英文動名詞子句主語格位變化
國 立 高 雄 師 範 大 學
高雄師大學報 2012, 33, 1-13
英文動名詞子句主語格位變化
忻愛莉 1
摘 要
英文動名詞子句中主詞常以所有格呈現，有時又以其他格位呈現，本研究探討這
些格位變化之現象，以及如此呈現之原因。Abney (1987)提出 DP 理論假說，主張 DP
與 IP 有相似結構，都是功能詞的最大投射；功能詞 I 以語意詞彙動詞的最大投射作
為其補語，功能詞 D 則以語意詞彙名詞的最大投射作為其補語。本研究以 DP 理論假
說為基礎，主張英文動名詞子句是 DP 結構，並以此分析主詞所有格呈現之由來，以
及當英文動名詞子句在不同句法位置時，格位變化之原因及呈現方式。本分析對動名
詞子句中功能詞 D 與格位授與的關係，進行充分的說明，並對英文動名詞子句與其
他一般補語子句的運作相似現象一併闡述。
關鍵詞：所有格格位、動名詞子句、DP 理論假說、格位理論、GB 理論
投稿日期：2012/09/13 接受日期:2012/12/22
1
國立高雄師範大學英語學系教授
1
2 高雄師大學報 第三十三期
On Subject Case Variations in English
Gerund Clauses
Ai-li Hsin*
Abstract
In this study the genitive case and case variations of the subject in a gerund clause are
examined to interpret why and how it is thus case marked. Following Abney’s (1987) DP
Hypothesis that DP and IP are similar in that like I, D is a functional head that takes the
maximal projection of a lexical category, i.e. NP in this case, as its complement, we
propose that the English gerund clause is actually a DP in structure. With such analysis, the
varying case manifestations of the subject in gerund clauses can be accounted for in a
theoretical system and the parallelism between gerund clauses and regular complement
clauses, finite or nonfinite, can be fully understood.
Keywords: genitive case, gerund clauses, DP Hypothesis, Case Theory, GB Theory
*
Professor, Department of English, National Kaohsiung Normal University.
英文動名詞子句主語格位變化
3
1. Introduction
In English gerund clauses, the subject is often assigned a genitive case, as shown in (1a). Why
the subject needs to be in genitive case and how the case gets assigned to the subject are not
adequately explained in linguistic theories or textbooks. In addition to the genitive case, the subject of
the gerund clause can sometimes carry an accusative case, as in (1b). However, the case variation is
not that free when the gerund clause occurs in the subject position; only the genitive case can be
accepted when the gerund clause occupies the subject position, as shown in (2a-b). The case
manifestation of the subject in gerund clauses is very confusing and needs a clear and systematic
account.
1. a. We don’t like Tom’s being late all the time.
b. We don’t like {Tom/ him} being late all the time.
2. a. Tom’s being late all the time irritates his teacher.
b. *Tom being late all the time irritates his teacher.
In this study, we discuss the genitive case and other case variations of the subject in a gerund
clause. We start from the genitive case in the most common structures of possession and then to the
case assignment of the functional head of D(eterminer), explaining why D is the functional head of
NP and how the subject of gerund clause gets assigned a genitive case. In section two, the English
functional projection DP and the relation of D head with the genitive case are interpreted, following
the DP Hypothesis proposed by Abney (1987). In section three, we propose the English gerund clause
is a DP in structure, and, with such analysis, account for the case variations of the subject in gerund
clauses and the parallelism in case manifestations between the complement clause and the gerund
clause. Section four concludes this study.
2. D(eterminer) Phrase in English
Genitive case is often translated as possessive de of Chinese by Chinese EFL learners, but
actually English genitive case is distinct from Chinese de as it is a required grammatical feature in
English based on Case Theory (Tang, 1993). English is a language that requires case marking on
nominal expressions according to Case Theory, though in Modern English only pronouns reveal the
overt case marking1, such as the nominative case in I, accusative case in me, and genitive case in my.
1
Although the Case Filter requires all overt NPs in all languages be Case-marked, the idea is extended in the
later Case Theory and requires that all NPs, be it overt or covert, must be assigned proper Case to make a
sentence grammatical (Ouhalla, 1999)
4 高雄師大學報 第三十三期
Though most nominal expressions do not display case markings, the genitive case on nominal
expressions is overtly marked with the possessive ‘s, and this is commonly seen in the subject of a
gerund clause. According to Abney (1986), all NPs in a sentence are headed by a functional head
D(eterminer), which is related to the assignment of genitive case. In the following, the English DP
structure and its relation with genitive case will be examined.
