I guess, as a linguist, I ought to weigh in on this one. Especially as a
linguist that practices a non-mainstream, cognitive/functional type of
linguistics.
In this approach to language, categories like 'modal' are not bound off
from other categories by impenetrable walls. Things could be on their way
into a category through a historical process called 'grammaticalization',
by which lexical ('open-class') items move into grammatical
('closed-class') functions. This process can take centuries, and the
items often straddle categories while they are on their way.
Expressions like 'have to' and 'be supposed to' are in just this place.
They are on their way to becoming modals. This is shown by their synonymy
with full modals (which, by the way, came from non-modals) like 'must'
and 'should'. It is also shown by their tendency to merge phonologically
('hafta'**, 'sposta'), which shows how their historical morphemic
complexity is turning into unanalyzability. Hence our little blip in
deciding how many morphemes are there.
**Note how the /v/ changes to /f/ under the influence of the following
/t/, which is voiceless. We wouldn't do this devoicing if the /tu/
following were the number: 'I have two dogs' would not be pronounced /haftu/,
while 'I have to go now' very well might, and usually is.
The fact that they do not behave in all respects the way true modals do
just reflects that they are not fully in the category yet. If they ever
get there, then they will take on more and more of the 'privileges' of
true modals.
Many, many of the 'weird' expressions of English, as a colleague nicely
notes, are in between categories in just this way.
Johanna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~
English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~
Tel. (805)-756-2184 E-mail: [log in to unmask] ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
