Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:37:58.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Periphrastic Progressive Constructions in Dutch and Afrikaans: A Contrastive Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2017

Adri Breed ,
Frank Brisard  and
Ben Verhoeven
Adri Breed*
Affiliation:
North-West University, South Africa
Frank Brisard*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
Ben Verhoeven*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
*
School of Languages, Box 395, Private bag X6001, Potchefstroom Campus, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa [[email protected]]
(CLiPS: Computational Linguistics & Psycholinguistics), Department of Linguistics, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium, [[email protected]], [[email protected]]
(CLiPS: Computational Linguistics & Psycholinguistics), Department of Linguistics, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium, [[email protected]], [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Given the common ancestry of Dutch and Afrikaans, it is not surprising that they use similar periphrastic constructions to express progressive meaning: aan het (Dutch) and aan die/’t (Afrikaans) lit. ‘at the’; bezig met/(om) te (Dutch) lit. ‘busy with/to’ and besig om te lit. ‘busy to’ (Afrikaans); and so-called cardinal posture verb constructions (zitten/sit ‘sit’, staan ‘stand’, liggen/lê ‘lie’ and lopen/loop ‘walk’), CPV te (‘to’ Dutch) and CPV en (‘and’ Afrikaans). However, these cognate constructions have grammaticalized to different extents. To assess the exact nature of these differences, we analyzed the constructions with respect to overall frequency, collocational range, and transitivity (compatibility with transitive predicates and passivizability). We used two corpora that are equal in size (both about 57 million words) and contain roughly the same types of written text. It turns out that the use of periphrastic progressives is generally more widespread in Afrikaans than in Dutch. As far as grammaticalization is concerned, we found that the Afrikaans aan die- and CPV-constructions, as well as the Dutch bezig- and CPV-constructions, are semantically restricted. In addition, only the Afrikaans besig- and CPV en-constructions allow passivization, which is remarkable for such periphrastic expressions.*

