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/
|
