Pure verbal nouns/deverbal nouns vs. gerunds
Deverbal nouns (or pure verbal nouns) are nouns that are derived from verbs or verb phrases, but that behave grammatically purely as nouns, not as verbs. They are distinct from verbal noun types such as gerunds and infinitives, which behave like verbs within their phrase (although that verb phrase is then used as a noun phrase within the larger sentence).
The formation of deverbal nouns is one of the types of nominalization (noun formation). Examples of deverbal nouns in English include organization (derived from the verb organize), the noun construct /ˈkɒnstɹʌkt/ (from the verb construct /kənˈstɹʌkt/), and discovery (from the verb discover). The -ing form of any verb can serve as a deverbal noun, although the same word form can also be used verbally as a gerund or participle.
Life's much simpler if we look at a gerund as verb present continuous, where it is, and a nominalization of verb, where it is. The two uses are unrelated in behavior.
********************************
This is a follow-up to a previous question which I am still trying to understand. I think I'm making progress in my understanding, but I would appreciate feedback to help me refine my thinking. Here is the sentence:
Good writing requires hard work.Originally, I thought that "writing" was acting as a gerund in this phrase. After reading through the replies to that question along with back posts related to gerunds, I've since concluded that "writing" in this sentence is a pure verbal noun, also termed a deverbal noun.
My reasoning?
—In the sentence above "writing" is modified by "good" and is thus acting more like a noun than a verb.
—It has no direct object.
Is my thinking correct here? If not, could someone politely help me to refine it?
However, what if I had written the following?
Writing well requires hard work.In these examples, I'm thinking that "writing" would be a different kind of verbal noun—a non-finite verb acting as a gerund or infinitive, which is one piece of a larger complement noun clause.
or
To write well requires hard work.
The last bit is muddy for me, but I will leave it at that. Thank you in advance for your patience and insight.
ANSWERS / REPLIES
This isn't really an answer, but what I hope is a helpful observation. You can modify a gerund by either adjectives or adverbs, but not both. For example, you can say "Writing well and authentically requires hard work," or "Good, authentic writing requires hard work." But you can't say *"Good writing authentically requires hard work."
That's because it's not a real gerund in the second case, but a noun. Gerunds are still pretty verbyThat's because it's not a real gerund in the second case, but a noun. Gerunds are still pretty verby.
This isn't really an answer, but what I hope is a helpful observation. You can modify a gerund by either adjectives or adverbs, but not both. For example, you can say "Writing well and authentically requires hard work," or "Good, authentic writing requires hard work." But you can't say *"Good writing authentically requires hard work."
That's because it's not a real gerund in the second case, but a noun. Gerunds are still pretty verbyThat's because it's not a real gerund in the second case, but a noun. Gerunds are still pretty verby.
@Elizabeth: You got it. Nouns
are words that behave like nouns grammatically; verbs are words that
behave like verbs grammatically. It's not a matter of definition, it's a
matter of tests. Everybody has a syntax lab, but few of us are trained
to use it properly. Some more examples of syntax lab work here.
– John Lawler
Mar 1 '14 at 20:48
-
1And you've got to massage the tests if you wish to avoid conflicts. 'Tell Jim that his slowly painting his aunt is making her bored' needs political brazenness for one to pronounce a 'noun' or 'verb' verdict. I'm with Quirk's gradience ('painting' here is somewhere in between). – Edwin Ashworth Mar 1 '14 at 23:59
-
2I know you want 'the correct answer' here, Elizabeth; you think it's a matter of mastering a difficult bit of English. The truth is that different experts actually disagree amongst themselves, and will give you different answers. (I'd say your 'writing' is a gerund.) – Edwin Ashworth Mar 2 '14 at 0:04
The grammaticality of the examples you present is fine. You analysis of the pure verbal noun
is a possible misnomer (see more below). The act of generating a
verbal noun is formally known as Nominalization. The attributes of a
given verb are limited by the nominal construction and lexical
considerations not by the verb root itself.
In the example you give "Good writing requires hard work." writing cannot take an object, but if you were to say "My writing requires hard work." then you could easily add an object producing "My writing papers is hard work.". The nominalized verbs ability to continue to take an object depends on the syntax of the noun phrase, not the nominalization of the verb itself.
As for the concept of a pure verbal noun, I don't think that will hold up. The valence of a verb (i.e. which objects it takes) appears to be a limitation of the syntactic construction than of the verb itself. It is also problematic that grammarians will describe some of these phonomena with terms that are not used in linguistics (my background). I think a good test for this is to see how many of the identified pure verbal noun constructions are preceeded by an article or some other quantifier that limits and/or changes the verb/object relationship.
In the example you give "Good writing requires hard work." writing cannot take an object, but if you were to say "My writing requires hard work." then you could easily add an object producing "My writing papers is hard work.". The nominalized verbs ability to continue to take an object depends on the syntax of the noun phrase, not the nominalization of the verb itself.
