3

Note: This is not a question about what is the difference between a gerund, verb and participle, interesting as that polemic may be. It is about non-finite clauses, which does bear upon these distinctions but that is not the question at hand.

There is so much confusion about gerunds, and people often think that any use of the present participle outside the continuous tenses is either a gerund or an adjective. When a present participle is used as a simple subject or object, or when it takes a determiner or adjective as a modifier, its noun-like function is clear and obvious, but when does a such a participle stop being being noun-like or even verb-like (which they always are) and become a verb in a non-finite clause?

Baking is my hobby.

My kids need tutoring.

Owning is better than renting.

Swimming has made my physique lean and strong.

These verb forms are all clearly functioning like nouns and qualify as 'gerunds' because they are things or actions as things but this argument seems to be made because subjects and objects are always things. However, they are not always nouns, obviously. You can't reclassify a verb as a noun because it appears in a sentence as a subject or object. And I doubt this could be considered conversion or zero-derivation because participles are already derivative.

But I can add verb complements and modifiers to these, which cause them to behave more or less like nouns and more or less like verbs, all in one go.

Baking cakes in the wee hours is my hobby.

My kids need (their) tutoring (regularly), at least once a week.

Owning a house is better than renting one.

(my) Swimming (everyday) in the lap pool has helped me in building a lean and strong physique.

The words in ( ) are optional simply to show that these participles can be modified as nouns with determiners and adjectives and as verbs with adverbs and adverbial complements all within a single sentence. This rather confounds the idea that participles can be classified as nouns or verbs based on the modifiers they take, and also the notion that gerunds are nouns.

Have I changed these present participles from 'gerunds' to verbs in non-finite clauses? Is is safe to say that present participles are only 'gerunds' when they do not take a complement or am I missing something more specific that determines this distinction? Or, perhaps, even bare participles as subjects or objects are always non-finite clauses? I'm quite confused on this point. But in any case these participles are not functioning as nouns per se, they are rather functioning as subject or objects, and that distinction to me anyway, seems clarifying.

Addendum: As always, my objective is to explore ways to frame complex topics in the simplest of ways for my ESL students, so they are more readily comprehensible, while still remaining in the zone of broadly accepted linguistic concepts terminology. That's not easy, for one because prescriptivists routinely abuse linguistic terminology and concepts, mixing them up and misapplying them. As a result, there is a lot of inconsistency as to how they are applied in the world of on and offline language instruction and reference works, which usually leaves students befuddled and quite literally hating grammar. At least linguists somehow manage to keep these ideas organized in their proper theoretical silos, even while they debate them, which is quite a feat if you ask me.

I don't particularity like the term gerund and would much prefer to call bare present participles, when used as subjects or objects, as 'participle subjects' or 'participle objects'. This would obviate the confusion around calling them verbal nouns or gerunds or the need to reclassify them as nouns (which I think is wrong because they are already derivative). In this article Zero-derivation – Functional Change – Metonymy by Doris Schönefeld there is no mention of participles as examples of conversion.

My question is really about when these participle subjects/objects are properly considered as non-finite clauses. I know that I'm often opening a can of worms, a rabbit hole so to speak with such queries, but as I delve into these topics I consistently find ways to explain them in simple terms that my students can understand. I also rely on the brain's natural capacity to subconsciously organize patterns in language, which allows me to state things as simply as possible, and then to help students observe the patterns and the meaning that develops with various training exercises. None of us needed to understand the linguistic complexity of our first language to become expert at using it. I think the same should be true for second language learners, with a bit of help from a simplified system of grammar but one that is consistent with standard linguistic terms of analysis. This feels a bit Sisyphean at times but I do make progress.

Note to those who think this is a duplicate question: This is not a question about what is the difference between a gerund, verb and participle. It is about non-finite clauses.

