Date post: | 29-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | luke-walton |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 2 times |
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
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?
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
The distribution of a gerund is not like an IP There are some positions which DPs can
go, but not IPs
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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)
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, ...
The gerund ‘-ing’: sometimes changes verbs into nouns
They played football The playing of football
These suggest that it is a derivational morpheme
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
We complete the VP with an agentive verb and agent
The agentive verb Case marks the theme
So, no of insertion is needed
The agent still needs Case
Only the possessive determiner can assign Case
So no other determiner is possible
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
So an auxiliary must be inserted
Because the following verbal element is the perfect, have is inserted
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
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