<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: semantics and pragmatics of
to-contraction</title></head><body>
<div>Another way of looking at this same set of contrasts is to say
that otherwise unmotivated phonological contraction is one of the
correlates of grammaticalization. In this case we are not using
a "deep structure" as a way of motivating the contraction
facts, but instead we are using the contraction facts to infer that a
grammatical reorganization is going on. it would then follow
that<i> wanna</i> in (9a) is an incipient desiderative, whereas the
disallowed<i> *wanna</i> in (14b) is not. Similarly,<i>
gotta</i> in (10a) is an incipient auxiliary of obligation, whereas
the disallowed<i> *gotta</i> in (10b) and<i> *getta</i> in (9b) are
not incipient auxiliaries of privilege/permission. Finally,<i>
oughtta</i> is clearly en route to being an auxiliary of
obligation/epistemic modality, whereas<i> *foughtta</i> is unlikely
ever to generalize to such a status. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>In this view of the problem, there is a role for both semantics
and frequency: the semantics of certain complement-taking verbs are
already well-designed to be exploited for novel expressions of common
TAM distinctions (obligation, permission, desire), whereas others are
not such good candidates (disputation). Then, from the pool of
possible candidates, communities of speakers adopt around certain
innovative expressions, which then increase in frequency. I
know of no proposals for how we might predict which of the potential
innovations is chosen (I believe this is a social -- rather than
cognitive -- phenomenon). But it is still clear that once an
innovative expression becomes popular, its frequency goes up
dramatically, at which point it becomes more susceptible to
contraction. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Spike</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> >So, we have the following
contrasts:<br>
> ><br>
> >(9) a. I wanna go.<br>
> > b. *I getta go.<br>
> >(10) a. I gotta go. (obligation)<br>
> > b. *I gotta go. (privilege)<br>
> ><br>
> >Also, compare the following pairs (pointed out to me by Paul
Postal email<br>
of<br>
> >08/03/01):<br>
> ><br>
> >(11) a. I ought PRO to go.<br>
> > b. I oughtta go.<br>
> >(12) a. I fought PRO to go.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> > b. *I foughtta go.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> ></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> >(14) a. Who do you want [to see
Bill]?</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> > b. *Who do you wan[na see
Bill]?</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>P.S. I believe the permission/privilege reading of<i>
may</i> and<i> can</i> is a secondary development, in each case
arising by implicature from an etymologically prior abilitative
reading. Are there well-attested cases in the literature of
permissive auxiliaries/affixes arising directly from permissive
matrix verbs like<i> get</i>, that have no abilitative reading at
all?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>