136 The Verb: Verbals
may be the subject or the object in a sentence, and only rarely an attribute, whereas the participle is an attribute first and foremost.
We should also bear in mind that in certain syntactical contexts the difference tends to be obliterated. For instance, if in the sentence
Do you mind my smoking? (where
smoking is a gerund) we substitute
me for
my, in the resulting sentence
Do you mind me smoking? the form
smoking may, at least, be said to be the participle. Again, in the sentence
Do you mind her smoking? where
her may be the possessive pronoun, corresponding to
my, or the objective case of the personal pronoun, corresponding to
me, the gerund and the participle are practically indistinguishable. We may say,
in terms of modern linguistics, that the opposition between them is neutralised.
1
If, on the other hand, we prefer to abandon the distinction and to speak of the
ing-form, we shall have to formulate its meaning and its functions in such a way as to allow for all the cases of the
ing-forms to be included. For instance, instead of distinguishing between substantival and adjectival qualities, we shall speak,
in a more general way, of nominal qualities, so as to embrace both the substantival and the adjectival ones, and so forth. Such a view seems also quite possible, and the decision to be taken will, as we have seen above, depend on the general attitude one adopts in matters of this kind.
1 The notion of neutralisation was first introduced by N. Trubetzkoy in his book on essentials of phonology
(Grundzuge der Phonologie, Prague, 1939; the book also appeared in a Russian translation in 1960).
The essential idea at the bottom of neutralisation in phonology may be briefly stated as follows. An opposition existing between two phonemes may under certain circumstances (which are to be strictly defined in each case) disappear, that is, it may lose its validity and become irrelevant. Such cases probably occur in every language. It will perhaps be best to give an example of neutralisation in Russian phonology. The sounds [t] and [d] are certainly different phonemes in Russian, as the difference between them may be the only means of distinguishing between two words. Compare, e.g., том 'volume' and дом 'house', or там 'there' and дам 'I shall give'. However, the difference between the two phonemes disappears at the end of a word (and also in some 'other cases). Thus, for example, the words рот 'mouth' and род 'genus' sound alike, a voiced [d] being impossible at the end of a word in Russian. Trubetzkoy says, accordingly, that the opposition between [t] and [d] is neutralised in those conditions.
To put it more exactly, whereas in the word том the relevant features of the initial phoneme are three, namely, it is (a) a forelingual consonant, (b) a stop, and (c) voiceless, and the initial consonant of дом also has three relevant features, namely, it is (a) a forelingual consonant, (b) a stop, (c) voiced, the final consonant in рот or род has only two relevant features: it is (a) a forelingual consonant, and (b) a stop. No third relevant feature is found here. The consonant is of
course phonetically voiceless, but the voicelessness is phonologically irrelevant, as the corresponding voiced consonant cannot appear in this position.
The notion of neutralisation has since been applied to grammar as well.