The –Ing construction in the language pair English/Spanish: radiality and subjectification

Abstract

The aim of this dissertation is to identify, describe and analyze the –ING construction from the English language. The –ING construction has a number of uses in the English language and either teaching or translating it to speakers of other languages poses some challenges. In the case of having Spanish speakers as audience, most of them tend to interpret the construction as a verbal one, in the progressive aspect, which is only one function of the construction. As for the theoretical framework, we chiefly based our research on Langacker’s work (1987, 1990, 1991, 2008) in order to account for this construction. We also rely on Prototype Theory (ROSCH, 1973), Radial Categories (BRUGMAN, 1981; LAKOFF, 1987), and Construction Grammar (FILLMORE & KAY, 1999; GOLDBERG, 1995, 2006), apart from a semantic approach to the –ING construction (WIERZBICKA, 1988), which will be essential for describing the –ING construction from a conceptual perspective. In regard to methodology we take both a quantitative and qualitative approach to data (COOK, T.D. & REICHARDT, C.S., 1979; RICHARDSON, R.J., 1985; CRESWELL, J., 2010) compiled from an English/Spanish parallel corpus of 1199 verbal –ING occurrences. Our main hypothesis is that the –ING construction, in its verbal function, is more central or prototypical (ROSCH, 1973) in respect to its conceptual network and its other functions, namely nominal, adjectival and adverbial. These functions, in turn, exhibit a more peripheral role and are linked to the verbal function through metaphorical extension relationships (GOLDBERG, 1995, 2006). These relationships, we argue, establish a continuum between these functions, going from the most or more grounded level up to the most abstract, subjectified level. By performing a corpus-based analysis of the data (BERBER-SARDINHA, 2002, 2004) we finally argue that there is a radial organization (BRUGMAN, 1981; LAKOFF, 1987) for the –ING construction, which goes from a more concrete level, being this more situated or “grounded” (LANGACKER, 1987, 1990, 1991, 2008) and thus more objectified (as a “here and now process”), until it gets to a more abstract level, therefore, less situated and more subjectified (taken as a “thing”) (LANGACKER, 2008).