10

(1) I regretted [his leaving the firm].

(2) I regretted [him leaving the firm].

(3) I regretted [leaving the firm].

(4) He didn’t bother [giving me a copy].

Regarding the above sentences The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 1190) has this to say:

If (1) and (2) are analysed as quite different constructions, with only the bracketed portion in (2) a clause, then which of the constructions would (3) belong to?

This problem would be particularly difficult to resolve with those gerund-participials where it is not possible to include an NP before the verb, as in (4). We avoid these problems by treating the optionality of the initial NP as simply a matter of the optionality of subjects in non-finite clauses.

Here, CGEL is basically arguing that the bracketed construction in (1) is no less a non-finite clause (with his as its subject) than that in (2) is (with him as its subject).

So, CGEL is basing this argument on the presumption that the bracketed portion in (2) is a non-finite clause. But I wonder why that has to be the case.

PROBLEM of CGEL's APPROACH

CGEL's approach cannot explain the potential semantic difference between (1) and (2), as explained in Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (as quoted in this Language Log):

The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized.

Because CGEL's approach analyzes (1) and (2) as the same construction only with some difference in register (formal vs. informal), I think it fails to accommodate the semantic difference shown above.

SUGGESTED APPROACH

What if we considered the verb 'regret' as taking two complements in (2), one being him and the other being leaving the firm, where the former is construed as the semantic--but not syntactic--subject of the latter?

In this approach, him in (2) would be a raised object of the verb 'regret', whereas the verb 'regret' in (1) would be analyzed as taking only one complement, a non-finite clause shown in the bracketed portion.

Then, (1) and (2) would be "analysed as quite different constructions".

This way, there would be no "problem" analyzing (3) or (4).

More importantly, the suggested analysis treats (1) and (2) as different constructions, thereby possibly accommodating the semantic difference quoted in the Language Log (shown above).

QUESTION

I'd like to know what others think of this suggested approach vis-à-vis CGEL's, and if any existing grammar employs something like the suggested approach.

JK2
  • 6,553
  • To what does "it" refer in "The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized"? – TimR Mar 07 '19 at 14:28
  • Would you make the same two-complement argument for the verbs champion and stand behind? – TimR Mar 07 '19 at 14:29
  • @TRomano I think "it" refers to "the accusative pronoun". For example, him in (2) is meant to be emphasized, compared to his in (1). – JK2 Mar 07 '19 at 15:28
  • @TRomano As for champion and stand behind, you'd have to give me examples. – JK2 Mar 07 '19 at 15:35
  • Perhaps some speakers who have both him leaving and his leaving in their idiolects might differentiate in that manner, where "his leaving" could be paraphrased "the fact that he left" and "him leaving" could be paraphrased "the fact that he in particular left". I don't think it's a general rule, and I know tens of thousands of speakers who would never use his leaving under any circumstances; the possessive was long taught as the "proper" form and him was flagged as substandard, and these speakers never learned that dubious "rule". – TimR Mar 07 '19 at 18:42
  • I championed his|him running for congress. or I stood behind his|him running for congress. – TimR Mar 07 '19 at 18:42
  • @TRomano The ability of the suggested approach to accommodate the semantic difference is not an integral part of the approach, but an added benefit for those who like to adopt the differentiating. That's why I've said the semantic difference is a "potential" one. Those who use only one form or the other can simply ignore the semantic difference as they have been doing. – JK2 Mar 08 '19 at 00:15
  • @TRomano And one flaw of CGEL's approach that I find serious is related to the fact that some speakers would never use his leaving the firm. CGEL analyzes the bracketed portion in (2), him leaving the firm, as a subordinate clause (not 'raising') just because (1) and (2) alternate with each other. So I wonder how this analysis of CGEL's could be justified for those speakers who use only (2). – JK2 Mar 08 '19 at 00:41
  • @TRomano As for champion, I wouldn't use that kind of construction myself, but if the him/his constructions are legitimately intended to convey the idea of me championing the cause of his/him running for congress, I don't see any reason not to analyze them using the suggested approach, i.e., treating the him/his constructions differently. // As for stand behind, I'd think his|him running for congress is governed by the preposition 'behind' rather than by 'stand behind', because you can also say, I'm behind his|him running for congress. – JK2 Mar 08 '19 at 00:51
  • @TRomano (cont'd) That said, I think the suggested approach is applicable here as well. Now, you'd have to analyze 'behind' as a ditransitive preposition, if there's one. :) – JK2 Mar 08 '19 at 00:56
  • @TRomano (cont'd) On second thought, I take that back. Now I don't think his|him running for congress is governed by the preposition 'behind' itself. I think it's governed by the combination of a verb (e.g., stand or be) and the preposition 'behind'. – JK2 Mar 16 '19 at 20:41
  • 2
    I don't see any difference between (1) and (2), and I don't see why there is a problem here. Supposedly there is a difference in emphasis, which I don't notice, but even if there is, why does that amount to a difference in meaning? It's a tempest in a teapot. – Greg Lee Mar 16 '19 at 23:41
  • @GregLee I'm not really asking if there's any semantic difference between (1) and (2). The question is whether or not there's any syntactic difference. If there's little syntactic difference between them, as suggested by CGEL, why is it that the acceptability changes when the bracketed portion plays a different syntactic role? I think [His leaving the firm] was what I regretted is more natural than [Him leaving the firm] was what I regretted when (1) isn't necessarily more natural than (2). – JK2 Mar 17 '19 at 00:24
  • in my opinion all examples are just SVO construction. I regretted what? Him leaving the firm. I regretted what? His leaving the firm. I regretted what? Leaving the firm. In the last expression, the preposition "with" has been removed. If that is added back then the SVO construction is complete: "He didn't bother (with) giving me a copy." – michael_timofeev Mar 21 '19 at 08:28
  • What is your definition of „argument“? I don’t think that raising the subject of a nonfinite clause to object of the higher clause makes it an “argument“ of the higher clause in the sense of a required, semantically interpreted element of the higher verb. – Richard Z Mar 23 '19 at 08:47
  • Well the specific term isn’t really so important. Argument, valency, complement, selected element, objects... – Richard Z Mar 23 '19 at 15:07
  • Perhaps the difference in meaning is better exemplified by (A) [POSS-ing] "I don't like John's dancing" vs (B) [ACC-ing] "I don't like John dancing". Which would go before (X) "Jim's is in a different class." / (Y) "He had a hip replacement only six weeks ago."? – Edwin Ashworth Sep 29 '19 at 14:07
  • His leaving was regrettable. versus Him leaving was regrettable. For me, the second sounds the buzzer. Just saying. – Lambie Sep 29 '19 at 14:39
  • Related: His parents dream of him achieving a Cambridge degree .... @Lambie With pronouns, buzzers seem set on more of a hair trigger. 'His leaving was regrettable' sounds formal to VF to me, 'Him leaving was regrettable' falutin. 'John's singing was terrible' sounds unremarkable (!?) and 'John singing was unexpected' perhaps a little formal. – Edwin Ashworth Sep 29 '19 at 14:53

