Abstract This paper traces the semantic development of the English absolute construction from Old to Present-day English on the basis of extensive corpus data. It is observed that the absolute construction developed from a solely adverbial, strictly subordinate construction into a construction with a much larger range of functions, including quasi-coordinate constructions whose ‘addition’ function comes close to that of and-coordinated finite clauses. This development involves an expansion of clausal status (from subordinate to anywhere between subordinate and quasi-coordinate) and a semantic expansion from typically adverbial meanings to any type of additional information. The process is claimed to have been facilitated by Middle English case loss and arguments for this facilitating role of case loss are adduced. It is then shown how these quasi-coordinate absolute constructions became more and more important as an absolute construction-function over time, as they were well-suited to the absolute construction’s high degree of syntactic independence. This evolution appears to have taken an opposite direction from the development of free adjuncts (Killie & Swann 2009: 339). This observation fits in well with the proposal that English ing-clauses form a network (Fonteyn & van de Pol 2015) in which each member maintains its own functional niche, rather than engaging in competition with one another.

中文翻译：

---

适应生存

摘要 本文在大量语料库数据的基础上，追溯了英语绝对结构从古英语到现代英语的语义发展。可以看出，绝对结构从单纯的状语、严格从属结构发展为具有更大范围功能的结构，包括其“加法”功能接近于and-finite从句的准坐标结构。这种发展涉及从属地位的扩展（从从属到从属和准坐标之间的任何地方）和从典型的副词意义到任何类型的附加信息的语义扩展。据称该过程受到中古英语案例损失的促进，并提出了案例损失的这种促进作用的论点。然后展示了这些准坐标绝对结构如何随着时间的推移作为绝对结构函数变得越来越重要，因为它们非常适合绝对结构的高度句法独立性。这种演变似乎与自由附件的发展方向相反（Killie & Swann 2009: 339）。这一观察结果与英语 ing-clauses 形成一个网络 (Fonteyn & van de Pol 2015) 的建议非常吻合，其中每个成员都保持自己的功能利基，而不是相互竞争。这种演变似乎与自由附件的发展方向相反（Killie & Swann 2009: 339）。这一观察结果与英语 ing-clauses 形成一个网络 (Fonteyn & van de Pol 2015) 的建议非常吻合，其中每个成员都保持自己的功能利基，而不是相互竞争。这种演变似乎与自由附件的发展方向相反（Killie & Swann 2009: 339）。这一观察结果与英语 ing-clauses 形成一个网络 (Fonteyn & van de Pol 2015) 的建议非常吻合，其中每个成员都保持自己的功能利基，而不是相互竞争。