Documentation

Linglib.Studies.Anderson2006

Anderson (2006): Auxiliary Verb Constructions #

[And06a] [Hei93]

Cross-linguistic typology of auxiliary verb constructions (AVCs): classification by inflectional distribution between auxiliary and lexical verb, with diachronic grounding in [Hei93]'s grammaticalization framework.

Key contributions formalized #

  1. Inflectional pattern typology (InflPattern from substrate): auxHeaded, lexHeaded, doubled, split, splitDoubled — defined in Typology/AuxiliaryVerbs.lean, verified per-datum here.
  2. Semantic head invariant (Anderson p. 23, Table 3.1 p. 116): the lexical verb is always the semantic head, regardless of where inflection sits.
  3. Typed inflectional distribution: InflDistribution (study-local) records which MorphCategory values each element hosts.
  4. Grammaticalization grounding: Anderson ch. 7 traces AVCs onto Heine 1993's cline (Anderson p. 5: "According to Heine (1993: 48ff.)..."). The cline lives in Features/Grammaticalization.lean, anchored on [Hei93] ch. 3.

Coverage #

Sample of 9 AVC datums across 7 languages, covering all 5 patterns:

2026-04-30 audit fixes #

PDF-verified against Anderson 2006 (book pp. 5, 114, 116, 121, 224) and Heine 1993 (book p. 48ff. via Anderson p. 5):

Inflectional distribution (study-local apparatus) #

Demoted from the former Morphology/Periphrasis.lean at the single-consumer bar: this study is the sole terminal of every distribution value. Possessing a distribution is neutral on periphrasis-hood ([spencer-popova-2015] pp. 200, 204); the data is the raw material for the distributed-exponence criterion.

Distribution of inflectional categories between the two elements of an auxiliary verb construction. The category vocabulary is MorphCategory ([Byb85]'s relevance hierarchy); the pattern taxonomy is [And06a]'s AVC classification (see InflPattern).

Instances For
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For
      def Anderson2006.instDecidableEqInflDistribution.decEq (x✝ x✝¹ : InflDistribution) :
      Decidable (x✝ = x✝¹)
      Equations
      Instances For

        Doyayo lex-headed: AUX carries tonal subject agreement (Anderson p. 120: "partially encodes person of the subject through the tone"); LV carries TAM.

        Equations
        Instances For

          Doyayo split/doubled (Anderson Ch 5 ex. 129, p. 223): subject doubled on AUX and LV; object only on LV.

          Equations
          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
          Instances For

            Gorum doubled: both AUX and LV marked for subject agreement, tense, and affectedness (version/voice).

            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For

              Hemba split/doubled: agreement doubled, tense on AUX, mood on LV.

              Equations
              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
              Instances For

                Jakaltek split: aspect and absolutive (object) agreement on AUX, ergative (subject) agreement on LV.

                Equations
                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                Instances For

                  Pipil lex-headed: AUX uninflected, LV hosts subject agreement.

                  Equations
                  Instances For

                    Pipil split/doubled (Anderson Ch 5 ex. 133b, p. 224): subject doubled, object only on LV.

                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    Instances For

                      Finnish negative AVC: the negative auxiliary hosts negation, tense, and agreement; the main verb retains stem and aspect (via participle choice). [Kar18]

                      Equations
                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                      Instances For

                        Hemba: agreement doubled, tense split to AUX, mood split to LV — the split/doubled pattern read directly off the distribution.

                        The Finnish distribution is consistent with [Mie05]'s constructional A/Fin coding: categories split across the negative auxiliary and the main verb (moved here from the Miestamo file — the cross-paper comparison belongs to the later study).

                        A cross-linguistic AVC datum. Study-local: the AuxiliaryVerbs substrate classifies over InflPattern; this paper's per-language rows bundle the form/distribution/gloss with it.

                        Instances For
                          def Anderson2006.instReprAVCDatum.repr :
                          AVCDatumStd.Format
                          Equations
                          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                          Instances For
                            Equations
                            Instances For

                              Per-language AVC data #

                              The 9 sample datums (7 languages) covering all 5 of Anderson's inflectional patterns. Per-datum verification theorems below ensure each datum's inflPattern and form/distribution derive from the Fragment files (changing a Fragment entry breaks exactly one theorem).

