Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:24:11.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aspectual Posture Verb Constructions in Dutch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2005

Maarten Lemmens
Maarten Lemmens
Affiliation:
Université Lille 3/Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses the auxiliated posture verb constructions in Dutch (liggen/zitten/staan+te+V ‘sit/lie/stand to V’) that have progressive, durative, or habitual interpretation. My analysis, based on a large corpus of written texts, reveals, first of all, that to a large extent these constructions follow the regular (that is, non-aspectual) use of the three cardinal posture verbs as basic locational verbs. Second, the corpus used for the present study reveals clear experientially based patterns in the type of verbs that occur in the auxiliated posture verb construction. The data suggest that, at least in the written language, the construction has retained a link with the postural (or by extension, the locational) source. This sheds light on some clear semantic differences between the auxiliated posture verb constructions and another common progressive construction in Dutch, aan het V zijn ‘be at the V-inf’. The paper also briefly considers the progressive construction lopen+te+V ‘run to V’, showing that it is less grammaticalized and still predominantly tied to motion events.I would like to thank the anonymous referees of this journal for their comments on a previous version of this paper. Responsibility for any remaining inaccuracies is, of course, mine.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 183 - 217
Copyright
© 2005 Society for Germanic Linguistics

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

Berman Ruth A., and Dan I. Slobin (eds.). 1994. Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bertinetto Pier Marco, Karen H. Ebert, and Casper de Groot. 2000. The progressive in Europe. Dahl 2000, 517– 558.
Boogaart Ronny. 1991. Progressive aspect in Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands, ed. by Frank Drijkoningen and Ans van Kemenade, 1– 9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Booij Geert. 2002. Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14. 301– 329.Google Scholar
Brisau André. 1969. English progressive tenses and their Dutch equivalents. Studia Germanica Gandensia 11. 73– 85.Google Scholar
Bybee Joan L., Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Comrie Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dahl Östen (ed.). 2000. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ebert Karen H. 2000. Progressive markers in Germanic languages. Dahl 2000, 605– 653.
Haeseryn Walter, Kirsten Romijn Guido Geerts Jaap de Rooij and Maarten C. van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Tweede, geheel herziene druk. Groningen and Deurne: Martinus Nijhoffuitgevers/Wolters Plantyn.
Heine Bernd, Ulrike Claudi and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuteva Tania. 1999. On ‘sit’/‘stand’/‘lie’ auxiliation. Linguistics 37. 191– 213.Google Scholar
Lemmens Maarten. 2002. The semantic network of Dutch posture verbs. Newman 2002, 103– 139.
Lemmens Maarten. 2005. Motion and location: Toward a cognitive typology. Parcours, détour, contour (Travaux du CIEREC, 117), ed. by Geneviève Girard, 223– 242. Saint-Etienne: Publications de l'Université St. Etienne.
Leys Odilon. 1985. De konstruktie staan te + infinitief en verwante konstrukties. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Akademie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 3. 265– 277.Google Scholar
Lødrup Helge. 2002. Norwegian pseudocoordinations. Studia Linguistica 56. 121– 143.Google Scholar
Newman John (ed.). 2002. The linguistics of sitting, standing, and lying. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Newman John, and Sally Rice. 2004. English sit, stand, and lie: Patterns of usage and their experiential motivations. Cognitive Linguistics 15. 351– 396.Google Scholar
Serra Borneto Carlo. 1996. Liegen and stehen in German: A study in horizontality and verticality. Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods, ed. by Eugene Casad, 458– 505. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Song Jae Jung. 2002. The posture verbs in Korean. Newman 2002, 359– 385.
Talmy Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Van den Hoek Theo. 1971. Leggen en zetten. Tabu 1. 33– 37.Google Scholar
Van den Toorn Maarten C. 1972. Over de semantische kenmerken van staan, liggen en zitten. De Nieuwe Taalgids 6. 459– 464.Google Scholar
Van Oosten Jeanne. 1986. Sitting, standing and lying in Dutch: A cognitive approach to the distribution of the verbs zitten, staan, and liggen. Dutch linguistics at Berkeley, ed. by Jeanne van Oosten and John Snapper, 137– 160. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Van Pottelberghe Jeroen. 2002. Nederlandse progressiefconstructies met werkwoorden van lichaamshouding. Nederlandse Taalkunde 7. 142– 174.Google Scholar
Vendler Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Verhoeven Ludo, and Sven Strömqvist (eds). 2004. Relating events in narratives: Typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.