Craig,

You tend to look at these questions from cognitive and functional
perspectives and I tend to see them through a historical lens.  These
two approaches are complementary rather than incompatible because most
of diachronic change in morphosyntax is, or at least starts out,
analogical.  A simple, almost trivial example, is the spreading
replacement of "by accident" with "on accident" by analogy to "on
purpose."  The replacement of strong verb forms by weak is another
example, such as "swelled" as the past participle of "swell" replacing
the older "swollen." We still hear "It's swollen up badly," but we also
hear without a sense of oddness "It's swelled up badly."  Or we have
older cases, like the Elizabethan "He hath holpen his servant Israel"
from the older KJV translation of the Magnificat vs. the modern "has
helped."  Analogy is a cognitive process and is at the root of a vast
amount of morphosyntactic change, though certainly not all of it.

"Due to" has become so widely used as a compound preposition in American
English that we no longer remark on it.  Older style guides might reject
it, but few writers or teachers in this country worry about it today.
Edmond suggests that the British attitude towards "due to" hasn't
relaxed quite so far, and this may mark a dialect difference.  Perhaps
the most obvious cases of adjectives becoming heads of compound
prepositions are verbs in -ing, that is, present participles like
"according," "owing," "depending," and many others, derived adjectives
that become parts of compound prepositions and gradually lost their
synchronic adjectival status as their meaning changes.  Analogy like
this tends to lead to just such grammaticalization, that is, to the
semantic bleaching of a form as a result of metaphor or metonymy so that
the form takes on a more functional rather than lexical role.

It is largely because of the cognitive processes of language change
through analogy that Sapir's maxim "All grammars leak" is so profoundly
true.  We have changes that are in progress, so that in some cases a
word may have traits both of adjectives and of prepositions and doesn't
fit neatly into either category, which is closer to what Sapir meant.

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: 2008-03-27 08:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: due to

Edmond,
   I'm not overly fond of your examples, but "due to" is used in that
way
in the states enough by thoughtful people (like myself) that I wouldn't
call it an error. "Owing to" seems rare to me, and would probably seem
lightly stuffy on these shores. Which probably just means I'm defending
my own natural tendencies.
    "Due to inclement weather, the game has been cancelled.">
    "Due to problems with the network feed, we are delaying the
program."
   Because I am doing so much reading in cognitive (and construction)
grammars, it suddenly seems strange to me that we need to classify the
construction according to some more abstract principles. If grammar
builds bottom up rather than top down, then there's no need for this.
   We can think of it as a lower level schema.
   "Due to X, Y has been done."  "Due to X, Y will happen."
   I think it means something like "as a result of" or "because of". All
three allow us to reduce causation to a noun construction. We say
"because it rained" or "because of the rain." But we don't say "because
the rain" or "because of it rained."
   It's hard for me to see "due" as adjective here (though it would be
in
"the book is due today") because "due to" seems to head a construction
that is at least commonly adverbial, laying out reasons for action in
the main clause. But it doesn't head a clause. So preposition seems
closest.
   But I think it's more productive to think of it as a schema that
allows
certain kinds of meanings than it is to spend so much energy finding
its classification.
   All grammars leak because the language never needed to hold water in
the first place. (I'm working on the right phrasing for that one.)
   I hope that's more than rambling.

Craig

> As an English English speaker I note that, in the discussion over 'due
>> to', no
> one has referred to what is regarded as a common error over here, one
> which is
> bidding fair to become standard.  You all refer to 'due' correctly in
my
> view as
> an adjective.  But it is now often used here as the first word of an
> adverbial
> prepositional phrase thus:
>
> They cancelled the match due to the rain.
> Due to his complaints the menu was withdrawn.
> Due to the protests from the Catholic clergy, a free vote has now been
> allowed in the Commons.
>
> I myself wince when reading these, preferring 'owing to' in place of
'due
> to'.  Has this error found any takers in America?
>
> Edmond
>
>
>
> Dr. Edmond Wright
> 3 Boathouse Court
> Trafalgar Road
> Cambridge
> CB4 1DU
> England
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/
> Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256
>
> 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/