1

To an earlier question "What's the difference between a gerund and a participle?", there is a consensus among the answers there, and I quote the most upvoted answer:

A gerund is a form of a verb used as a noun, whereas a participle is a form of verb used as an adjective (or as a verb in conjunction with an auxiliary verb).

The bracketed portion is not stated in the other answers, and here I'd like to focus on the claim that 'gerund', unlike 'participle', is used as a noun. Hence the bracket.

The most upvoted answer there cites a wiki on 'gerund', which in a relevant section says:

An -ing form is termed gerund when it behaves as a verb within a clause (so that it may be modified by an adverb or have an object); but the resulting clause as a whole (sometimes consisting of only one word, the gerund itself) functions as a noun within the larger sentence.

For example, consider the sentence "Eating this cake is easy." Here, the gerund is the verb eating, which takes an object this cake. The entire clause eating this cake is then used as a noun, which in this case serves as the subject of the larger sentence.

(Boldface mine.)

In the wiki, 'noun' should be replaced with 'noun phrase' because it's not a noun but an NP that "serves as the subject of the larger sentence".

With this correction in mind, here's my analysis of the wiki example:

(1) [Eating this cake] is easy. [Eating = noun??]

Here, it's not Eating itself but the entire verb phrase Eating this cake that is used as an NP.

(2) The man [eating this cake] is my brother. [eating = adjective??]

Similarly, in (2), it's not eating itself but the entire verb phrase eating this cake that is used as an adjective phrase (AdjP).

Note here that the verb phrase eating this cake can be said to be used not as an adjective but as an AdjP because an adjective normally cannot post-modify a noun but an AdjP can.

*The man hungry is my brother.

The man [hungry for cake] is my brother.

All in all, eating in (1) is not used as a noun, just as eating in (2) is not used as an adjective. If anything, eating in (1) and (2) is a verb used as nothing other than a verb.

This becomes even clearer when you compare it to similar infinitival constructions:

(3) It is easy [to eat this cake] . [(to) eat = noun??]

(4) The man has the ability [to eat the entire cake]. [(to) eat = adjective??]

Even in traditional grammar you don't distinguish '(to) eat' in (3) from '(to) eat' in (4) by assigning different terminology, which makes the practice of distinguishing 'gerund' from 'present participle' all the more illogical.

Therefore, it's a gross mistake to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' simply because:

a gerund is a form of a verb used as a noun, whereas a (present) participle is a form of verb used as an adjective

QUESTION

Since this distinction doesn't work, is there any other logic behind continuing to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' especially at a word level even in traditional grammar, if traditional grammar is to remain anything logical?

If there is no such logic, which I doubt there is, why does traditional grammar still use the 'gerund'/'present participle' dichotomy for the very same form 'V-ing'?

EDIT

For those who argue that the cited question/answer isn't a good enough source to represent 'traditional grammar', here's an excerpt from a grammar book called Common Core Grammar: High School Edition (2015) that says in part:

Students must not make the mistake of thinking that every "verb + ing" is a participle. A "verb + ing" is a participle only when used as an adjective; it is a Gerund when used as a noun: that is, as the subject of a verb, object of a verb, etc.

Apparently, the book is written by an English teacher in America for American high school students.

Also, The Practical English Usage by Swan says:

When -ing forms are used as verbs or adjectives, they are often called 'present participles'...When they are used more like nouns, they are often called 'gerunds'.

So there's no denying that many, if not all, grammars based on 'traditional grammar' or 'school grammar' make this illogical distinction between 'gerund' and 'present participle'.

