Auxiliaries as Dummies
1 why have, be and do are auxiliaries
assuming over- rather than underspecification, it must be that have, be and do have the
smallest conceptual content of all verbs
i.e. when we need to spell out just the functional features using a verb, the best
fitting ones will be those associated with the smallest number of extraneous CUs
this doesn’t necessarily mean that all these verbs must have the same content – in
fact we need them to differ to be able to account for why they are used in
different circumstances
have and do have a certain conceptual thing in common
they all refer to rather vague events, the actual details of which are provided by
the context
have dinner
have a cigarette
have a baby
have a car
have John fix the car
have to leave
all of these involve a relationship between two elements
but the nature of the relationship depends on what is being related
do the dishes
do the homework
do the garden
do the crossword puzzle
all of these involve a the performance of an action
but the nature of the action depends on what it is applied to
be is a little more difficult to show this effect with
mainly because it seems to lack any meaning in most of its uses (i.e. it is mostly
used as a dummy)
we see this by the fact that be is omissible in the following contexts
I consider [him stupid]
he IS stupid
I believed [him a good person]
he IS a good person
Clark Kent Superman! I don’t believe it Clar Kent IS Superman
However, there are some contexts in which be is not so easy to omit
? I consider [him in the garden]
* I consider [there life on Mars]
incidentally, these are exactly the places where a third person BE must be
present in Hungarian
ő orvos (* van)
ő magas (* van)
ő a kertben *(van)
*(van) élet a Marson
this might suggest that in these cases be carries actual meaning
but note, which meaning it carries (locative or existential) depends on the context
‘there is life on Mars’ means life exists on Mars, not life is located on Mars
‘he is in the garden’ means he is located in the garden, not that he exists in the
garden
in this way, be is like have and do
assume therefore that be have and do all have the same sort of conceptual content (with
extra things to distinguish them) which is only properly defined in context
call this ‘null root content’ and assume that it works rather like a pronoun does
a pronoun is provided its actual reference in context
in the vocabulary it is associated with ‘null reference’ – i.e. it has potential to
refer to an individual
null root contend is provided its actual reference (the actual event it picks out) in
context
in the vocabulary it is associated with ‘null content’ – it has the potential to
refer to an event
have  ... √∅ ...
be  ... √∅ ...
do  ... √∅ ...
see  ... √𝑆𝐸𝐸 ...
Finally, we can reasonably assume that null root content is the smallest possible root
content as it lacks all specific details
it therefore follows that be have and do will automatically be selected as the best fitting
vocabulary elements to spell out functional CUs
2 how to differentiate between auxiliaries
obviously, different auxiliaries are used in different contexts, so we need to be able to
differentiate between them
we will do this by assuming that it is not only the functional CUs (such as tense and
aspecuals) that they spell out in their auxiliary uses, but other CUs which are
positioned near to them.
so tense + [x] might be spelled out by ‘had’ and tense + [y] by ‘does’
thus, besides null root content and the tense and aspect CUs, these vocabulary items
will also be associated with these other relevant CU
had  [x] √∅ [past]
does  [y] √∅ [pres]
obviously we need to discover the identity of [x] and [y] and provide an analysis of their
distributions
they appear near to tense and aspectual elements in the situations in which these
particular auxiliaries are selected
3 be as default
out of all the auxiliaries, be is used in the widest context
with progressive
with passive
with non-verbal predicates
this indicates that be is chosen when no other more specific CU is spelled out other
than tense and aspectuals
therefore we assume that the vocabulary entries are:
be  √∅
is, am, are  √∅ [pres]
was, were  √∅ [past]
obviously the different agreement forms will have different vocabulary entries, but
what these are depends on how we account for agreement phenomena in general
one idea is that the different agreement forms are restricted contextually by their
subjects
is  √∅ [pres] / [3]
am  √∅ [pres] / [1]
4 have and perfect
the semantics of perfect are rather complicated
they seem to involve both tense and aspect
the perfect defines an interval delimited by the tense and a period extending some
time before this (anteriority)
he has been sick since January
universal = he continued to be sick from January till now
experiential = he experienced a period/periods of being sick some time
between January and now
he had been sick since January
universal = he continued t be sick between January and some point in the
past
experiential = he experienced a period/periods of being sick between January
and some point in the past
we can say that the perfect involves defining a period during which the event
described by the root holds (continually or sporadically) and the end point of this
period is placed at the time identified by the tense
perfect = T e p: p = ti ... tx & AT(tx, T) & ep
thus the meaning of the perfect involves a prepositional meaning relating the end
point of the perfect period to the tense
suppose the prepositional aspect of the perfect is represented by a CU [perfP], in
the same way that prepositional aspects of events are represented by CUs which
are spelled out by prepositions
[perfP] always follows tense in the inflection domain
[tense]PDI > [perfP]PDI > [perf]PDI
As the root is placed in 2nd to last position in the inflection domain, [perfP] will
never be spelled out on the root as it is always accompanied and followed by
[perf]
thus in perfect contexts both tense and [perfP] need to be spelled out
be cannot do this as it is not associated with anything other than the tense and
null root content
so the choice is between have and do
have is associated with tense (has, had) and with root content, but it differs from
be in that it expresses a relationship
has  √∅ [pres] [rel]
had  √∅ [pres] [rel]
Given that [perfP] is a kind of relationship [rel] can be used to spell it out
therefore have is the best vocabulary choice for spelling out [tense] [perfP]
strings
5 do insertion
unlike have, do is not used in a specific semantic context, but a syntactically defined
one
do is used when
tense is the only member of the inflection domain
tense is not spelled out by a post root morpheme or with the root itself (in irregular
cases)
in other words, when tense precedes the root
so part of the use of do has to do with the syntax which places tense in front of
the root when it is the only member of the inflection domain
this has to be special circumstances given that the root is usually second from last
in the inflection domain, and therefore precedes tense in this situation
obviously this is to do with the presence of negation and whatever causes inversion
this cannot be the only thing however, as if it were just a matter of spelling out
tense, be would be used
so something else must be spelled out with tense in this situation
as this something else is not an extra semantic element, it must be something that
is normally present, but presumably spelled out by something else – most likely
the root, as obviously do must be associated with whatever this is in its
vocabulary entry
do differs from be and have in that it expresses an activity
but this cannot be what determines the use of do in its dummy context as do is
used even in non-activity contexts
John did not run
John did not know
John did not see
it did not seem ...
however, do is only used in cases where the root is expressed as a verb, not an
adjective:
John is not tall
* John did not tall
this might be taken in one of two ways
either whatever it is that do spells out is associated with verbal predicates and
normally spelled out by the verbal root
or it is present in all cases but is spelled out by adjectival roots but not verbal
ones
if we go with the first of these, it might be the very element which defines a root as a
verb (as opposed to an adjective) which is involved
what is the difference between
he sleeps
is is asleep
the first suggests that ‘he’ is involved in some sort of process
the second that ‘he’ has a certain property
this might come down to the status of ‘he’ as an argument in one and a ‘subject’
in the other
argumenthood seems to be connected with certain linking elements –
represented as ‘v’ in current theories
it is also assumed that ‘v’ is the verbalising element in that if a root is
associated with v it is spelled out as a verb
we may therefore suppose that it is [v] that gets distributed with tense which is therefore
spelled out by do rather than be
this assumes that be is not associated with [v]
in many ways be is the least verb-like of verbs
unlike other small content verbs, it is never used as a light verb
have a sleep
take a walk
give a damn
do a dance
make a move
* be a sleep
it is used in typically non-verbal contexts
therefore we can assume that be is not associated with [v]
in this case, do will be chosen to spell out tense + [v] sequences as be will not be able to
do so, not being associated with [v] and have will not be chosen as it is associated with
[rel]