2.1 Genitive Case Assigned under D
The genitive case is mostly seen in the first possessive NP when two NPs are adjacent, such as in
‘the teacher’s book,’ ‘a girl’s dress,’ ‘students’ confidence’. In these constituents, the first NP plays
the role of the second NP’s possessor. Similarly, when three NPs are put together, the first two NPs
need to carry the genitive case, as shown in ‘the girl’s father’s car’ and ‘his friend’s patience’ in (3).
3. a. [NP a girl] [NP dress] Æ [NP a girl’s] [NP dress]
b. [NP he] [NP friend] [NP patience] Æ [NP his] [NP friend’s] [NP patience]
As in the two NPs of his friend and the friend, ‘his’ and ‘the’ occupy the same specifier position
of the NP, ‘his’ must carry the same function as ‘the’ does, i.e. being the determiner or specifier of the
following NP. When three NPs are adjacent, the first NP must be the determiner of the second NP,
both of which together functions as the determiner of the third NP, as illustrated in (4) and they are in
a hierarchical structure of [[[the girl’s] father’s] car].
4. Tree diagram of ‘the girl’s father’s car’
NP
/
\
NP
/
\
NP
/
the
N’
\
N’
|
|
N’
N
|
car
N
father
N
girl
Abney (1987) proposes DP Hypothesis, which states that DP and IP have similar structures in
that like I, D is a non-lexical category that takes (the maximal projection of ) a lexical category as its
complement. The complement of D is NP. The subject position of the noun phrase is [DP, Spec] in
much the same way that the subject position of IP is [IP, Spec]. The DP-IP structural parallelism is
illustrated in (5).
英文動名詞子句主語格位變化
5a
5
5b.
DP
╱ ╲
Spec
IP
╱
D’
╱ ╲
D
Spec
NP
╱ ╲
Spec
╲
I’
╱ ╲
I
N’
╱ ╲
N
…
VP
╱ ╲
Spec
V’
╱ ╲
V
…
Following this analysis, D is the head of the NP rather than its specifier; D is equivalent of I in IP
and gives the subject of the structure proper case; that is, I gives nominative case in the finite IP and D,
genitive case in DP. As the subject of VP moves from [VP, Spec] to [IP, Spec] to get a nominative
case, the subject of NP moves from [NP, Spec] to [DP, Spec] to get a genitive case. Consequently, the
noun phrase our teachers should be in the form of the following diagram in (6), with we eventually in
the subject position of [DP, Spec] and assigned genitive case by D. The we+genitive case goes
through the morphological derivation and becomes our. Similarly, if the XP under the [DP, Spec] is
the girl, and the realization of this XP in the genitive form would be the girl’s.
6.
DP
╱ ╲
Spec
|
we
D’
╱
D
|
genitive
╲
NP
╱ ╲
pro
N’
t
|
N
teachers
However, the thematic connection between two adjacent NPs in English may not necessarily be
in possessor-possessee relation only. For instance, in the phrase ‘Nancy’s donation,’ Nancy is the
agent of the action of donation; similarly, in the phrase ‘the project’s execution,’ the project is the
internal argument of the execution action. Consequently, the adjacent two NPs are like the argument
NPs in a sentence and their thematic relationship can be various. With one NP moves to the subject
position of [DP, Spec], the two NPs get to be adjacent when they surface and the NPs in [DP, Spec]
will be assigned a structural genitive case by the functional head D. Therefore, with the analysis of the
6 高雄師大學報 第三十三期
functional DP projection, the genitive case of the subject within a complex DP and the various
thematic relations between the two adjacent NPs can get a thorough theoretical account. The diagrams
in (7a-b) illustrate how each of the synonymous phrases ‘the execution of the project’ and ‘the
project’s execution’ is derived. Since every DP in a sentence needs to be case marked, the internal
argument of execution, i.e. the project, cannot be assigned from a proper case from its head noun
‘execution,’ because, unlike lexical head of verb or preposition, head noun does not have
case-assigning ability. The internal argument the project, therefore, requires a preposition of to assign
it an accusative case here. Optionally, if this internal argument DP moves to the [DP, Spec] subject
position, it will get a genitive case from D and the preposition need not appear as it is a last resort.
7a. the execution of the project
DP
╱ ╲
D’
╱
╲
D
|
the
NP
|
N’
╱
N
execution
╲
PP
╱
╲
P
of
DP
the project
7b. the project’s execution
DP
╱ ╲
DP
D’
╱
the project
D
|
genitive
‘s
╲
NP
|
N’
╱
N
execution
╲
PP
╱
P
of
╲
DP
t
英文動名詞子句主語格位變化
7
2.2 Case of NP is shown in D above NP
As D is the functional head of NP, it means all NPs are actually DPs in a sentence. Longobardi
(1994) asserts that referential NPs in a sentence are all determiner phrases (DPs) in all languages. The
determiner head such as articles takes NP as its complement and by so doing specifies its reference
type and thus decides the referent of the NP in the discourse. Given this DP analysis, the functional
head D thus carries all the agreement features (i.e.Φfeatures) of the complement NP, such as person,
number, and gender, and has a spec-head agreement with the subject phrase in the [DP, Spec].2 In
addition to the agreement features, the functional head D also carries the case of its complement NP,
as illustrated in the case variations of the DP we teachers in different syntactic positions in (8).
8. a. We teachers should be more patient.
b. Students respect us teachers.
When the DP occurs in the subject position of a sentence as in (8a), it is assigned a nominative
case by the finite Infl, so the D head displays such case as shown by the pronoun we; on the other
hand, when the DP appears in the object position as in (8b), it receives an accusative case from the
c-commanding verb respect and the D head displays such case as shown by the pronoun us. The NP
teachers is the complement of the head D, which reveals all its grammatical features, such as case,
reference, agreement features of person, number, gender etc. The diagram in (9) shows the structural
relationship.
9.
DP
╱ ╲
Spec
D’
╱ ╲
D
NP
|
|
we/us N’
|
N
teachers
The phrases our teachers and we/us teachers are different in meaning and referents, as illustrated
in sentences in (10). The difference can also be illustrated in the DP structural analysis. A comparison
2
I propose there are two types of DPs based on their structures. In phrases such as we teachers or us teachers,
the [DP, Spec] is always empty and not filled with any phrase, making the DP a weak type of DP. The weak
DP is governed and assigned case by an outside governor such as a verb or a preposition. Since the Spec
position is empty, there is no overt Spec-Head relation and D reveals only the case andΦfeatures of its
complement NP. However, in a full-fledged strong DP, i.e. DP with a filled [DP, Spec] such as her father, the
subject her in the [DP, Spec] is assigned case by the head D, not by the outside governor, and Spec-Head
agreement is fully manifested.
8 高雄師大學報 第三十三期
of diagrams of (6) and (9) clarify the distinction of our teachers and we/us teachers, with we in the
[DP, Spec] in the former phrase and we under D in the latter phrase.
10. a. We teachers should be more patient. vs. Our teachers should be more patient.
b. Students respect us teachers.
vs. Students respect our teachers.
2.3 Case of pronoun
We can have phrases like we teachers, you teachers, but we cannot have they teachers or you
teacher or I teacher or he teacher. The reason is because the NP following the pronoun is the
complement of the pronoun head and refers to the same referent. When the pronoun refers to a
referent with a single individual person, such as pronouns I, you and s/he, the complement NP is not
allowed. But the first or second person plural pronoun we or you is possible to have a complement NP
as in we students or you politicians.
The impossibility of they teachers is because English uses null D to specify the third person
plural reference. Therefore, teachers can only refer to a third person group, but not the first or second
person group. However, this rule is English specific. In other languages, such as Chinese, the third
person plural pronoun taking an NP complement, such as they teachers, is possible. Hence, pronouns
under D are actually the person as well as case manifestations of the NP complement.
Pronouns are often used to refer to DPs already mentioned in the discourse; hence, the referents
are known. Most of the time, the complement NP in the pronoun expressions would not be needed and
pronouns usually stand alone. Pronouns without a complement NP is like the structure shown in (11).
11.
DP
|
D’
|
D
I/ you/ he/ they
3. English Gerund Clauses
3.1 Gerund clause as a DP Projection
Gerund clauses are nominal expressions in nature as they can appear in positions where an NP
can appear in a sentence, such as in positions of the subject, object of a verb, and object of a
preposition, as illustrated in (12).