Keywords

Afrikaanscardinal postular verbDutchperiphrastic constructionprogressive aspect
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 305 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abraham, Werner. 2008. On the logic of generalizations about cross-linguistic aspect-modality links. Modality–aspect interfaces: Implications and typological solutions, ed. by Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth, 3–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Anthonissen, Lynn, De Wit, Astrid, & Mortelmans, Tanja. 2016. Aspect meets modality: A semantic analysis of the German ‘am V sein’ construction. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BarÐdal, Jóhanna. 2013. Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. Oxford handbook of construction grammar, ed. by Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme, 438–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Ebert, Karen H., & de Groot, Casper. 2000. The progressive in Europe. Dahl 2000, 517–558.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2004. De aan het infinitief-constructie in het Nederlands. Taeldeman man van de taal, schatbewaarder van de taal, ed. by De Caluwe, Johan, De Schutter, Georges, Devos, Magda, & van Keymeulen, Jacques, 97–106. Ghent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2008. Constructional idioms as products of linguistic change: The aan het construction in Dutch. Constructions and language change, ed. by Bergs, Alexander & Diewald, Gabrielle, 81–106. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Botha, Theunis, Ponelis, Fritz, Combrink, Johan, & Odendal, Francois (eds.). 1989. Afrikaanse literatuurgeskiedenis. Pretoria: Academica.Google Scholar
Breed, Adri. 2012. Die grammatikalisering van aspek in Afrikaans: ʼn Semantiese studie van perifrastiese progressiewe konstruksies. Potchefstroom, South Africa: North-West University dissertation.Google Scholar
Breed, Adri. 2017. The subjective use of postural verb in Afrikaans (I): Evolution from progressive to modal. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics PLUS 52. 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breed, Adri, & Brisard, Frank. 2015. Postulêre werkwoorde as progressiewe merkers in Afrikaans en Nederlands. Internationale Neerlandistiek 53. 3–28.Google Scholar
Breed, Adri, & Van Huyssteen, Gerhard. 2015. Aan die en besig in Afrikaanse progressiwiteitskonstruksies: ’n Korpusondersoek (2). Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 55. 251–269.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere, & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carstens, Wannie. 1989. Norme vir Afrikaans. Pretoria: Academica.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen (ed.). 2000. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, Eurotyp 20 (6). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Smedt, Tom, & Daelemans, Walter. 2012. Pattern for Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 13. 2031–2035.Google Scholar
De Wit, Astrid, & Brisard, Frank. 2014. Zero verb marking in Sranan. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29. 1–48.Google Scholar
De Wit, Astrid, Patard, Adeline, & Brisard, Frank. 2013. A contrastive analysis of the present progressive in French and English. Studies in Language 37. 846–879.Google Scholar
Dekker, Gerrit. 1973. Afrikaanse literatuurgeskiedenis. Cape Town: Nasou.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen. 2000. Progressive markers in Germanic languages. Dahl 2000, 605–654.Google Scholar
Franckel, Jean-Jacques. 1989. Étude de quelques marqueurs aspectuels du français. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Geleyn, Tim. 2010. De progressieve constructies bezig zijn en besig wees: Een contrastief corpusonderzoek Nederlands-Afrikaans. Ghent, Belgium: Universiteit Gent bachelor dissertation.Google Scholar
Geleyn, Tim, & Colleman, Timothy. 2014. De progressieve constructies bezig zijn en bezig wees: Een contrastief corpusondersoek Nederlands—Afrikaans. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 54. 56–74.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2010. Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John, & Woisetschlaeger, Erich. 1976. The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 79–89.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2007. Coll.analysis 3.2a. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Hampe, Beate, & Schönefeld, Doris. 2005. Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16. 635–676.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9. 97–129.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, de Rooij, Jaap, & van den Toorn, Maarten. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. 2nd revised edn. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff/Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1990. Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. Perspectives on grammaticalization, ed. by Pagliuca, William, 255–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. I, ed. by Traugott, Elizabeth & Heine, Bernd, 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1931. Modern English grammar on historical principles: Syntax, vol. 3. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S. 1985. Iconicity and grammatical meaning. Iconicity in syntax, ed. by Haiman, John, 249–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S. 2014. Qualitative-quantitative analyses of Dutch and Afrikaans grammar and lexicon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Krause, Olaf. 1997. Progressiv-Konstruktionen im Deutschen im Vergleich mit dem Niederländischen, Englischen und Italienischen. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 50. 48–82.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania A. 1999. On ‘sit’/’stand’/’lie’ auxiliation. Linguistics 37. 191–213.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2000. Verbalaspekt und die Herausbildung epistemischer Modalverben. Germanistische Linguistik 154. 63–83.Google Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten. 2003. The semantic network of Dutch posture verbs. The linguistics of sitting, standing and lying, ed. by Newman, John, 103–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten. 2005. Aspectual posture verb constructions in Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 17. 183–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten. 2008. Een contrastieve analyse van progressiefconstructies in het Nederlands, het Engels en het Zweeds. Paper presented at the IVN-colloquium held in Antwerp, August 27–31, 2008.Google Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten. 2015. Zit je te denken of ben je aan het piekeren? Persistentie in het synchrone gebruik van de PREP- en POS-progressiefconstructies in het Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde 20. 5–36.Google Scholar
Ljung, Magnus. 1980. Reflections on the English progressive. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou, Blom, Corrien, Booij, Geert, Elenbaas, Marion, & van Kemenade, Ans. 2012. Morphosyntactic change: A comparative study of particles and prefixes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend (ed.). 1995. Language and social history: Studies in South African sociolinguistics. Cape Town: David Philip.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend. 2002. Endogeny versus contact revisited: Aspectual “busy” in South African English. Language Sciences 24. 345–358.Google Scholar
Mortier, Liesbeth. 2008. An analysis of progressive aspect in French and Dutch in terms of variation and specialization. Languages in Contrast 8. 1–20.Google Scholar
Noord, Gertjan van, Bouma, Gosse, Van Eynde, Frank, de Kok, Daniël, van der Linde, Jelmer, Schuurman, Ineke, Tjong Kim Sang, Erik, & Vandeghinste, Vincent. 2013. Large scale syntactic annotation of written Dutch: Lassy. Essential speech and language technology for Dutch: Results by the STEVIN-programme, ed. by Spyns, Peter & Odijk, Jan, 147–164. Heidelberg: Springer. Available at http://tst-centrale.org/nl/tst-materialen/corpora/lassy-groot-corpus-detail.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Ted. 1996. Fishing for exactness. Proceedings of the South Central SAS User’s Group Conference (SCSUG-96), 188–200. Austin, TX: South-Central SAS Users Group.Google Scholar
Ponelis, Fritz. 1979. Afrikaanse sintaksis. Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar
Raidt, Edith. 1972. Afrikaans en sy Europese verlede. Cape Town: Nasou.Google Scholar
Sebba, Mark. 1997. Contact languages: Pidgins and creoles. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1997. The parameter of aspect. 2nd edn. London: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol, & Gries, Stefan Th.. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8. 209–243.Google Scholar
Taalkommissie van die Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns. 2011. Taalkommissiekorpus 1.1. Potchefstroom: CTexT Corpus.Google Scholar
Van Pottelberghe, Jeroen. 2002. Nederlandse progressiefconstructies met werkwoorden van lichaam. Nederlandse Taalkunde 7. 142–174.Google Scholar