9

Consider the following sentences:

  1. Cooking is my favourite activity.
  2. Cooking apples are essential for this recipe.

Cooking functions in the first sentence as a gerund. How does it function in the second?

A similar question could be asked of the term cleaning lady. However, while a cooking apple represents an apple which is (itself) cooked, a cleaning lady represents a lady who cleans (something else). Is there a difference?

Other examples:

  • Talking point vs. Watering can
  • Reading material vs. Cutting board
herisson
  • 81,803
coleopterist
  • 31,031
  • 7
    A "cooking apple" isn't necessarily an apple that has already been cooked, but rather one that is suitable for cooking. See here –  Oct 17 '12 at 19:09
  • In the second example it's also a gerund, but used as an attributive nominal. In "cleaning lady" the form could be parsed as either a gerund (lady who does the cleaning) or as a participle used as an adjective (the lady who is cleaning). – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 17 '12 at 19:09
  • @simchona Yes, but it's an apple which is cooked, rather than an apple which does the cooking. – coleopterist Oct 17 '12 at 19:10
  • 1
    Substitute Running, Running shoes and either Running lady or Running crew. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 17 '12 at 19:20
  • 2
    It's an apple for cooking, distinguishing it from one that is cookable or one that is cooked. – Tim Lymington Oct 17 '12 at 19:21
  • 2
    @coleopterist: an attributive noun/gerund is not about who the actor is. What kind of apple/lady? Something to do with cooking/cleaning. – Mitch Oct 17 '12 at 19:22
  • @TimLymington I see. Maybe I'm over-thinking this. Would the same apply with, say, talking point? A point for talking? – coleopterist Oct 17 '12 at 19:34
  • @Mitch Thanks. To me, it appears to be a subtle distinction. A talking point is a point which is talked about while a watering can is a can which waters rather than a can which is watered. – coleopterist Oct 17 '12 at 19:36
  • 1
    But a watering can does not, itself, "water"; it's a can you use for watering. Watering eyes, on the other hand, are eyes which are watering. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 17 '12 at 19:40
  • @StoneyB Let me put it another way. A talking point is a point which is talked about. But a watering can is not a can which is watered. Both these terms have the same structure. But they do not do so when expanded using this template. They do, as all the comments have explained, fit the "for" template where they become "a point for talking" and "a can for watering" respectively. IMO, this is a distinction. Moreover, the "for" template appears to neutralise the attribution. *sigh* I can tell that I'm not explaining this well. – coleopterist Oct 17 '12 at 19:54
  • No, I understand you perfectly. The problem is the language, which is designed to confuse when you try to think about it instead of just using it! ... Lemme take a stab at an answer. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 17 '12 at 20:02
  • 1
    SUre, but all I'm saying is that 'an X-ing Y' the 'X-ing' doesn't have the fixed transformation about X beyond 'something about X'. It's not always 'a Y that does X' or 'an X kind of Y' or 'a Y done by X'. It's just 'an X having to do with X-ing'. That's all and context or implicature or culture narrows it down to who the agent is, if any. – Mitch Oct 17 '12 at 20:48
  • 3
    I think the simple answer is, Yes, that's right. "An Xing Y" just means "a Y that has something to do with the action of X". It could mean that Y does X ("cleaning lady"), that Y can be done to X ("roasting pig"), that Y is a tool for doing X ("running shoes"), maybe other variations. It's only non-ambiguous because we know by convention what it means in each case. I'm sure you could come up with examples where someone who was not familiar with a particular term might be confused. But then, in general someone who doesn't know the definition of a word could be confused by it. – Jay Oct 17 '12 at 21:10
  • 1
    Is it just me, or does "an X-ing Y" sound like a euphemism for an obscene remark? – Jay Oct 17 '12 at 21:11
  • What @Mitch said - 'an X-ing Y' just uses X-ing as a general-purpose adjective, where the precise relationship of X to Y depends on context. No different to the adjective red, which often/normally means "made of material which absorbs green light". But not if it's a *red alert*, for example. – FumbleFingers Oct 17 '12 at 21:20
  • @Jay (2 back): If I might drop the articles: flying planes can still be dangerous. Flying boats could possibly be problematic. -ing forms, often somewhere along the noun - verb continuum (see Quirk), but also appearing as adjectives (and secondary modifiers), often give rise to ambiguities. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 17 '12 at 21:39

