachronic evolution of English comparative correlatives. English Language and Linguistics 21(2). 349–373. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Houston, Ann. 1989. The English gerund: Syntactic change and discourse function. In Ralph W. Fasold & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), Language change and variation, 173–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1946. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part V. Vol. IV: Syntax. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1983. Word formation and the lexicon. In Frances A. Ingeman (ed.), Mid-America Linguistics Conference (MALC) 1982, 3–29. University of Kansas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 113–135. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kisbye, Torben. 1971. An historical outline of English syntax. Aarhus: Akademisk boghandel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2006. The origin of English gerundial constructions: A case of French influence? In Andrew J. Johnston, Ferdinand von Mengden & Stefan Thim (eds.), Language and text: Current perspectives on English and German historical linguistics and philology, 179–195. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Some problems connected with the analysis of gerunds with direct object in Middle English. In Winfried Rudolf, Thomas Honegger & Andrew J. Johnston (eds.), Clerks, wives and historians: Essays on medieval language and literature, 213–233. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Nouns and verbs. Language 63(1). 53–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1966. On a transformational analysis of compounds: A reply to Hans Marchand. Indogermanische Forschungen 711. 1–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maekelberghe, Charlotte & Liesbet Heyvaert. 2016. Indefinite nominal gerunds, or the particularization of a reified event. English Studies 97(3). 317–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2004. Nominalization, verbalization: Constraining a typology of transcategorial operations. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Constraining nominalization: function / form competition. Linguistics 44(5). 973–1009. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McMahon, April M. S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1912. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Gary D. 2002. Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2011. Gender differences in English syntax. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander. 1978. Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 2(3). 415–434. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Helena Ramoulin-Brunberg & Heiki Manilla. 2011. The diffusion of language change in real time: Progressive and conservative individuals and the time depth of change. Language Variation & Change 231. 1–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2014. On parents and peers in constructional networks. Paper presented at Cogling Days 6, Ghent, Belgium, December 12.
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, Günther & René Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rainer, Franz. 1988. Towards a theory of blocking: The case of Italian and German quality nouns. In Geert Booij & Jaap Van Marle (eds.). Yearbook of Morphology 1988, 155–185. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1973. Nouniness. In Osamu Fujimura (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic research, 137–257. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Gerald. 1988. Zero derivation and the overt analogue criterion. In Michael T. Hammond & Michael P. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology, 155–175. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The parameter of aspect. 2nd edition. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte & Elena Smirnova. 2017. Workshop proposal for the 50th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swan, Michael. 2005. Practical English usage. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2010. The genitive alternation in a cognitive sociolinguistics perspective. In Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen & Yves Peirsman (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 141–166. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tajima, Matsuji. 1985. The syntactic development of the gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. The compound gerund in Early Modern English. In Sheila Embleton, John E. Joseph & Hans-Joseph Niederehe (eds.), The emergence of the modern language sciences: Studies on the transition from historical-comparative to structural linguistics in honour of E.F.K. Koerner, 265–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, 165–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2000. Possessives in English: An exploration in Cognitive Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. The ecology of constructions. In Günther Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation, 49–74. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. Forthcoming. Modeling language change with constructional networks.
van de Velde, Freek. 2014. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.), The extending scope of Construction Grammar, 141–179. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1972. Rule Inversion. Lingua 291. 209–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Visser, Frederik Th. 1973. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wurff, Wim van der. 1993. Gerunds and their objects in the Modern English period. In Jaap van Marle (ed.), Historical linguistics 1991, 363–375. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang. 1987. System-dependent morphological naturalness in inflection. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Willie Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang U. Wurzel (eds.), Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology, 59–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2014. From phrase to clause(-like): On the development of present participle and verbal noun in Middle Scots. VIEWS 231, ([URL]).
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Kuzai, Einat & Hagit Shefer
2023. Pragmatic overlap and consecutive change: The case of Hebrew (inter)subjective markers yeʃ/en matsav/sikuy. Journal of Pragmatics 207 ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Kuzai, Einat
2022. Situation-bound utterances and constructional networks: The evolution of the Hebrew see-farewell family. Lingua 272 ► pp. 103328 ff. DOI logo
Sokolova, Svetlana
2021. When three is company: The relation between aspect and metaphor in Russian aspectual triplets. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 57:1 ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo
Fonteyn, Lauren
2019. A corpus-based view on the (aspectual-)semantics of Modern English nominalizations. Language Sciences 73 ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue