Marie,
I think your point is very well taken. The problem we are addressing is the fact that there appear to be at least two -ing forms to make nouns from verbs and also at least two -ing forms to make adjectives from verbs. In one case the syntax of the verb is retained. These have been called "verbal nouns" or "verbal adjectives."
The progressive aspect is usually called a verb form, rather than a verbal adjective, but strictly it is not a "form." It has two parts, the verb "to be" and the imperfect participle form." Three "-ing forms": "This thread is interesting me." (verb form) "Interesting the readers, each column is felt worthwhile." (verbal adjective) "This is very interesting." (gradable adjective). The first two are the imperfect participal. [I avoid calling it a "present participle" as that may make it seem to carry tense.]
The "bare infinitive" is one of the principle parts of the verb as a verb form." It appears with modals, where it is not strictly a "form." When it is used as a noun it is usually derived from the verb as a verbal noun. "I will leave." (verb form) "I saw him leave quickly." (verbal noun). But there is another noun usually having the same outward appearance as a bare infinitive. This noun has brought none of its verb syntax along with it: "He quickly took leave of me." (noun)
These three kinds of derivational morphology can cause no end of confusion. When we discuss the -ing formative for nouns, just the latter two kinds of derivation are manifest. [The first kind of derivation has been traditionally treated as though it were an inflection.]
Just my $1 worth, which, I must say, is way over-priced.
Bruce
--- [log in to unmask] wrote:
From: Marie-Pierre Jouannaud <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:39:14 +0100
From a different perspective (EFL/ESL), the 2 types of -ing forms pose
different problems, so I find the distinction useful (although I don't use
these terms with the students):
- for the "participle", students will sometimes use the past participle
instead of V-ing, or vice-versa: 'I am boring', 'the area surrounded my
city', ...
- for the "gerund', they often use the bare infinitive instead of the
V-ing form: 'Teach children is my dream'.
Just my 2 cents,
Marie
> Bruce,
> I find these responses very interesting. I hope the rest of the list
> isn’t getting frustrated.
> As you know, the verb plus ing after a be verb auxiliary is quite often
> ambiguous. “Interesting” is certainly most likely an adjective in the
> instance you give, but if I give an example like “she is sleeping” or
> “she is painting,” I think most people would see these (is sleeping, is
> painting) are present progressive verb phrases. This is pretty much my
> point: that the ing form of the verb has a single name (participle)
> but carries out a number of functions. Adjective is one of them.
> This is true to some extent in noun phrases as well. I have a friend
> whose first novel is titled “Dreaming maples.” In this case, “dreaming”
> could be a transitive verb taking “maples” as its object. It could be
> an intransitive verb, denoting the maples as dreaming. It could also
> tell us what kind of maples we are dealing with; in this case, maples
> that are suitable for dreaming. We don’t have that ambiguity with
> “sinking,” but a “fishing boat” could be a boat that is doing some
> fishing (in the process of fishing) or a boat that can be classified as
> a boat suitable for fishing, which would make “fishing” much more noun
> like in the way it acts. Context might decide it. In the case of my
> friend, she was perfectly happy to have a number of meanings available
> with her title.
> Within systemic functional linguistics (I’m not sure about others),
> perception verbs are thought of as taking subject bearing clauses as
> their object. In “I saw the ship sinking” or “I saw the ship sink,”
> they would treat “the ship sinking” and “the ship sink” as subject
> bearing nonfinite clauses. The verb would be very much a verb. That
> might be clearer in cases where the predicate is long enough for
> explicit verb complements: “I saw the ship ram the dock and sink
> slowly into the harbor.” For more cognitive verbs, the structure
> would be equally clause like, but with the finite added. “I believe
> the ship was sinking.” “I thought the ship sank.” I don’t see
> anything to be gained by thinking of these as adjectives, though
> context can pressure that. “Which car did you see?” “I saw the car
> sitting in the driveway.” “What did you see the car doing?” “I saw the
> car sitting in the driveway.” The same sort of ambiguity can be
> present.
> There are two ways of looking at the hybrid structures sometimes
> generated by the possessive. “His leaving the ship bothered me.” One
> is that “his” helps us locate the missing subject for the following
> clause. The other is that “his” helps us determine which leaving the
> ship is in focus. (I’m certainly not bothered by the fact that the
> passengers left.) One construes what follows as clause, the other as
> a bit noun like. It is a bit hybrid as a structure.
