 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
56
and its phrase). The category of processual representation underlies the predicative differences between various'
situation-naming constructions in the sphere of syntactic nominalization (see further, Ch. XXV).
Another category specifically identified within the framework of substantival verbids and relevant for
syntactic analysis is the category of modal representation. This category, pointed out by L.S. Barkhudarov
[, 1975, 151 -152], marks the infinitive in contrast to the gerund, and it is revealed in the infinitive
having a modal force, in particular, in its attributive uses, but also elsewhere. Cf:.
This is a kind of peace to be desired by all. (A kind of peace that should be desired). Is there any hope for
us to meet this great violinist in our town? (A hope that we may meet this violinist). It was arranged for the
mountaineers to have a rest in tents before climbing the peak. (It was arranged so that they could have a rest in
tents).
When speaking about the functional difference between lingual forms, we must bear in mind that this
difference might become subject to neutralization in various systemic or contextual conditions. But however
vast the corresponding field of neutralization might be, the rational basis of correlations of the forms in
question still lies in their difference, not in neutralizing equivalence. Indeed, the difference is linguistically so
valuable that one well-established occurrence of a differential correlation of meaningful forms outweighs by its
significance dozens of their textual neutralizations. Why so? For the simple reason that language is a means of
forming and exchanging ideas - that is, ideas differing from one another, not coinciding with one another. And
this simple truth should thoroughly be taken into consideration when tackling certain cases of infinitive-gerund
equivalence in syntactic constructions - as, for instance, the freely alternating gerunds and infinitives with
some phasal predicators (begin, start, continue, cease, etc.). The functional equivalence of the infinitive and
the gerund in the composition of the phasal predicate by no means can be held as testifying to their functional
equivalence in other spheres of expression.
As for the preferable or exclusive use of the gerund with a set of transitive verbs (e.g. avoid, delay, deny,
forgive, mind, postpone) and especially prepositional-complementive verbs and word-groups (e.g. accuse of,
agree to, depend on, prevent from, think of, succeed in, thank for; be aware of, be busy in, be Indignant at, be
sure of), we clearly see here the tendency of mutual differentiation and complementation of the substantive
verbid forms based on the demonstrated category of processual representation. In fact, it is the-gerund, not the
infinitive, that denotes the processual referent of the lexeme not in a dynamic, but in a half-dynamic
representation, which is more appropriate to be associated with a substantive-related part of the sentence.
§ 7. Within the gerund-participle correlation, the central point of our analysis will be the very lexico-
grammatical identification of the two verbid forms in -ing in their reference to each other. Do they constitute
two different verbids, or do they present one and the same form with a somewhat broader range of functions
than either of the two taken separately?
The ground for raising this problem is quite substantial, since the outer structure of the two elements of the
verbal system is absolutely identical: they are outwardly the same when viewed in isolation. It is not by chance
that in the American linguistic tradition which can be traced back to the school of Descriptive Linguistics the
two forms are recognized as one integral V-ing.
In treating the ing-forms as constituting one integral verbid entity, opposed, on the one hand, to the
infinitive (V-to), on the other hand, to the past participle (V-en), appeal is naturally made to the alternating use
of the possessive and the common-objective nounal element in the role of the subject of the ing-form (mostly
observed in various object positions of the sentence). Cf.
I felt annoyed at his failing to see my point at once. - I felt annoyed at him failing to see my point at once.
He was not, however, averse to Elaine Fortescue's entertaining the hypothesis.
-
He was not, however, averse
to Elaine Fortescue entertaining the hypothesis.
This use presents a case known in linguistics as "half-gerund". So, in terms of the general ing-form
problem, we have to choose between the two possible interpretations of the half-gerund: either as an actually
intermediary form with double features, whose linguistic semi-status is truly reflected in its conventional
name, or as an element of a non-existent categorial specification, i.e. just another variant of the same
indiscriminate V-ing.
In this connection, the reasoning of those who support the idea of the integral V-ing form can roughly be
presented thus: if the two uses of V-ing are functionally identical, and if the "half-gerund" V-ing occurs with
approximately the same frequency as the "full-gerund" V-ing, both forms presenting an ordinary feature of an
ordinary English text, then there is no point in discriminating the "participle" V-ing and the "gerund" V-ing.
In compliance with the general principle of approach to any set of elements forming a categorial or
functional continuum, let us first consider the correlation between the polar elements of the continuum, i.e. the