The Syntax of Early English - Cryptm.org

Grammaticalization and grammar change 2939.3 Two case studiesIn this section we will discuss two developments in the history ofEnglish which have been generally considered to be typical cases ofgrammaticalization. In each case we will highlight different aspects of theprinciples and mechanisms of grammaticalization, as discussed in the previoussection, and we will show that the process does not always follow the‘regular’ path defined by these basic principles. We believe that the shape ofthe synchronic grammar, i.e. the grammatical system at each stage of thedevelopment, must be taken into account because it may alter the interpretationof the process in question, and as a result also the interpretationof the characteristics or principles of grammaticalization in a more generalsense.9.3.1 The grammaticalization of have toIt has usually been taken for granted that the historical developmentof English have to represents a ‘regular’ case of grammaticalization from a fullverb, possessive have, to an auxiliary. Thus, van der Gaaf (1931), followed byVisser (1963–73: § 1396 ff.), accepts the following developmental stages for theconstruction, I have my work to do/I have to do my work: 2(3) • have at first is used as a full verb, meaning ‘to possess’• the NP (work) functions as the direct object of have• the to-infinitive is not obligatory• the infinitive functions as an adjunct dependent on the NP• word order is not relevant; it does not influence meaningIn a subsequent stage of the development, the meaning of have is slowlybleached and generalized and it is said to acquire modal colouring incombination with the to-infinitive, which now becomes obligatory. Theinfinitive no longer functions as an adjunct to the NP but as an object complementof the matrix verb have, and the original object of have becomes an argumentof the infinitive. In the final stage, have is bleached further before theinfinitive and now expresses only duty or obligation. Syntactically have hasbecome ‘to all intents and purposes’ (van der Gaaf 1931: 184) an auxiliary,which resulted in reanalysis or rebracketing from (4a) to (4b).(4) a. I have [my work to do]b. I [have to do] my work2Neither van der Gaaf nor Visser use the term ‘grammaticalization’, but it is quiteclear that this is the process they have in mind.