25.12.2013 Views

0 INTRODUCTION

0 INTRODUCTION

0 INTRODUCTION

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

6. FINDINGS<br />

Table 12. Overall figures for structural types of Romance nominalizations<br />

E1<br />

E2<br />

E3<br />

(1500-1570) (1570-1640) (1640-1710)<br />

TOTAL<br />

No Dep. 81 (10.8) 136 (17.7) 190 (26.5) 407 (18.2)<br />

Pre-Head 59 (7.9) 114 (14.8) 219 (30.5) 392 (17.5)<br />

Dep.<br />

Post-Head 37 (4.9) 61 (7.9) 57 (7.9) 155 (6.9)<br />

Dep.<br />

Pre- & Post- 98 (13.1) 136 (17.7) 262 (36.5) 496 (22.2)<br />

Head Dep.<br />

TOTAL 275 (36.7) 447 (58.2) 728 (101.4) 1,450 (64.8)<br />

Another interesting result is the low frequency of Romance nominalizations followed<br />

just by post-head dependents, as in (153) below:<br />

(153) for upon examination with my Microscope, I have found that the<br />

pith of an Elder, or almost any other Tree, the inner pulp or pith of<br />

the Cany hollow stalks of several other Vegetables: […] (E3 1665<br />

Hooke The life and work of Robert Hooke)<br />

Although example (153) resembles examples (151)-(152) in that the nominalization is<br />

modified by a post-head dependent, it differs from them in that the nominal is not followed<br />

by an NP but by a PP. Since Romance nominalizations are not verbal in nature, they<br />

cannot take bare NPs as their post-head dependents.<br />

To summarize, it seems that the tendency for –ing nominalizations is to specialize into<br />

formations of a verbal nature. The gap created by the increasingly smaller number of<br />

nominal –ing formations is filled by the borrowing of Romance nominalizations, as<br />

evidenced by the sharp increase in Romance nominalizations throughout the EModE<br />

period.<br />

174

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!