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/