Lecture 9: The Gerund

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

There is a standard distinction made between derivational morphology and inflectional morphology

Derivational morphology Forms new words from others

Govern government Black blacken Run runner

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

But the gerund ‘-ing’: is very regular is very productive

These suggest that it is an inflection

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 start with a verb

Which projects a VP

The VP can contain a theme

Here we add the –ing

Which projects an NP

There is nothing to assign Case to the theme

But with nouns, we can insert an of

The verb moves to support the bound morpheme

This NP is the complement of a determiner

There doesn’t have to be a possessor

But there can be one

If we have the possessive determiner

There is no room for an auxiliary

We start with the verb

Which projects a VP with its theme

We complete the VP with an agentive verb and agent

The agentive verb Case marks the theme

So, no of insertion is needed

The verb moves to support the abstract verb

At this point we add the –ing

Which projects an NP

The agent cannot get Case

The verb moves to support the bound morpheme

The NP is the complement of a determiner

Which projects a DP

The agent still needs Case

Only the possessive determiner can assign Case

So no other determiner is possible

The agent moves to get genitive Case

We start with the verb

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

The verb moves to support the abstract verb

We add a ‘little v’ expressing the perfect

The agent cannot get Case

The verb moves to support the little v

We add –ing, which projects an NP

The verb cannot move to support the bound morpheme

So an auxiliary must be inserted

Because the following verbal element is the perfect, have is inserted

Because the agent still needs Case, only the possessive determiner can be used

The agent moves to get Case from the possessor

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