> You notice, though, that I have gotten this far without using the term
> “gerund.” I am simply talking about the different ways in which the
> –ing form of the verb behaves within discourse and the ambiguity that
> sometimes results. Does a term like” gerund” add anything to this?
> Usually it’s defined as a verb acting like a noun, but what does
> acting like a noun mean and what do we do when it only partly acts
> like a noun in some contexts? One frequent area of confusion is the
> clause like structure in a role like subject. “Stealing that pie got
> him into trouble.” To me, “Stealing that pie” is a nonfinite clause
> containing a transitive verb. The same would be true with “the guy
> stealing that pie is my brother.” The nonfinite clause has a
> different role within the sentence, but its internal structure remains
> the same.
> We can continue to call a noun a noun even when it is in a modifying
> role in a noun phrase or even acting adverbially. “He left
> yesterday.” We don’t need to give it a different name for each of its
> functions. To me, it seems easier to talk about the present participle
> form of the verb and the various ways it acts within discourse.
>
> Craig
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:28 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
>
> Craig,
>
> Interesting. This is an adjective formed by adding the -ing suffix to the
> verb interest. When we say, "that is interesting" it is not normally
> interpreted as an imperfect participle, since that would be taking it as
> forming the progressive aspect of the verb interest. Instead it serves as
> a predicate adjective. R.A. Close has a list of 36 such adjectives
> serving either in attribute or predicate position. One characteristic he
> mentions is that it is gradable, i.e., can be preceeded by very.
>
> Sinking in "leaving a sinking ship" is the imperfect participle describing
> the activity of the ship that the captain was leaving. This is positioned
> like any attributive adjective to stand before the noun modified, but is
> not gradable.
>
> Sinking in "they watched the ship sinking" has not changed its part of
> speech, it is still an adjective, but now as an attribute complement. It
> is the ship that is being watched, and the activity it is engaged in
> modifies or completes its meaning.
>
> Sink in "they watched the ship sink" is the bare infinitive, a noun form
> selected by the verb watch. It serves as an attribute complement. This
> sentence is virtually synonymous with the one formed with the adjective
> form in -ing as attribute complement.
>
> Sinking in "they watched the ship's sinking" now makes the possessive case
> modify a noun formed using the -ing. The ship is a subject to the
> activity of the verb. This is what is being watched: the event that the
> ship is engaged in. If I keep the ship in the subjective case without a
> marker, the sentence is identical to the one above and actually will be
> seen to allow either interpretation. Most will say that they will not be
> misunderstood in either case. When the (deep) subject is possessive (or
> subjective) case we are concerned with a gerund.
>
> Certain verbs like stop, remember, forget, try, take either an infinitive
> or a gerund as object, but with a different interpretation.
>
> Because the gerund of the last example refers to an abstract idea, we must
> have an abstract subject to make it serve in that form as an attribute
> complement, "The vast audience made the results of the debate a sinking in
> the polls." Providing it with an article gives it an unambiguous
> interpretation as a noun. Yet there are a number of verbs where the -ing
> forming a noun has a meaning different from the noun that denotes an
> activity or event. These are not gerunds: a feeling, leavings, a writing,
> a beginning, because they refer to the result of the activity. Sometimes
> the presence of the article is required, "Give him a good listening to."
> Maybe the jury is still out on whether these turns of phrase are properly
> grouped with the gerunds, but the fact that they refer to the activity
> seems conclusive.
>
> I'm not sure I can answer your question as directly as you desire.
> [Maybe I'm up in the night, but I think I'll reconsider my use of the term
> "supine" for the case-imposed gerund. In Latin supines are passives.]
> Bruce
>
> --- [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Hancock, Craig G"
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:51:23 +0000
> Bruce,
> I want to thank you for taking much care and answering me so
> patiently. I'm still having trouble understanding what structures you
> would apply "gerund" to, perhaps because you only have one example
> among those comments, the one from Greenbaum. Would you limit its use
> to that sort of hybrid structure with both noun and verb elements?
> ("The captain's leaving the sinking ship was shameful.") I can see the
> usefulness of that, though it also seems to me much more narrow (and
> precise) than the way the term is usually applied (as is clear from
> Scott's opening examples.)
> I have always thought of the present participle as a verb form, not
> exclusively as an adjective. It can function in an adjective slot, but
> it can also appear in finite verb phrases, as the head of noun
> phrases, and as the head of predicate like structures that can
> sometimes act like noun phrases, sometimes like modifiers. I think I
> am not alone in this. I'm not sure what you mean by "accident of
> history." "The captain is leaving the sinking ship with passengers
> still aboard." It seems natural to me that we are able to make that
> activity the focus of another statement. "Leaving the sinking ship was
> outrageous." We are able to report an event as ongoing, but are also
> able to conceive of the event as a whole thing that we can make
> comment on in some way. It's not just history that's involved, but an
> overlap of structure that allows us to make different kinds of
> statements about the same occurrence. It may be ongoing; it may be
> done; it may be bandied about as an ongoing topic.
> To me, present participle is a form. It has a number of
> manifestations. I think this is the first time I have heard it applied
> solely to the -ing form used as an adjective.
> I would echo a point Karl made earlier. It's much more important to be
> able to focus in on how these structures are working than it is to
> name them. As commonly used, "gerund" seems to get in the way of
> that.
>
> Craig
> ________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Stahlke, Herbert
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 1:45 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
>
> Bruce,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the correction. Tense/lax is not one of the best defined
> phonological features since it involves a complex of gestures that are
> different with different sounds. A lot of speakers do tense or raise /I/
> to /i/ before /ng/. I’m not one of them. The raising before /n/ does
> sound unusual, although I’ve certainly heard it with British speakers in
> the word “been.” I haven’t listened closely for sin/sing types of
> contrast though. Sounds like we both have some unusual vowel features. I
> have phonemic Canadian raising in pairs like “kind” (adj) with the lower
> diphthong and “kind” (noun) with a raised diphthong.
>
>
>
> Herb
>
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]>
> On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 1:24 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
>
>
>
> Herb,
>
>
>
> Your note addressed to Karl was intended for me (Bruce).
>
> The palatalization of [I] to [i] occurs ineveitably with my "ee"
> phoneme before the alveolar "n." Tense and lax are not contrasted
> for me here.
> The velarization of [I] before the velar "n" may well be a separate
> phone for the same phoneme, but it seems to be the lax allophone.
>
>
>
> It is of some interest that I have reversed the rolls of the two -ing
> suffixes, but so be it. Maybe my mentors taught me wrong, maybe I
> hear it wrong, maybe this phenomenon needs more study in the various
> dialects. I have not done research in the literature, just tried to
> analyze carefully what was going on with my tongue in the oral cavity
> when I speak, and how the various interpretations change when I do
> so. I have a western dialect developed (corrupted) in urban Utah,
> but not that of the rural folks, which is much like Gov. Palin. I
> have heard some actors on British TV using the "een" sounds for the
> imperfect participle and found it strange to my ear.
>
>
>
> Bruce Despain
>
> --- [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Stahlke, Herbert" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:41:53 -0500
> Karl,
>
> Just a tangential note. You wrote:
> , in my ideolect the -ing of the gerund "rolling logs into the river" has
> an "ee" + n-sound, whereas the -ing of the imperfect participle "rolling
> logs into the river" has the "ee" + eng sound. The imperfect participle
> is a subclass of participle and participle is a subclass of adjective.
> piqued my interest for a couple of reasons. First, your use of –n in the
> gerund vs. –ng in the participle reflects but reverses the history of the
> forms. Historically the adjectival form was marked by the suffix –nd, and
> the final –d was so generally elided in speech that it was ultimately
> dropped. The –ng ending was a nominalizing suffix with a number of
> meanings. For most speakers, the use of the –n form and the –ng form
> became a sociolinguistic variable, in fact, the most widely studied
> sociolinguistic variable in English. What makes your idiolect curious is
> that your morphosyntactic distinction between them reflects their sources
> but in mirror image.
> What surprised me most was your use of “ee,” which I take to represent
> [i], not [I]. There has been discussion of this on other lists and blogs,
> and “ee” occurs frequently in –ing but not in –in. The velar articulation
> of –ng tends to raise the lax [I] to [i], but the alveolar /n/ does not do
> that. You appear to have generalized the tense vowel across the two
> forms.
> Herb
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]>
> On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:14 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
> Karl,
> Thank you for your clarification. The assignment of a word out of context
> to a particular part of speech has been the subject of a number of
> communications before on this listserve. There is also the assignment of
> a word (out of context) to a particular part of phrase, which ought to be
> discussed as well. I must admit that I have misunderstood the "gerundial
> noun." In my mind it is a gerund. It seems to be the form that brings
> almost all of the syntax of the verb with it. This was my point in
> labelling it as an analytically "transient" verb. As a part of phrase it
> may be subject, object, and other syntactic functions that a noun clause
> might have and is therefore a variety of noun. It was in this sense that
> the term supine was suggested, on the basis of Latin, which requires their
> gerund forms with similar syntax to show case. The case is what indicates
> its particular syntactic function (what is governing it).
> The nouns that look like gerunds, but do not have the full syntax, are
> what I was pointing out as abstract nouns. If subjects or objects are to
> be added to them, it must be by the process of morphological compounding.
> "Leaving home" is a supine, whereas "a home leaving" would be an abstract
> noun derived from the verb leave. This form is also commonly called a
> gerund, but doesn't have the verbal complements. Thus supine is a
> subclass of gerund, some abstract nouns are a subclass of gerund, and a
> gerund is a subclass of noun.
> There is a problem with the position that two constructions are not really
> distinct if they only differ in their grammatical function. The
> difficulty is in what the grammatical function is defined as. If it is
> defined by the grammatical context that they are in, then nouns and
> pronouns may be the same. But if it is defined by the grammatical context
> they license, then gerunds and some abstract nouns may be the same.
> Gerunds are noun forms of a verb while participles are adjective forms.
> In their context they are different, yet the context that is in them may
> be the same. Furthermore, in my ideolect the -ing of the gerund "rolling
> logs into the river" has an "ee" + n-sound, whereas the -ing of the
> imperfect participle "rolling logs into the river" has the "ee" + eng
> sound. The imperfect participle is a subclass of participle and
> participle is a subclass of adjective.
> Sincerely,
> Bruce
>
> --- [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:51:02 -0800
>
> Bruce,
>
> Just to clarify, I don't conflate gerundial nouns with other -ing forms
> traditionally called gerunds. Nor do I think that gerundial nouns must
> have articles to be nouns. Of course you can usually add one (e.g., "the
> log rolling"), and the grammaticality of that construction is evidence of
> noun-hood.
>
> My points are these:
>
> First, there's no principled reason to say that "log rolling" is headed by
> a noun and "the rolling of logs" is headed by a gerund. In both cases,
> "rolling" passes all the tests of noun-hood. We don't say that "wall" is a
> different part of speech when it occurs in the phrase "a stone wall" as
> opposed to the phrase "a wall of stone." To assert that "rolling" is not a
> noun in this case makes a pointless distinction. It is a noun derived from
> a gerund, whether it is well established or transitory, as you put it.
> (The problems with "the annual log rolling into the river" aren't
> explained by calling "rolling" a gerund. They exist with other deverbal
> nouns in the same situation, for example, I find "the annual stone toss
> into the river" equally infelicitous. Something else is going on here.)
>
> Second, to call such instances of "rolling" (i.e., the gerundial nouns)
> gerunds lumps them together with an entirely different syntactic
> construction ("rolling logs"). I don't see any explanatory benefit to this
> grouping. Sure, they share a derivational morphology, but that's it. When
> I do use the term "gerund," I don't include gerundial nouns, and I
> certainly never call them participles.
>
> Third, once you've separated the gerundial nouns from the traditional
> category of gerund, there is very little left to distinguish gerunds
> ("Rolling logs into the river is fun") from participles ("Rolling logs
> into the river, the lumber company saved on transportation costs"). It's
> here that I often simplify with students and call these participles. I
> take the position that two constructions are not really distinct if they
> only differ in their grammatical function. After all, we still call a noun
> phrase a noun phrase whether it is functioning as a subject or an object.
>
> Regards,
>
> Karl
>
> On 1/17/2012 7:12 PM, Bruce Despain wrote:
> Karl,
> I would definitely cringe to intentionally conflate the transient
> adjective in -ing (imperfect participle) with the transient noun in -ing
> (gerund). Even though the constructions are similar, the transient
> adjective modifies a noun in the sentence, whereas the transient noun
> serves one of the noun functions.
> When there is no article, the noun form (gerund) is no less a verbal noun.
> There are many abstract nouns that do not have an article; they take a
> null article. And then I can see you cringe again, because it is so hard
> to take a null form as being present. There is no dispute that there are
> nouns similar to gerunds that do not have the verbal complements. They
> are just like mass nouns, but do not refer to substances.
>
> Man is mortal. (count noun used as an abstract noun, referring to a set
> of objects)
> Grammar is fun. (an indefinite abstract count noun)
> Recreation is fun. (an indefinite abstract count noun)
> Log rolling is fun. (an indefinite abstract count noun)
> We understand that this last example is not a gerund, but a noun derived
> from a gerund. We may say "the annual log rolling is fun," but not *"the
> annual log rolling into the river is fun." (Some people may be persuaded
> to accept this one.) The gerund would be, "the annual rolling of logs
> into the river is fun." Thus there may or may not be a definite article.
> What about "the (rapid) river log rolling"? Maybe this kind of
> modification on an abstract noun derived from a gerund is allowed (the
> adjective but not the prepositional phrase). This seems to be "behaving
> like nouns internally," whatever that means. My grammar treats of two
> levels of noun phrase modification: classification and identification.
> These two kinds of noun phrase modification seem to be fair game for the
> gerund as well. The abstract noun is rarely used to identify a specific
> event.
> Bruce
> --- [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:48:40 -0800
>
> Like Bruce, I think that there are definitional issues at the core of your
> question. I see your examples as an illustration that the traditional
> understanding of "gerund" (which would, indeed, cover all your examples)
> doesn't adequately capture what's going on here.
>
> Your examples with "the" are nouns. Not only do they take a determiner and
> a prepositional phrase as a complement (both characteristics of nouns),
> but they also take adjectival modification, as in "the rapid waving of the
> baby's legs..." or "the annual rolling of logs into the river." You can
> even make them plural, given the right semantic framework: "He has
> participated in three runnings of the bulls." The Cambridge Grammar of the
> English Language calls these "gerundial nouns," (IOW, nouns derived from
> gerunds).
>
> Your examples without "the" do not behave like nouns internally, even
> though the whole phrase can fill a slot normally occupied by a noun
> phrase. They fail the above tests for noun-hood:
>
> *the rolling logs into the river
> *rapid rolling logs into the river
>
> On the other hand, they pass verb tests, taking a noun phrase complement
> like transitive verbs, and accepting modification by adverbs ("rapidly
> rolling logs into the river"). In short, this type of "gerund" behaves
> almost exactly like a participle. Indeed, unless the gerund/participle has
> a subject, they are exactly alike.
>
> In short, the traditional label of "gerund" lumps together two classes of
> words with very different behavior, which to my mind makes it not useful
> as an analytical category.
>
> With my students, I tend to soft-pedal, or even ignore, the terminology
> here. I dislike the CGEL term "gerund-participle" just because it's
> unwieldy, but have nothing better to offer. I'll often just call it a
> participle and ignore the gerund part, although the pedant in me cringes a
> little bit each time I do that. I focus on getting them to see that the
> -ing words can sometimes behave as nouns and sometimes as verbal
> participles. What's essential to me is getting them to see how to test the
> difference.
>
> Karl
>
> On 1/16/2012 12:02 PM, Scott Woods wrote:
>
> Dear List,
>
> Would you characterize "the waving of the baby's legs from the buggy" as a
> gerund phrase in the following sentence? "Susan could see the flash of her
> teeth, laughing, and the waving of the baby's legs from the buggy." It
> soesn't seem to be one to me, since it can't operate as a participial
> phrase in another sentence. Would you agree? Why do some gerunds take an
> article and others not? In the following pairs, the first seems to me to
> be a gerund phrase and the second not. Is this right? What is the
> principle behind why some take an article and other don't?
>
> Rolling logs into the river was fun.
>
> The rolling of the logs into the river was annoying.
>
> Eating oatmeal is boring.
>
> The eating of the oatmeal has begun.
>
> Running with the bulls is fun.
>
> The running of the bulls has begun.
>
> Growing vegetables is fun.
>
> The growing of the vegetables was left to me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott Woods
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4746 - Release Date: 01/16/12
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4749 - Release Date: 01/17/12
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
