Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:38:54.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Future of for to

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Elly van Gelderen
Elly van Gelderen
Affiliation:
Department of EnglishArizona State UniversityBox 87032 Tempe, AZ 85287–0302 [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I examine the development of for to and for in several stages of English. I argue that as prepositions grammaticalize, they acquire certain intrinsic features and occupy special positions. In Old English, for to is a P, related to Case, and has some future sense (through an extension of the locative meaning). Verbs do not subcategorize for complements with for (yet), however. In early Middle English, for to is used to introduce a complement with future meaning. Now, for (to) occupies C, which I assume is universally true for purpose/future indicators. In late Middle English, the situation solidifies, and more verbs select a complement with for (to) indicating purpose and futurity. In Early Modern English, for to disappears, but for separated from to takes over its function of introducing purposive adjuncts and future complements.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring 1998 , pp. 45 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alston, R. C. (ed.) 1970. Richard Mulcaster's The first part of the Elementary. Menston, England: The Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Bacon, F. 1601 [1904]. Bacon's essaies: A facsimile edition. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.Google Scholar
Brook, G. L., and Leslie, R. F. (eds.). 1963. Layamon: Brut. (EETS, 250.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, N. 1971. (ed.). Paston letters and papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Eddy, W. A. (ed.). 1933. Swift's Gulliver's travels. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, L., Richardson, M., and Fisher, J. (eds.). 1984. An anthology of chancery English. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Klaeber, F. (ed). 1950. Beowulf and The fight at Finnsburg. 3rd edn.Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
Kökeritz, H. (ed.). 1954. Mr. William Shakespeare's comedies, histories & tragedies: A facsimile edition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Krapp, G. P. (ed.). 1931. The Junius manuscript. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Krishna, V. (ed.). 1976. The alliterative Morte Arthure. New York: Burt Franklin.Google Scholar
Macaulay, G. C. (ed.). 1899–1902. The complete works of John Gower. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, F. N. (ed.). 1974. The complete works of Geoffrey Chaucer. 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tolkien, J., and Gordon, E. (eds.). 1925. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Skeat, W. (ed.). 1954. The vision of Piers the Plowman. Vol 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Abney, S. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Akmajian, A., Steele, S., and Wasow, T.. 1979. The category of AUX in Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10.1–64.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W.. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1992. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. (MIT occasional papers in linguistics, 1.) Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H.. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8.425–504.Google Scholar
Demske-Neumann, U. 1994. Modales Passiv und Tough Movement: Zur strukturellen Kausalität eines syntaktischen Wandels im Deutschen und Englischen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
du Plessis, H. 1984. Sintaktiese variasie in die Afrikaans van die Griekwas. Die Afrikaans van die Griekwas in die tagtigerjare, ed. by van Rensburg, M. C. J., 1.37–195. Bloemfontein: University of the Orange Free State.Google Scholar
Enç, M. 1987. Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18.633–57.Google Scholar
Erdmann, P. 1986. Die for-to-Konstruktion im britischen und amerikanischen Englisch. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 11.139–55.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 1989. The rise of for NP to V constructions: An explanation. An historic tongue, ed. by Nixon, G. and Honey, J., 67–88. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 1995. The distinction between to and bare infinitival complements in late Middle English. Diachronica 12.1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, E. van 1993. The rise of functional categories. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, E. van. 1996. The Case of the object in the history of English. Linguistic Analysis 26.1–2, 117–33.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., and Hunnemeyer, F.. 1991. From cognition to grammar: Evidence from African languages. In Traugott and Heine (eds.), 149–87.Google Scholar
Henry, A. 1992. Infinitives in a for-to dialect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10.279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, A. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jack, G. 1991. The infinitive in early Middle English prose. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 92.311–41.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1977. X' syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1981. On certain differences between French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 12.349–71.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1989. Facets of Romance past participle agreement. Dialect variation and the theory of grammar, ed. by Benincà, P., 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Louden, M. 1992. Language contact and the relationship of English and German. Recent developments in Germanic linguistics, ed. by Lippi-Green, R., 115–25. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oxford English dictionary (OED). 1933. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ponelis, F. 1968. Grondtrekke van die Afrikaanse sintaksis. Pretoria: van Schaik.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponelis, F. 1993. The development of Afrikaans. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., and Svartvik, J.. 1970. Types and uses of non-finite clause in Chaucer. English Studies 51.393–410.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 1982. The tense of infinitives. Linquistic Inquiry 13.560–70.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14.389–405.Google Scholar
Traugott, E., and König, E.. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott and Heine (eds.), 189–218.Google Scholar
Traugott, E., and Heine, B. (eds.). 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. 1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Visser, F. 1963–1973. An historical syntax of the English language. 3 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, A. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the methodology of historical syntax: A study of the Wyclifite Sermons. University Park and London: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Winford, D. 1985. The syntax of fi complements in Caribbean English Creole. Language 61.588–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar