Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byLuke Walton Modified over 9 years ago
1
Lecture 9: The Gerund
2
The English gerund is an intriguing structure which causes a particular problem for X-bar theory [His constantly complaining about the food] upset the waiter The problem is that: from one perspective, the gerund looks like a clause and contains the kind of verbal things that clauses have from another perspective, the gerund looks like a DP and contains the kind of nominal things that DPs have
3
But clauses are headed by inflections and have VP complements (headed by verbs) and DPs are headed by determiners and have NP complements (headed by nouns) So: is the gerund an IP or a DP?
4
The main thematic word in the gerund has an ‘-ing’ form: [his washing the car every day] was predictable [their finding the treasure] was unexpected The fact that the –ing form is a verbal form supports the idea that the gerund is a clause: Clauses contain VPs
5
The –ing word can take a ‘bare’ DP complement John’s hunting [ DP tigers] was frowned upon Only verbs and prepositions can do this eat [ DP an apple] on [ DP the table] * observation [ DP the results] * fond [ DP chocolate]
6
Nouns and adjectives must have an inserted of with their nominal complements Observation of [the results] Fond of [chocolate] This suggests that the –ing word is a verb and hence that the gerund construction is a clause
7
Gerunds are modified by adverbs His quickly adding the numbers Adverbs modify verbs, not nouns to quickly run * a quickly runner This supports analysing the –ing word as a verb and hence gerund constructions as clauses
8
The gerund construction can contain auxiliary verbs: His having left His being killed His having been killed DPs never contain auxiliaries a walk * a is walking * a have walked This suggests that gerund constructions are clauses rather than DPs
9
However, gerund constructions cannot contain inflections * his maying leave * his toing have left This might be taken to indicate that –ing is an inflection It is in complementary distribution with inflections Hence the gerund construction is an IP
11
But... The subject of the gerund is a possessor Only DPs have possessors His dog * his was thinking * his may leave With non-pronoun possessors, the possession is marked by ‘’s’ John’s having gone This element is a determiner, which heads a DP
12
The distribution of a gerund is not like an IP There are some positions which DPs can go, but not IPs
13
Complement of a preposition he thought about [the problem] * he though about [that this was a problem] Subject of a clause with inversion will [this problem] stop him * will [that this is a problem] stop him Cleft position It was [this problem] that I considered * it was [that this is a problem] that I considered Topic position [this problem], we don’t need to consider * [that this is a problem], we don’t need to consider
14
The gerund can go in all these positions I worry about [his being dishonest] Does [his being dishonest] bother you It is [his being dishonest] that hurts [his being dishonest], I detest This argues that the gerund is a DP, not an IP
16
But, this analysis contradicts all the evidence that the ‘-ing’ word is a verb It can take a DP complement It is modified by adverbs It can be accompanied by auxiliaries So the analysis seems to be:
18
This cannot be right because determiners cannot take VP complements * the [read the book] * a [have left] * every [have been leaving] So we are left without a consistent analysis of the gerund construction
19
There is another kind of gerund which has different properties to the one we have been looking at: his signing of the contract These do not have to have possessors The signing of the contract In this case, they can appear with other determiners A building of a bridge
20
In this gerund, the –ing word behaves like a noun It cannot take a bare DP complement * the signing the contract It is modified by an adjective His reluctant (*reluctantly) signing of the contract It cannot take auxiliary verbs * the having signed of the contract * the being signed
21
This gerund, like the other, distributes like a DP We were arguing about [John’s taking of photos] Will [his taking of photos] disturb you It is [the taking of photos] which is banned The taking of photos, I can’t agree with All in all, this looks to be a simple DP
23
The poss-ing gerund John’s eagerly drinking the wine X-ing = verb * his eagerly drinking of the wine * his eager drinking the wine His having drunk the wine Subject is obligatory * the drinking the wine Only possessive determiner possible * a drinking the wine Distributes like DP The –ing of gerund John’s eager drinking of the wine X-ing = noun * his eager drinking the wine * his eagerly drinking of the wine * his having drunk of the wine Subject is optional The drinking of the wine Other determiners are possible This drinking of the wine Distributes like DP