Community
  • 1
JK2
  • 6,553
  • 3
    I don't get why you're basing this question on the sloppy terminology used by answers on this site (which is not a good source for rigorous linguistic analyses). As you said, you can just replace "noun" and "adjective" in those descriptions with "NP" and "AdjP": "a gerund is a verb-form used in a non-finite clause that functions as an NP, and a present participle is a verb-form used as the head of a phrase that functions as an AdjP". – herisson Mar 11 '19 at 05:20
  • 2
    The function of a phrase typically depends on the part of speech of the phrase's head, so I don't see why you it's obviously a "gross mistake" to suppose that the word "eating" in "The man [eating this cake]" might be grammatically distinct in some way from the word "eating" in "[Eating this cake] is easy." I haven't read the relevant parts of CGEL in a while, but doesn't it address some arguments for a distinction in the course of ultimately arguing against that distinction? – herisson Mar 11 '19 at 05:24
  • @sumelic I don't know what's wrong with citing another answer in EL&U (a site for serious language enthusiasts) especially when the question has as many as 39 upvotes and the answer 34 upvotes. And simply replacing 'noun'/'adjective' with 'NP'/'AdjP' won't make the gerund/participle distinction any logical, because the gerund/participle terminology is about a word level whereas the difference is about a phrase level. – JK2 Mar 11 '19 at 06:10
  • 1
    The (supposed) difference may only be apparent at (or above) the phrase level, but the diagnostic tests for distinguishing (gerund-)participles from adjectives are mostly at the phrase level, aren't they? "Takes a direct object" or "is modified by very" are phrase-level tests for word-level categorizations. – herisson Mar 11 '19 at 06:18
  • @sumelic I'm not saying that 30-something upvotes guarantees the quality of an answer/question in this site, but in all likelihood an answer/question having a lot of upvotes has greater quality than an answer/question having a lot of downvotes. As for the downvote on my previous question(s), let me just say there are always bad apples in any site. – JK2 Mar 11 '19 at 06:28
  • 1
    @sumelic As for the word/phrase-level thing, I beg to differ. When you say a verb can take a direct object whereas an adjective can't, or that an adjective can be modified by very whereas a verb can't, either of the tests is at a word level, not at a phrase level, because it's a word (verb or adjective) that's being tested. – JK2 Mar 11 '19 at 06:32
  • 1
    You ask: Why does traditional grammar still use the 'gerund'/'present participle' dichotomy for the very same form 'V-ing'? Do you mean: Why do some modern-day grammarians still make this distinction? In which case, can you name (and ideally cite from) one or two who do. – Shoe Mar 11 '19 at 09:33
  • @Shoe I'm not a professional grammarian, so I can't say with certainty if some modern-day professional grammarians still make this distinction, but I know there are many grammar books currently available to ESL/EFL students that still maintain the distinction. Besides, many answers in this site, including the one cited in the question, consistently use the distinction. I know most of those who write answers here are not grammarians per se, but still they contribute to the massive confusion among ESL/EFL students. – JK2 Mar 11 '19 at 10:51
  • 1
    Well, there's a whole discssion to be had on the relevance of descriptive grammars such as the CGEL to English language learners. In my experience learners are not much interested in, or are even intimidated by, grammatical terminology beyond the basics. What they care about is how native speakers commonly express the thoughts they themselves wish to express and whether what they say or write is 'correct' (i.e. grammatical). In this particular case I think its best simply to refer to the ing-form of the verb. – Shoe Mar 11 '19 at 11:09
  • @Shoe I've cited a couple of grammar books that make the distinction. I agree with you that the ing-form is better than 'gerund'/'present participle'. But my question is about the confusing distinction, not about the -ing form. – JK2 Mar 11 '19 at 11:21
  • Thanks for the helpful edit. I don't know the American book, but the Swan extract you include is him acknowledging that others distinguish gerund/present participle. He himself uses the ing-form. – Shoe Mar 11 '19 at 11:39
  • @Shoe Exactly. I think Swan is essentially answering your question of whether "some modern-day grammarians still make this distinction", and the answer is 'yes', although Swan himself may not be included in those grammarians. – JK2 Mar 11 '19 at 11:47
  • Interesting topic! The logic in the top parts leaves too much open for me to answer the question directly. I say that as someone who would refer to every -ing verb form as a "present participle" if he could get away with it. Two issues: (1) to be persuasive, arguing that infinitives don't have similar terminology requires me to assume that all areas deserve an equal level of distinction. I don't believe that. (If I did, why is that not an argument for specifying infinitive terminology?) (2) Why can't eating in 2 stand alone as an adjective? Participles, used as adjectives, can post-modify. – TaliesinMerlin Mar 12 '19 at 17:49
  • In other words, it feels like there are at least three distinct questions here, and breaking this up might make it easier to answer. The phrasing is tricky (how to ask something that isn't only opinion-based), but here's what I see: (1) When the gerund clause is treated as a noun phrase, is the gerund used as a noun? (Or the same with the participle/adjective.) (2) What is the difference between these two infinitive uses? Do they have a name? (3) What benefit is there to distinguishing between gerunds and present participles? (Or something asking about its uses in teaching or scholarship.) – TaliesinMerlin Mar 12 '19 at 17:57
  • And in short (last comment) I agree there's something tricky about something being "used as a noun" (or noun phrase) but also functioning as a verb, or "used as an adjective" (or adjective phrase) but also functioning as a verb; I just think that there's a lot I have to have an opinion on before I can even say, "Hey, that should have the same term or a different term." – TaliesinMerlin Mar 12 '19 at 17:59
  • 1
    CGEL say not. They lump. But ACGEL (Quirk et al) give a more detailed analysis of the verb ... noun continuum, as they see it, with quite a few different intermediate stages. It depends on how broad-brush a treatment you think is best. People claiming they've got the only legitimate treatment (eg by not acknowledging that there are alternatives held by some) are arrogating. Though people reasonably arguing their treatment is best are fine. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 13 '20 at 11:15
  • 1
    "is there any other logic behind continuing to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' especially at a word level"=not possible. Only in the context of a phrase, utterance or sentence. – Lambie Oct 23 '23 at 13:38
  • "Brown's deftly painting his daughter was a sight to behold" (Quirk et al) occupies a tricky middle-ground. Those liking neat solutions pretend that rank-ordering distribution tests is neat. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 20 '24 at 15:16
  • Sometimes the same construction can be construed differently, as in the well-known example "Flying planes are/is dangerous." – DjinTonic Feb 20 '24 at 17:24

1 Answers1

0

While searching this site for a related topic, I've come across this earlier question: Should “gerund + objective” be modified by adjectives or adverbs?

There, @tchrist gave this great answer, which basically says it'd be better to ditch the term 'gerund' altogether, and I thought I might as well post an answer myself based on that answer, and I quote:

It may surprise you to learn that “gerund” isn’t so useful a term as you might think, and you don’t even need it. You’ll find that the analysis becomes far easier, both in this case and in more complex ones, if you discard the term entirely and stick strictly to parts of speech: verb, noun, adjective, adverb. If you want to discuss its broader syntactic role in the grammar as a constituent, then we use other terms for those constituents than parts of speech.

That said, if anyone can come up with a book or a paper that touches on this very issue, please go ahead and post an answer.

JK2
  • 6,553