I would just point out as a way of countering the present flow of the
discussion that ALL the modal auxiliaries have been grammaticalized
into their current roles, and it seems silly to me to suppose that
happened because of formal rules or that this process is over. They
perform enormously important discourse functions, and it is reasonable
to assume that other structures (words or phrases) might be undergoing
the same process.
For a very good article on grammaticalization that focuses heavily on
"am going to", see Joan Bybee's "Cognitive Processes in
Grammaticalization", in The New Psychology of Language, vol. 2 (edited
by Micahel Tomasello). "Am going to" is very paralell to "will" in many
of its uses, and Bybee traces that out as a very recent historical
phenomenon.
We have had lengthy discussions recently about phrasal verbs and how
hard they can be to pin down. I propose that the modal system might be
thought of in similar ways, as a dynamic system pulling structures into
its orbit, some of which will show in-between kinds of characteristics.
If we take "Semantics" (I would say cognition) and discourse out of it,
we may rob the discussion of all usefulness. But as I said in my first
post, I know I'm in a different place from other people on list.
Craig
"Ought" is a semi-aux also because it takes a unmarked infinitive in the
> same non-assertive constructions as "need." Both have either a very
> formal or archaic quality.
>
> Herb
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
> Sent: 2009-04-03 14:40
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: (was: Lester's text in the classroom) (was: Phrasal Verb
> Overview)
>
> My feeling, for what it's worth, is that like many linguists Craig has
> gone directly to the semantics to understand the "semi-auxiliary"
> construction. Being aware of the semantics is very important in making
> the distinctions between the various syntactic structures, but should not
> mislead us. The structures are there for reasons in their own right and
> not simply historically. For example, the construction in "he ought to
> go" is a combination of a verb (preterite form of "owe") with a complement
> (direct object in the form of an infinitive phrase introduced by "to").
> The meaning of "ought" is certainly not a past tense, no more than the
> usual meaning of "must." Similarly the meaning of the direct object
> complement is not the same as many other direct objects. But it seems
> clear enough that the infinitive complement after "ought" is very similar
> in its force as the "bare" infinitive after "must." Hence, they are
> called "semi-auxiliary."
>
> The tense in "was supposed to" is past because of the form of the
> auxiliary "was." The "supposed" is a participle in a passive
> construction. The infinitive phrase is a retained object of this
> construction. The passive voice in this construction seems to be akin to
> that of the deponent verbs in Latin, where there was a disconnect between
> the form and meaning of their constructions. The infinitive as direct
> object has a number of origins and a number of interpretations.
>
> Bruce
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 11:43 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: (was: Lester's text in the classroom) (was: Phrasal Verb
> Overview)
>
> Janet,
> I have wrestled with this for some time.
> I currently see the phrasal verbs that seem like paraphrases of
> currently accepted modals as auxiliaries (and as modal.) You have one
> example in your sentence. ("Am going to". It can be seen as a
> paraphrase of "will")
> He ought to go. He must go.
> He is able to go. He can go.
> He is supposed to go. He should go.
> He has to go. He must go.
> These seem to allow us to combine modal notions (He ought to be able to go
> is OK, but he must can go is not) and occasionally modals plus tense. ("He
> was supposed to go" "He is supposed to go." Much more flexible than
> "must").
> Verbs like need,want, hope, desire (which can often function as nouns
> and /or have close noun counterparts) seem to differ in a couple of
> ways. They focus on internal motivation rather than external
> (obligation, responsibility, desirability [from outside]), or just
> plain old epistemic judgment about likelihood of occurrence. The
> infinitive complements (I would call them that) also carry over to the
> noun versions. "He hopes to study. His hope to study...She needs to
> study. Her need to study...)
> There's another group associated with beginning, starting, ceasing,
> continuing that take these complements as well. (And trying?) "He has
> started to..."
> I am wrestling with how much these participate in the grounding system
> of the clause--epistemic and deictic judgment help us understand the
> speaker's attitude about the desirability, likelihood and so on (subtly
> nuanced) of the process under focus. These in effect "ground" the
> process within a discourse context. So from this functional
> perspective, want to, need to and so on might, as grounding elements,
> be taking on an auxiliary like role, hence our confusion about exactly
> where to place them. They represent the internal motivation toward the
> occurrence of a process.
> I feel like it's hard for me to post to the list these days because I
> am in a different place and not quite settled with it yet. But this one
> comes close to home. These thoughts are very much work in progress.
>
> Craig
>
>
> Castilleja, Janet wrote:
>
> Hello
>
>
>
> In the following sentence: you are going to need to pay close attention,
>
> would you classify 'to pay close attention' as a subjectless infinitive
>
> clause functioning as a direct object?
>
>
>
> I was tempted to see 'need to' as a type of semi-auxiliary, but I
>
> checked Quirk et al. They (I think) would analyze it as above. Is that
>
> the consensus? Is there much argument about semi-auxiliaries?
>
>
>
> Janet
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
> and destroy all copies of the original message.
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
