The Syntax of Early English - Cryptm.org

Changes in infinitival constructions 239which to enables the governing verb to transmit its head-government andcase properties (Lightfoot 1991: 89, 91). 14 As we see it, there are a numberof problems with this proposal. First of all, the notion of coalescence itselfis somewhat abstract, and in the more customary sense of coalescencesomewhat unusual because the elements that coalesce (to and the governingverb) are not adjacent, nor do they have a semantic relation with oneanother. Cases of coalescence in the literature are motivated either by adjacencyor by a semantic relation between the two elements that become coalesced.If coalescence were to occur in this case, one would expect it to haveinvolved to and the infinitive, which are adjacent and form a semanticunity. 15 However, in Lightfoot’s scenario, the coalescence of to with the governingverb is necessary so that to can be said to transmit case in constructionslike (31a). A more serious problem, however, is the way Lightfootrelates the word order change to the change in to. He first discusses how aconstruction like (21i b), Ic seah turftredan, becomes, I saw turfbe(ing)trod. This is due to the SOV SVO change (the basic word order changepostulated here), because the Middle-English-speaking (SVO) child willinterpret the NP turf before the verb tredan as a subject rather than anobject. The use of the passive infinitive will then automatically followbecause the child has no access to anything beyond the embedded subjectposition (according to Lightfoot’s degree-0 learnability hypothesis). Next,Lightfoot argues that object-control verbs (of the type given in (21iii))undergo the same reanalysis. This is also our argument here. We have shownthat object-control verbs follow the causative verbs in taking a passiveinfinitive through analogical extension, the causative control verbs being14The change in the status of to is important because it opens up the possibility ofexplaining a number of new infinitival constructions in Middle English together (soin Lightfoot’s case also the structure given in (3iii) and some others) as the result ofone and the same parameter shift.15Cases of coalescence invoked in the literature are, for instance, the rebracketing ofwantto-infinitive and (to be) goingto-infinitive into want toinfinitive andgoing toinfinitive; that coalescence has occurred becomes evident from the later,alternative forms wanna and gonna. This coalescence was motivated by the fact thatthese verbs and the to-infinitives were adjacent, but also because ‘purposive’ to wassemantically compatible with the future intention implied in verbs like want and go(cf. Hopper and Traugott 1993: 82–93). Another well-known example of coalescenceis the reanalysis of verbparticle into phrasal verbs, which is the topic ofchapter 6. It is clear from the discussion there that it was the change in particle positionthat took place in Middle English, i.e. the development of a fixed position ofthe particle after the verb, that enabled particle verbs to develop into what are nowcalled phrasal verbs.