英文動名詞子句主語格位變化
9
12. a. Tom’s being late all the time irritates his teachers.
b. We don’t like Tom’s being late all the time.
c. Since when have we gotten used to Tom’s being late all the time?
Given the nominal status of gerund clauses, it is natural for the clause to have a functional D
head as the normal NPs do. We propose that the gerund clause is a DP like the structure of (13). The
clause is base generated as a VP with an internal subject,3 which moves to [NP, Spec] when the head
V gets moved to N to become nominalized,4 and the subject of the projection also moves accordingly.
The subject then moves again to [DP, Spec] to get a genitive case from D since the head N cannot
give the subject NP a proper structural case. This movement analysis can rightfully explain why the
subject of the gerund clause takes a genitive case and why the verb takes a –ing nominal affix. At the
same time, the gerund clause also becomes specified with reference by having a subject in the [DP,
Spec] position and by indicating the action is conducted by a specified agent.
13.
DP
╱ ╲
Tom
D’
╱ ╲
D
|
genitive
‘s
NP
╱
╲
N’
╱ ╲
N
|
VP
╱
╲
-ing NP
|
Tom
V’
╱
V
╲
AP
|
be
3
4
late all the time
According to VP-Internal Hypothesis (Radford, 2004), the subject NP is base-generated in [VP, Spec] and then
moves to [IP, Spec] to get a nominative case. This study adopts the same idea.
Unlike the regular lexical N, the N that selects VP complement here is a functional category, denoting the
nominalization of a VP.
10 高雄師大學報
第三十三期
3.2 Gerund Clause in the Subject Position
When the gerund clause appears in the subject position, the complete DP must appear intact. If
the functional projection DP is missing, the subject Tom inside the NP will not be case-marked as the
head N is incapable of case assignment. The sentence will be ungrammatical due to a violation of the
Case Theory, which states that all referential nominal expressions in the sentence must have a case.
This is why sentences in (2), now repeated in (14a-b), have grammaticality differences. If the gerund
clause has no overt subject, there is no case problem and the sentence becomes grammatical again as
shown in (14c).
14. a. Tom’s being late all the time irritates his teacher.
b. *Tom being late all the time irritates his teacher.
c. Being late all the time is very impolite to others.
3.3 Gerund Clause in the Object Position
The subject of gerund clauses in the object position can have variations of accusative case or
genitive case, as shown in (1), now repeated in (15). The analysis of the functional projection DP for
gerund clauses can account for the case variations here.
15. a. We don’t like {Tom’s/ his} being late all the time.
b. We don’t like {Tom/ him} being late all the time.
When the gerund clause in the object position still retains a complete DP structure, the subject, as
assigned case by the head D, will be in the genitive case and the sentence will emerge in the structure
of (15a). If the matrix verb like resolves the functional projection of DP and governs NP directly, it
can assign an accusative case to the subject of NP and the sentence will emerge in the structure of
(15b) since the head N cannot assign case to its subject. We propose the situation is similar to the
phenomenon of ECM (exceptional case marking) verb, which can resolve the CP projection and
assign accusative case to the subject of the embedded IP when the nonfinite I is incapable of giving
case to its subject, as exemplified in (16b) in contrast to the nominative case subject in a finite IP in
(16a). We propose that English gerund clauses, similar to nonfinite IP, are a weak type of clause.
When the functional DP is resolved by the matrix transitive verb, the NP structure alone cannot form a
barrier from the outside governor to assign case; the case variation in sentence (15b) is, thus, fully
accounted for.
16. a. We believe [CP that [IP Tom is an honest person]].
b. We believe [IP Tom/him to be is an honest person]
英文動名詞子句主語格位變化 11
3.4
Parallelism between Gerund Clauses and Regular Complement Clauses
In English, gerund clauses and regular complement clauses are similar in several syntactic
representations. First, both have a functional head above them to designate the nature of the clause,
with the complementizer (C) heading the regular complement clause and the determiner (D) heading
the gerund clause. Both functors of C and D carry the grammatical features of agreement of its
complement and do the function of case assignment to its subject, as shown in (17a-a’). Secondly, this
functional projection can be resolved by an outside governor and the subject in the clause will be
assigned case by the c-commanding matrix governor when there is not a powerful governor inside the
clause to assign the subject case, as shown in (17b-b’). Thirdly, when the clause gets dislocated to
other positions in a sentence, the functional project is always with the clause for the purpose of
assigning case to the subject, as shown in (17c-c’). The requirement of a sentential subject to be CP in
structure is for the subject to get a case from the c-commanding complementizer (Radford, 2004); the
same is true for the sentential subject to be DP in structure for gerund clauses due to the necessity of
case assignment from D to the subject of DP. The lack of C and D, resulting in a case violation, will
cause the ungrammaticality of the sentences, as shown in (17d-d’). This parallelism between the
gerund clause (DP) and the regular complement clause (CP) can be fully interpreted with the analysis
of DP projection for gerund clauses.5
17. a. We believe [CP that [IP Tom is an honest person]].
a’ We do not like [DP Tom’s [NP being late all the time]].
b. We believe [IP Tom/him to be is an honest person].
b’ We do not like [NP Tom/him being late all the time]
c. [CP that [IP Tom is an honest person]] is without question.
c’ [DP Tom’s [NP being late all the time]] irritates us.
d. *[IP Tom is an honest person] is without question.
d’ *[NP Tom being late all the time] irritates us
5
One of the reviewers of this study is concerned that while regular clauses in the subject position demonstrate
CP-IP variations such as in (i-iii), gerund clauses in the subject position have no DP-NP variations.
i [CP That John kissed Mary] surprised everyone.
ii [CP For John to study linguistics] is a lot of fun.
iii [IP To study linguistics] is a lot of fun.
According to GB Theory, the subjectless infinitive clause, such as (iii), is actually CP in structure with a PRO
subject. Such being the case, all clauses, finite or non-finite, in the subject position are CPs in structure and
hence demonstrate no CP-IP variations. This is in line with the subject gerund clauses, which are always in
DP structure and do not show DP-NP variation. The analysis in this study provides a unitary account for all
clausal subjects.
12 高雄師大學報
第三十三期
4. Conclusion
This study analyzes English gerund clauses as nominalized VPs headed by a functional head D,
the concept of which is in a par with Malouf’s (1996) assertion that verbal gerunds are hybrid
category that inherits some properties of nouns and some properties of verbs. The subject case
variations in English gerund clauses were also observed and reported in a corpus study of BNC subset
BNC Baby in Lyne (2006), according to which the accusative case form is the most common
construction, especially in conversation and fiction, though the genitive case form still prevails in
academic prose and is considered the more formal of the two.
Among the three structural cases in English, genitive case probably is the most confusing for
Chinese EFL learners. Genitive case does not mean possession only; it is a grammatical feature and
influences the well-formedness of a sentence. In this study it is proposed that English gerund clauses
are NPs in nature headed by a functional projection of DP. With this analysis, the genitive case of the
subject in gerund clauses is accounted for; the case variations of the subject when the gerund clause
occurs in the object position are also well interpreted; in addition, the parallelism in the subject’s case
assignment between regular complement clauses and gerund clauses can also be fully understood with
a system of Case Theory. As functional categories in foreign languages often present a barrier for
learning, knowing the purpose of the functional categories and the operation mechanism behind them
will accelerate and upgrade enormously the second/foreign language acquisition.
Acknowledgment
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to David Goodman, a PhD candidate in my
derarement, for his kindness and patience in helping me with the judgment of English sentnces. His
helpful interpretation and precise sense of grammaticality assisted me a lot in accomplishing this
study.
References
Abney, S. (1986). Functional elements and licensing. presented at GLOW. Gerona, Spain.
Abney, S. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral Dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 609-666.
Lyne, S. (2006). The form of the pronoun preceding the verbal gerund: Possessive or objective?
JCAME Journal 30, 37-54.
Malouf, R. (1996). A constructional approach to English verbal gerunds. Proceedings of the
Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and
Parasession on The Role of Learnability in Grammatical Theory. pp. 255-266.
Ouhalla, J. (1999). Introducing Transformational Grammar: from Priciples and Parameters to
Minimalism. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press Inc. New York.
英文動名詞子句主語格位變化
13
Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Tang, C-C J. (1993). On Chinese de and English “’s”. Language and Linguistics, 63.4, 733-757.
[湯志真, 1993a,〈漢語的“的”與英語的“’s”〉,《中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊》63.4,
733-757。]
14 高雄師大學報
第三十三期