Auxiliary Verb Constructions (and Other Complex Predicate Types): A Functional–Constructional Overview

Abstract

This paper presents an overview of a typology of auxiliary verb constructions (AVCs) and other complex predicate types. A brief semantic, inflectional and diachronic or developmental typology of AVCs is proposed. This includes an overview and exemplification of the basic functional semantic contrasts expressed by AVCs, as well as how inflectional categories are distributed throughout the sub‐types of constructions attested. How AVCs differ from other common sub‐types of complex predicate such as serial verb constructions or light verb constructions is exemplified, and more minor or tradition‐specific terms are also discussed in brief. The varied sources for the development of AVCs are cursorily introduced and how such constructions further develop into complex verb forms once grammaticalized is briefly discussed. Thus, the study discusses the full grammaticalization path that such structures follow, from lexical verb construction to AVC to verb plus affix forms. An extensive bibliography is also included.

On Auxiliary Chains: Lexical and Functional Auxiliaries at the syntax-semantics interface

“…Leaving aside these two traditions, the particular of Romance languages, and that belonging to Morphology, other terms are used. Thus, sometimes they are referred to as AUXILIARY VERB CONSTRUCTIONS, as in Anderson (2006Anderson ( , 2011. More frequent is to mention just the auxiliary, as in Akmajian, Steele and Wasow (1979), Chomsky (1957) and Ross (1969), among many others.…”

Word-based morphology–syntax interdependencies: Thai passives

“…G. Anderson (2011) observes in a discussion of cross-linguistic auxiliary verb constructions that semantic ambiguity of the sort exemplified by thuuk is ‘in fact an expected consequence of the grammaticalization process, where original and derived interpretations are expected to co-exist, and may do so for a very long time in a given language’, and that this overlap ‘underscores the fact that grammaticalization is a process with a diachronic dimension with expected periods of potential ambiguity’ (2011: 817–818). The diachronic dimension concerning the development from an independent verb to an auxiliary in a periphrastic lexical construction further enhances relations with languages containing periphrastic passives such as German and Hungarian, discussed in Ackerman & Webelhuth (1998), among others.…”

“…Anderson also observes that the course of grammaticalization does not simply end when a lexical verb comes to be used as an auxiliary. He presents the following developmental path, demonstrating that verbal affixes may be derived from former auxiliary verb structures (2011: 818):…”

Review of Coupe (2007): A Grammar of Mongsen Ao

“…The use of 'come' as V[erb]2 is lexically combinatorial in 'collect' and this formation is typical of lexical-cum-nuclear serial formations (Foley & Olson 1985), as acknowledged by the author. The third type mentioned above under compound verbs seem to represent examples of typical cislocative or ventive grammaticalizations that derive from deictic nuclear serial structures (Anderson 2006(Anderson , 2011. Mongsen Ao further reflects a number of lexical(ized) forms of different structural configurations, but all well-established within serializing languages.…”

“…I found numerous interesting parallels to languages of West Kameng in Arunachal Pradesh. Naturally many but not all of these reflect archaic Tibeto-Burman roots with solid Proto-Tibeto-Burman reconstructed etyma (Matisoff 1997(Matisoff , 2003, or ones widespread among the languages of northeast India (Anderson, Harrison & Murmu field notes 2008-2011. A list of a selection of these is offered in (5) thə-ra Koro-Aka fã-la '10' Also compare Mongsen Ao à 'a, one, indef. '…”