20

Gerund: An Overview 1
Susanta Kumar Bardhan
Abstract
The present paper attempts to study the structure of gerund in Bangla and English and show how far they are identical and different in terms of structure within the syntactic structure. However, this is not an in depth study of gerundial structures of both the language. Section 2 deals with Chomskys concept of nominalization as dealt with in Chomsky (1970) and its relevance for grammar in general. In section 3 an attempt will be made to deal with the Bangla and English gerund constructions and show the similarities and differences, if any, between these two languages so far as the gerund constructions are concerned. About the Author(s):Dr. Susanta Kumar Bardhan is Associate Professor of English at Suri Vidyasagar College, Suri, Birbhum, West Bengal, India.

Introduction The present paper attempts to s tudy the structure of gerund i n Bangla and English and show how far they are identical and different in terms of structure within the syntactic

structure. To put it in other words, this study aims at looking at the level at which gerund in both languages functions. As this is not a detailed study, it will not investigate all the aspects of gerund within the syntactic structure. However, it will, I hope, will highlight some important aspects of this category in relation to the syntax of these two languages and thereby facilitate the teaching of English as Second Language (SL) to the Bengali learners. In section 2 we shall deal with Chomskys concept of nominalization as dealt with in Chomsky (1970) and its relevance for grammar in general. The section 3 will deal with the Bangla and English gerund constructions and show the similarities and differences, if any, between these two languages so far as the gerund constructions are concerned.
The author expresses a deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Anuradha Sengupta, Principal, Dumkal College, Prof. Manas Ranjan Chakrabary, Head, Dept of English, Dumkal College and other members of the organizing committee of the UGC sponsored National Seminar for giving him the opportunity to present this paper. January 2013. Volume 1. Issue 1. Website: https://sites.google.com/site/globaljournalofell/
1

Global Journal of English Language and Literature

ISSN 2320-4397

21 2 Nominalization In the Transfor mational Generative (TG) framework (Chomsky 1957, 1965) lexicon was not considered as having any role in the organization of grammar. Till 1970 linguists mainly concentrated on non-lexical components like syntax, phonology and semantics for projecting the whole architecture of the model of grammar and did not distinguish morphology from syntax. This is also evident in Chomsky and Halles (1968) The Sound Pattern of English (SPE) which abandoned the intermediate level between phonemic or underlying level and phonetic level in the or ganization of grammar. However, Chomskys (1970) paper Remarks on Nominalization showed a new direction to the linguistic theory. Chomsky (1970) argued that the principles operating in the syntactic structure did not operate in the formation of words. The place of nominalization in grammar has been thus given a significant importance by Chomsky (1970). The main issue is related to the process of the enrichment of one component of grammar through a possible simplification in another. For Chomsky (1970: 185) the proper balance between the various components is an empirical issue, which must be studied in the order to establish the principles of UG and also to choose the evaluation measure. Chomskys argument led to the generalization that regular correspondences between linguistic forms should be captured in the syntax through transfor mation and the irregular ones in the lexicon. This led to the lexicalist versus nonlexicalist debate in 1970s. Thus we may derive from the verb give the derived nominal (DN) gift and the gerundive nominal (GN) giving, whereas the former was traditionally viewed as derivation and the latter as inflectional or as the part of syntax. Chomsky also argued that both the forms should not be derived from the same source through different transformations. Chomskys lexicalist hypothesis gave an impetus for the emergence as well as development of morphology as a separate branch of linguistics and since 1970 lexicon was accepted as the

January 2013. Volume 1. Issue 1. Website: https://sites.google.com/site/globaljournalofell/

Global Journal of English Language and Literature

ISSN 2320-4397

22 place of word formation. However, the study of gerund within grammar, in general and its relation to other nominals derived from verbs has got impetus after 1970. 3 Gerund in Bangla and English In the previous section we have dealt the Chomsky (1970) s study on nominalization in relation to gerund. In the present section we will attempt to study the semantic aspect, suffixal forms, and distribution of gerund taking examples from mainly from Bangla and English. The difference between the two types of nominals lies in the non-transformational derivation DNs. In lexicalist position DNs are in the lexicon. Before this hypothesis, the only way to derive deverbal nouns was through nominalization transformation. Now it is thought that DNs like criticism, proposal, etc., are entered in the lexicon with fixed s ubcategorization and selectional properties, which are independent of categorical features like [Noun] and [Verb]. Again, gerunds in Bangla ary e complex event nominals (CEN) in terms of Grimshaw (1990) as they have an obligatory argument structure or project a-structure in the syntax with specific aspectual position absent in other nominals (Bhattacharya 1999:156). The study of gerund in English within generative grammar has been carried out in Abney (1987), Chomsky (1981) etc. This study shows unifor mity in the range of gerund constructions supposed to be gerunds in English. These are: POSS ing, ACC ing and Ing of. The examples of such constructions are as follows: (1) a. His going to the market ----b. We approve of him going to the market. c. Johns fixing of the car --POSS-ing ACC-ing Ing-of

January 2013. Volume 1. Issue 1. Website: https://sites.google.com/site/globaljournalofell/

Global Journal of English Language and Literature

ISSN 2320-4397

23 It will be found that the construction (1b & c) do not exist in Bangla. Only the construction (1a) is the gerund type in Bangla. Before we proceed to that discussion let us look at the gerund s uffixes in Bangla. Bangla has four suffixes as shown below: (2) a. b. c. d. dhOr-a pa-wa cala-no kha-ba catching getting driving eating

The first three suffixes are in one group which contrasts with ba suffix. The (w)a/no suffixes are in complementary distribution and their distribution is phonologically fixed as illustrated above. It also suggests that a verbal root forming a gerund with (w)a/no also has another form with ba. However, the suffix ba has two variations in the language: ba and iba. It is interesting to note that (w)a/no suffied gerunds occur independently while ba suffixed forms do not. These for always take Genitive marker as shown below. These forms are also called gerundive in literature. However, we keep that debate outside the scope of the present paper. (3) a. kha-ba-r eat-GER-GEN eating b. dekh-ba-r see-GER-GEN seeing

Gerund suffixes are used for the for mation other constructions in Bangla (Bhattacharya 1999) as illustrated below: (4) a. amar natOk lekha (gerund)

January 2013. Volume 1. Issue 1. Website: https://sites.google.com/site/globaljournalofell/

Global Journal of English Language and Literature

ISSN 2320-4397

24 my play writing

my play writing b. amar lekha natOk (adjectival participle)

my written play aplay written by me c. khabar ghOr (gerundive)

eating-GEN room dining room d. apnar duto lekha dekhlam (result nominal)

your two write-GER saw (I) saw two of your articles. (Bhattacharya 1999: 164)

Let us now look at the difference between Bangla and English from the perspective of gerund construction available in bot h the languages. We find that ACC-ing construction which is available in English is not allowed in Bangla. For example, we can notice the sentence like: (5) We approve of [him studying linguistics]. On the other hand, w e do not find s uch structure as in (6): (6) *amra ta-ke we itihas pOra anumodon kori (Abney 1987: 169)

he-ACC history reading approve do

January 2013. Volume 1. Issue 1. Website: https://sites.google.com/site/globaljournalofell/

Global Journal of English Language and Literature

ISSN 2320-4397

25 We approve of him studying history. Emonds (1976) has argued and showed with illustrations that gerund in English appear in all NP positions including even the cleft position where only NPs with lexical heads and PPs occur. In addition, in small clauses where only NPs are allowed, gerund can occur but infinitive can not. For instance, (7) a. I kept the trees green. b. c. I consider sneezing in the public bad. *I consider to sneeze in the public bad.

Again, we know that infinitives are similar to gerunds. Notice that subject position can be occupied by gerund but not by infinitive as illustrated below: (8)a. mar-a ucit nOy (gerund)

beat-GER justified not-be Beating is not justified. b. *mar-te ucit nOy (infinitive)

beat-INF justified not-be Moreover, according to Bhattacharya (1999), the occurrence of infinitives in the complement position is either disallowed (9b) or restricted (10b). (9) a. rahul bichana kOra Rahul bed SeS koreche (gerund)

making finish has-done

Rahul has finished making the bed.

January 2013. Volume 1. Issue 1. Website: https://sites.google.com/site/globaljournalofell/

Global Journal of English Language and Literature

ISSN 2320-4397

26 b. *rahul bichana kOrte Rahul bed (10) a. rahul SaMtar SeS koreche (infinitive)

to-make finish has-done Sekha Suru koreche (gerund)

Rahul swimming learning start has-done Rahul has started learning to swim. b. ?rahul SaMtar Sikhte Suru koreche (infinitive)

Rahul swimming to-learn start has-done Rahul has started to learn to swim. (Bhattacharya 1999: 168)

We can therefore state that gerund phrases function like NPs in the sentential structures. We shall now proceed to see other positions where gerund occurs. First, gerund can occur as an object of a preposition in both English and Bangla (In Bangla in place of preposition postposition is found). For instance, (11) a. I learned about Johns smoking stogies. b. ami rabir biDi kha-wa nie Sunechi I Rabi bidi eating about have-heard I have heard about Rabis smoking bidi. Secondly, it is also found that subject position of an embedded clause is occupied by gerund phrase in both English (12a) and Bangla (12b) as shown below: (12) a. I know that Rams drinking wine will destroy him. (Abney 1987)

January 2013. Volume 1. Issue 1. Website: https://sites.google.com/site/globaljournalofell/

Global Journal of English Language and Literature

ISSN 2320-4397

27 b. ami jani (je) I ram-er mOd kha-wa o-ke SeS kor-be

know (that) Rams wine eating him destroy do-will

I know that Rams drinking wine will destroy him. Thirdly, we find that in English sentence initial (S-initial) adverb can be followed by gerund phrase as shown by Abney (1987) in the following example. (13) Perhaps, Johns smoking stogies would bother you. The equivalent construction is also found i n Bangla as give n in (14) (14) hOyto pori-r biDi kha-wa toma-ke cintito kor-be

Perhaps Poris bidi smoking you-ACC bother do-will Perhaps, Poris smoking bidi will bother you. Fourthly, the topi c pos ition can hos t an NP but not a sentence in English and also in Bangla as shown in (15) and (16) respectively: (15) a. b. c. (16) a. [Ram] i he hates t i. [Rams playing football] i I like ti. *[That Ram plays football] i I like t i [ram-ke] i ami ghrina kori ti hate do

Ram-ACC I

[Ram] i he hates t i. b. [ram-er bOl khela] i ami pOchOnda kori t i

January 2013. Volume 1. Issue 1. Website: https://sites.google.com/site/globaljournalofell/

Global Journal of English Language and Literature

ISSN 2320-4397

28 [Ram-GEN football playing] i I [Rams playing football] i I like ti c. *[je ram bOl khele] i ami pOchOnda kori t i like do ti like do ti

[That Ram football plays] i I

Another interesting aspect of gerund is that according to Abney (1987) it does not occur in the subject of an NP position in English below: (17) a. b. *Stagnatings evils *Swimmings benefit

Abney assumes that English ing for ms in general do not make good possessors However, in Bangla such constructions are allowed as shown below: (18)a. [muni-r ja-wa]-r phOl

[Munis goi ng]-GEN result The result of Munis departure b. [mohim-er haSa]-r prObhab

[Mohims laughing]-GEN effect The effect of Mohims laughing In this respect Bhattacharya (1999) argues that gerund in Bangla is dedicated suffix, whereas ing in English is not. 4 Conclusion

January 2013. Volume 1. Issue 1. Website: https://sites.google.com/site/globaljournalofell/

Global Journal of English Language and Literature

ISSN 2320-4397

29 Thus we can conclude that gerund in Bangla and English be haves like an NP in the syntactic structure with certain differences as cited above. We as the teachers of English should keep in mind these similarities as well as differences so far as gerundial structures are concerned while teaching the Bengali learners of English as an L 2. The present study, I hope, will facilitate the English teachers to draw insight to tackle the problems to be faced by their learners in dealing with English gerund structures. Though apparently it is a descriptive linguistic study, it will directly or indirectly be of applied value. At the same time it should be mentioned that several other aspects of gerund structures like the internal structures, syntactic status, etc., have not been dealt with in this study. Those are now kept for future research.

References Abney, S. 1987. The English NP in its Sentential Aspect. Cambriodge , MA: MIT dissertation. Bhattacharya, T. 1999. The Structure of Bangla DP. Ph.D Dissertation. London UCL. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structure. The Hague: Mouton. _____ (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ------- 1970. Remarks on Nominalization. Reading in English Transformational Grammar, ed. By R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum, 184-221. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Co. Chomsky,N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publication. Esmonds, J. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press. Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge MIT: MIT Press.
January 2013. Volume 1. Issue 1. Website: https://sites.google.com/site/globaljournalofell/

Global Journal of English Language and Literature

ISSN 2320-4397