4

Is it acceptable to use a gerund phrase as the subject of a sentence? More generally, can a gerund phrase be used interchangeably with other nouns? For example:

Understanding history enhances one's judgment.

I feel it makes more sense to write:

An understanding of history enhances one's judgment.

ScotM
  • 30,572
matt3141
  • 329
  • 1
    It's entirely a stylistic choice in this example. Understanding and accepting this will help you in similar constructions. Seriously, it looks like General Reference to me. – FumbleFingers Oct 15 '12 at 23:18
  • @FumbleFingers It looks like "understanding" is dangling in the first example. Would you say "understanding" and "an understanding" are equivalent? – matt3141 Oct 15 '12 at 23:24
  • No, because if I had to be any more specific about the particular understanding I had in mind there, I'd have to say I was talking about *your understanding. I could, of course, have said "Understanding and acceptance of this will help...". And still preceded it with "Your", or "An", if I'd felt like it. Come to that, it would only be slightly* unusual to precede it with "The". Lots of ways of phrasing things are perfectly normal. – FumbleFingers Oct 15 '12 at 23:32
  • It's not dangling; this is an elliptical sentence. Words have been omitted, e.g., "If you have an understanding of history, it enhances your judgment". –  Oct 15 '12 at 23:33
  • @Bill Franke: I can assume the elision "[You] understanding and accepting..." just as easily as "[Your] understanding and acceptance* of this will enhance your judgement". One could even elide OP's "one's"*, though that does sound slightly "starchy" to me. – FumbleFingers Oct 15 '12 at 23:47
  • I understand the sentences differently. Grammar and formal semantics may not agree with me. – Kris Oct 16 '12 at 05:07

2 Answers2

2

It seems that virtually all nouns that are based on verbs and end in -ing are simply gerunds that have broken free. However, there can subtle differences.

When used as a straight noun, especially with an article, the gerunds-now-nouns tend to refer to the specific:

The acting was incredible. [This particular acting event was praiseworthy.]

When used in a classical gerund form, the phrase is more universal:

Acting is incredible. [The act of acting, in general, is transformative.]

While both forms are grammatically correct, and both sound fine, there may be subtle differences depending on the context. Or there may not. The offered examples appear equivalent.

bib
  • 72,782
0

Both sentences in your question mean the same thing. Both are grammatically correct and, unfortunately, idiomatic.

I say "unfortunately", because contemporary native speakers of English often prefer the second style, which is unnecessarily (and pointlessly) verbose, and because they will also use the now-skunked word "enhances" to mean "improves" or "increases" when it really (IMHO) should be used only to mean "adds {value/flexibility} to".

Only context can allow an answer to the question "Can a gerund phrase be used interchangeably with other nouns?" Although it's common to believe that any noun phrase can fit into a blank labeled "noun phrase" in a fill-in-the-blank type of English test, the meanings of the noun phrases in question have to be considered. In this case, yes. In another case? Who knows? Give us specific pairs to look at.

Generally, the answer is probably "Probably". As FumbleFingers says in his comment, "It's entirely a stylistic choice in this example."

