Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 24] 2018
► pp. 73–113

Towards a constructional analysis of the progressive aspect in Texas German

This paper provides a constructional analysis of progressive aspect in Texas German (TxG) in present, indicative, active, non-negative sentences. TxG speakers used the present tense (progressive), am-progressive, tun-progressive, and the adverb jetzt to translate English sentences containing the present tense progressive be + -ing into TxG. This paper compares translation elicitation data from TxG speakers from Gillespie County from Gilbert’s (1972) Linguistic Atlas of Texas German, Guion (1996), and the present-day Texas German Dialect Project. It demonstrates that there is still a range of constructions available to TxGs to express progressivity, with the present tense being the most commonly used construction, followed by the temporal adverb jetzt (38%), the am-progressive (7%), and the tun-progressive (4%).
Keywords: Texas German, German progressive, am-progressive, tun periphrasis, contact language varieties, speech islands, Construction Grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The progressive aspect in English and German
    • 2.1Progressive aspect
    • 2.2The progressive aspect in English, Standard German, and dialectal German
  • 3.A Construction Grammar approach to progressive aspect
  • 4.Progressive marking in Texas German
    • 4.1The present tense (progressive) construction with an optional adverb
      • 4.1.1The present tense (progressive) construction in Gilbert (1972), Guion (1996), and the TGDA
      • 4.1.2A TxG pres(prog) construction
    • 4.2The am-progressive
      • 4.2.1The am-progressive in Gilbert (1972), Guion (1996), and the TGDA
      • 4.2.2A TxG am-progressive construction
    • 4.3The tun-progressive
      • 4.3.1The tun-construction in Gilbert (1972), Guion (1996), and the TGDA
      • 4.3.2A TxG tun-progressive construction
  • 5.Summary and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24.03ble
References (86)
References
Abraham, W., & Fischer, A. (1998). Das grammatische Optimalisierungsszenario von tun als Hilfsverb. In K. Donhauser, & L. G. Eichinger (Eds.), Deutsche Grammatik – Thema in Variationen: Festschrift für Hans-Werner Eroms zum 60. Geburtstag (pp.35–47). Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar
Andersson, S. (1989). On the generalization of progressive constructions: “Ich bin (das Buch) am Lesen” – status and usage in three varieties of German. In L. Larsson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Symposium on Aspectology (pp.95–106). Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Anthonissen, L., De Wit, A., & Mortelmans, T. (2016). Aspect Meets Modality: A Semantic Analysis of the German Am-Progressive. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 28(1), 1–30.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behrens, B., Flecken, M., & Carroll, M. (2013). Progressive attraction: On the use and grammaticalization of progressive aspect in Dutch, Norwegian, and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 25, 95–136.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M., Ebert K., & de Groot, C. (2000). The progressive in Europe. In Ö. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp.693–722). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2009). The life and death of Texas German. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.233–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Pierce, M. (2011). Lexical developments in Texas German. In M. Putnam (Ed.), Studies on German language islands (pp.129–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., Pierce, M., Roesch, K., Halder, G., & Weilbacher, H. (2010). The Texas German Dialect Archive: A multimedia resource for research, teaching, and outreach. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 22 (3), 277–296.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. R., & Putnam, M. T. (2015). Functional convergence and extension in contact: Syntactic and semantic attributes of the progressive aspect in Pennsylvania Dutch. In J. B. Jonannessen, & J. C. Salmons (Eds.), Germanic heritage languages in North America: Acquisition, attrition and change (pp.135–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calver, E. (1946). The uses of the present tense forms in English. Language, 22, 317–325.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chelliah, S. L., & de Reuse, W. J. (2011). Handbook of descriptive linguistic fieldwork. Dordecht: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008), Construction Grammar. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.463–508). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Costello, J. (1992), The periphrastic duh construction in Anabaptist and Nonsectarian Pennsylvania German: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives. In K. Burridge, & W. Enniger (Eds.), Diachronic Studies on the Languages of the Anabaptists (pp.242–263). Bochum: Brockeyer.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (1985). Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
de Groot, C. (1993). The absentive. Typological questionnaire EUROTYP.Google Scholar
(2000). The absentive. In Ö. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp.693–722). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
De Wit, A., & Brisard, F. (2014). A Cognitive Grammar account of the semantics of the English present progressive. Journal of Linguistics, 50(1), 49–90.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Der Spiegel. (2005, April 16). Post an den Zwiebelfisch: Die Kuh am Schwanz am raus am Ziehen. Retrieved from [URL].
Dorian, N. C. (1973). Grammatical change in a dying dialect. Language, 49, 413–438.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1977). Towards a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English ‘imperfective progressive’. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 45–78.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duden (2005). Duden, Band 4: Die Grammatik (7th ed.). Mannheim: DudenverlagGoogle Scholar
Ebert, K. H. (1996). Progressive aspect in German and Dutch. Journal of Germanic Languages and Literature, 1(1), 41–62.Google Scholar
(2000). Progressive markers in Germanic languages. In Ö. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp.605–655). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Eikel, F. (1949). The use of cases in New Braunfels German. American Speech, 24, 278–281.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1954). The New Braunfels German dialect (PhD dissertation). John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Elspaß, S. (2005). Standardisierung des Deutschen: Ansichten aus der neueren Sprachgeschichte‚ von unten. In W. Kallmeyer, & L. M. Eichinger (Eds.), Standardvariation: Wie viel Variation vertragt die deutsche Sprache? (Institute für Deutsche Sprache, Jahrbuch 2004). (pp.63–99). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Elspaß, S., & Möller, R. (2011). Atlas zur deutschen Alltagssprache. Retrieved from [URL].
Engelberg, S., Frink, S. König, S. Meyer, P., & Sokolowski, A. (2013). Kleines Wörterbuch der Verlaufsformen im Deutschen. Institut für Deutsche Sprache. Retrieved from [URL].Google Scholar
Eroms, H. (1998). Periphrastic tun in present-day Bavarian and other German dialects. In I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, M. van der Wal, & A. van Leuvensteijn (Eds.), DO in English, Dutch and German: History and present-day variation (pp.139–157). Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
Filip, H. (2012). Lexical aspect. In R. I. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp.721–751). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. (2001). Diachronie und Synchronie von auxiliarem tun im Deutschen. In S. Watts, Sheila, J. West, & H. Solms (Eds.), Zur Verbmorphologie germanischer Sprachen. Tübingen (Linguistische Arbeiten 446) (pp.137–154). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flick, J. (2016). Der am-Progressiv und parallele am V-en sein-Konstruktionen: Kompositionalität, Variabilität und Netzwerkbildung. In U. Demske, J. Haustein, S. Köbele, & D. Nübling (Eds.), Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 138(2), 163–196.Google Scholar
Flick, J., & Kuhmichel, K. (2013). Der am-Progressiv in Dialekt und Standard. In P. M. Vogel (Ed.), Sprachwandel im Neuhochdeutschen (pp.52–76). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gast, V., & König, E. (2007). Understanding English-German contrasts. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Gilbert, G. (1963). The German dialect spoken in Kendall and Gillespie Counties, Texas (PhD dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
(1972). The linguistic atlas of Texas German. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 532–568.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldhahn, D., Eckart, T., & Quasthoff, U. (2012). Building large monolingual dictionaries at the Leipzig Corpora Collection: From 100 to 200 languages. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12).Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J., & Woisetschlaeger, E. F. (1982). The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 79–89.Google Scholar
Guion, S. G. (1996). The death of Texas German in Gillespie County. In P. S. Ureland, & I. Clarkson (Eds.), Language contact across the North Atlantic (pp.243–263). Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, H. (1974). Der Ausdruck des ‘Verbalaspekts’ in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache (Hamburger phonetische Beiträge 15). Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Hamm, F., & Bott, O. (2014). Tense and aspect. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: [URL].Google Scholar
Hewson, J. (2012). Tense. In R. I. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp.507–535). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Troustale, G. (2013). Construction Grammar: Introduction. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Troustale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.1–14). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2008). Time in language, language in time. Language Learning, 58(1), 1–12.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kölligan, D. (2004). Zur präteritalen tun-Periphrase im Ripuarischen. In F. Patocka, & P. Wiesinger (Eds.), Morphologie und Syntax deutscher Dialekte und Historische Dialektologie des Deutschen. Beiträge zum 1. Kongress der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen, Marburg/Lahn, 5–8 March 2003 (pp.429–452). Vienna: Edition Praesens.Google Scholar
Krause, O. (1997). Progressiv-Konstruktionen im Deutschen im Vergleich mit dem Niederländischen, Englischen und Italienischen. Sprachtypologie und Universalforschung, 50, 48–82.Google Scholar
(2002). Progressiv im Deutschen: Eine empirische Untersuchung im Kontrast mit Niederländisch und Englisch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhmichel, K. (2016). Zum Ausdruck von Progressivität in den Dialekten Hessens. In A. N. Lenz, & F. Patocka (Eds.), Syntaktische Variation. Areallinguistische Perspektiven (Wiener Arbeiten zur Linguistik 2) (pp.67–88). Göttingen: Vienna University Press.Google Scholar
(2017). Progressivkonstruktionen. SyHD-atlas. Retrieved from [URL].Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.24–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive application (Vol. 2). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langer, N. (2000). On the polyfunctionality of the auxiliary tun . In German Studies Towards the Millennium: Selected Papers from the Conference of University Teachers of German, University of Keele, September 1999 (pp.261–282).Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1991). Grammaticalization and related changes in contemporary German. In E. C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization: Focus on types of grammatical markers (Vol. 2) (pp.493–495, 512–515, 532–535). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leuscher, T., Mortelmans, T., & De Groot, S. (2005). Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ljung, M. (1980). Reflections on the English progressive. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Mair, C. (2012). Progressive and continuous aspect. In R. I. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp.803–827). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maiwald, C. (2002). Das temporale System des Mittelbairischen: Synchrone Variation und diachroner Wandel. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
(2004). Tempus und Aspekt im Bairischen. In F. Patocka, & Peter Wiesinger (Eds.), Morphologie und Syntax deutscher Dialekte und Historische Dialektologie des Deutschen. Beiträge zum 1. Kongress der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen, Marburg/Lahn, 5–8 March 2003 (pp.227–243). Vienna: Edition Praesens.Google Scholar
Meier, A. (2015). Zum Ausdruck von Progressivität in den Varietäten des Deutschen: Eine Untersuchung im Südbairischen (PhD dissertation). University of Vienna, Vienna.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, A. P. D. (1978). Events, processes and states. Syntax and Semantics 14, Tense and Aspect. New York, NY: Academic Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quasthoff, U., Goldhahn, D., & Eckart, T. (2013). Deutscher Wortschatz 2012. Technical Report Series on Corpus Building (Vol. 1). University of Leipzig, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Ramelli, C. (2012). The am + INF construction in German varieties. In Á. Pérez, A. Xosé, E. Carrilho, & C. Magro (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Limits and Areas in Dialectology (LimiAr), Lisbon 2011 (pp.383–403).Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Reimann, A. (1996). Die Verlaufsform im Deutschen: Entwickelt das Deutsche eine Aspektkorrelation? (PhD dissertation). University of Bamberg, Bamberg.Google Scholar
Ritz, M. (2012). Perfect tense and aspect. In R. I. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp.881–907). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rothstein, B. (2007). Tempus. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. C. Boas, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar (pp.39–170). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Salmons, J. (1983). Issues in Texas German language maintenance and shift. Monatshefte, 75, 187–196.Google Scholar
Salmons, J., & Lucht, F. (2006). Standard German in Texas. In L. Thornburg, & J. Fuller (Eds), Studies in contact linguistics: Essays in honor of Glenn G. Gilbert (pp.165–186). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Scheffer, J. (1975). The Progressive in English. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Sick, B. (2005, April 14). Wie die Sprache am Rhein Verlaufen ist. Der Spiegel Online. Retrieved from [URL].Google Scholar
Pottelberge, J. V. (2004). Der am-Progressiv: Struktur und parallele Entwicklung in den kontinentalwestgermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(2009). Progressiv. In E. Hentschel, & P. M. Vogel (Eds), De Gruyter Lexikon. Deutsche Morphologie (pp.356–372). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Williams, C. (2002). Non-progressive and progressive aspect in English. Fasano: Schena editore.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (1977). The German language in central Texas today. Rice University Studies, 63(3), 47–58.Google Scholar
(1986). Texas German and other American immigrant languages: Problems and prospects. In T. Gish, & R. Spuler (Eds.), Eagle in the New World: German immigration to Texas and America (pp.221–240), College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Ziem, A., & Lasch, A. (2013). Konstruktionsgrammatik: Konzepte und Grundlagen gebrauchsbasierter Ansätze. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, G., Hoffman, L., & Strecker, B. (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Efeoglu, Gulumser
2024. Acquisition of –Ing in English by Multilingual Adult Speakers in Germany and the US. Sakarya University Journal of Education ► pp. 308 ff. DOI logo
Bidese, Ermenegildo
2023. Sprachkontaktdynamiken im aspektuellen System. Neue Evidenz zur Progressivperiphrase aus dem Zimbrischen von Lusérn. In L’aspettualità nel contatto linguistico: lingue slave e oltre [Biblioteca di Studi Slavistici, 53], ► pp. 273 ff. DOI logo
Buschfeld, Sarah
2021. Chapter 8. The question of structural nativization in Namibian English. In The Dynamics of English in Namibia [Varieties of English Around the World, G65], ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.