Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:37:51.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aspect Meets Modality: A Semantic Analysis of the German Am-Progressive

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2016

Lynn Anthonissen ,
Astrid De Wit  and
Tanja Mortelmans
Lynn Anthonissen*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
Astrid De Wit*
Affiliation:
Université Libre de Bruxelles/University of Antwerp
Tanja Mortelmans*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
*
Center for Grammar, Cognition and Typology, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium, [[email protected]]
Université Libre de Bruxelles/University of Antwerp, Campus du Solbosch, CP175, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50, 1050, Brussels, Belgium, [[email protected]]
Center for Grammar, Cognition and Typology, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium, [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a corpus-based analysis of the semantics of the German am V-inf sein construction, or am-progressive. Like its English counterpart and many other progressive constructions in the world's languages, the am-progressive is shown to convey not only a variety of aspecto-temporal meanings, but also a range of (inter)subjective qualifications, such as intensification, irritation, and evasiveness. These (inter)subjective connotations are argued to reflect the am-progressive's core meaning of epistemic contingency, which we believe is instantiated in all of its uses.*

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 1 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2016 

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
Behrens, Bergljot, Flecken, Monique, & Carroll, Mary. 2013. Progressive attraction: On the use and grammaticalization of progressive aspect in Dutch, Norwegian, and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 25. 95–136.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Ebert, Karen H., & de Groot, Casper. 2000. The progressive in Europe. Dahl 2000, 517–558.Google Scholar
Calver, Edward. 1946. The uses of the present tense forms in English. Language 22. 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen, (ed.). 2000. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Wit, Astrid, & Patard, Adeline. 2013. Modality, aspect and the progressive: The semantics of the present progressive in French in comparison with English. Languages in Contrast 13. 113–132.CrossRefGoogle 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
De Wit, Astrid, & Brisard, Frank. 2014. A Cognitive Grammar account of the semantics of the English present progressive. Journal of Linguistics 50. 49–90.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1. 33–52.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 3. 371–384.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 16. 529–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1975. The stative in the progressive and other essence/accident contrasts. Linguistic Inquiry 6. 579–588.Google Scholar
Duden, 1995 = DUDEN, Band 4: Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 1995. 5th edn., ed. by Drosdowski, Gunter. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Duden, 1995 = Duden, Band 4: Die Grammatik. 2005. 7th edn., ed. by Dudenredaktion, . Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 2000. Progressive markers in Germanic languages. Dahl 2000, 605–653.Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan, & Müller, Robert. 2003-present. Atlas zur deutschen Alltagssprache. Available at www.atlas-alltagssprache.de, accessed on November 16, 2014.Google Scholar
Engelberg, Stefan, Stephanie Frink, Svenja König, Meyer, Peter, & Sokolowski, Agata. 2013. Kleines Wörterbuch der Verlaufsformen im Deutschen. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. Available at www.owid.de/wb/progdb/start.html, accessed on October 3, 2014.Google Scholar
Erben, Johannes. 1972. Deutsche Grammatik: Ein Abriss. München: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Franckel, ean-Jacques,. 1989. Etude de quelques marqueurs aspectuels du français. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Gárgyán, Gabriella. 2014. Der am-Progressiv im heutigen Deutsch: Neue Erkenntnisse mit besonderer Hinsicht auf die Sprachgeschichte, die Aspektualität und den kontrastiven Vergleich mit dem Ungarischen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John, & Woisetschlaeger, Erich Friedrich. 1982. The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 79–89.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2003. Present progressive vis-à-vis predication focus in Bantu: A verbal category between semantics and pragmatics. Studies in Language 27. 323–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, Olaf. 1997. Progressiv-Konstruktionen im Deutschen im Vergleich mit dem Niederlandischen, Englischen und Italienischen. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 50. 48–82.Google Scholar
Krause, Olaf. 2002. Progressiv im Deutschen: Eine empirische Untersuchung im Kontrast mit Niederlandisch und Englisch. Tubingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania. 2001. Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lachaux, Françoise. 2005. La périphrase être en train de, perspective interlinguale (anglais-français): Une modalisation de l'aspect? Les périphrases verbales, ed. by Shyldkrot, Hava Bat-Zeev & Le Querler, Nicole, 119–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2000. Verbalaspekt und die Herausbildung epistemischer Modalverben. Germanistische Linguistik 154. 63–83.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2008. The silent and aspect-driven patterns of deonticity and epistemicity. A chapter in diachronic morphology. Modality-aspect interfaces: Implications and typological solutions, ed. by Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth, 15–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten. 2005. Aspectual posture verb constructions in Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 17. 183–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ljung, Magnus. 1980. Reflections on the English progressive. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15. 1–67.Google Scholar
Nehls, Dietrich. 1974. Synchron-diachrone Untersuchungen zur expanded Form im Englischen: Eine struktural-funktionale Analyse. München: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris, Dammel, Antje, Duke, Janet, & Szczepaniak, Renata. 2006. Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deuschen: Eine Einführung in die Prinzipien des Sprachwandels. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Reimann, Ariane. 1998. Die Verlaufsform im Deutschen: Entwickelt das Deutsche eine Aspektkorrelation? Bamberg, Germany: Otto-Friedrich-University dissertation.Google Scholar
Sieberg, Bernd. 1984. Perfekt und Imperfekt in der gesprochenen Sprache. Bonn, Germany: University of Bonn dissertation.Google Scholar
Sieberg, Bernd. 2002. Analytische Imperfektbildungen in der gesprochenen Sprache. Muttersprache 112. 240–252.Google Scholar
Sieberg, Bernd. 2004. Regelhafte und normale Anwendung von Perfekt und Präteritum: Mit Anregungen für den DaF-Bereich. Jahrbuch der ungarischen Germanistik 2003, ed. by Orosz, Magdolna & Herzog, Andreas, 291–315. Bonn & Budapest: DAAD & Gesellschaft ungarischer Germanisten.Google Scholar
Skelton, John. 1997. How to tell the truth in The British Medical Journal: Patterns of judgement in the 19th and 20th centuries. Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, ed. by Markkanen, Raija & Schröder, Hartmut, 42–63. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan, & Aksu, Ayhan. 1982. Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, ed. by Hopper, Paul, 185–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1997. Verbwortbildung und Verbklammer im Deutschen. Wortbildung: Theorie und Anwendung, ed. by Šimečková, Alena & Vachková, Marie, 163–173. Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar
Van Pottelberge, Jeroen. 2004. Der am-Progressiv: Struktur und parallele Entwicklung in den kontinentalwestgermanischen Sprachen. Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Van Pottelberge, Jeroen. 2005. Ist jedes grammatische Verfahren Ergebnis eines Grammatikalisierungsprozesses? Fragen zur Entwicklung des am-Progressivs. Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, ed. by Leuschner, Torsten, Mortelmans, Tanja & De Groodt, Sarah, 169–191. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Pottelberge, Jeroen. 2007. Defining grammatical constructions as a linguistic sign: The case of periphrastic progressives in the Germanic languages. Folia Linguistica 41. 99–134.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66. 143–160. Reprinted in Vendler 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2002. Non-progressive and progressive aspect in English. Fasano: Schena editore.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffman, Ludger, & Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar