The Syntax of Early English - Cryptm.org

Grammaticalization and grammar change 303verb, and that the object of the infinitive (if present) became positioned afterthe infinitive (although somewhat later in time) as well. But this had no furtherconsequences for the syntax or semantics of the constructions involved.The case was different with the A3 construction, however. Recall that we haveonly one object here. The object is syntactically selected by have (the infinitivalclause being a relative clause to the NP object of have, with a structure [ NPnoman [ CPOP i[ PRO to teach t i]]]. At the OV stage, it can therefore be interpretedas the object of both have and the infinitive, i.e. the construction is ambiguousbetween one where the object receives a -role from have, and one where itreceives a thematic role from the infinitive. In Old English, the position of thisobject would follow have in main clauses (due to Verb-Second) and precede theinfinitive. In subordinate clauses it follows have because to-infinitives are typicallyclause-final (cf. Los 1999). It is to be noted, therefore, that the NP in A3constructions normally occupies pre-infinitival position, i.e. the normal positionfor a syntactic object governed by the infinitive, thus strengthening its thematiclink with the infinitive. Since have is semantically not a very ‘concrete’verb (i.e. its meaning is relational rather than fully referential), it seems likelythat thematically the object was closer to the infinitive than to have.What happens to this construction when VO order is firmly established? Theearlier ambiguity now had to be resolved: the learner could interpret the objectas being theta-selected by have, and it would therefore remain in the samesurface position and immediately follow have. If the learner postulated that itsthematic link with the infinitive was stronger, it would shift to postinfinitivalposition, and be syntactically selected by the infinitive. This is indeed whatmust have happened in many cases, see (17). The result of this was that haveand the infinitive became adjacent in constructions where the object wasreinterpreted syntactically as an infinitival object. This, more than anythingelse, must have triggered the slide of have towards auxiliary status.(17) Old English: SOV[NP shave [NP o[ OP iPRO to infinitive t i]]] (main and subordinate clauses)Late Middle English: SVO[NP shave [NP [ OP iPRO to infinitive t i]]]I have a letter to write[NP shave [NP oto infinitive]][NP shave to infinitive [NP o]]I have to write a letterWhat we are in fact suggesting then for this particular case of grammaticalizationis that there was a situation of layering all through the Old English periodand most of the Middle English period. There were a number of types of haveto-infinitive constructions with different semantic/pragmatic interpretations