Bruce, Craig, and others in this discussion, The point that Craig makes about language being organic and dynamic deserves more discussion. As I ruminate upon certain constructions, insights occur (though they may be fantasies masquerading as insights). "I have to do this" could have evolved from "I have this to do." I believe most of you are far more informed about the history of our common language than I. Can anyone say anything about this? I am convinced that semantics precedes syntax if only because the brain seeks meaning first and uses structure as a strategy in seeking meaning. And, yes, these evolve into conventions within a social framework, which is also a high priority of the mind. Best to you all, Gregg On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Bruce Despain wrote: > I couldn’t agree with you more. I believe that the CG linguists > would also agree. They think to have a framework that allows the > distinction to be made and the continuum you point out to be > splayed out into various colors. > Bruce > > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 9:52 AM > To: [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] > 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/