                              English have eaten — aux-headed (AUX have carries tense and agreement, LV eaten is a past participle). Anderson ch. 2 (p. 40) describes the English perfect as AUX have with the LV in the -ed ~ -en form; the specific have eaten form is this file's instantiation of that pattern, not a verbatim Anderson example.

                              Equations
                              Instances For

                                Doyayo lex-headed (Anderson Ch 3 ex. 15a, p. 121). mi¹ (gi²) kpel¹-ko¹ 'I'm going to pour'. Auxiliary gi² parenthesized in Anderson's example, carrying only tonal subject person (Anderson p. 120); LV carries proximate TAM. Form derived from Doyayo.AuxiliaryVerbs.lexHeadedForm.

                                Equations
                                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                Instances For

                                  Doyayo split/doubled (Anderson Ch 5 ex. 129, p. 223). hi¹-za¹ hi¹-zaa¹³ hi¹-lɔ-mɔ 'they might come bite you'. Subject hi¹ doubly marked on AUX and LV; object -mɔ only on LV. Anderson p. 223: "this pattern... is common in Doyayo."

                                  Equations
                                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                  Instances For

                                    Gorum (doubled): subject + TAM on both AUX and LV. Form derived from Gorum.AuxiliaryVerbs.

                                    Equations
                                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                    Instances For

                                      Jakaltek (split): absolutive on AUX, ergative on LV. Form derived from Jakaltek.AuxiliaryVerbs.

                                      Equations
                                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                      Instances For

                                        Pipil split/doubled (Anderson Ch 5 ex. 133b, p. 224). n-yu ni-mitsin-ilwitia 'I'm going to show you'. Subject 1 doubly marked (n- on AUX, ni- on LV); object -mitsin- only on LV. AUX root yu lexically encodes prospective TAM. Anderson p. 224: "Subjects are doubly marked... while objects occur only on lexical verbs."

                                        Equations
                                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                        Instances For

                                          Pipil lex-headed (Anderson ch. 3 ex. 49, p. 130; Campbell 1985: 139). weli ni-nehnemi wehka 'CAP 1-walk far' 'I can walk far'. AUX weli uninflected; LV carries subject agreement. Anderson's fn. 6 (p. 221) separately documents lex-headed/split-doubled variation in the Pipil progressive — a different AVC from this capability construction.

                                          Equations
                                          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                          Instances For

                                            Finnish negative auxiliary ei (split): person/number on aux, TAM on lexical verb (connegative form). Anderson §1.7.2 (p. 33-34) presents negative auxiliaries as a family-level Uralic trait (with connegative-marked LV, exx. 44-48) and, across other families, as spanning multiple AVC patterns — Udihe and Neyo aux-headed, Kokota split, Kwerba lex-headed, 'Iipay doubled. Finnish ei itself is not classified by Anderson in §1.7.2 with a specific pattern label; the split classification here follows [Kar18] §19.5 where the connegative suffix on the LV is the load-bearing diagnostic. The split nature derives from finnishNegDist: the negative auxiliary hosts negation, tense, and agreement, while the lexical verb retains stem and aspect. The 1sg neg-aux form derives from negParadigm; see the finnish_1sg_form_eq witness lemma for the strong pinning of the form-construction. Gloss style follows Anderson's Uralic convention (Neg-1 read-conneg).

                                            Equations
                                            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                            Instances For

                                              Hemba split/doubled: subject doubled on both AUX and LV; tense on AUX only; mood on LV only. Form derived from Hemba.AuxiliaryVerbs.

                                              Equations
                                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                              Instances For

                                                All 9 AVC datums (covering all 5 of Anderson's patterns).

                                                Equations
                                                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                                Instances For

                                                  Per-datum InflPattern verification #

                                                  Each theorem below is a structural drift sentry: changing a Fragment entry's underlying analysis breaks exactly one theorem.

                                                  Per-datum form/distribution Fragment grounding #

                                                  Finnish form construction grounding #

                                                  The Finnish form construction uses negParadigm.find?, which is Option-typed. The fallback | none => "en lue" was historically chosen to coincide with the success-branch result, making finnish.form = "en lue" pass by rfl even when the lookup would return none. The witness theorem below grounds the construction in the actual paradigm content.

