Origins of Auxiliary Do Paper Example

An auxiliary verb can be defined as a verb that is used to describe the tense, aspect, voice, or mood of another verb that exists in a verb phrase. Examples of auxiliary verbs include do, be, and have as well as the modal verbs such as am, have, may, might, do, does, did, shall, must, can, and will. These verbs can also be described as helping verbs since they aid in the completion of the meaning of the main verbs. This essay primarily focuses on the auxiliary verb "do" and explains its origin providing the arguments for and against the contact-based and causative hypotheses for its origin.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In numerous accounts that explain the origin of the auxiliary 'do,' the hypotheses usually invoke the contact with others in one way or another. Therefore, any such hypotheses are required to make sense concerning the current knowledge of the topology of the language contact. Contact explanation of the grammatical features of English language is the most convincing whenever it proposes a credible reason for the existence of sociolinguistic setting that is suitable (Van Kemenade and Los 2003). Another instance when the contact explanation of grammatical features of the Modern English is where the changes that are induced by language within grammatical subsystems can be comparable. In most cases, such explanatory is burdened by the accounts for the origins of the auxiliary "do."

One of the hypotheses that aim to explain the language contact involves the influence of the Celts. One of the main arguments for the impact of the Celts on the origin of the auxiliary verb do the view that all the three British Celtic languages are characterized by the construction that is formed with the verb 'do' and a verbal noun (Garrett, 1998). Various researchers have noted that this view on the middle Welsh is usually related to focus marking. For example, the sentence "Mynet a or Padric y Iwerdon" in Welsh can get directly transcribed to "Patrick went to Ireland" showing focus marking (Garrett 1998). Thus, it can be stated that in the simplest version of this hypothesis, the auxiliary verb "do" is the creation of the natives of Cornish or Welsh between the 12th and 13th century, as the language shifted with minimal interference. However, this hypothesis does not have enough evidence to show that the auxiliary verb "do" does not exist in both languages and earlier evidence has shown that the influence of Celts on English has been relatively insignificant. Hence, without such evidence that indicates the interference of the languages on the other grammatical subsystems or the auxiliary verb "do," no reason should indicate that the shift from British to English in the 12th or 13th century had any significant change that is induced by the contact.

Another hypothesis that supports the influence of contact on the development of the auxiliary verb "do" is that it developed as the children's language and among the second learners' of English. This development was said to have remained in the domain of the spoken medium for a long time due to its stigmatization. The auxiliary verb "do" entered the literary language after the second learners' of Old and Middle English, and the children overcame the stigma due to the required rhymed verses in poems. One of the main arguments for the contact-based hypothesis is that both the Middle and Old English corpora had the reflection of literary registers; thus it can be argued that other registers and dialects should exist. However, these dialects and registers have no remains left; thus, no evidence links them to the auxiliary verb "do." Therefore, other plausible explanation that does not include those unattested entities should be preferred in the description of this hypothesis.

The first two types of explanations can be combined and used to explain the contact-based hypothesis. It has been reported that the auxiliary "do" was introduced into a written mode during the Middle English period after featuring in the spoken literature that resulted from the contacts between the Celts and Germans in the early Old English period (Filppula, Klemola, and Paulasto 2008). It is argued that the auxiliary verb "do" enters the language as a performance feature in speech among those with bilingual background characterized by the ability to switch language codes. Societal restraints on the linguistic behavior during language contacts are usually relaxed or removed. Thus, it leads to a proliferation of dummy verbs such as "do," increasing its availability for new functions including stylistic, grammatical, or semantic. The hypothesis states that language contact developed a dummy auxiliary verb "do," which later acquired meaning, before becoming a dummy verb creolization in a process referred to as creolization-decreolization. However, the description of the change from dummy verb to acquiring habitual is not defined, and mere availability cannot indicate a particular functional innovation. Also, this contact-based hypothesis does not state any evidence that points to the access of the restricted lexifier among the speakers of British Celtic, which is the primary characteristic of abrupt creolization (Armstrong and Mackenzie 2013). The hypothesis does not state any of the numerous expected changes that should exist if the creolization took place.

A causative hypothesis of the auxiliary verb "do" has been shown in Old English occasionally and frequently in Middle English. This claim can be illustrated by the sentences below. In Middle English, the causative verb "make" is specifically known to exist in the West Midland and Southwestern, while the causative 'do' has been described to be a feature of the east midland. In the example below, it can be induced that the use of transitive complements whose subjects have been are permitted.

The primary argument against the causative origin of the auxiliary verb "do" is the development of ambiguity when there is an occurrence of a verb together with a causative element, due to the redundancy on the indirect-agency interpretation (Lightfoot 2010). Various researchers have indicated that the context that led to the use of the periphrastic "do" in the presence of a causative "do" with verbs that have subjected that be interpreted as either indirect or direct agents. It can be found in the sentence such as 'He painted a hall', where it can either be interpreted as he was the one responsible for the painting, or he did the painting, leading to ambiguity. The occurrence of such a verb with a causative element, an ambiguity arises due to the indirect-agency interpretation. For example, according to Garrett (1998), the causative interpretation of the Old English statement "Whan he was at London, a haule he did vp wright," becomes "When he was in London, he had a hall built" in Modern English. When periphrastic interpretation for the same statement, it becomes, "When he was in London, he built a hall," creating unambiguous phrases despite the existence of causative auxiliary verb "do."

The above scenario leads to two crucial problems in the explanation of the causative origin of the auxiliary verb "do." The first problem regarding this hypothesis is that the origin of the periphrasis "do" was the in the western dialects. Besides, during the Middle English and Old English periods, the use of causative "do" was the least common. Thus, the explanation of the interpretation can only be explained if the periphrastic "do" developed from earlier widespread use of causative "do" in the western dialects. The second problem is that there is no explanation for the motivation behind the creation of a periphrastic "do" if it was an option in the first place beside having no independent semantic value. It leads to the question about the point at which such change is found within the typology of syntactic alterations.

Conclusion

There are numerous arguments for and against the contact-based and causative origin of the auxiliary verbs "do." The explanation that fully describes the origin of the auxiliary "do" does not exist. Two main hypotheses have been developed based on sociological contact, and causative factors have been used to explain this origin. The contact-based hypothesis has been found to have numerous ad hoc assumptions, as well as not conforming to the known understanding of the changes induced through language contact. The three contact-based origins of the auxiliary verb "do" suggested have shown that despite being attractive, all lack the required accounts that can accommodate the new evidence. The causative origin of the auxiliary verb "do" hypothesis has shown prospects, but it has flaws that limit its use. The auxiliary verb "do" is a central feature that exists in the English language. Therefore, a plausible linguistic explanation for its origin should be developed.

References

Armstrong, N. and Mackenzie, I.E., 2013. Standardization, ideology, and linguistics. Palgrave Macmillan.

Filppula, M., Klemola, J. and Paulasto, H., 2008. English and Celtic in contact. Routledge.

Garrett, A., 1998. 'On the origin of auxiliary do.' English Language & Linguistics, 2(2), pp.283-330.

Holthausen, F. ed., 1888. Vices and virtues: being a soul's confession of its sins with reason's description of the virtues: a Middle-English dialogue of about 1200 AD. Early English Text Society.

Lightfoot, D., 2010. 'Language acquisition and language change.'Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(5), pp.677-684.

Van Kemenade, A. and Los, B., 2003. 'Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English.' In Yearbook of Morphology 2003 (pp. 79-117). Dordrecht: Springer.