We all listened with great interest to the speaker criticizing the new book.

[Nonverbis]

Grammar by Golitsinskij (ISBN 978-5-9925-0587-0).

We all listened with great interest to the speaker criticizing the new book.

I answered that this is a gerund. But the answer key states that this is a participle.

This is strange to me. As I consider this case:
1. Similar to this:
We all listened with great interest to the speaker's criticizing the new book.
2. It is used after the preposition (listen (verb) + to (preposition).

Could you tell me whether it is a gerund or a present participle?

 

[5jj]

Many modern grammarians see little point in differentiating between gerunds and participles. I wouldn't waste time on this point if I were you.

 

[emsr2d2]

@Nonverbis - note that I have changed your thread title. Your question should appear only in the main body of your text. Titles must be unique, relevant to the thread and include some/all of the words/phrases/sentences you are asking us to look at.

 

[Phaedrus]

Grammar by Golitsinskij (ISBN 978-5-9925-0587-0).

We all listened with great interest to the speaker criticizing the new book.

I answered that this is a gerund. But the answer key states that this is a participle.

This is strange to me. As I consider this case:
1. Similar to this:
We all listened with great interest to the speaker's criticizing the new book.
2. It is used after the preposition (listen (verb) + to (preposition).

Could you tell me whether it is a gerund or a present participle?

Many modern grammarians see little point in differentiating between gerunds and participles. I wouldn't waste time on this point if I were you.

The distinction between gerunds and present participles is, in many cases, including this one, really a lot simpler and more obvious than 5jj makes it out to be.

Gerunds and participles have the same form: [verb]+ing. However, gerunds are nouns, and participles are verbs.

The question, then, is whether "criticizing" is a verb or a noun in the sentences in question.

In each case, it is demonstrably a verb (a present participle, not a gerund).

In the phrase, "critizing the new book," the noun phrase "the new book" is the direct object of "critizing." But nouns don't have direct objects. Only verbs do.

Thus, the answer is that "critizing" is a present participle, not a gerund, in both sentences.

If you want further confirmation, consider that verbs can be modified by adverbs, but nouns cannot; and that nouns can be modified by adjectives, but verbs cannot.

We all listened with great interest to the speaker('s) harshly criticizing the new book.
*We all listened with great interest to the speaker('s) harsh criticizing the new book.

If we adjust the sentence so that it really does use a gerund rather than a participle, the situation will be the reverse: the adverb won't work, but the adjective will.

*We all listened with great interest to the speaker's harshly criticizing of the new book.
We all listened with great interest to the speaker's harsh criticizing of the new book.

 

[5jj]

The distinction between gerunds and present participles is, in many cases, including this one, really a lot simpler and more obvious than 5jj makes it out to be.

I said nothing about it not being simple or obvious. I merely said that many modern grammarians see little point in differentiating between gerunds and participles. If Quirk et all, Huddleston and Pullum, Aarts and others see little point in this differentiation, I see little point in learners worrying about it.

 

[Phaedrus]

I said nothing about it not being simple or obvious. I merely said that many modern grammarians see little point in differentiating between gerunds and participles. If Quirk et all, Huddleston and Pullum, Aarts and others see little point in this differentiation, I see little point in learners worrying about it.

Is it not worthwhile to differentiate between nouns and verbs? Do we want learners modifying nouns with adverbs or verbs with adjectives? Heaven help us if we do.

 

[5jj]

 

[Phaedrus]

We all listened with great interest to the speaker criticizing the new book.

I answered that this is a gerund. But the answer key states that this is a participle.

Nonverbis, are you aware that "listen to" can take the same special perceptual-verb patterns that "hear" can take? Even the base form of the verb ("criticize") is possible:

We all listened with great interest to the speaker criticize the new book. (Compare: We listened to/heard them sing; We listened to/heard them singing.)

 

[Nonverbis]

However, gerunds are nouns, and participles are verbs.

I can't agree with you. The gerund is a non-finite form of the verb. It is not a noun. It has some noun features, but is not a noun.

In the phrase, "critizing the new book," the noun phrase "the new book" is the direct object of "critizing." But nouns don't have direct objects. Only verbs do.

The gerund can have a direct object.

Example: I like doing morning exercises.

 

[Nonverbis]

Nonverbis, are you aware that "listen to" can take the same special perceptual-verb patterns that "hear" can take? Even the base form of the verb ("criticize") is possible:

I know about that, thank you. But I'm learning ing-forms now.

 

[Tdol]

They're both -ing forms, so, I'm with 5jj on this - and we have our differences, spending time dividing them strikes me as like people who think that acronyms and initialisms are categories worth studying and dissecting. I fail to see how a learner speaks English better through observing that an -ing form used as an adjective is a participle rather than a gerund.

 

[5jj]

I have moved this thread to the Linguistics form.

 

[Phaedrus]

I can't agree with you. The gerund is a non-finite form of the verb. It is not a noun. It has some noun features, but is not a noun.

No. You've probably let your ESL teachers deceive you. Most of them don't know what gerunds are. A gerund is a derived noun that is formed by [verb]+ing.