2 Answers2

2

I don't think the approach shown in CGEL is problematic. Basically, their internal structures are the same and there is no syntactic difference between 1 and 2. Choosing accusative or genitive is a matter of style. A syntactic analysis does not have to show you the semantic difference and I don't see any semantic difference between 1 and 2. If somebody claims that there is semantic difference, the syntactic analysis does not have to deal with this

Your suggested approach is more problematic. If "him" is the object of regret, you are saying that you regret him. But what you regret is the fact that he left. You don't regret him.

Modern English
  • 21
  • Hello, and welcome to the ELU. On this site the users try to provide reliable information, with references when possible, rather than just express an opinion. The tour of this site might help you understand what makes a good answer. – fev Jun 07 '21 at 09:59
  • @fev It would be a problem if we were only allowed to refer to other people's work in our answers. It similar telling people that they can only read old books, and outlawing the writing of new books. If you're not allowed to say something unless someone said it already, 50 years ago, then no new research will ever be done. – Toothpick Anemone Jun 08 '21 at 02:28
  • 1
    This answer speaks about things that were dealt with by others. It's just nice to acknowledge it. Bringing existing examples or occurrences which support the information you are giving can only help I am sure. – fev Jun 08 '21 at 08:34
  • @Samuel Muldoon But the advice given here at the Help Center is that references should be included wherever possible. Plenty of research other than that given by CGEL is available (CGEL is almost 20 years old now, for a start). We are privileged to have at least one published Professor Emeritus of Linguistics who contributes regularly on ELU (and he usually adds sound references), but unsupported answers from most people often come across as (and may be no more than) mere opinion. They may well be wrong. ELU strives for scholarly, reliable, evidenced analysis. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 07 '21 at 10:46
  • 1
    ... Note that in 'I liked him singing' and 'I liked his singing' there is quite a change in meaning. The first may be paraphrased 'I liked the fact that he sang' while the second means 'I liked his performance/delivery'. I'd say that the ACC-ing structure might well need to be analysed differently even in terms of syntax. 'His singing' is a DO, of course. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 07 '21 at 10:52
  • The sentence 'I liked his singing' is ambiguous in that singing can be either a verb or a noun. In its verbal interpretation, it is the same as "I liked him singing" and in its noun interpretion it is different and means I liked his performance. There is no problem in analysing I liked him/his singing as the same construction. In CaGEL, it is a complex catenative construction. – Modern English Oct 04 '21 at 12:57
-1

1 is the correct form. "his leaving the firm" is a noun phrase, and can be treated as a noun in the sentence of 1.

2 does not logically make sense grammatically, although it is commonly used colloquially in British English.

3 is a variation on 2, and could equally be written as "I regretted [my leaving the firm]".

Davo
  • 7,204
  • 5
  • 29
  • 50
RJM
  • 11