dancing on the table

[navi tasan]

1) Dancing on the table really got on my nerves.
2) His dancing on the table really got on my nerves.

Can one use #1 instead of #2 if the context makes it clear who danced on the table?

To me, #1 sounds as if the speaker was dancing on the table.

 

[Skrej]

1) Dancing on the table really got on my nerves.
2) His dancing on the table really got on my nerves.


Can one use #1 instead of #2 if the context makes it clear who danced on the table?

Yes, I suppose so.

To me, #1 sounds as if the speaker was dancing on the table.

That's one interpretation, yes. However, logically if it annoyed the speaker, then why would the speaker be doing it?

 

[Annabel Lee]

1) Dancing on the table really got on my nerves.
2) His dancing on the table really got on my nerves.

Can one use #1 instead of #2 if the context makes it clear who danced on the table?

Personally, I find that interpretation inconceivable. However, if you or Skreg have thought of such a context, please do share it! I think that, in contexts coming close to such a context, "the" would be placed before the gerund:

? He was always dancing on the table and singing in the shower. Dancing on the table really got on my nerves.​

He was always dancing on the table and singing in the shower. The dancing on the table really got on my nerves. ​

​

To me, #1 sounds as if the speaker was dancing on the table.

I agree with Skreg that that's one possible interpretation. One interesting thing about both sentences is that we can't tell if "Dancing" is a verb or a noun in them. (I'm setting aside my blue variation for [1], in which "the" makes it clear that "dancing" is a noun.) If there were something that was danced, however, such as a jig, we could create these variants:

Dancing jigs really got on my nerves.​

Dancing of jigs really got on my nerves.​

​

In the purple sentence, we know that "Dancing" is a verb because it has a direct object, namely, "jigs." (It's impossible, semantically, for "Dancing" to be an adjectival modifier: a jig cannot dance.) In the green sentence by contrast, it is clear that "Dancing" is a noun, for it is modified by "of jigs." One cannot dance of jigs.

Now, it seems to me that the purple sentence is indeed speaking of the speaker's dancing jigs, not of jigs' being danced in general. This is not to deny that sentences can be made in which "dancing" would have a generalized, impersonal subject: Dancing jigs gets the blood flowing. But those aren't personalized, like this one: Dancing jigs gets my blood flowing.

On the other hand, the green sentence is naturally interpreted as not being about the speaker's dancing of jigs, but about jigs' being danced in general. Thus, the noun-verb difference seems to make a real difference semantically, and I would conclude that you are responding at the level of meaning to the noun-verb syntactic ambiguity of "Dancing" in "Dancing on the table."

 

[probus]

To me it's a fixed expression, almost an idiom. To be dancing on the table is to be thoroughly drunk.

 

[Annabel Lee]

To me it's a fixed expression, almost an idiom. To be dancing on the table is to be thoroughly drunk.

That may be, but the grammatical difficulty would arise even if we changed "Dancing" to, for example, "Drawing."

 

[jutfrank]

Can one use #1 instead of #2 if the context makes it clear who danced on the table?

I don't think it's a coherent question. It seems to me that you're asking 'Does #1 make sense if it's clear that it makes sense?'

 

[Annabel Lee]

I don't think it's a coherent question. It seems to me that you're asking 'Does #1 make sense if it's clear that it makes sense?'

I think Navi is asking whether it is grammatically possible for a phrase like "Dancing on the table" in subject position to refer to his dancing on the table, whoever he may be in the context; or to her dancing on the table, whoever she may be; or their dancing on the table, whoever they may be. It seems to me that's not how English grammar works in this area.

Navi may be said to have bundled in a second question, too, albeit only implicitly -- namely, why a sentence like "Dancing on the table really got on my nerves" can naturally be understood to refer to the speaker's own dancing on the table rather than to dancing on the table in general. I sought to answer both questions in post #3.

 

[emsr2d2]

Can one use #1 instead of #2 if the context makes it clear who danced on the table?

Can you come up with a context in which it's clear that it's not the speaker dancing, yet #1 still makes sense? I certainly struggled.

For example, let's say the preceding sentence was "John was dancing on the table". That certainly provides the requisite context but "John was dancing on the table. Dancing on the table really got on my nerves" doesn't work. We'd say one of the following:
1. John was dancing on the table. It really got on my nerves.
2. John was dancing on the table. His dancing on the table really got on my nerves.
The first is more likely because it avoids the unnecessary repetition of "dancing on the table".