As for the concept of a pure verbal noun, I don't think that will hold up. The valence of a verb (i.e. which objects it takes) appears to be a limitation of the syntactic construction than of the verb itself. It is also problematic that grammarians will describe some of these phonomena with terms that are not used in linguistics (my background). I think a good test for this is to see how many of the identified pure verbal noun constructions are preceeded by an article or some other quantifier that limits and/or changes the verb/object relationship.
As both John Lawler and Edwin Ashworth note in the comments, you are
correct. The primary example on the Wikipedia article you wrote is very
similar to the usage you are asking about:
A verbal noun is a noun formed from or otherwise corresponding to a verb. Different languages have different types of verbal noun and different ways of forming and using them. An example of a verbal noun in English is the word singing in the sentence "I think singing is fun" (this is a noun formed from the verb sing).You could, for instance, write:
Good singing requires hard work.Your use of "writing" is operating in the same manner.
Life's much simpler if we look at a gerund as verb present
continuous, where it is, and a nominalization of verb, where it is.
The two uses are unrelated in behavior.
Verbs and nouns are chalk and cheese. The underlying semantic is common but the POSs are distinct.
The two uses are unrelated in behavior.
Verbs and nouns are chalk and cheese. The underlying semantic is common but the POSs are distinct.
@Elizabeth: You got it. Nouns
are words that behave like nouns grammatically; verbs are words that
behave like verbs grammatically. It's not a matter of definition, it's a
matter of tests. Everybody has a syntax lab, but few of us are trained
to use it properly. Some more examples of syntax lab work here.
– John Lawler
Mar 1 '14 at 20:48
-
1And you've got to massage the tests if you wish to avoid conflicts. 'Tell Jim that his slowly painting his aunt is making her bored' needs political brazenness for one to pronounce a 'noun' or 'verb' verdict. I'm with Quirk's gradience ('painting' here is somewhere in between). – Edwin Ashworth Mar 1 '14 at 23:59
-
2I know you want 'the correct answer' here, Elizabeth; you think it's a matter of mastering a difficult bit of English. The truth is that different experts actually disagree amongst themselves, and will give you different answers. (I'd say your 'writing' is a gerund.) – Edwin Ashworth Mar 2 '14 at 0:04
The grammaticality of the examples you present is fine. You analysis of the pure verbal noun
is a possible misnomer (see more below). The act of generating a
verbal noun is formally known as Nominalization. The attributes of a
given verb are limited by the nominal construction and lexical
considerations not by the verb root itself.
In the example you give "Good writing requires hard work." writing cannot take an object, but if you were to say "My writing requires hard work." then you could easily add an object producing "My writing papers is hard work.". The nominalized verbs ability to continue to take an object depends on the syntax of the noun phrase, not the nominalization of the verb itself.
As for the concept of a pure verbal noun, I don't think that will hold up. The valence of a verb (i.e. which objects it takes) appears to be a limitation of the syntactic construction than of the verb itself. It is also problematic that grammarians will describe some of these phonomena with terms that are not used in linguistics (my background). I think a good test for this is to see how many of the identified pure verbal noun constructions are preceeded by an article or some other quantifier that limits and/or changes the verb/object relationship.
In the example you give "Good writing requires hard work." writing cannot take an object, but if you were to say "My writing requires hard work." then you could easily add an object producing "My writing papers is hard work.". The nominalized verbs ability to continue to take an object depends on the syntax of the noun phrase, not the nominalization of the verb itself.
As for the concept of a pure verbal noun, I don't think that will hold up. The valence of a verb (i.e. which objects it takes) appears to be a limitation of the syntactic construction than of the verb itself. It is also problematic that grammarians will describe some of these phonomena with terms that are not used in linguistics (my background). I think a good test for this is to see how many of the identified pure verbal noun constructions are preceeded by an article or some other quantifier that limits and/or changes the verb/object relationship.
As both John Lawler and Edwin Ashworth note in the comments, you are
correct. The primary example on the Wikipedia article you wrote is very
similar to the usage you are asking about:
A verbal noun is a noun formed from or otherwise corresponding to a verb. Different languages have different types of verbal noun and different ways of forming and using them. An example of a verbal noun in English is the word singing in the sentence "I think singing is fun" (this is a noun formed from the verb sing).You could, for instance, write:
Good singing requires hard work.Your use of "writing" is operating in the same manner.
Life's much simpler if we look at a gerund as verb present
continuous, where it is, and a nominalization of verb, where it is.
The two uses are unrelated in behavior.
Verbs and nouns are chalk and cheese. The underlying semantic is common but the POSs are distinct.
The two uses are unrelated in behavior.
Verbs and nouns are chalk and cheese. The underlying semantic is common but the POSs are distinct.