5 Answers5

9

Consider the following sentences (stressed words are boldfaced):

  1. Cooking apples is essential for this recipe.
  2. Cooking apples are essential for this recipe.

In (1), cooking apples is an example of a gerund subject complement with a (deleted) indefinite subject. As usual in a transitive subjectless clause, the direct object gets stressed. And, of course, noun clauses are always singular, whence the predicate is essential.

In (2), however, cooking apples is an example of a noun phrase with an attributive adjective formed from a participle, modifying apples, and signifying apples intended to be cooked (as opposed -- in my idiolect, anyway -- to eating apples, which are intended to be eaten uncooked). As usual in a contrastive noun phrase, the contrasting adjective is stressed. And of course the plural noun apples takes a plural predicate are essential.

  • One main point is that not every -ing word is a gerund.

  • Another is that gerunds are really clauses, with subjects (often deleted,
    but still understood), and possibly objects, if the gerund is transitive.

  • Still another is that, when pronounced, there is no ambiguity, because they're not the same.

Edit: (added from the comments)

Cooking apples are for cooking, cleaning ladies are for cleaning. The fact that apples is object and ladies is subject gets lost when the compound is made. There are many many different kinds of noun compound; my favorite pair is pony ride vs snake bite.

John Lawler
  • 107,887
  • And 'Cleaning ladies is essential for ...', well, can't they do it themselves? – Mitch Oct 18 '12 at 12:56
  • Thanks John. Could you please also explain the distinction between "cooking apples" and "cleaning ladies"? The apples are cooked. But the ladies are not cleaned. – coleopterist Oct 18 '12 at 18:07
  • 1
    @coleopterist - No, The apples are not cooked. They are apples of the kind that are used to cook with (as opposed to eating apples, or cider apples). Different varieties of apples are meant for different purposes, and these are meant for cooking with. Typically a cooking apple would be smaller and perhaps tarter than an eating apple. They are trying to make sure you don't go out and buy one of those big red eating apples. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_apple – T.E.D. Oct 18 '12 at 19:40
  • @T.E.D. This is talked about in the comments attached to the question. If you like, you can leave apples out of it altogether and consider the phrases talking point or reading material instead. – coleopterist Oct 18 '12 at 20:08
  • Cooking apples are for cooking, cleaning ladies are for cleaning. The fact that apples is object and ladies is subject gets lost when the compound is made. There are many many different kinds of noun compound; my favorite pair is pony ride vs snake bite. – John Lawler Oct 18 '12 at 20:11
  • I see. I see. I guess that these would then be verb-noun compounds. The WP article contrasts playboy with callgirl which is a distinction similar to the one alluded to in my question. P.S. I've put together an answer using material I came across while looking up "gerund subject complement". Please comment. – coleopterist Oct 18 '12 at 21:01
  • I find most interesting your parsing of cooking here as a participle rather than a gerund. A)Does it matter? (That's a serious question) B)If so, why a participle rather than a gerund or, perhaps, some tertium quid? – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 18 '12 at 21:14
  • Participle refers to the form of the verb; the -ing form of a verb is technically called the Present Active Participle, just as the -ed/-en form is called the Perfect Passive Participle. Neither name says anything about usages of the form in constructions. – John Lawler Oct 19 '12 at 06:02
  • Alas, modern nomenclature trips me once more: I was taught to use "-ing form" for the form and to distinguish participial uses from gerundial. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 19 '12 at 22:35
  • What about deverbal, such as etchings? Quirk and Greenbaum postulate a 15-element gradience in the verb (present participle -- eg he was painting) -- in-between forms (including what was traditionally labelled gerund -- eg he likes painting) -- deverbal noun (eg he dropped the painting on my foot) continuum. A fudge with -ing forms used adjectivally is: call them participial adjectives (alongside the similar adjectivals - such as hardened criminals, spent force, broken heart - using so-called -ed forms). But grammarians can't even agree on whether participial adjectives are true adjectives! – Edwin Ashworth Oct 19 '12 at 23:00
  • Q&G go into more detail than is relevant here, but there is evidence for at least 5 different usages in English. I've listed them, but not tried to grade them on nouniness, here. – John Lawler Oct 20 '12 at 07:09
  • Thank you. May I quote the reference on another website? – Edwin Ashworth Oct 20 '12 at 11:11
  • It's public, so quote it anywhere you like; that's what it's for. – John Lawler Oct 20 '12 at 12:13
6

A gerund in English is an -ing form of a verb used as a noun. Compare

Cooking is my favorite activity. ... Running is my favorite activity. — The noun is the subject. Cooking apples are essential. ... Running shoes are essential. —The noun is an attributive.

One difficulty here is that gerunds used attributively may have different semantic relationships to the root verb.

  1. Running shoes, watering cans, grappling hooks are tools designed for use in the activity — like soccer balls.
  2. Cleaning ladies, running crews, teaching assistants are people who perform the activities — like soccer teams.
  3. Cooking apples, reading material, riding horses are the objects operated upon by the activity — like soccer coaches.

Another difficulty is that the -ing form also serves as the participle and maybe used as an adjective. In this use it overlaps with the second use of the gerund, and really the only way to distinguish them in any given context is to ask whether the implication is that the modified 'actor' performs the act just once ir performs it habitually:

The running lady bumped into an elderly gentleman.
The running crew are called for 6 pm.

Sometimes, however, both are true:

The cleaning lady picked up her broom.

In this case, a distinctive test is to ask whether you can flip the actor and the modifier and keep the meaning

?The lady cleaning the room picked up her broom? ‐ probably not; that's a different kind of 'lady'.
?The lady running down the street bumped into an elderly gentleman? — probably; that's the same kind of lady.

StoneyB on hiatus
  • 68,905
  • 'One difficulty here is that gerunds used attributively may have different semantic relationships to the root verb.' Cooking apples are usually cooked before they are eaten (often in a pie, say). They contrast with eating apples, which are usually eaten uncooked. Logically, both are 'eating' apples, but eating apples might be better termed non-cooking apples. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 17 '12 at 21:34
  • 1
    @EdwinAshworth Well, if you're going to bring logic into it we're all out of a job :) – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 17 '12 at 21:36
  • The more common expression is "apples for eating out-of-hand." – Merk Oct 18 '12 at 03:55
  • 1
    @Merk: Not where I live. – Barrie England Oct 18 '12 at 09:21
  • Thanks. The categories are handy to visualise the different types. (I'm not sure if soccer coaches works as an example.) I've also regurgitated an answer of my own using something I found on the net. Please have a look. – coleopterist Oct 18 '12 at 20:49
5

It’s helpful to distinguish form and function in these cases. Perhaps in an attempt to do so, grammarians, in describing the former, seem increasingly to refer to ‘the –ing form of the verb’, rather than using terms like gerund or verbal noun. No one can dispute that that is what it is, and it leaves the way clear for an examination of the function.

This form of the verb can perform verbal, nominal and adjectival functions. In your first example, cooking is, as you say, a noun, functioning as the subject of is. In the second, it’s an adjective, modifying apples.

If we speak or hear of a cleaning lady, we know that cleaning is an adjective because, if for no other reason, cleaning and lady quite often collocate in this way. It is hard to think of circumstances in which we would want to use a cleaning lady to describe a woman who was actually engaged in household cleansing duties at the time of speaking. In other words, a cleaning lady is a lady who cleans, and not a lady who is cleaning.

In your other examples, the -ing forms are also adjectives. They are, however, a little different, in that we can’t say that they describe an X that does something rather than an X that is doing something. They do neither. A talking point doesn’t talk, reading material don’t read, a cutting board doesn’t cut and a watering can doesn’t . . . Ah. Well, yes, a watering can does water, but the point is that it doesn’t water of its own accord. It’s a can for watering, just as a cutting board is a board for cutting.

In these cases, ambiguity is unlikely. The ‘Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English’ points out that ambiguity with the use of ‘-ing’ form can nevertheless arise when it follows a main verb (Is it a noun or a verb?), when it modifies a following noun (Is it a noun or an adjective?) and where it follows the verb be without other modifiers (Is it a verb or an adjective?).

Barrie England
  • 140,205
2

As the ing-form can be participle and gerund and as both can stand before a noun as in running shoes you have to decide by logic whether it is a participle as in "a weeping girl" or a gerund.

The transformations of gerunds as in running shoes are "shoes for running" or "shoes used for running", cooking apples are apples used for cooking, a cleaning lady is the lady who does the cleaning. In this latter case cleaning might be a participle but cleaning lady is a common expression for a professional activity and from the context it should be clear what is meant as in

  • The cleaning lady comes on Friday.
rogermue
  • 13,878
2

A glossary maintained by an English professor includes the following definitions:

Gerund, Gerund Phrase

A present participle used in a nominal position. A gerund with its complement and/or specifying subject is called a gerund phrase. The "subject" of a gerund phrase is usually in the possessive (genitive) case, serving in effect as the determiner of the phrase, but one does find the objective (accusative) case on occasion, and that seems especially natural when the gerund phrase is serving as a direct object. Direct object gerund or gerund phrases cannot be made passives.

That would perhaps make a gerund phrase synonymous with the "gerund subject complement with a (deleted) indefinite subject" in John Lawler's answer.

More interesting is the entry for gerundive where one of the examples—and an excellent one at that—used is chewing gum:

Gerundive

Another term from Latin grammar, gerundive, is sometimes applied to some or all present participles as premodifiers, but most authorities avoid the term, since English participial premodifiers are not really equivalent to the traditional gerundive found in Latin and some other languages, which implies that something should or must undergo the action specified. Some Latin gerundives of this sort have become independent words in English, like agenda, but English generally uses passive infinitive phrases for this meaning –agenda, for example, would be translated as "to be done." English present participle modifiers usually have the noun modified as the subject of underlying sentences–e.g., overflowing cup implies the cup is overflowing–leaving underlying passive to be expressed with past participle premodifiers–e.g., the frightened cows implies the cows are frightened or Something has frightened the cows. There are, however, a handful of present participle premodifiers which are equivalent to passive infinitives–e.g., chewing gum is gum to be chewed as opposed to chewed gum which is gum that has been chewed. Using gerundive for such cases may not be entirely inappropriate.

Then, by definition, cooking in cooking apples (apples to be cooked) is also a gerundive. This would presumably not apply to cleaning in cleaning lady.

Community
  • 1
coleopterist
  • 31,031
  • This doesn't explain what a cleaning lady is a form of ... – coleopterist Oct 18 '12 at 20:50
  • 2
    +1 This is valuable. I toyed with the idea of introducing "gerundive" into the conversation, but dropped it because A)it doesn't really sort with the Latin usage, which says of specific apples that they should be cooked now rather than (as in the English construction) that they are of the sort which may be cooked B)I have an ideological objection to importing even more Latin terms into our discourse on English grammar instead of inventing our own terms which describe what we actually do. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 18 '12 at 21:07
  • 2
    Adding unnecessary names for grammatical constructions is a lot of fun, unless the purpose is to clarify instead of obfuscate. We have way too many terms used inaccurately already; why add more. – John Lawler Oct 19 '12 at 06:05
  • @John Lawler - There you really have a point. +1 – rogermue Jan 18 '15 at 18:44