I gonna/ I’m gonna

mplsray said:

[…] From this summary it appears that Lorenz considers gonna to have already become a separate word in speech. […]
… my opinion that gonna in writing is already (in certain limited contexts) standard usage. […]

Click to expand…

If it is a standard word in its own right (rather than a contraction, where reference can be made to the full original form), I would expect teachers of English to be able to tell learners what part of speech it is. Without such information, a learner may have great difficulty in constructing different sentences.

So what part of speech is it, and what’s the associated syntax? The nearest I can get is something like: ‘A pseudo-modal auxiliary verb which (unlike true modals) is used in combination with the present tense of the verb to be, thus forming a verbal phrase that has the characteristics of the present continuous tense, in which “gonna” acts as an irregular present participle. However, unlike other verbs used in this way (which are followed by a to-infinitive), “gonna” is followed by a bare infinitive.’ …. Ummm, no thanks!

Until such a description can be found published in language reference sources, I can’t see that it can be considered a standard word. At present its status is (depending on individual tolerance level) either a lazy-speech representation of “going to” or, at most , a recognised contraction of “going to’. In either case, it isn’t dissociated from the standard form, “going to”.

mplsray said:

[…] From my point of view, it is sufficient that standard speakers habitually use a given usage in speech for it to constitute standard usage. […]

Click to expand…

But there’s a big difference between a common spoken form (“a standard” if you must, but not necessarily “standard”) on the one hand, and acceptance as an established word on the other. If you equated the two, then Florentia’s example …

Florentia52 said:

[…] That pronunciation doesn’t make the phrases into new words. When I was in Australia, I heard people saying what sounded like “ey ya gown mite.” But that transcription is just an approximation of the sounds I heard; it doesn’t mean they said anything other than “How you going, mate?”

Click to expand…

… would mean that the word “ey” should be a recognised alternative to “how”, and similarly “ya”, “gown” and “mite” would be alternatives to “you”, “going” and “mate” respectively. It could be argued that that’s not the same issue, because it’s an AmE speaker’s interpretation of an AuE accent — but then it’s a similar situation with “gonna”. Packard and others have noted that “gonna” is not the pronunciation of the contraction in all regions of the US. In the UK, “gonna” certainly isn’t standard: the contraction is almost always [

g

ə

n

ə

], which a non-rhotic speaker might be tempted to write as “gerner”.

And I wonder what Lorenz might have to say about “goin”. It may well be more frequent than “going” in spoken English. So does that make it a word? Given the tendency for written forms to drive pronunciation, perhaps it should be pronounced to rhyme with “coin”! If “goin” isn’t considered a standard written word, then why should “gonna” be?

Ws

If it is a standard word in its own right (rather than a contraction, where reference can be made to the full original form), I would expect teachers of English to be able to tell learners what part of speech it is. Without such information, a learner may have great difficulty in constructing different sentences.So what part of speech is it, and what’s the associated syntax? The nearest I can get is something like: ‘A pseudo-modal auxiliary verb which (unlike true modals) is used in combination with the present tense of the verb, thus forming a verbal phrase that has the characteristics of the present continuous tense, in whichacts as an irregular present participle. However, unlike other verbs used in this way (which are followed by a to-infinitive),is followed by a bare infinitive.’…. Ummm, no thanks!Until such a description can be found published in language reference sources, I can’t see that it can be considered a standard word. At present its status is (depending on individual tolerance level) either a lazy-speech representation of “going to” or, at most , a recognised contraction of “going to’. In either case, it isn’t dissociated from the standard form, “going to”.But there’s a big difference between a common spoken form (“a standard” if you must, but not necessarily “standard”) on the one hand, and acceptance as an established word on the other. If you equated the two, then Florentia’s example …… would mean that the word “ey” should be a recognised alternative to “how”, and similarly “ya”, “gown” and “mite” would be alternatives to “you”, “going” and “mate” respectively. It could be argued that that’s not the same issue, because it’s an AmE speaker’s interpretation of an AuE accent — but then it’s a similar situation with “gonna”. Packard and others have noted that “gonna” is not the pronunciation of the contraction in all regions of the US. In the UK, “gonna” certainly isn’t standard: the contraction is almost always [], which a non-rhotic speaker might be tempted to write as “gerner”.And I wonder what Lorenz might have to say about “goin”. It may well be more frequent than “going” in spoken English. So does that make it a word? Given the tendency for written forms to drive pronunciation, perhaps it should be pronounced to rhyme with “coin”! If “goin” isn’t considered a standard written word, then why should “gonna” be?