The gerund can have a direct object.

Example: I like doing morning exercises.

That example does not contain a gerund. "Doing morning exercises" is a verb phrase that is functioning as a substantive. Here is a related example, containing a gerund:

I like the doing of morning exercises.

 

[Phaedrus]

They're both -ing forms, so, I'm with 5jj on this - and we have our differences, spending time dividing them strikes me as like people who think that acronyms and initialisms are categories worth studying and dissecting. I fail to see how a learner speaks English better through observing that an -ing form used as an adjective is a participle rather than a gerund.

Do you recognize a semantic difference between the following two sentences? Who's doing the singing?

(1) The crowd rose for the singing of the national anthem.
(2) The crowd rose for singing the national anthem.

Does one of them seem better to you than the other? Would you want learners to use them interchangeably?

 

[Phaedrus]

I know about that, thank you. But I'm learning ing-forms now.

Well, your sentence obviously does not contain a gerund, as can be seen by the fact that the following pronoun substitution is absurdly ungrammatical:

*We all listened to him something.

Your sentence has the following structure, which is most naturally parsed as having a perceptual-verb structure:

We all listened to him doing something.

That the sentence is NOT naturally parsed as a variation of We all listened to his doing something. It IS naturally parsed as a variation of:

We all listened to him do something.

 

[emsr2d2]

(1) The crowd rose for the singing of the national anthem.
(2) The crowd rose for singing the national anthem.

I'm not going to pretend to be following the very involved grammar points here but I wouldn't recommend that a student use sentence 2 at all. I would teach "The crowd rose to sing the national anthem".

 

[Phaedrus]

I'm not going to pretend to be following the very involved grammar points here but I wouldn't recommend that a student use sentence 2 at all. I would teach "The crowd rose to sing the national anthem".

Yes, I wrote (2)—which has a present participle, not a gerund—as an example of a bad, though not necessarily ungrammatical, sentence.

Sentence (1)—which has a gerund, not a participle—is perfectly normal, even if you prefer your revision. Google "Please rise for the singing of the national anthem."

The semantic difference between your sentence and (1) is that (1) can be used even if the crowd will be an audience to the singing rather than doing the singing itself.

 

[5jj]

Warning
This post is not helpful for people wishing to communicate in English. It is intended for the minority of members/ (weirdoes )who may be interested in -ing forms. It is a summary of how some leading grammarians of the last forty years deal with them,

Aarts, Bas (2011), Oxford Modern English Grammar, does not differentiate between gerunds and participles. He refers to both as -ing participles.

Carter, Ronald and Michael McCarty (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English, do not differentiate between gerunds and participles. They refer to both as -ing forms.

Chalker, Sylvia (1984), Current English Grammar, does not differentiate between gerunds and participles in the body of the book. She refers to both as -ing forms. She writes: A distinction is often made between gerunds ('verbal nouns') and participles, which are more like verbs or adjectives. In fact the -ing form cannot be quite so neatly divided.

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey Pullum (2002), The Cambridge Grammar of the English language, write: [...] we reject an analysis that has gerund and participle as different forms syncretised throughout the class of verb We have therefore just one inflectional form of the verb marked by the -ing suffix; we label it with the compound term 'gerund-participle' .

Quirk, Randolph et al (1985), A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, note a complex gradience of fourteen different uses of -ing- forms from nouns (deverbal count nouns , abstract-non count verbal nouns), through the traditionally named gerund to the traditionally-named (present) participle. They write of the forms that are not clearly nouns, [...] we do not find it useful to distinguish a gerund from a participle, but terminologically class all these forms as PARTICIPLES.

 

[Phaedrus]

If we accept those terminological revisions, we must say, sadly, that Nonverbis has asked a meaningless question. It's rather pathetic, isn't it?

Apparently, those grammarians do not recognise the distinction -ing forms that behave as nouns (gerunds) and -ing forms that behave as verbs (present participles).

However, as I have have demonstrated above, the distinction is obvious and meaningful—and grammatically important, even for learners—in a great many cases.

Also, those are not the only grammarians in the world. I believe that none of them acknowledges the distinction between noun phrases and determiner phrases.

 

[5jj]

If we accept those terminological revisions, we must say, sadly, that Nonverbis has asked a meaningless question.

Given that many course books and student grammars still discuss gerunds and participle, ut strikes me as a very reasonable question/

It's rather pathetic, isn't it?

I don't understand that comment.

Apparently, those grammarians do not recognise the distinction -ing forms that behave as nouns (gerunds) and -ing forms that behave as verbs (present participles).

Oh, they do indeed recognise that the -ing form can function in a similar way to nouns, verbs and adjectives. They simply see no/little point in coming up with distinct labels for these.

However, as I have have demonstrated above, the distinction is obvious and meaningful—and grammatically important, even for learners—in a great many cases.

That's your opinion, not a fact. My opinion is different.

Also, those are not the only grammarians in the world. I believe that none of them acknowledges the distinction between noun phrases and determiner phrases.

That is not relevant to our present discussion.