Gregg,

As to the history of these "have to" constructions, Karl has handled that well.  The three books you list are all worthwhile reads.  I'd probably start with the first Goldberg book.  The Levin/Hovav book is an excellent review of the state of semantic and syntactic research on argument structure, that is, on explanations for how particular roles associate with specific verbs or classes of verbs.  From a pedagogical perspective, I'd still recommend Levin (1993) as a useful reference work as well as general survey of verb constructions.  The other books you list will be of interest if you'd like to pursue the linguistic issues involved.  I find that a very interesting area of research, but it's not one that has a lot of bearing on the teaching of grammar in K-12 or even to undergraduate English and Language Arts majors.

Herb

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gregg Heacock [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: December 3, 2008 3:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Correct?

Herbert,
I raised a question about the possible evolution of usage for "have" as in "I have to do this."  Might this have developed from "I have this to do"?  Do you believe Beth Levin's book would cover this?  I went to Amazon to check out her work.  This led me to other works you or others may be able to comment upon:
Argument Realization (Research Surveys in Linguistics)by Beth Levin,
Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language by Adele Goldberg,
Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure (Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture Series) by Adele E. Goldberg
All of these sound interesting.  I am curious to know what you or others have to say of these works.
Much obliged,
Gregg


On Dec 3, 2008, at 11:18 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:

From a lexical semantic and syntactic point of view, let me once again recommend Beth Levin's English Verb Classes and Alternations (Chicago 1993) as the most detailed published analysis I know of of how meaning and form work together to classify verbs in useful ways.  Of course, her overall classification, with about 330 classes, might be a bit much for an undergrad grammar class, but as a reference work and as an introduction to the subtlety and power of the concepts, it's a great piece of scholarship to have on your shelf.  And she is pretty much neutral when it comes to theory, at least in this book.  You don't have to be a linguist to read it.

Herb

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: December 3, 2008 11:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Correct?

Bruce,
   If I want a problem to go away or want my refrigerator to fill up, then I don't expect the problem or the refrigerator to do anything. But that only becomes a problem when we want to define the construction in a narrow way. If the construction builds from the ground up, then we need to expect these anomalies in the same way we expect word meanings to grow and change.
   Is wanting X to Y the same as expecting X to Y? How about encouraging? discouraging? Helping? Ordering? Making? The more abstract the classification pattern, the further it drifts from the real world of meaning.
  Each of these verbs uses these constructions in unique ways. The patterns build from use, not independently of it.

Craig

Bruce Despain wrote:
Your pattern,  “If I say that ‘X V-ed Y to Z’ am I saying that it’s Y who will be doing the Z-ing?” looks like what might be described in a constructional grammar (CG).   These folks are averse to describing the relationships of constructions as built up of other constructions.  They like to contrast the usage construction meaning vs. the grammatical construction meaning.

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 7:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Correct?

Dear All:

I suspect that one of the reasons that many modern grammars use what seem to be simplistic structural pattern definitions (e.g. [S V DO INF] for both “We wanted him to be hired” and “We wanted him to go home”) is that the differences among those sentences are differences in what the various participants are doing – the relationships among them – and we don’t really have a theoretically agnostic way of talking about that. The minute a term like “underlying subject” is used, the description is locked into a particular model.

This is true of all descriptions, of course (simply by using a label like “infinitive,” I’ve committed to a kind of model), but cases like these bring up major points of contention among current models. Almost everyone who works on English is happy with the term “infinitive,” but there is nowhere near the same level of consensus  about the idea that infinitives are really, truly, made out of full sentences, etc. I have a knee-jerk reaction the minute I see a phrase like “underlying subject,” and I’m sure I use phrases that others on the list would have an immediate negative reaction to as well.  One way authors of grammar books can try to dodge the entire issue is simply to omit any references to this type of material at all, and thus we end up with [S V DO INF].

Older grammars, like the ones Herb mentions, did something that I think we can still do: we can all agree that there are different patterns of relationships among the participants, even if we don’t agree on why those differences exist. To some extent, the differences among the patterns can be “anchored” by relating them to native-speaker reactions to questions about implications of the structure (e.g. “If I say that ‘X V-ed Y to Z’ am I saying that it’s Y who will be doing the Z-ing?”).  In other words, we can adopt ways to probe for differences that there will be wide consensus on, even if there is no such consensus on what the differences mean for a theory of linguistic structure (this is what I’m trying to get at with the term “theoretically agnostic”).

Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University


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/

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/