Bob,

    Phonetic reduction is a dynamic process directly related to frequency. Since “going to” can now combine in auxiliary like ways with main verbs, its use has dramatically expanded. Frequency of use correlates well with phonetic reduction. It’s an observation about how language shifts in form as it takes on new (expanded) function. Want to has expanded range of use in the same way. The same patterns are at work in its reduction.The consensus seems to be that it has modal like qualities.

    Biologists make observations about form all the time without thinking of life itself as a formal system. What we need, I think, is the equivalent of an anatomy and physiology. In the world of biology, the two are dynamically connected. No one would argue (scientifically) that biological forms are independent of function and no one would propose that forms are unimportant.

    In the biological world, it’s hard to draw strict clear lines between categories in part because adaptation is constant. Bybee’s point—and she’s not the only one making it—is that language is more like biology than it is like physics and chemistry. In some ways, this is a renewed interest in empirical observation. This is certainly not a retreat from form.



Craig



From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Yates

Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 6:16 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Relevance of Syntax & Semantics: "I'm gonna write me some music about"



I’m confused by the following observation from Craig.







Sent from Windows Mail



From: Hancock, Craig G<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎July‎ ‎10‎, ‎2014 ‎2‎:‎06‎ ‎PM

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>





As Bybee points out, the kind of phonetic reduction we get with 'gonna' and oughtta' is typical of grammaticalization. We don't say "I'm gonna New York" for "I'm going to New York," but we do say "I'm gonna take the train to New York" or "It's gonna rain." We only use it for expressions of intention and prediction, which are modal in function. This would be a good formal argument for "going to" functioning as a constituent group when modal functions are carried out, but not for physical movement: going plus to New York.







Now, if I understand Craig correctly, language is not a formal system, yet he just made a formal distinction between “going to” verb vs.” going to” location.  It seems to me that we are dealing with two different to’s.  The to in “going to” marks a verb and the to in making a location is a preposition.







By the way, gonna reduction is also reflected in wanna.







Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri