Английского

§ 6. The consideration of the English verbids in their mutual com-
parison, supported and supplemented by comparing them with their 
non-verbal counterparts, puts forward some points of structure and 
function worthy of special notice. 
In this connection, the infinitive-gerund correlation should first be 
brought under observation. 
Both forms are substance-processual, and the natural question that 
one has to ask about them is, whether the two do not repeat each 
other by their informative destination and employment. This ques-
tion was partly answered in the 

---

116
paragraph devoted to the general outline of the gerund. Observa-
tions of the actual uses of the gerund and the infinitive in texts do 
show the clear-cut semantic difference between the forms, which 
consists in the gerund being, on the one hand, of a more substan-
tive nature than the infinitive, i.e. of a nature nearer to the thing-
ness-signification type; on the other hand, of a more abstract nature 
in the logical sense proper. Hence, the forms do not repeat, but 
complement each other, being both of them inalienable compo-
nents of the English verbal system. 
The difference between the forms in question may be demonstrated 
by the following examples: 
Seeing and talking to people made him tired. (As characteristic of a 
period of his life; as a general feature of his 
disposition)
It made him tired to see and talk to so many 
people. (All at a time, on that particular occasion); Spending an af-
ternoon in the company of that gentle soul was always a wonderful 
pleasure. (Repeated action, general characteristic) To spend an af-
ternoon on the grass — lovely! (A 
response utterance of enthusiastic agreement); Who doesn't 
like singing? (In a general reference) -Who doesn't like 
to sing? (In reference to the subject) 
Comparing examples like these, we easily notice the more dy-
namic, more actional character of the infinitive as well as of the 
whole collocations built up around it, and the less dynamic charac-
ter of the corresponding gerundial collocations. Furthermore, be-
yond the boundaries of the verb, but within the boundaries of the 
same inter-class paradigmatic derivation (see above, Ch. IV, § 8), 
we find the cognate verbal noun which is devoid of processual dy-
namics altogether, though it denotes, from a different angle, the 
same referential process, situation, event. Cf.: 
For them to have arrived so early! Such a surprise!—— Their hav-
ing arrived so early was indeed a great surprise. Their early arri-
val was a great surprise, really. 
The triple correlation, being of an indisputably systemic nature and 
covering a vast proportion of the lexicon, enables us to interpret it 
in terms of a special lexico-grammatical category of processual 
representation. The three stages of this category represent the ref-
erential processual entity of the lexemic series, respectively, as dy-
namic (the infinitive and its phrase), semi-dynamic (the gerund and 
its phrase), and 

---

117
static (the verbal noun and its phrase). The category of processual 
representation underlies the predicative differences between vari-
ous situation-naming constructions in the sphere of syntactic nomi-
nalisation (see further, Ch. XXV). 
Another category specifically identified within the framework of 
substantival verbids and relevant for syntactic analysis is the cate-
gory of modal representation. This category, pointed out by L. S. 
Barkhudarov [Бархударов, (2), 151—152], marks the infinitive in 
contrast to the gerund, and it is revealed in the infinitive having a 
modal force, in particular, in its attributive uses, but also else-
where. Cf.: 
This is a kind of peace to be desired by all. (A kind of peace that 
should be desired) Is there any hope for us to meet this great violin-
ist in our town? (A hope that we may meet this violinist) It was ar-
ranged for the mountaineers to have a rest in tents before climbing 
the peak. (It was arranged so that they could have a rest in tents) 
When speaking about the functional difference between lingual 
forms, we must bear in mind that this difference might become 
subject to neutralisation in various systemic or contextual condi-
tions. But however vast the corresponding field of neutralisation 
might be, the rational basis of correlations of the forms in question 
still lies in their difference, not in neutralising equivalence. Indeed, 
the difference is linguistically so valuable that one well-established 
occurrence of a differential correlation of meaningful forms out-
weighs by its significance dozens of their textual neutralisations. 
Why so? For the simple reason that language is a means of forming 
and exchanging ideas — that is, ideas differing from one another, 
not coinciding with one another. And this simple truth should thor-
oughly be taken into consideration when tackling certain cases of 
infinitive-gerund equivalence in syntactic constructions — as, for 
instance, the freely alternating gerunds and infinitives with some 
phasal predicators (begin, start, continue, cease, etc.). The func-
tional equivalence of the infinitive and the gerund in the composi-
tion of the phasal predicate by no means can be held as testifying 
to their functional equivalence in other spheres of expression. 
As for the preferable or exclusive use of the gerund with a set of 
transitive verbs (e.g. avoid, delay, deny, forgive, mind, postpone) 
and especially prepositional-complementive verbs and word-
groups (e.g. accuse of, agree to, depend on, prevent from, think of, 
succeed in, thank for; be aware of, 

---

118
be busy in, be indignant at, be sure of), we clearly see here the ten-
dency of mutual differentiation and complementation of the sub-
stantive verbid forms based on the demonstrated category of proc-
essual representation. In fact, it is the gerund, not the infinitive, 
that denotes the processual referent of the lexeme not in a dynamic, 
but in a half-dynamic representation, which is more appropriate to 
be associated with a substantive-related part of the sentence.