Главное меню
Мы солидарны с Украиной. Узнайте здесь, как можно поддержать Украину.

Participle and Gerund

Автор Tamerlan, апреля 6, 2006, 21:00

0 Пользователи и 1 гость просматривают эту тему.

Tamerlan

Hello. Need help! Need any information concerning comparative analysis of Participle and Gerund! Any posts, any links! Running out of time, can find it nowhere!  :donno:  :wall: Thanks in advance.

Rezia

Цитата: B.A.Ilyish The Structure of Modern English
THE ing-FORMS
So far we have spoken of the ing-forms as of two different sets of homonymous forms: the gerund (with its distinctions of correlation and voice) and the participle (with its distinctions of correlation and voice). As there is no external difference between the two sets (they are complete homonyms), the question may arise whether there is reason enough to say that there are two different sets of forms, that is, whether it could not be argued that there is only one set of forms (we might then call them ing-forms), which in different contexts acquire different shades of meaning and perform different syntactical functions. Such a view (though without detailed argumentation) was indeed put forward by the Dutch scholar E. Kruisinga.1 In some passages of his book he merely speaks of "the ing", though in other parts he uses the terms "gerund" and "participle".
It must be said that this is one of the questions which do not admit of a definite solution. The solution largely depends on what view we take of the unity of a grammatical form and on the extent to which we are prepared to allow for shades of meaning in one form (or one set of forms). If we are prepared to admit any amount of variety in this sphere rather than admit the existence of grammatical homonyms, we shall have to develop a detailed theory of the mutual relations between the various shades of meaning that the form (or set of forms) can have. If, on the other hand, we are prepared to admit homonymy rather than let the unity of the form (or set of forms) disintegrate, as it were, in a variety of "shades", we shall be justified in keeping to the traditional view which distinguishes between gerund and participle as between two different, though homonymous, sets of grammatical forms.
The difference between the gerund and the participle is basically this. The gerund, along with its verbal qualities, has substantival qualities as well; the participle, along with its verbal qualities, has adjectival qualities. This of course brings about a corresponding difference in their syntactical functions: the gerund
1 See E. Kruisinga, A Handbook of Present-Day English, vol. II, p. 55 II,

136   The Verb: Verbals
may be the subject or the object in a sentence, and only rarely an attribute, whereas the participle is an attribute first and foremost.
We should also bear in mind that in certain syntactical contexts the difference tends to be obliterated. For instance, if in the sentence Do you mind my smoking? (where smoking is a gerund) we substitute me for my, in the resulting sentence Do you mind me smoking? the form smoking may, at least, be said to be the participle. Again, in the sentence Do you mind her smoking? where her may be the possessive pronoun, corresponding to my, or the objective case of the personal pronoun, corresponding to me, the gerund and the participle are practically indistinguishable. We may say, in terms of modern linguistics, that the opposition between them is neutralised.1
If, on the other hand, we prefer to abandon the distinction and to speak of the ing-form, we shall have to formulate its meaning and its functions in such a way as to allow for all the cases of the ing-forms to be included. For instance, instead of distinguishing between substantival and adjectival qualities, we shall speak, in a more general way, of nominal qualities, so as to embrace both the substantival and the adjectival ones, and so forth. Such a view seems also quite possible, and the decision to be taken will, as we have seen above, depend on the general attitude one adopts in matters of this kind.
1 The notion of neutralisation was first introduced by N. Trubetzkoy in his book on essentials of phonology (Grundzuge der Phonologie, Prague, 1939; the book also appeared in a Russian translation in 1960).
The essential idea at the bottom of neutralisation in phonology may be briefly stated as follows. An opposition existing between two phonemes may under certain circumstances (which are to be strictly defined in each case) disappear, that is, it may lose its validity and become irrelevant. Such cases probably occur in every language. It will perhaps be best to give an example of neutralisation in Russian phonology. The sounds [t] and [d] are certainly different phonemes in Russian, as the difference between them may be the only means of distinguishing between two words. Compare, e.g., том 'volume' and дом 'house', or там 'there' and дам 'I shall give'. However, the difference between the two phonemes disappears at the end of a word (and also in some 'other cases). Thus, for example, the words рот 'mouth' and род 'genus' sound alike, a voiced [d] being impossible at the end of a word in Russian. Trubetzkoy says, accordingly, that the opposition between [t] and [d] is neutralised in those conditions. To put it more exactly, whereas in the word том the relevant features of the initial phoneme are three, namely, it is (a) a forelingual consonant, (b) a stop, and (c) voiceless, and the initial consonant of дом also has three relevant features, namely, it is (a) a forelingual consonant, (b) a stop, (c) voiced, the final consonant in рот or род has only two relevant features: it is (a) a forelingual consonant, and (b) a stop. No third relevant feature is found here. The consonant is of course phonetically voiceless, but the voicelessness is phonologically irrelevant, as the corresponding voiced consonant cannot appear in this position.
The notion of neutralisation has since been applied to grammar as well.

"Сон налягає. Кладе м'якеньку лапу на очі і на лице і шепче до вуха: спи..." (Коцюбинський)
"Ахаль çеç-им шурă юрĕ çав каç ÿкрĕ çĕр çине?" (чăваш юрри)
"Гэта не без гэтага" (з аднаго беларускага рамана)
"ნახევარი პური, ნახევარი ხარჩო"
"If you want to win the fight, say "I believe!" " (Eric)

Быстрый ответ

Обратите внимание: данное сообщение не будет отображаться, пока модератор не одобрит его.

Имя:
Имейл:
Проверка:
Оставьте это поле пустым:
Наберите символы, которые изображены на картинке
Прослушать / Запросить другое изображение

Наберите символы, которые изображены на картинке:

√36:
ALT+S — отправить
ALT+P — предварительный просмотр