  • Do you have any evidence for saying native speakers "often prefer" OP's second version? It seems to me "Making love can decrease stress levels" is structurally much the same as OP's first example, but you can't even say "A making of love can...", let alone prefer it. – FumbleFingers Oct 15 '12 at 23:41
  • I read academic prose written by native English-speakers every day. In books, academic journals, and Internet blogs. That's the current style. You're right about the set phrase "making love": it can't be said as "a making of love", but it can be as "the making of love", although I haven't seen that one yet, AFAIK. I made no absolutist statement about what native speakers always prefer, just often prefer. I also said: "In another case? Who knows? Give us specific pairs to look at." You just did and I agree that the answer is No in this case. –  Oct 15 '12 at 23:48
  • I don't think it's speakers (aside from rhetors) so much as writers who overuse deverbals, and I think it reflects the greater 'scientificity' ascribed to nouns by insecure writers. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 15 '12 at 23:50
  • The word choice of "enhances" was actually from the PSAT, which may disappoint you. For some reason gerund phrases always appear dangling or out of place when I read them. – matt3141 Oct 15 '12 at 23:51
  • @StoneyB: Writers are definitely the ones we remember, but I hear my native Anglophone friends here in Taiwan overusing those deverbals and verbosities like "prior to" in their everyday speech all the time. It's disheartening but not surprising. I like that word "scientificity". Reminds me of "idiomaticity", another favorite. –  Oct 15 '12 at 23:54
  • You may be right that given contexts where it's possible, writers of "academic prose" do indeed prefer the more "wordy" second versiuon (which I feel is also more "impersonal, detached"). Clearly my example shows this isn't always easy or natural. I was just asking if you have any evidence for saying there's a preference. Maybe it's characteristic of academic style, but *I* don't feel any such preference. – FumbleFingers Oct 15 '12 at 23:55
  • @matt3141: No, I'm not disappointed to learn that it comes from the PSAT. It's standard and idiomatic academic English, and PSAT item writers are just the kind of folks who'd use that kind of English. I used to be an item writer in a previous life (not when I was married to Bridey Murphy, but when I was a linguistics graduate student in 1980 or 1981). –  Oct 15 '12 at 23:59
  • @FumbleFingers: My only evidence is my reading. I'm an editor of academic journal articles and often have check sources to understand what my Taiwanese authors' sentences really want to say, so I end up reading all kinds of academic papers in dozens of fields every day. I have no quantitative evidence, only my general impressions. It's skewed, I'm sure, but those are the shadows I see on the walls of my little cave. –  Oct 16 '12 at 00:03
  • @FumbleFingers It's even worse in business writing, where gerunds almost never have objects. Selling annuities is felt to be unprofessional, it must be translated into The selling of annuities. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 16 '12 at 00:22
  • @BillFranke As a previous item writer do you have any advice for someone taking the PSAT on Wednesday? – matt3141 Oct 16 '12 at 00:22
  • @matt3141: I haven't looked at that test for decades, so I'm not qualified to give advice about it. What I know about standardized English tests is that they want what is considered formally correct English, the kind that writing teachers demand, not merely idiomatic spoken English, so if you come across a question like "He gave it to John and I" vs. "He gave it to John and me", the latter is the only correct answer even though a substantial number of native speakers of English would write & say the former & descriptive linguists defend the former as idiomatic & acceptable. –  Oct 16 '12 at 00:55
  • -1 "Both sentences in your question mean the same thing." -- Maybe you should not be that categorical in stating, at least. – Kris Oct 16 '12 at 05:06
  • @Kris: Maybe, if your comment were clear, I'd understand what you intended to say. If you think those two sentences have different meanings, you could at least delineate them. As it is, you seem expect me to read your mind and accept your vague criticism as if it were an article of faith that everyone else would subscribe to, were they asked to do so. My opinion is merely my opinion. YMMV. You think I'm wrong? Then demonstrate it, please. Don't bellow on an empty stomach. –  Oct 16 '12 at 06:18
  • @BillFranke Rereading the comment may help. – Kris Oct 16 '12 at 07:02
  • @Kris: if Were the comment grammatical, it might help. State is transitive, but your comment has no DO. Second, why would you think I didn't read it more than once, given its brevity? Still, the burden of proof is on you. I expressed an opinion that you contradicted without explaining. If my opinion's wrong, I'd like to know why. I don't play parlor games, attend seances, or claim to be an authority on everything linguistic. If you're simply giving me moral advice, like "Do not covet thy neighbor's wife", then please remove your miter: I don't attend your church. –  Oct 16 '12 at 08:19
  • @Kris: Just saw your comment above: "I understand the sentences differently. Grammar and formal semantics may not agree with me. – Kris" I definitely agree with you: They don't agree with you in general (based on my reading many of your answers & comments). But you still don't give your different understandings. Please explain yourself: You may have an interesting point to make. –  Oct 16 '12 at 08:42