Ubu English
  • 446
  • 2
    Gerund and verb is a false dichotomy. The -ing form of a verb lies on a cline from nominal to verbal. Modern grammars such as the CGEL eschew the term gerund and refer to the form as gerund-participle. – Shoe Oct 25 '19 at 07:25
  • In trad grammar gerunds are verbs that function as or like nouns. But very often it is ambiguous as to whether an -ing form is actually a verb or a noun. In your first example "baking" is strictly speaking ambiguous, though verb preferred. Noun interpretation can be forced by adjectival premodification, as in "Occasional baking is my hobby". Useful indicators are complementation (verbs take NP objects, while the corresponding nouns take of PPs); modification by an adjective or adverb; the presence of determiners, plural inflection. – BillJ Oct 25 '19 at 08:25
  • @Shoe - I don't like the term either but it is out there and it confuses learners. I also understand its derivation from the Latin gerundive, which has its own problems. I use the term participle-noun because it is clear and students get it. Verb forms can function as nouns sometimes, or rather as subjects or objects. The term nominal doesn't quite fit in this case. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of CGEL. Participle-noun or nf-clause, however, is not a false dichotomy, and this is what my question is about. – Ubu English Oct 26 '19 at 03:11
  • @BillJ - In my first example 'baking' is clearly a thing as all subjects must be - this is the whole reason why they are called gerunds, verbal nouns or just nouns in the first place. I always call them verbs - 'baking' is a verb phrase used as a subject. I don't see this as ambiguous. I get what you are saying about word phrase modification but 'baking' could be just as easily modified with an adverb. "I do enjoy baking occasionally." My question is about when does that participle noun become a verb in a clause, which you haven't addressed. It seems to be, as soon as you complement them. – Ubu English Oct 26 '19 at 03:35
  • One observation, which I'm not sure is relevant here is that some verbs, action verbs in particular, cannot be used alone as participle-nouns because they require a complement to complete their meaning. For example 'bring', or 'take' - "She regrets bringing." or 'Taking pleases me.' Only complete verbs appear as gerunds, I think. – Ubu English Oct 26 '19 at 04:02
  • 2
    By false dichotomy I mean the assumption that the -ing form can unequivocally be classified as a noun (gerund in traditional grammar) or as a verb. It doesn't account for expressions such "My son('s) watching Netflix all day long annoys me" in which watching has both nominal and verbal features. As a fellow teacher I am interested to know the nature of the confusion that the term gerund causes your learners. Classification/terminology seem of far less importance to me than usage - which is the the issue you raise in your last comment above. – Shoe Oct 26 '19 at 06:25
  • @Shoe - Yep, I think it makes no sense to call these nouns. You can't just reclassify a verb as a noun - it makes no sense. And they do not function as nouns, they function at a higher level than word phrases, they are subject or objects, which are always things but not all things are nouns. What I think confuses students is that they get taught to thing of participle subjects and objects as nouns (gerunds, verbal nouns, gerund participles etc.) but they are not. Present participles are used as subjects or objects, never as nouns. Still, wondering when they become nf clauses. – Ubu English Oct 26 '19 at 06:34
  • Agreeing on terminology seems harder than agreeing on acceptable usage. This is why I think it misguided to place too emphasis on terminology. Interestingly, Bas Aarts in Oxford Modern English Grammar uses the term ing participal clause. There is no entry in the index for gerund and no reference to the term in the section on -ing participal clauses or (as far as I know) anywhere else in the book. – Shoe Oct 26 '19 at 06:38
  • I don't have access to that book, being in Nepal, but is it referring to even the bare -ing participle as subject or object, as a clause? That would be interesting. – Ubu English Oct 26 '19 at 06:43
  • One example in the section I referred to is The state prevented him from teaching, which is obviously dissimilar to your Baking is my hobby example. I find the OMEG difficult to navigate, so I would need a bit of time to page through and see if he addresses bare ing forms elsewhere. But shopping is my first priority today. (Shopping a gerund?) – Shoe Oct 26 '19 at 06:54
  • @UbuEnglish That's not the case. In your first example, "baking" could either be a noun or a verb. In the verb analysis "baking" is head of a clause. In the NP analysis, it is head of an NP. In "occasional baking" it's clearly a noun, while in "baking cakes", it's clearly a verb. An ing form is a verb or a noun depending on its properties in the clause. I gave you the tests. The term participle-noun is potentially misleading and definitely best avoided. – BillJ Oct 26 '19 at 07:55
  • @UbuEnglish Further, the ing forms are not nouns that can become verbs. It's the other way round. They are verb forms that can under certain conditions (by conversion) become nouns. – BillJ Oct 26 '19 at 08:09
  • @BillJ - I don't want to argue about whether or not a present participle is properly called a noun. By my lights it's a verb form that allows us to talk about actions as things, and hence they are verb forms can be used in verb phrases as subjects and objects. Yes, they exhibit features of both nouns and verbs when used as subjects or objects but I think this is not actually relevant to my question, which is about when, or if they are always properly considered as non-finite clauses. You seem to be saying no, not if they take and adjective modifier. If that is your answer then please post. – Ubu English Oct 26 '19 at 10:48
  • Possible duplicate of Verb, gerund or participle? (though this was closed as a duplicate, and there have been many other duplicates. This isn't the best thread, but J Lawler's linked article makes it very important.) // I'd suggest looking up Aarts and Quirk & gradience here for further information (Aarts summarises the different approaches to analysis ... gradience, lumping...). – Edwin Ashworth Oct 26 '19 at 12:08
  • Hi Edwin, nice to see you again. This is not a duplicate, it's a question about non-finite clauses that bears upon the use of present participles. I will definitely read Mr. Lawler's article - thanks. – Ubu English Oct 26 '19 at 12:13
