Rise of the Auxiliaries: a case for auxiliary raising vs. affix lowering

The syntax of auxiliaries has given rise to much discussion in the generative literature (Akmajian and Wasow 1975; Emonds 1978; Akmajian et al. 1979; Pollock 1989; Chomsky 1993; Lasnik 1995b; Roberts 1998; Bjorkman 2011; Rouveret 2012). This paper explores the distribution of non-finite auxiliaries in Standard English, in particular the issue as to whether such auxiliaries raise for inflectional purposes or remain in their base positions and have their inflections lowered onto them. It is shown that auxiliary distribution is not determined by auxiliary type (passive, copular, progressive etc.) as the lowering accounts predict, but by the morphological form that the auxiliary takes. In particular, the auxiliaries and exhibit significantly different distributional properties across ellipsis, fronting and existential constructions in English that are difficult to capture under an affix lowering model, and lend themselves more easily to an auxiliary raising account. I therefore offer a syntactic account of auxiliary inflections which employs the theoretical uniformity of an Agree-based approach, with the empirical advantages that an auxiliary raising analysis affords. The auxiliary raising system that will be proposed essentially harkens back to Chomsky's (1993) and Lasnik's (1995b) approach to the auxiliary system, though with the utilisation of Bošković's (2007) notion of foot-driven movement.