Now let's say lots of people were doing it. For example, "I went to a Greek wedding last night and all the women were dancing on the tables". We wouldn't follow that with "Dancing on the tables really got on my nerves". We'd use one of the following:
1. I went to a Greek wedding last night and all the women were dancing on the tables. It really got on my nerves.
2. I went to a Greek wedding last night and all the women were dancing on the tables. Their dancing on the tables really got on my nerves.
3. I went to a Greek wedding last night and all the women were dancing on the tables. The dancing on the tables really got on my nerves.

In the first two, it's clear that the women's dancing was was annoyed me. In the third, it's only explicit that the dancing annoyed me.

 

[Annabel Lee]

"John was dancing on the table. Dancing on the table really got on my nerves" doesn't work.

Well, that very sequence of sentences might quite naturally be used in an introductory logic textbook, to illustrate deduction:

1) John was dancing on the table. [at time t]
2) Dancing on the table really got on my nerves. [= "Any dancing on the table really got on my nerves."]
Therefore,
3) John really got on my nerves. [at time t]

Notice that sentence (2) is not about anyone-in-particular's dancing on the table, let alone about anyone-in-particular's dancing on the table at a particular time. It is a general statement about that activity, regardless of who's doing it, and allows the reader or listener to deduce (3), given the context of sentence (1), which is indeed about someone-in-particular's doing it.

Incidentally, I specified an interpretation of (2) which makes it clear that "Dancing" is a noun rather than a verb in that sentence. This is not to deny that it's possible to analyze "Dancing" as a verb (an intransitive verb) in that sentence; however, it is my belief that that parsing yields the unwanted interpretation, whereby the speaker got on his own nerves (see post #3).

I think it should be observed that, either way (whether "dancing" is parsed as a noun or a verb), the phrase "Dancing on the table" functions as a substantive in the sentence "Dancing on the table really got on my nerves." I have deliberately avoided the use of the term "gerund." One of the two parsings will be the gerund parsing. Which that is depends on one's theory.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you all very much.

A especial thanks to Annabel Lee for the detailed analyses!

Annabel Lee, if I understand correctly,


a) Dancing of jigs gets on my nerves.
means
It gets on my nerves when people dance gigs.

but could
b) Dancing on tables gets on my nerves.
c) Dancing gets on my nerves.

mean
It gets on my nerves when people dance/dance on tables.


I don't think they can, but I am a bit out of my depth here.

 

[Annabel Lee]

a) Dancing of jigs gets on my nerves.
means
It gets on my nerves when people dance gigs.

Yes, it does.

but could
b) Dancing on tables gets on my nerves.
c) Dancing gets on my nerves.

mean
It gets on my nerves when people dance/dance on tables.

Yes, those can have that meaning, too. And they can also have the meaning according to which it is the speaker's dancing on tables that gets on his or her nerves. Suppose the speaker is a cocktail waitress who is sometimes forced to dance on the bar counter in front of inebriated customers. That activity, with the reactions she receives, might get on her nerves.

Grammatically, that second interpretation requires that we parse (consciously or subconsciously) Dancing as a verb rather than as a noun. When we have a verb, we have an implied subject, and it can either be impersonal (people in general) or specific (deriving from my). If we had her, the implied subject of dancing could be the referent of her:

d) Dancing (on tables) gets on her nerves.

That sentence could either that it gets on her nerves when people dance on tables or that it gets on her nerves when she dances on tables, perhaps because of the lewd responses she receives from inebriated, raucous audience members. Let's consider a different example set, one with overt subjects:

e) Sally's graceful dancing of waltzes impresses me. (NOT: *Sally's gracefully dancing of waltzes impresses me.)
f) Sally's gracefully dancing waltzes impresses me. (NOT: *Sally's graceful dancing waltzes impresses me.)

Those obviate the possibility of having either a noun parse or a verb parse for dancing. When dancing is a noun, it needs of before the name of what is danced, which, when dancing is a verb, is the direct object. Also, when dancing is a noun, it can be modified by an adjective, not an adverb. It's just the reverse when dancing's a verb. Now, what about these?

g) Dancing of waltzes impresses me.
h) ?? Dancing waltzes impresses me.

Sentence (g) is clearly fine. It has the meaning "It impresses me when people dance waltzes." But can (h) have that meaning? If I'm right about the semantic interpretation of these constructions, dancing can't be interpreted as referring to Sally's dancing or to anyone-else-in-particular's doing so or even to a specific group's doing so.

I don't think (h) works at all, semantically, and I don't deny that the predicate is the culprit. It wants to be interpreted as meaning that the speaker impresses him- or herself by and through dancing, and yet that meaning is fairly absurd. In contrast, the following would, of course, be perfectly fine:

i) Dancing waltzes exhausts me.
j) Dancing waltzes isn't easy.

In (i), the speaker is the implied subject of the verb Dancing. In (j), the implied subject is people in general, the meaning being that, in general, it isn't easy for people to dance waltzes. Presumably, such a sentence doesn't rule out the possibility that for some specialized subset of people (highly trained dancers) it has become easy to do so.

 

[navi tasan]

Wow! What an amazing and detailed analysis. This could go in a textbook! I am speechless.

Thank you so so so so much!

 

[emsr2d2]

a) Dancing of jigs gets on my nerves.
means
It gets on my nerves when people dance gigs.

This might be a BrE v AmE difference, since Annabel Lee said "Yes" to that, but in BrE, it would be "The dancing of jigs gets on my nerves". The lack of article but inclusion of "of" makes it sound extremely unnatural (verging on ungrammatical) to me. Of course, you can remove both to leave "Dancing jigs gets on my nerves" but that has a different meaning.

 

[Annabel Lee]

This might be a BrE v AmE difference, since Annabel Lee said "Yes" to that, but in BrE, it would be "The dancing of jigs gets on my nerves". The lack of article but inclusion of "of" makes it sound extremely unnatural (verging on ungrammatical) to me.

That's an interesting issue. I feel as though it must be addressed in some grammar book, but so far I've been unable to find a discussion of it. I debated momentarily whether to add "the" when I wrote that example, as well as the related one concerning waltz-dancing, and decided that it wasn't necessary.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean it's necessary to add "the" in particular before any usage of a phrase like "dancing of jigs." For I assume you'd be OK with a possessive like "Sally's" or "his": "Sally's dancing of jigs," "his dancing of jigs." Perhaps you'd even be OK with "all," "any," or "some" in some circumstances: "all dancing of jigs," "any dancing of jigs," "some dancing of jigs."

The question, then, is whether it is grammatical to have no determiner with -ing forms that function as nouns and have a quasi-direct object in an "of"-phrase that follows. For me, it seems to depend on where the phrase appears in a sentence. I think that the determiner-free version works in subject position, but does not work very well in direct-object position:

(A1) The spanking of children has been outlawed.
(A2) Spanking of children has been outlawed.

(C1) The government has outlawed the spanking of children.
(C2) ? The government has outlawed spanking of children.

I'm not saying that I find (C2) ungrammatical, as you may, but merely that it doesn't sit as well with me as does the article-free "Spanking of children" (in subject position) in (A2). You speculate that we may be looking at a BrE v AmE difference. I did come across the following example published in an abstract by Cambridge University Press (presumably BrE):

"Although spanking of children is almost universal in U.S. society, its effects are not well understood." (source)

Do you find that Cambridge University Press example ungrammatical, with the absence of "the" before "spanking"?

 

[5jj]

an abstract by Cambridge University Press (presumably BrE):

The four authors are all American.

 

[navi tasan]

Wonderful discussions! I am grateful to everyone!

How about these two?

N1) There was spanking of children.
N2) There were breaking of windows, smashing of doors and stealing of valuables.

They sound old-fashioned to me, but not incorrect.

 

[Annabel Lee]

How about these two?

N1) There was spanking of children.
N2) There were breaking of windows, smashing of doors and stealing of valuables.

They sound old-fashioned to me, but not incorrect.

I feel just as you do about those, Navi, and they remind me of the phrase "gnashing of teeth," from the King James Bible:

• "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you" (Luke13:28).
• "The Son of man . . . shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 13:42).

Of course, the King James translation of the Bible was published in 1611, and British English has changed a bit since then. ("Ye" is a case in point.) Interestingly, it would be ungrammatical to add "the" before "gnashing" in those verses, since it would be at grammatical odds with with the existential-"there" construction. However, "some" could be used:

• "There shall be weeping and some gnashing of teeth."

I wonder if BrE speakers find that sentence easier on the ear than "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."