  • 1
    But the Quirk gradience examines clauses, as in 'Brown's deftly painting his daughter ...'. You're just slightly rephrasing the same question. // Essentially, as Aarts points out, there are three ways that are used to determine an -ing form's nouniness or verbiness (obviously in a construction such as 'Brown's deftly painting his daughter'). Lumping (see whether it's closer to being a V or a N in a given sentence, and lump it in that class). Duality (say it's both V and N in the given sentence). Gradience (say it's 37% way along the V - N continuum, so neither V nor N). This has ... – Edwin Ashworth Oct 26 '19 at 13:46
  • 2
    been covered here before, and there is no agreed correct answer. When one considers that -ing forms also have, in certain strings, adjectival and prepositional properties, the situation gets even trickier. Who decides which model to use, who decides on the 37% verbiness, who decides on how to judge said verbiness ... there's no clear answer. Just make plain to students that these are tricky areas, and nice well-behaved classical grammar and English are often at odds. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 26 '19 at 13:46
  • @EdwinAshworth - I think what I'm trying to argue is that they are always verby, and only sometimes nouny. And elevating the distinction away from what part of speech it is (I would say always a verb) to its function at the sentence level is clarifying. Subjects, objects and nouns are always things but subjects and objects are not always nouns. They can be verb phrases (both participles and infinitives), noun phrases, and even finite and non-finite clauses. I just want to be sure I'm still in the zone of accepted linguistic terms and concepts. – Ubu English Oct 26 '19 at 14:03
  • "Have I changed these present participles from gerunds to verbs in non-finite clauses?": It may be that the OP is looking at functioning as subject or object as the sole definition of "gerund," or, what I'd call a nominal function. "It's no use trying to escape." See https://www.ef.com/wwen/english-resources/english-grammar/gerund/ – Kris Oct 26 '19 at 14:05
  • @Kris - Not at all. I'm well aware of the different uses of the present participle. It's interesting that your reference doesn't give a single distinct example of the present participle as a verb in a non-finite clause, and also treats nearly every possible application of the form as a gerund, even its adjectival use in compound nouns, completely collapsing all distinctions apart from its use in the continuous tenses. – Ubu English Oct 26 '19 at 14:21
  • Wow - maybe someone would like to explain why they down-voted this question., one that seems to have stimulated a lot of comments from top rated people here. No one has even attempted to answer or address the substance of my question in the comments. Rather, it seems that there are attempts to shunt it off as a question about what is a gerund, verb or participle. – Ubu English Oct 26 '19 at 17:27
  • The question itself is based on the faulty notion that there is one agreed definition for 'gerund'. There isn't. There isn't even any agreement on how to regard the ing-form in say 'Jones's slowly painting his daughter was a joy to watch'. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 26 '19 at 18:03
  • With all do respect, no it is not based on the any such notion. The question now uses quotes around these terms. And even it its previous form, the post questions the value of such terms. And besides that the question is not about that issue, it is about when the use of participles in such a way, becomes a clause, which has not been addressed at all, not even to discuss the difficulty one might have n answering such a question. The question is valid, and does not deserve to be down-voted on the basis of the term's confusing explication. – Ubu English Oct 27 '19 at 02:58
  • 1
    Most of the visitors to your post came before you amended it. So if you want to generate more attention to the revised question, you could offer a bounty. That said, I understand the importance of classification for linguists, but I think that teachers and students over-obsessing about terminology is not the most productive use of their time. In my opinion, language is best learned by engaging in authentic, manageable, and interesting tasks that practise the various language skills, rather than a focus on grammar - and particularly on its terminology. – Shoe Oct 27 '19 at 07:47
  • @Shoe, Thanks - it's more for my edification than my students. I agree completely with you on the value of grammar in English education, but I think some is definitely needed. When I understand grammar more deeply, even with its vagaries, I do better at simplifying it all to general concepts that work for language learners. I offered a bounty, out of my paltry sum of points. Hope someone bites. – Ubu English Oct 27 '19 at 12:56
  • I repeat. 'Have I changed these present participles from gerunds to verbs in non-finite clauses?' demands that you have an agreed definition of 'gerund'. But there isn't one. Different linguists have used conflicting definitions. So much so, that many have dropped the term altogether. BillJ gives the terminology (and the chosen tests) CGEL use. And points out that it's meaningless to even begin talking about POSs without looking at the way a word is being used in a string. But Aarts points out that some have even claimed that a word can function as a noun and a verb at the same time. So – Edwin Ashworth Oct 27 '19 at 15:33
  • ... obviously some would disagree that you can say that a word is definitively POS-taggable. (I have to say that I have to consider the word 'galore' to be an adjective and a quantifier at the same time.) Since models and even terminology are not universally agreed upon, the question as it stands is unanswerable. Other than by people saying "This is the correct terminology, and this the right analysis." Or "Here are some more reasonable models, with well-defined (locally) terminology; the jury is still out." – Edwin Ashworth Oct 27 '19 at 15:38
  • Ok, I'm beginning to see my error now. I'm not sure how best to address this. I could answer my own question, which might be further edifying, if others are still interested in engaging with this now very tired and tortured question, or perhaps I should just delete it. – Ubu English Oct 28 '19 at 03:23

1 Answers1

-2

Participles cannot make a clause, because a clause should have a subject and verb, which participles do not have.

//Baking is my hobby. My kids need tutoring. Owning is better than renting. Swimming has made my physique lean and strong. However, they are not always nouns, obviously. You can't reclassify a verb as a noun because it appears in a sentence as a subject or object. And I doubt this could be considered conversion or zero-derivation because participles are already derivative.//

In these examples, the italicized words are nouns because they do the function of nouns, as subjects, objects or as complements. And, a subject or object will be formed by a noun, noun phrase, a noun clause and even by infinitive phrase(s); and again they all function as nouns. It is not a matter of reclassification.

//But I can add verb complements and modifiers to these, which cause them to behave more or less like nouns and more or less like verbs, all in one go. Baking cakes in the wee hours is my hobby. My kids need (their) tutoring (regularly), at least once a week. Owning a house is better than renting one. (my) Swimming (everyday) in the lap pool has helped me in building a lean and strong physique. The words in ( ) are optional simply to show that these participles can be modified as nouns with determiners and adjectives and as verbs with adverbs and adverbial complements all within a single sentence. This rather confounds the idea that participles can be classified as nouns or verbs based on the modifiers they take, and also the notion that gerunds are nouns.//

Here, the first question answers the que. “What is my hobby?” Ans: Baking… [“Baking what?” answers “baking cakes” but here again, the subject/noun is BAKING alone] My kids need…? What? TUTORING; It is like any other noun. Owning a house is better than renting one is like “A palace is better than a fort.” Function-wise what is the difference? Referring to your view that “…..as verbs with adverbs and adverbial complements all within a single sentence…” I should say, that these are still nouns; and not verbs. There is no question of reclassifying ‘noun’ as verbs.

// Have I changed these present participles from 'gerunds' to verbs in non-finite clauses?// No, you haven’t. // I'm quite confused on this point. But in any case these participles are not functioning as nouns per se, they are rather functioning as subject or objects, and that distinction to me anyway, seems clarifying.// Only nouns, or words/ word groups that function can make subjects or objects. I think your confusion is whether a gerund or verbal noun can function as a non-finite clause. Non-finites are those that have no tense-like function associated with them; without tense, there cannot be clause(s), but only phrases.

