I followed Mark's link to Nathan's Notebook and found the following interesting clipping from a text transcript of Jon Stewart's appearance on Larry King Live on June 25.
Stewart has just mentioned that he is "not a pacifist" -- "As a matter of fact, I like bombing countries." Larry King is surprised, and Stewart clarifies:
Well, just purely for the knowledge of geography. It's just fascinating to learn about these countries. ... I didn't know Kabul was the capital of Afghanistan until we started bombing it. ... If we would haven't gone to war there, I certainly wouldn't have known that.
Would haven't? Totally ungrammatical, I think, and take comfort in the fact that at the top of the transcript page it says plainly:
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
I've never heard anyone actually utter one of these types of examples; if I didn't have a paper to get back to, maybe I'd hunt down some audio/video of the Jon Stewart appearance on Larry King to hear what it sounds like. It really is so strikingly ungrammatical to me that I can't even clearly imagine how it would sound.
But then I Googled {"would haven't"} and got 5,930 hits. (Of course, Google helpfully asks Did you mean: "would have", which would have gotten me 15,300,000 hits.) Here are some more interesting results (taking reductions of HAVE into account, which as we all know are often spelled in various ways):
| would haven't would ofn't would'ven't wouldan't |
5,930 |
would have not would of not would've not woulda not |
71,900 |
wouldn't have wouldn't of wouldn't've wouldn'ta |
1,690,000 |
would not have would not of would not've would nota |
2,960,000 |
| could haven't could ofn't could'ven't couldan't |
5,980 |
could have not could of not could've not coulda not |
15,400 |
couldn't have couldn't of couldn't've couldn'ta |
973,000 |
could not have could not of could not've could nota |
1,520,000 |
| should haven't should ofn't should'ven't shouldan't |
5,920 |
should have not should of not should've not shoulda not |
20,700 |
shouldn't have shouldn't of shouldn't've shouldn'ta |
843,000 |
should not have should not of should not've should nota |
1,270,000 |
| TOTALS | 17,907 |
111,468 |
3,655,900 |
4,647,310 |
|||
Although I find all of the modal-HAVE-n't examples in the left-hand column ungrammatical, I'll assume that these are not errors of some sort and that some speakers find them grammatical. But I have vague memories of reading somewhere (probably something by (Pullum &) Zwicky?) that n't can only be enclitic to the highest verb in a verbal projection (in this case, the modal) affixed to finite auxiliaries (including modals) [as Zwicky & Pullum (1983:507) point out; see update below]. So what gives? Here's my hypothesis:
I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is work out there somewhere showing that (1) is true, or at least plausible. (Remember, I'm a phonologist, I don't read much of this stuff anymore. For all I know, the whole topic I'm talking about here has already been addressed somewhere.)
The empirical claim in (2) needs verification, and in fact one might surmise that the separated Google results directly contradict it:
(unreduced HAVE) |
(reduced HAVE) |
||
| would haven't | 5,930 |
would ofn't would'ven't wouldan't |
29 |
| could haven't | 5,980 |
could ofn't could'ven't couldan't |
20 |
| should haven't | 5,920 |
should ofn't should'ven't shouldan't |
28 |
| TOTALS | 17,830 |
77 |
|
On average, then, I found about 232 instances of unreduced HAVE for every one instance of reduced HAVE (all three spellings combined) in the relevant examples. That's pretty striking. But here's what I think: a person writing down one of these examples really doesn't have much choice. Consider the options. Even if this person often writes e.g. woulda or would of, adding enclitic affixing n't to one of these is extremely odd. Enclitic The affix n't doesn't really fit well on would've either, because the result is a form with two apostrophes. So the person is left with would haven't -- not perfectly consistent with the reduced pronunciation, but the best orthographic alternative under the circumstances.
I realize this isn't quite sufficient evidence to reach the conclusion in (3), but that's my story and I'm sticking to it until I hear a better alternative. (Arnold? Geoff? Bueller?)
Interestingly, the single hit for could'ven't that I came across is an example sentence in a handout from a talk given by David Lightfoot. The sentence is starred:
34. a. Kim visited NY and Jim could've VPe. b. Kim visited NY and Jim couldn't VPe. c. Kim visited NY and Jim couldn't've VPe. d. I'd've visited NY. e. *Jim could'ven't seen it.
The reason? Apparently:
32. E. Syntactic rules can affect affixed words, but cannot affect clitic groups. F. Clitics can attach to material already containing clitics, but affixes cannot.
(As far as I can tell, there are no principles A-D anywhere in the handout. Maybe this is an example of auto-numbering in Microsoft Word gone haywire.)
|
Update, 8/1/04: Nope, just a case of citation without full representation in the body of the handout. Arnold Zwicky writes to tell me that (32E,F) are the last of six criteria distinguishing (inflectional) affixes from clitics in Zwicky & Pullum (1983), "Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't", Language 59.3, pp. 502-513 (cited in Lightfoot's references). My defense is in three parts:
|
Assuming that n't is an affix but that 've and 'd are clitics [as shown by Zwicky & Pullum 1983; see update above], the contrast between (34c,d) and (34e) follows from (32F).
(32E) is necessary to explain the following contrast. (33a) is grammatical because couldn't is an affixed word and thus licensed, by (32E), to invert with the subject Kim. (33b) is ungrammatical because could've is a clitic group and so is not licensed to invert.
33. a. Couldn't Kim see that? b. *Could've Kim seen that?
So, now I wonder a few things.
Good night.
[ Comments? ]
Posted by Eric Bakovic at July 31, 2004 02:58 AM