Bruce,
It’s not always clear to me whether you are describing how other people use the term “gerund” or if you are describing how (and if) you are proposing to
amend that. As I try to work my way through it, I have yet to get to a point where I’m convinced it’s a useful concept, in either a usual or amended form. It would help me if you came at this directly: “Most people believe a gerund is X. I see it the same/differently.
This is a useful term because….”
Nouns modify other nouns very commonly without being appositional. “A phrase structure tree diagram” is a sequence of nouns, with “diagram” as the ultimate
head. I’m not sure we need a separate name for nouns used as modifiers. This is not much different from “fishing boat” or “bowling alley,” though you can make the case that both “fishing” and “bowling” can be treated as nouns in those phrases. I’m not sure
if that’s what you mean by “nouns derived from gerunds.” To me, it’s just as easy to say that they are nouns derived from verbs or from the present participle form of the verb. What does gerund have to offer in that understanding?
If a word in –ing form is acting in a verb-like way (taking verb-like complements and modifiers), why not just call it a nonfinite clause? Why do we need
a different name for the verb head when the structure functions in noun phrase slots (like subject) than we do when it acts as modifier?
“Any captain leaving a sinking ship with passengers still aboard should be publicly shamed.”
“Leaving his sinking ship with passengers still aboard brought great shame to the captain.”
Is one of those a gerund and the other not? If so, what would be the usefulness of that distinction?
Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
Craig,
My reply to Karl may clarify some of your questions.
Modifying a noun is the normal function of an adjective. A noun that modifies another noun is often called an appositive, whether restrictive or non-restrictive. Some
of my examples an attempt to use another kind of modification: one of the common classes of morphological compounding of nouns in the "subject-action" pattern. Lexicographers may differ in their choice of what kind of compounding is common or regular enough
to admit the word into the dictionary as a separate entry. Usually only those whose meaning may not be clear from the combining of the meanings of the separate elements will qualify.
I believe that the clearest definition of "noun phrase" is given in phrase structure rules: what are its constituents and what are their normal order. Some of my discourse
had to do with the definition of a noun phrase at different levels of analysis. The modification of the head by an adjective clause illustrates this principle. The restrictive clause modifies it at a more basic or lower level than the non-restrictive clause.
(NP vs. NP-bar)
Bruce
--- [log in to unmask] wrote:
From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:57:14 +0000
Bruce,
I think it’s pretty clear that you have your own sense of when the term “gerund” is (or should be) appropriate, but I am struggling with that a bit. Modifying a noun, for
example, is certainly a noun function, even a fairly common one. Nouns can also function as verbs. Certainly the most common noun function is to serve as the head of a noun phrase, which would be one clear test. (We can call an –ing form a gerund if it derives
from a verb and heads a noun phrase.) I’m a little perplexed about “a noun derived from a gerund” in “log rolling is fun.” Is there such a thing as a gerund outside of actual use? Are you imagining a source sentence? What about “ten-pin bowling”? That would
be clearer to me, since “bowling” would probably have noun definitions in a good dictionary, but I’m not sure that “rolling” would.
I think we can take a single word structure as a noun phrase even when we have no noun phrase elements to back that up in part because of the absence of verb complements.
That almost has to be an arbitrary decision. “Parting is such sweet sorrow.” “Leaving home is painful.” “Parting” could be thought of as a noun phrase, but “leaving home” seems more like a mini predicate. Both are subjects in their respective sentences, but
subject can be filled by a number of structures. Noun clauses and infinitives are clear examples. (“What she is doing is anybody’s guess.” “To leave early would be a big mistake.”)
Karl’s point, and one I agree with, is that gerund isn’t a helpful term, at least as it’s commonly used. Your point, I think, is that it’s a useful term if we take some care
to redefine it, but I’m still not sure what you are recommending.
Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
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] wrote:
From: Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]>
To: [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
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/