3

In "THE MORPHOLEXICAL NATURE OF ENGLISH to-CONTRACTION", Pullum quotes four examples of usage of "wants to"/"wansta":

(5)
a. Teddy is the man Mike wants to send.
b. Teddy is the man Mike wants to go.
c. Teddy is the man Mike wansta send.
d. *Teddy is the man Mike wansta go.

I would like to understand the difference between 5c and 5d, and what makes 5d ungrammatical.


* is used to mark a sentence as ungrammatical.

2

To understand the difference between 5c and 5d, let's consider the following transformations:

(I)
a. Mike wansta send Teddy.
b. Mike wants Teddy to go.

(II)
a. Teddy is the man; Mike wansta send him.
b. Teddy is the man; Mike wants him to go.

(III)
a. Teddy is the man Mike wansta send.
b. Teddy is the man Mike wants to go.

These transformations suggest that the to-contraction is only grammatical for a string of words of the form "WANT + to + [infinitive]".

Let's try to test how far this rule goes by using a negative infinitive:

(IV)
a. I'll do any damned thing I have to not to drink.
b. I'll do any damned thing I hafta not to drink.

In conclusion, 5d is ungrammatical because it doesn't follow the pattern "WANT + to + [infinitive]".

  • 1
    Is the "wansta" contraction used in written English, because I've never seen it? – jinawee Jul 30 '14 at 10:03
  • @jinawee, no, it is not, it is used specifically by pullum to illustrate this linguistic point (which is very interesting). the point is that the non-pronunciation of the final t is prohibited in certain contexts. – hunter Jul 30 '14 at 10:14
  • @jinawee, here's an example. I reckon it is avoided in written English unless there's a reason to reproduce informal speech literally. – Nico Jul 30 '14 at 10:18
1

Alternative explanation: in colloquial English, wanna, hafta, gonna, have been reanalyzed infinitive constructions to modal verbs exactly like "must," "would," "should," etc. So the following is ungrammatical

*This is the candidate that I wanna win.

because the subject of "wanna" does not match the subject of "win."

(I switched to the first person because I want to separate the issue from wants to vs. "wansta.")

This explanation jives with the intuitive problem when you hear the (*) sentence ("wait, YOU wanna win??") and doesn't require transformational grammar, which, regardless of its truth value, is not so easy to learn for second language learners!

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.