Book review

Auxiliary Verb Constructions

Anderson, Gregory D.S. 2006. Auxiliary Verb Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Reviewed by Martin Hilpert, Department of Linguistics, Rice University (current affiliation: U.C. Berkeley)

Auxiliary Verb Constructions is a large-scale typological investigation of auxiliary verbs based on a representative sample of approximately 800 languages. Anderson characterizes the general approach of his study as panchronic, functional, and constructional. The leading questions are thus How do auxiliary verb constructions emerge?, What functional domains do they express?, and What are their morphosyntactic properties at the constructional level?

The introductory chapter defines the subject matter of the study, proposes four cross-linguistic types of Auxiliary Verb Constructions (AVCs), and outlines the general structure of the volume.

Anderson broadly defines auxiliaries as grammatical markers of TAM, negative polarity, voice, and direction, that develop out of lexical verbs. AVCs are defined as monoclausal structures with one verbal element expressing lexical meaning and a second one contributing grammatical, functional information. The latter definition is more inclusive than corresponding definitions in Heine (1993) and Kuteva (2001), as it also encompasses serial verb constructions and other complex predicates (Alsina et al. 1997).

Anderson's typology of AVCs hinges on the notion of headedness. There is currently no consensus about the question of what constitutes the head of an AVC, and Anderson proposes that this is the case because headedness is not invariant across different AVCs. He defines the respective verbal element carrying person, number, and TAM inflection as the head of an AVC, which yields the four possible types of AUX-headed constructions, LEX-headed constructions, a double pattern in which both elements carry the same inflectional morphology, and a split pattern in which the morphology is distributed across both elements.

The first four analytical chapters of the book address each of these types in turn. A sixth chapter investigates AVCs in which the auxiliary has undergone univerbation with its lexical host. The final seventh chapter is devoted to the diachronic development of AVCs.

Chapter 2 discusses AUX-headed constructions. In this construction type, the auxiliary itself is a finite verbal element that bears inflectional morphology and encodes grammatical information, while the lexical verb functions as a complement of the auxiliary and appears in a non-finite form. In some languages, auxiliaries occur mainly with infinitive complements. German Er will schlaf-en 'He wants sleep-INF' is an example. Cross-linguistically, AUX-headed AVCs occur with a much wider set of non-finite verb forms. The subsections of chapter 2 are organized according to the respective forms of the lexical complement. In the investigated sample of languages, auxiliaries take complements that are infinitives, nominalizations of lexical forms, gerunds, participles, or forms that are reduplicated, case-marked, subjunctive, or otherwise marked as syntactically subordinate. Each type is illustrated with examples from several languages. In the spirit of Croft's Radical Construction Grammar (2001), Anderson emphasizes the language-specific characteristics of the different constructions, since the categories of infinitive, gerund, or subjunctive cannot be thought of as cross-linguistically universal categories. Also, each construction may exhibit some variability in itself, in that auxiliaries may co-occur with different types of non-finite complements. To illustrate, both start dancing and start to dance are acceptable in English.

Chapter 3 introduces the category of LEX-headed AVCs. Anderson concedes that this category is somewhat controversial, as it falls outside the scope of most current definitions of the term auxiliary. LEX-headed AVCs, consist of an inflected lexical verb and an uninflecting element that adds grammatical information to the expression. While uninflecting elements are usually categorized as particles, Anderson makes the case that the verbal origin of these elements, as evidenced by diachronic origin and synchronic syntactic behavior, warrants a categorization of these items as auxiliaries. While AUX-headed constructions can be distinguished according to the morphological form of their lexical complements, no such distinctions are possible with LEX-headed constructions, since the lexical verb may carry all sorts of inflectional morphology.

Chapter 4 surveys constructions in which the same inflectional morphology appears on the lexical verb and the grammaticalized verbal element. Also this construction type extends traditional definitions of auxiliary verbs, because it includes serial verb constructions (Foley and Olson 1985). This construction type commonly occurs with a deictic motion verb (come, go) as the grammaticalized element. The most commonly observed inflectional category in these constructions is subject marking; doubled inflection to mark objects or TAM is only infrequently encountered.

The fifth chapter is dedicated to those constructions that fit neither of the three previously discussed patterns. In certain AVCs, different inflectional categories are distributed across both the lexical and the grammatical element, or certain categories appear on both elements while others are carried by just one of the two. In a cross-linguistically typical pattern, the lexical verb carries a negative marker, while the auxiliary carries TAM morphology. In other attested patterns, subject and object marking are distributed across the two verbal elements, or each element carries inflection for either TAM or grammatical relations. With both elements being inflected, it cannot be decided categorically which element constitutes the head in this type of AVC.

Chapter 6 turns to auxiliaries that have undergone univerbation with their lexical hosts. As auxiliaries grammaticalize into clitics and affixes, they often undergo morpho-phonological reduction. As a result, the fact that a form used to be an auxiliary verb may become fully opaque. Anderson draws on constructions that are transparent enough to reconstruct a piece of morphology as a former auxiliary, presenting examples from each of the construction types proposed in the previous chapters. In addition, Anderson presents an interesting construction type which fuses an auxiliary verb with a subject marker and thus appears as a tensed pronoun.

Chapter 7 discusses the diachronic sources of AVCs. Anderson identifies serial verb constructions on the one hand and verb-complement sequences on the other as the two primary structural sources for the grammaticalization of auxiliaries. Both types give rise to verbal grammatical elements that encode categories of TAM, but also negative polarity, voice, and direction. Regarding the semantic development of grammaticalizing auxiliaries, Anderson goes over the common lexical sources posture, movement, action, and location, outlining typical grammatical target meanings.

Evaluation

Anderson's book is impressive in its scope, and it brings together a quite unprecedented wealth of data on complex verbal constructions. With its numerous examples, 48 pages of references, as well as detailed subject and language indices, it is a valuable and authoritative source of information.

A concern that some readers will have is that Anderson's approach is that of a lumper, not a splitter. The proposed typology of auxiliary verb constructions encompasses many more constructions than are recognized as auxiliaries in previous approaches. To illustrate, Kuteva (2001: 1) defines auxiliaries as verbal elements that convey grammatical meaning and take less than fully finite verbal complements. This definition is coextensive with Anderson's AUX-headed constructions, but does not cover the remaining three types. The usual arguments of the lumper/splitter debate apply. Is it better to see the big picture, or should we rather concentrate on finer distinctions? These questions will in all likelihood not be resolved anytime soon.

While Anderson in many ways stretches the term auxiliary, he keeps one defining trait from earlier approaches that could have merited reconsideration. In the works of Heine (1993), Kuteva (2001), and others, it is a theoretical given that auxiliaries develop out of lexical verbs. However, some languages contain non-verbal elements that combine with dependent-marked verb forms to express grammatical meanings. Epps (to appear) discusses a future tense marker in Hup with the nominal origin wood, stick. By metonymic extension, the noun acquired the meaning of an instrument used for a purpose, and as a purposive marker it proceeded to develop into a marker of future tense. Similarly, Hilpert (to appear) reports on modal elements in spoken Sinhala that have adjectival and nominal lexical sources.

These considerations notwithstanding, Auxiliary Verb Constructions is an essential reference for anyone working on auxiliary verbs and related constructions.

References

Alsina, A. et al. (eds.). 1997. Complex predicates. Stanford: CSLI.

Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Epps, Patience. (to appear). From 'wood' to future tense: nominal origins of the future construction in Hup.

Foley, William and Mike Olson. 1985. Clausehood and verb serialization. In Johanna Nichols and Anthony Woodbury (eds.), Grammar inside and outside the clause.

Heine, B. 1993. Auxiliaries. Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hilpert, Martin. (to appear). Auxiliaries in spoken Sinhala. Functions of Language.

Kuteva, T. 2001. Auxiliation - An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Links

© 2002-present ICLA; all rights reserved.
Site admin information and contact