Kathleen, I love it! I'm always interested in authentic language usage that
supports linguistic concepts. Song lyrics work so well because they closely
resemble spoken language. I'm going to add this to my list for grammar log
source material. In the grammar log, students analyze language samples and
identify how the sample differs from Standard English, what rules govern the
differences, what elements are appropriate for what audience, etc.

Imma be bringing the Black Eyed Peas to class with me tomorrow!

John

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Kathleen Johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hello,
> (My first time venturing onto the list.)
> As I read your comments on "am going to," I recalled listening to a song my
> daughter had on the radio by the Black Eyed Peas. It's  a great example of
> the evolution of language:  (Imma Be = I am going to be)
>
> Black Eyed Peas: Imma Be Lyrics
>  Imma be on the next level
> Imma be rockin' over that bass treble
> Imma be chillin' with my mutha mutha crew
> Imma be makin' all them deals you wanna do
>
> Imma be up in them A-list flicks
> Doin' one-handed flips, and Imma be sippin' on drinks
> 'Cause Imma be shakin' my hips
> You gon' be lickin' your lips
>
> etc., etc.
>
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:02:16 -0400
>  Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Herb,
>>   I find this sort of lens very interesting, very useful. It gives us a
>> view of language as very dynamic, very much emergent, and what we are
>> dealing with is more PATTERN than rule. Frequency is, in fact, one of the
>> most important mechanisms for change. Elements that chunck lose
>> analysability. "Am going to," for example, becomes a single construction in
>> its more grammatical uses.
>>  Bybee seems to be saying in her fine book that some of these patterns of
>> change are the same across languages, which would seem to imply at least
>> mild (or tentative) predictability. This would be, not because the grammar
>> is innate, but because the domain general processes are the same across the
>> human family. Commonly, constructions meaning "movement toward goal" take on
>> meanings of intention and then prediction. This is partly, as Bybee sees it,
>> because of a mechanism by which the inferential meaning in a context becomes
>> part of the expressed meaning over time. Verbs of "knowing" become
>> expressions of "ability" (as has happened with "can). Having power ("maeg")
>> infers permission. And so on.
>>   We also have functional pressure as well. All these elements in question
>> are what Langacker would call "grounding elements." What we want to know of
>> an event is whether or not it happens, is happening, has happened, will
>> happen, is over with, sometimes in relation to other events. We make
>> predictions about things that haven't happened yet and want to hedge our
>> degree of certainty (could, might, will). We hedge certainty about present
>> and past realities as well. We also want to be able to add "deontic"
>> ("root") (social context) meanings: whether something is obligatory or
>> desirable or permitted, for example (should, ought to, must, may). Some of
>> these, of course, have a range of meanings and shift in and out of those
>> categories. Even if they exhibit formal differences that would argue for
>> different classifications, they may be very much alike in terms of their
>> contribution to discourse--may, in fact, be part of a range of options to
>> accomplish that grounding work.
>>   If our reliance on these has been growing over time (percentage of
>> clauses with modals steadily increasing), it stands to reason that we would
>> continue to develop options to get it done, some of them carefully nuanced.
>>  That's a view of the language incorporating cognitive and functional
>> concerns.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>>
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>> Terms like "modal" and "quasi-modal" or "semi-modal" suggest categorial
>>> distinctions that I've already expressed qualms about. Since I'm at least
>>> partly a historical linguist, I prefer thinking in terms of
>>> grammaticalization.  This is a process that's been getting quite a lot of
>>> attention in the field for about thirty years now.  Typically a content word
>>> begins to generalize or perhaps bleach semantically, like "come" or "go"
>>> forms in lots of languages that come to be used to mark future or "have"
>>> forms that come to mark perfect.  Both Germanic and Romance exhibit these.
>>>  The core modals in English are a prime example, starting out as full verbs
>>> in Old English, usually preterit presents, and then shedding more and more
>>> lexical content to become grammatical markers.  As these grammaticalization
>>> processes take place, words commonly also change phonologically.  OE "lic,"
>>> which meant "body," has grammaticalized to PDE "like" and "-ly."
>>>
>>> I think "have to" and "want to" are early in the grammaticalization
>>> process.  The semi-modal forms "hafta" or "hasta" show devoicing that "have
>>> taken" and "has taken" don't show.  However, that devoicing doesn't yet
>>> occur in the past, where "had to" doesn't become "haDa." The full
>>> contraction of "want to" to "wanna" occurs only if the subject of the
>>> infinitive and the subject of "want" are the same.  We say, "When do you
>>> wanna go?" but not "Whom do you wanna go?"  The latter has to have a full
>>> double /t/:  "Whom do you want t@ go?"  The fact that these expressions
>>> have started grammaticalizing doesn't tell us where they'll end up or if
>>> they'll end up in the same place. Maybe "hafta," etc. will become
>>> increasingly modal-like, but it appears to be following a different
>>> diachronic trajectory from "ought" and "need."  I don't bet on horses and I
>>> don't predict linguistic change.
>>>
>>> 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 Scott Woods [
>>> [log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: September 7, 2010 1:40 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: have + infinitive
>>>
>>> Dear List,
>>>
>>> Is it reasonable to think of "have + infinitive" as a modal construction
>>> with the infinitive being the verb of the sentence?
>>>
>>> <I have to go> <I have to eat> <I ought to go> < I ought to eat> <I must
>>> go> <I must eat> all seem like very similar ways of saying the same thing.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Scott Woods
>>>
>>> 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/
>

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/