24
There is a standard distinction made between derivational morphology and inflectional morphology
25
Derivational morphology Forms new words from others Govern government Black blacken Run runner
26
Derivational morphology The derived words have different properties to the one they are derived from Government Noun The body that carries out the political process Govern Verb A political process
27
Inflectional Morphology Forms a new version of the same word live, lived, living The derived words differ only from the original in terms of what the inflection adds Lived Verb Process of being alive Past tense Live Verb Process of being alive Present tense
28
This distinction has been captured under the assumptions that Derivational morphology takes place in the lexicon (before syntax) Inflectional morphology takes place in the syntax (by head movement)
29
This is supported by the observations that: Derivational morphology is (usually) irregular government; denial; retraction; walk Which morpheme is used depends on the lexical item it is attached to
30
Inflectional morphology is (usually) regular governs; denies; retracts; walks The morphemes are lexically given and put together by a syntactic process There may be post-syntactic phonological processes to account for irregular inflections make+ed = made; put+ed = put But typically there IS a regular form (unlike with derivation)
31
Derivational Morphology is (typically) non- productive: Blacken, widen, thicken, shorten * bluen, narrowen, thinnen, longen Inflectional Morphology is (typically) very productive Hates, runs, hits, yawns, gives, arrives, says, makes, knows, writes, becomes, lives, puts, pays, takes, derives, evaporates, Xeroxes, congeals,...
32
The gerund ‘-ing’: sometimes changes verbs into nouns They played football The playing of football These suggest that it is a derivational morpheme
33
But the gerund ‘-ing’: is very regular is very productive These suggest that it is an inflection
34
Let us suppose that –ing is an inflectional morpheme Like Inflection, it takes VP and vP complements Unlike Inflection, it is not of the category I Its category is N So it projects an NP The only thing that it adds to the verb which attaches to it, is its category
35
We start with a verb
36
Which projects a VP The VP can contain a theme
37
Here we add the –ing Which projects an NP There is nothing to assign Case to the theme
38
But with nouns, we can insert an of
39
The verb moves to support the bound morpheme
40
This NP is the complement of a determiner There doesn’t have to be a possessor
41
But there can be one If we have the possessive determiner There is no room for an auxiliary
42
We start with the verb
43
Which projects a VP with its theme
44
We complete the VP with an agentive verb and agent The agentive verb Case marks the theme So, no of insertion is needed
45
The verb moves to support the abstract verb
46
At this point we add the –ing Which projects an NP The agent cannot get Case
47
The verb moves to support the bound morpheme
48
The NP is the complement of a determiner Which projects a DP
49
The agent still needs Case Only the possessive determiner can assign Case So no other determiner is possible
50
The agent moves to get genitive Case
51
We start with the verb
52
Which projects a VP with a theme And is extended by an agentive verb with an agent The theme is Case marked by the abstract verb
53
The verb moves to support the abstract verb
54
We add a ‘little v’ expressing the perfect The agent cannot get Case
55
The verb moves to support the little v
56
We add –ing, which projects an NP The verb cannot move to support the bound morpheme
57
So an auxiliary must be inserted Because the following verbal element is the perfect, have is inserted
58
Because the agent still needs Case, only the possessive determiner can be used
59
The agent moves to get Case from the possessor
60
There are two more gerunds which we are not going to provide an analysis for, but mention them for the sake of completeness The Acc-ing gerund [him murdering the lecturer] was not nice The PRO-ing gerund [PRO shooting students] is not allowed These are like the poss-ing gerund in that the –ing element is verbal So –ing is added to the structure fairly high They differ in terms of the subject We will not attempt to analyse this difference
61
The different gerunds we have analysed differ only in where the gerund morpheme enters into the structure: The lower down in the structure, the less verbal the construction is -ing of gerunds (the most nominal one) have –ing taking the lexical VP as its complement Poss-ing gerunds (more verbal) have –ing taking the agentive VP or even the higher aspectual vPs as its complement
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.