Ram Pillai
  • 637
  • Actually, participles often do make a clause. The only time they don't make one, arguably, is when, they are used alone without modification as a subject or object complement or as the object of a preposition. - 'There is no question of reclassifying ‘noun’ as verbs.' Participles are always verb forms, and when used like this, they are reclassified as nouns through zero-derivation; it is not question of reversing this, it is rather one of whether or not it should be done in the first place. – Ubu English Nov 03 '19 at 04:51
  • Say, in an example "Having cleared the exam (Clearing the exam), she applied for a job", your argument is that the first part is a clause governed by the subject in the main clause. In that case, it should be a complex sentence (= a sentence with one main clause and at least one subsidiary clause), but to my knowledge, this is a simple sentence (single-clause sentence). Can someone clarify this? – Ram Pillai Nov 03 '19 at 06:44
  • She, having cleared the exam, applied for a job. - this nf subordinate clause is describing the subject. Simple vs complex depends on how you define a simple sentence and even how one defines clauses and different folks do this differently. I'm not familiar with the term subsidiary clause but assume it is synonymous with subordinate. The subject contains a modifying subordinate nf clause. By my lights sentences are either simple (one clause) or complex (more than one clause of any kind). So, this is a complex sentence. – Ubu English Nov 04 '19 at 05:59
  • He saw the sights and walked slowly. (Compound sentence; it has two main clauses) Seeing the sights, he walked slowly, (Simple sentence), or Having seen the sights, he walked slowly (Simple sentences).

    It is also written as “He, seeing the sights, walked slowly, OR, “He, having seen the sights, walked slowly.” Even then, the main clause is He walked slowly, and ‘seeing the sights’ & ‘having seen the sights’ are participial phrases. Yes, one can argue that ‘having no subject’ its action is governed by the subject of the main clause, but still I think it remains participial phrase.

     – Ram Pillai Nov 04 '19 at 09:51
  • When such phrases have subjects, that is ‘absolute construction’. E.g. He having seen the sights, his wife drove the car. They having completed the work, the supervisor offered them a special dinner. It can also be written in passive voice. Eg. AV: [Having completed/Completing] the work, the supervisor offered them a special lunch.

    PV: [The work having been completed/The work being completed], the supervisor offered them…OR, [The work having been completed/The work being completed], they were offered ... by the supervisor. Others views solicited.

     – Ram Pillai Nov 04 '19 at 09:53
  • "He saw the sights and walked slowly. (Compound sentence; it has two main clauses)." It is not and it does not. Where did you learn that a sentence can have two main clauses? They can have two independent clauses of equal importance but neither is a main clause. 'and walked slowly' is a dependent clause because it has no subject and cannot function on its own as a sentence. It depends on the main clause for its syntax (the elided subject). You can can call it whatever you like, as long as your are making a clear distinction but it helps to use terms that are generally accepted. – Ubu English Nov 04 '19 at 10:44
  • He saw the sights and walked slowly. = 1) He saw the sights. 2) He walked slowly. This is how the sentence looks when analyzed. By main clause, I meant independent clause only. Hope it is not a big mistake. Clauses, broadly, are a) Main clause/ independent clause, and b) dependent/ subordinate/ subsidiary clauses - all are one. Coming back to the main issue of non-finite clauses, hope it is settled now. – Ram Pillai Nov 04 '19 at 11:21
  • What is the difference in your mind between a nf clause and a participial phrase? In absolute constructions, which in English are nominative absolutes, whatever form it takes, it describes the subject or verb in some way, and they can usually be converted to a sub-clause rather easily by adding because (for verbs) or after (for subjects) and a form of be. – Ubu English Nov 04 '19 at 11:22
  • Nothing is ever settled with this stuff - lol – Ubu English Nov 04 '19 at 11:23
  • There are certain basics. a) A phrase lacks subject and verb part. b) Non-finites are formed by participles, gerunds/ verbal nouns and infinitives; and none of these can take a tense. Without tense, there is no subject and verb. How can, then, there be a non-finite clause? Because clause (I repeat) should have a sub and verb which should reflect the use of a tense. – Ram Pillai Nov 04 '19 at 11:25
  • I have heard about NF clauses and whenever I read them, I had the same doubts as I have now with your examples. Even internet sources talk about NF clauses, but has it been substantiated to have subject/verb order. Please correct me if I am wrong. – Ram Pillai Nov 04 '19 at 11:27
  • Far be it from me to offer correction - you seem to know a fair amount about this stuff - but we all learn different things and there is a lot of conflict, especially in instructive and prescriptive grammar. nf clause don't have tense and their subjects are often elided but they often do have time. Even your examples show sequence, without tense, and that's time. So, non-finite clauses have subject, word order and time, but no tense. I'm still getting my head around a lot of this stuff. – Ubu English Nov 04 '19 at 11:48
  • I am as much a student or teacher as you are. :) – Ram Pillai Nov 04 '19 at 12:16