The purpose of this paper is to verify the hypothesis of the Great Complement Shift (GCS), according to which infinitival complement is being replaced by prepositional gerund over time. The advance of the to plus gerund (to-gerund) is considered to be the most prominent pattern of GCS (Rudanko 2010, etc.). On the basis of the Corpus of Historical American English, this paper examines the frequency changes from the 1820s to the 2000s involving eight predicates expected to have undergone GCS. It turns out that object and confine have completed the change in the early twentieth century and only to-gerund is used now. The predicates consent, prone and look forward have partially undergone GCS: among them look forward is in the front line and to-gerund overtook to-infinitive in the 1850s and have since spread rapidly; with consent and prone, to-infinitive is still used more frequently but to-gerund is increasing and to-infinitive is slightly decreasing over time. The verbs agree, assent and aspire differ from the others in that to-infinitive has not decreased at all. Since to-gerund is slightly increasing with these verbs, GCS is still justified but not at the expense of to-infinitive.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze gerund construction on the basis of gradience which was proposed by Aarts (2007, 2008), comparing with previous studies such as HPSG (Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar) approach and WG (Word Grammar) approach under multiple default inheritance. This paper explores syntactic properties of gerunds which have both nominal and verbal nature. The nominal nature of gerunds concerns with external patterns to the gerunds, and the verbal nature of gerunds concerns with their internal patterns. Keeping these properties in mind, this paper examines the logic of multiple default inheritance which allows a single node to inherit from two supercategories, in this case from both noun and verb, and then points out some problems. The paper introduces an alternative analysis, that is, the gradience approach, and argues that English gerunds can be explained neatly by the notion of intersective gradience which makes use of the concept of convergence. Above all, this paper devises a gradient diagram on the basis of basic explanations, and ensures that this diagram can help students to understand confusing gerunds.

Hee-Jung Lee. 2016. An Analysis of English Gerund Construction on the Basis of Gradience. Studies in Modern Grammar 90, 45-67. The purpose of this paper is to analyze gerund construction on the basis of gradience which was proposed by Aarts (2007, 2008), comparing with previous studies such as HPSG (Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar) approach and WG (Word Grammar) approach under multiple default inheritance. This paper explores syntactic properties of gerunds which have both nominal and verbal nature. The nominal nature of gerunds concerns with external patterns to the gerunds, and the verbal nature of gerunds concerns with their internal patterns. Keeping these properties in mind, this paper examines the logic of multiple default inheritance which allows a single node to inherit from two supercategories, in this case from both noun and verb, and then points out some problems. The paper introduces an alternative analysis, that is, the gradience approach, and argues that English gerunds can be explained neatly by the notion of intersective gradience which makes use of the concept of convergence. Above all, this paper devises a gradient diagram on the basis of basic explanations, and ensures that this diagram can help students to understand confusing gerunds.

In the OE absolute participial clause, its subject was usually realized as inherent dative case in the CP‐oriented and focalized element‐prominent structure. During between LME and EModE, dative absolutes were changed into nominative absolutes, which was derived by the reanalysis of SOV as SVO and the change from the OE structure into the TPoriented and subject‐prominent structure. But nominative absolutes were substituted with accusative absolutes from LModE. Such a change as this was triggered by analogy and assimilation with verbal gerunds that became grammaticalized as C-fin-T+def in their internal structures. Nominal gerunds in OE and EME began to acquire verbal properties from LME and onwards. Verbal gerunds in PDE are composed of mixed projections [＋N,＋V] with functional category Gerund Phrase. The [＋N]‐feature selects a gerund's logical subject and the [＋V]‐feature licenses its verbal complement. The Gerund as functional head bears both an uninterpretable verbal feature [uV] that is checked against the interpretable feature of a verbal complement and an interpretable nominal feature [iN] that guarantees a gerund's logical subject. As for the case identification of a gerund's logical subject, it is spelled out either as genitive at the DP level when it is selected as the genitive form morphologically or as accusative when EPP attracts a nominal element as a clausal gerund's logical subject onto the CP-fin-TP+def level where the [FinP nonfiniteness] renders a default case feature to be accusative.

This paper aims to examine the diachronic development of gerunds and analyze their internal structure and grammatical function. In OE and Early ME nominal gerunds behaved like nouns describing actions. From Late ME and onwards nominal gerunds began to acquire verbal properties. A verbal gerund in Present-Day English is composed of mixed projections [＋N,＋V]. The [＋N]-feature denoting nominal properties is related to licensing a gerund's logical subject. The [＋V]-feature denoting verbal properties is connected with licensing its verbal complement. So, it is necessary to stipulate a functional category Gerund Phrase in the internal projection of gerunds. Thus, the head Ger of the Gerund Phrase makes it possible to combine nominal and verbal features within the 'V＋ing'. The Ger bears the uninterpretable verbal feature [＋V] that is checked against the interpretable feature [V] of the verbal complement. It also bears the interpretable nominal feature [＋N] that functions as a nominalizer and guarantees a gerund's logical subject. As for the Case identification of a gerund's logical subject, it is spelled out as a genitive at the DP level when it is selected as the genitive form morphologically. But it is spelled out as an accusative when EPP attracts a nominal element as a clausal gerund's logical subject onto the FinP-TPdef level where the [FinP－finiteness] renders default Case feature to be accusative.

Byung-Soo Park, Woosoon Kang and Mija Kim. 2000. On English Gerundive Constructions: A Constraint-Based Lexical Approach. Studies in Modern Grammar. 22, 107-124. In this paper, we support Malouf`s (1998) proposal that there be an independent syntactic category, gerund. In terms of the type hierarchy of syntactic categories, it is possible to say that the category gerund belongs both to a verbal category and to a nominal category without being either a verb or a noun. On the other hand, we attempt to modify Malouf`s analysis of certain control and raising verbs which require gerundive complements. Under his analysis, an NP and a gerundive construction that fallow a control or raising verb must always constitute a GP (Gerundive Phrase). However, in addition to those cases, we show that there are cases in which the two elements must not constitute a GP; they are separate parts of a VP, together with the preceding head daughter. Our analysis is based an the possibility of passivizing the NP occurring before the gerundive complement. We also show that the unexpressed subject of a gerundive phrase is systematically identifiable under our analysis, without adding anything to the present control theory.

Hang-Jin Yoon. 2000. Case Licensing in Gerundive Constructions. Studies in Modern Grammar 22, 87-105. This paper is designed to examine Case assigning mechanism of gerundive constructions in English. The main focus is on Case licensing in the Acc-ing construction. After examining the data which lead to the conclusion that there is no inside Case assigner for the Acc-ing construction, I explore the possibility of the subject of the construction being assigned Case by the outside assigner through transmission. I propose that the prepositional complementizer plays an important role in transmitting Case from the outside of the construction. I further explore the parallelism between infinitive constructions and gerundive constructions.