                                                  theorem Anderson2006.finnish_1sg_in_paradigm :
                                                  (List.find? (fun (f : Finnish.Negation.NegForm) => f.person == 1 && f.number == "sg") Finnish.Negation.negParadigm).isSome = true

                                                  The Finnish 1sg negative-auxiliary entry exists in negParadigm.

                                                  theorem Anderson2006.finnish_1sg_form_eq :
                                                  Option.map (fun (x : Finnish.Negation.NegForm) => x.form) (List.find? (fun (f : Finnish.Negation.NegForm) => f.person == 1 && f.number == "sg") Finnish.Negation.negParadigm) = some "en"

                                                  Strong pinning: the 1sg paradigm entry's form is exactly "en". Together with finnish_1sg_in_paradigm, this pins finnish.form to the Fragment's actual paradigm content. A future change to negParadigm that altered the 1sg form (or removed the entry entirely) would break this theorem; the dead-branch | none => "en lue" fallback in finnish.form cannot mask the change.

                                                  The Finnish form is the 1sg negParadigm entry's form concatenated with " lue".

                                                  Connection to Finnish Fragment #

                                                  theorem Anderson2006.finnish_split_from_fragment :
                                                  have dist := finnishNegDist; dist.onAux [] dist.onLex []

                                                  The Finnish negative auxiliary construction is a split AVC: the auxiliary hosts some inflectional categories and the lexical verb hosts others, with neither element hosting all categories.

                                                  Pattern coverage (named witnesses) #

                                                  All five of Anderson's inflectional patterns are attested in the sample. Each pattern is witnessed by a named datum (existence by witness, not aggregate .any-scan). Adding a new datum doesn't break this theorem; changing one of the named witnesses' patterns does.

                                                  Structural theorems on distribution #

                                                  theorem Anderson2006.gorum_doubled_same_categories :
                                                  (have dist := gorumDist; dist.onAux == dist.onLex) = true

                                                  In Gorum's doubled AVC, aux and lex host exactly the same categories.

                                                  In Doyayo's lex-headed AVC, the auxiliary hosts ONLY tonal subject agreement (per Anderson p. 120), and the LV carries TAM.

                                                  Anderson Ch 5 §5.2 payoff (Doyayo): subject agreement is doubled across AUX and LV; object agreement appears on LV only. Now Lean-checkable directly via Controller-typed .agreement, rather than via the fragile list-length encoding the 0.230.578 workaround used.

                                                  Anderson Ch 5 §5.2 payoff (Pipil): same generalization as Doyayo — subject doubled across AUX and LV, object on LV only. The AUX root yu itself encodes TAM lexically (no separate .tense morpheme on AUX).

                                                  In Pipil's lex-headed AVC, the auxiliary hosts no inflection.

                                                  theorem Anderson2006.finnish_split_disjoint :
                                                  have dist := finnishNegDist; (dist.onAux.all fun (c : Morphology.MorphCategory) => !dist.onLex.contains c) = true

                                                  In Finnish's split AVC, aux and lex host disjoint category types. (.stem on the lex side is a base, not an inflectional overlap.)

                                                  Anderson Ch 5 abs/erg payoff (Jakaltek): with role-typed agreement, the absolutive-on-AUX / ergative-on-LV split is now a category-level distinction (.agreement .obj vs .agreement .subj), not just a within-category meta-comment.

                                                  In Hemba's split/doubled AVC, subject agreement is doubled (on both elements), tense is AUX-only, mood is LV-only. No object agreement in this construction.

                                                  Dual headedness #

                                                  Anderson distinguishes three notions of head — inflectional, phrasal/syntactic, and semantic (§1.4, pp. 22-24; Table 3.1 on p. 116 tabulates the assignment for the lex-headed pattern). The semantic head (content provider) is always the lexical verb (Anderson p. 23: "It is the lexical verb"); the inflectional host varies by pattern. This mismatch is what makes AVCs typologically distinctive.

                                                  The semantic head and inflectional host coincide only in lex-headed AVCs. In all other patterns they diverge: the semantic head is always the lexical verb, but inflection may sit on the auxiliary (or on both elements).

                                                  Negative auxiliaries as AVCs #

                                                  [And06a] §1.7.2 (p. 33-34) treats negative auxiliaries across multiple AVC patterns: aux-headed in Udihe, Neyo; split in Kokota; lex-headed in Kwerba; doubled in 'Iipay. The example rows live in Data/Examples/Anderson2006.json (Komi (47a,b), Udihe (49), Kwerba (52a,b), all verified against the book); each row's infl_pattern feature records the book's classification where it states one. The NegStrategy → InflPattern mapping lives in Typology/Negation.lean: NegStrategy.expectedInflPattern encodes the most common verbal-negator → aux-headed mapping, and the Kwerba rows witness below that it is a tendency, not a law.

                                                  Udihe (49) bi ei-mi sa: is classified aux-headed by Anderson, and the strategy-level projection expects exactly that.

                                                  Kwerba (52a,b) shows a negative auxiliary in a lex-headed AVC (the lexical verb hosts the inflection), so the aux-headed expectation of NegStrategy.expectedInflPattern is defeasible — Anderson's own four-pattern list is the counterexample source.

                                                  The Komi tense alternation (47a,b) sits entirely on the negative auxiliary: same lexical verb token, different auxiliary form.

                                                  LV form predictions across patterns #

                                                  Anderson predicts the verb form of the lexical verb from the inflectional pattern. AUX-headed AVCs have a nonfinite LV (infinitive/participle/etc.; Anderson Table 2.3 on p. 114 catalogs the LV non-finite-form types within AUX-headed AVCs specifically — the table is a one-pattern grid of language exemplars, not a cross-pattern prediction). All other patterns have a finite LV (carrying at least some inflection, per Anderson chs. 3-5 prose). The pattern→LV-form prediction is formalized in Typology.lvVerbForm.

                                                  Bridge to Sorace 2000 (auxiliary selection) #

                                                  Be/have auxiliary selection (Typology/AuxiliaryVerbs.lean) operates within aux-headed AVCs: the question of which auxiliary appears presupposes the auxiliary hosts inflection. [Sor00]'s sister study Studies/Sorace2000.lean provides vendlerClassToTypicalTransitivity; the quantified composition with canonicalSelection is given below.

                                                  Sorace's gradient Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy is not yet formalized in linglib (per Sorace2000.lean docstring); the contrastive theorem against Anderson's discrete pattern typology (anderson_silent_on_intermediate_ash) will land when ASH ranks are added.

                                                  Auxiliary selection presupposes aux-headed pattern: the selecting auxiliary hosts tense/agreement (is the inflectional head).

                                                  Quantified Sorace bridge: composing vendlerClassToTypicalTransitivity with canonicalSelection yields .be exactly for achievements, .have elsewhere (Italian è arrivato instantiates the achievement case). Exposes the composition canonicalSelection ∘ vendlerClassToTypicalTransitivity as a single theorem rather than a hand-picked tuple. Falsifiable by changing either lookup.

                                                  Cross-framework: Miestamo 2005 (negation morpheme classification) #

                                                  [Mie05] classifies negation strategies by morpheme type (NegMorphemeType: .auxVerb, .affix, .particle, ...); [And06a] via [Hei93]'s grammaticalization framework places verbal negators on the cline at .auxiliary and non-verbal negators off the cline (Anderson §1.7.2 covers only verbal negators). The two frameworks classify by independently- motivated criteria but, for the strategies linglib's NegStrategy enum exposes, AGREE on which strategies are "verbal": Anderson's .toGramStage = some .auxiliary is exactly Miestamo's .toNegMorphemeType = .auxVerb.

                                                  Composition with [Mie05]'s afin_verbal_implies_constructional (in Linglib/Studies/Miestamo2005.lean) then yields: any NegStrategy Anderson places at the auxiliary cline stage, in any Miestamo A/Fin datum, shows constructional asymmetry — a falsifiable empirical prediction whose chain runs Anderson's cline → Miestamo's morpheme type → Miestamo's asymmetry dimension.

                                                  The earlier anderson_miestamo_agree_on_neg_morphology theorem in this slot (0.230.573) was a stapled conjunction of three independent facts; the meta-audit at 0.230.576 replaced it with the quantified-equivalence shape below.

                                                  Cross-framework equivalence: Anderson's grammaticalization-cline placement at .auxiliary and Miestamo's morpheme-type classification as .auxVerb partition the NegStrategy enum identically. Both frameworks classify exactly .negVerb (Finnish ei-style inflecting negators) as the verbal subtype. Falsifiable by changing either projection: a future split of NegStrategy.negVerb into Miestamo-style auxVerb-vs-doubleNeg subtypes would break this without breaking either projection individually.