The Gerund

The gerund is originally a verbal noun in –ing (until about 1250 also with the form –ung (G. O. Curme, 1931; 50). Similar to the infinitive, the gerund is the name of a process but its substantive meaning is more strongly pronounced than that of the infinitive (M. Blokh, op. cit., 108): unlike the infinitive, the gerund can be modified by a noun in the genitive case or by the possessive pronoun and used with prepositions.

If the gerund is an abstract name of a process, why is then the infinitive, not the gerund, the citation, or standard, form of the verb in general? There are several reasons: 1) it is more substantival than the infinitive; 2) it does not take part in the conjugation of the verb: 3) structurally it is more complex than the infinitive – it has an inflectional form(-ing).

The verbal features of the gerund. Like the verb, the gerund distinguishes the categories of voice and order: writing (non-passive, non-perfect) – being written (passive, non-perfect), having written (non-passive, perfect) – having been written (passive, perfect). It will be obvious that gerunds derived from intransitive verbs will have only two forms: non-perfect active and perfect active, e.g. walking vs. having walked.

The gerund has the following syntactic features of the verb: it can function as part of the verbal predicate (e.g. If he stops working, he will die); it can be followed by an objective complement (e.g. I remember locking the door) and an adverbial (e.g. He avoids driving fast).

The nounal features of the gerund. Similar to the noun, the gerund can be modified by a noun in the genitive case or in the common case, which, when pronominalized, turn into the possessive and objective forms, respectively:

She did nothing to encourage John’s going abroad.

She did nothing to encourage John going abroad. vs.

She did nothing to encourage his going abroad.

She did nothing to encourage him going abroad.

The standard form is the form with the noun in the genitive case or with the possessive pronoun. The other form is more common in spoken English. The gerund in the latter construction is traditionally called the half- gerund. The semantic difference between the two types of construction is inconsiderable: the gerund modified by a noun in the genitive or a possessive pronoun is generally thought to be more nounal in meaning and the gerund modified by a noun in the common case or the objective form of the pronoun is thought to be more verbal. According to B. Khaimovich and B. J. Rogovskaya (op. cit., 195), “This usage is suggestive of the further verbalization of the gerund”.

Unlike the noun, the gerund cannot be used in the plural; it cannot be preceded by the article (or its substitute); it cannot be determined by the adjective. Cf. His coming at such a late hour disturbed me (gerund). vs. His comings and goings disturb me (verbal nouns).

I resented his constantly questioning my motives (gerund). vs. I resented his constant questioning of my motives (verbal noun). There’s no point in breaking the seal (gerund). vs. She had witnessed the breaking of the seal (verbal noun). His coming, however, can also be interpreted as a verbal noun. Cf. Telling Mary was a big mistake (gerund).

Like the noun, the gerund can be used as the subject, the objective complement, the predicative, and the attribute:

1. Going there would have been imprudent.

2. I prefer seeing a play to reading it.

3. Seeing is believing.

4. She gave the impression of being more interested and excited than ever.

The gerund and the infinitive. As already known, some verbs can be followed by either the gerund or the infinitive (like, begin, start, continue, try, regret, remember, forget, etc.). According to D. Bolinger (1968), the gerund expresses something “real, vivid, fulfilled”, whereas the infinitive expresses something “hypothetical, future, unfulfilled”:

1. John hopes to learn French.

2. Max enjoys swimming.

In the first sentence, the infinitive to learn denotes a process that will be fulfilled in the future, i.e. it is not a factive process; in the second sentence the gerund swimming denotes a process that has already been fulfilled before the moment of speaking: we can only enjoy things we have already directly experienced (Marianne Celce-Murcia, Diane Larsen-Freeman, op. cit., 435). D. Bolinger’s principle of factivity vs. non- factivity also helps to explain the difference between such sentences as I like camping in the mountains and I like to camp in the mountains. Camping suggests that the person has already experienced the process while to camp is a non-factive process, which is especially obvious when like is modified by a modal. Cf. I would like to camp in the mountains. However, according to N. V. So (1973), most native speakers do not readily perceive the difference between like + doing and like to do.

Another interesting case is presented by the verbs start and begin:

1. Helen started doing her homework.

2. Helen started to do her homework.

In the first sentence, doing suggests entry into the middle phase of the process while in the second sentence to do suggests entry into the initial phase of the process. Cf. Helen started to do her homework but the phone rang and she had to interrupt her work. vs. *Helen started doing her homework but the phone rang and she had to interrupt her work. (Vaclav Шeшicha, 1987 (69): 129-132).

With factive implicative verbs, the difference between the gerund and the infinitive concerns a different temporal perspective. Consider: I remember locking the door. vs. I remembered to lock the door.

Both sentences speak of the process of locking as accomplished: in the first sentence locking occurred before remembering (i.e. I locked the door and I still remember this); in the second sentence, locking occurred after remembering (i.e. I remembered and, consequently, locked the door). With non-factive verbs, the difference is more obvious: the gerund expresses factivity while the infinitive expresses non-factivity, e.g. I tried closing the window (i.e. I actually closed the window by way of making an experiment).

I tried to close the window (i.e. I made an attempt to close it).

On second thoughts, however, the second sentence is neutral between factivity and non-factivity. To resolve its neutrality, we can qualify it (i.e. deneutralize it) by adding appropriate information: I tried to close the window and in fact I closed it in the end (i.e. I not only tried, but I succeeded in closing it).

Поиск по сайту: