Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2022
Edited by Jorrig Vogels and Sterre Leufkens
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 39] 2022
► pp. 2–20

The syntax of progressive and ingressive aanhet-constructions in Dutch

| Leiden University Centre for Linguistics (LUCL)
| Leiden University Centre for Linguistics (LUCL)
| Leiden University Centre for Linguistics (LUCL)

This paper presents a novel syntactic analysis of the much-debated Dutch aanhet-construction, e.g. Pieter is aan het opruimen ‘lit. Peter is on the cleanup: Peter is cleaning up’. We show that the construction’s syntactic behavior varies with the matrix verb: progressive zijn ‘be’ versus ingressive gaan ‘go’ and slaan ‘hit’. Based on this variation, we argue that there are two aanhet-projections occupying different synchronic positions on a functional-to-lexical cline.

Keywords: Progressive aspect, Ingressive aspect, aan het-construction, Semi-lexicality, Dutch
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous accounts
  • 3.Comparison
    • 3.1IPP
    • 3.2High IA/Prt
    • 3.3Complex verb constructions
    • 3.4 Van-objects
    • 3.5R-extraction
    • 3.6Overview
  • 4.Coercion
  • 5.Analysis
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 4 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00058.bog
References
Andree, Milou
2022 Dus ik die scriptie schrijven: Een analyse van zinnen zonder persoonsvorm. BA thesis, Leiden University.
Barbiers, Sjef, Hans Bennis & Lotte Dros-Hendriks
2018 “Merging verb cluster variation.” Linguistic Variation 181: 144–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beliën, Maaike
2002 “Force dynamics in static prepositions.” Perspectives on prepositions, ed. by H. Cuyckens & G. Radden. 195–209. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bogaards, Maarten
2020 Beyond Progressive Aspect. MA thesis, Leiden University. [URL]
Under review. “Top-down vs. bottom-up approaches to aspect.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics.
Boogaart, Ronny
1999 Aspect and temporal ordering. PhD diss., Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
2016a “Passief en progressief?” Aries netwerk: Een constructicon, ed. by R. Boogaart, S. Lensink & A. Reuneker. 32–36. Leiden: Leiden University.Google Scholar
2016b “Leuker kunnen we het niet maken.” Taalvoutjes, 18 May 2016, [URL]
Boogaart, Ronny & Maarten Bogaards
In preparation. “Aspect.” Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst ed. by M. Beliën 3rd ed. Leiden INT
Booij, Geert
2008 “Constructional idioms as products of linguistic change.” Constructions and language change, ed. by A. Bergs & G. Diewald. 79–104. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans
2013 Syntax of Dutch: Adpositions and Adpositional Phrases. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, Norbert Corver & Riet Vos
2015 Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and Verb Phrases, Volume 11. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Norbert Corver
2015 Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and Verb Phrases, Volume 21. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “The expressive en maar-construction.” Crossroad Semantics, ed. by H. Reckman, L. Cheng, M. Hijzelendoorn & R. Sybesma. 305–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cavirani-Pots, Cora
2020 Roots in progress. PhD diss., KU Leuven.
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999 Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coppen, Peter-Arno
2006 “Aan het discussiëren met docenten.” Taalprof Plein, 12 December 2006, [URL]
2009 Leren tasten in het duister. Inaugural lecture, Radboud University Nijmegen. [URL]
2021 “Het grootste ontleedmysterie.” Onze Taal 90(9): 33.Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie & Gerlof Bouma
2022 “Semantic scope restrictions in complex verb constructions in Dutch.” Linguistics 601: 123–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felser, Claudia
2000 “Aspectual complement clauses and the (un-)availability of Verb Raising.” Verbal projections, ed. by H. Janßen. 163–193. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
1993 The rise of functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
2005 Words and structure. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten van den Toorn
(eds.) 1997 Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. 2nd ed. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
IJbema, Aniek
2003 “Grammaticalization and reanalysis in Dutch aspectual constructions.” Unpublished Ms., Universität Leipzig. [URL]
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 201: 5–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura
2004 “Type shifting in construction grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics 151: 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moens, Marc & Mark Steedman
1988 “Temporal ontology and temporal reference.” Computational Linguistics 141: 15–28.Google Scholar
Schuurman, Ineke & Annet Wierenga
1986 “Syntactische nomen-incorporatie bij infinitieven en deelwoorden.” Tabu 161: 339–350.Google Scholar
Smits, Rik
1987 “Over de aan het constructie, lexicale morfologie en casustheorie.” Grammaticaliteiten, ed. by N. Corver & J. Koster. 273–329. Tilburg: KU Brabant.Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte
1998 “Aspect shift and coercion.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 161: 347–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Pottelberge, Jeroen
2004 Der am-Progressiv. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1967 Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie
1992 “Praxis of Linguistics: Passives in Dutch.” Cognitive Linguistics 31: 301–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
2011 The Syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar