0 INTRODUCTION

6. FINDINGS
Table 17. Dependents of –ing and Romance nominalizations according to period
E1 E2 E3 TOTAL
(1500-1570) (1570-1640) (1640-1710)
No dep. 11
6
8 25
–Ing
(21.1%) (8.2%) (6.8%) (9.9%)
nom.
Pre-head 5
10
3 18
dep.
(9.6%) (13.7%) (2.5%) (7.1%)
Post-head
dep.
27
(51.9%)
34
(46.6%)
91
(77.1%)
152
(60.1%)
Pre- &
Post-head
dep.
19
(36.5%)
23
(31.5%)
16
(13.6%)
58
(22.9%)
Romance
nom.
No dep. 34
(5%)
Pre-head 30
dep.
(22%)
Post-head 23
dep. (16.9%)
Pre- &
49
Post-head (36%)
dep.
72
(32.6%)
61
(27.6%)
31
(14%)
57
(25.8%)
67
(22.9%)
77
(26.3%)
26
(8.9%)
123
(42%)
173
(26.6%)
168
(25.8%)
80
(12.3%)
229
(35.2%)
As could be expected, both –ing and Romance elements of the doublets follow the
structural trends described in Section 6.1.2. This means that –ing forms move towards a
structure having only post-head dependents, whereas Romance nominalizations tend to
have both pre- and post-head dependents. A detailed account of the patterning of the
nominalizations forming the doublets is provided in what follows.
As can be seen in Table 17, having only post-head dependents is the preferred
pattern for –ing nominals in E1 (reaching 51.9% of all instances). –Ing nominalizations
having both pre- and post-head dependents with a percentage of 36.5% are the second
most preferred option. In E3 there is a decrease in the use of all kinds of phrases except
those with only post-head dependents, which rise from 51.9% to 77.1%. Usually, the
typical post-head dependent they take is an NP, as in (190) and (191) below:
195