2. The Aan Het-Progressive.

The Dutch construction known as the aan het-progressive, or the prepositional progressive (for example, Lemmens Reference Lemmens2015, Bogaards et al. Reference Bogaards, Boogaart, Barbiers, Vogels and Leufkens2022) consists of a constituent aan het V_INF paired with the matrix verb zijn ‘be’. It presents the situation denoted by the variable infinitive as dynamic and ongoing, with the subject of zijn construed as the logical subject of the infinitive. An example of the construction is given in 3.Footnote ⁷

1. (3)

   

In the introduction, I claimed that this construction has been dealt with mainly using a top-down approach to (progressive) aspect. By this I mean that it is a priori treated as a progressive construction and is analyzed or compared to other constructions only in that capacity. For example, Boogaart (Reference Boogaart, Drijkoningen and van Kemenade1991) and Van Pottelberge (Reference Van Pottelberge2007) contrast the aan het-progressive with the default nonprogressive form in Dutch, that is, the simple present/past. Lemmens (Reference Lemmens2005, Reference Lemmens2015), Beekhuizen (Reference Beekhuizen2010, chapter 6), Behrens et al. (Reference Behrens, Flecken and Carroll2013), and Anthonissen et al. (Reference Anthonissen, De Wit and Mortelmans2019) compare this construction with other progressive forms, most notably the Dutch posture verb progressive, as in Rosie zit te eten ‘Rosie is eating’ lit. ‘Rosie sits to eat’. Finally, Boogaart (Reference Boogaart1999), Felser (Reference Felser and Janßen2000), Van Pottelberge (Reference Van Pottelberge2004, Reference Van Pottelberge2007), Behrens et al. (Reference Behrens, Flecken and Carroll2013), and Wierenga & Breed (Reference Wierenga and Breed2021) compare it to progressive forms from other Germanic languages (namely, Afrikaans, English, German, Norwegian, and Swedish). Notable findings from this top-down-oriented work are that the Dutch aan het-progressive i) exhibits a high degree of grammaticalization compared to progressives in German, Norwegian, and Swedish (Van Pottelberge Reference Van Pottelberge2007, Behrens et al. Reference Behrens, Flecken and Carroll2013), ii) may denote a situation stretching over an extended period of time so that it covers multiple separate instantiations of that same situation (Vismans Reference Vismans, Fry, Mackenzie and Todd1982, Lemmens Reference Lemmens2015), iii) does not allow a habitual interpretation (Boogaart Reference Boogaart1999), iv) may take on discourse-organizational functions (Boogaart Reference Boogaart, Drijkoningen and van Kemenade1991), and v) has lower (inter)subjective potential than the posture verb progressive (Anthonissen et al. Reference Anthonissen, De Wit and Mortelmans2019).

I should point out, however, that there is some notable work that goes beyond examining aan het V_INF zijn as an isolated progressive construction, which the present study takes as a starting point. For example, Bogaards et al. (Reference Bogaards, Boogaart, Barbiers, Vogels and Leufkens2022) compare the aan het-progressive to the ingressive variants with gaan ‘go’ or slaan ‘hit’ as the matrix verb, as in 2a. They conclude that these are two different syntactic constructions and situate the aan het-progressive higher on a synchronic lexical-to-functional cline than the aan het-ingressive (that is, the former is more grammaticalized).Footnote ⁸ Broekhuis et al. (Reference Broekhuis, Corver and Vos2015:153) note the semantic similarity between the aan het-progressive and the verbal stem pattern in 2b.

Booij (Reference Booij2010:163–165) offers a construction-based analysis of both the aan het-progressive and its ingressive counterpart with slaan. He formalizes the connection between the aan het-progressive form and meaning as in 4a, and the ingressive with slaan as in 4b (from Booij Reference Booij2010:164).

1. (4)

   

The schemata in 4 specify form-meaning links through coindexation of formal slots and sequences with semantic content (indices i-m in subscript). This notation captures the fact that each construction projects a different aspectual viewpoint (prog/ingr) onto the situation denoted by the infinitive (pred). Another well-known difference between these constructions is that the progressive but not the ingressive can optionally select an internal argument (see section 4.5). Booij (Reference Booij2010) accounts for this contrast by appealing to a general transitive schema [(argument) pred] in 4a, not present in 4b.Footnote ⁹

In what follows, I build further on the accounts cited in this section by drawing on the concept of horizontal relations in CxG. In particular, building on Booij’s (2010) analysis, the present study examines how the formalizations in 4—as well as the examples in 2b,c—are related within the constructional network. Booij (Reference Booij2010:164) qualifies the aan het-ingressives in 4b as “subconstructions” of 4a, linking 4b to 4a vertically through instantiation. Note that one consequence of Booij’s approach is that ingressivity in 4b operates on progressivity, because it inherits the prog-semantics of 4a. This relation potentially introduces a conceptual problem, given that these types of aspect express diametrically opposed viewpoints: Progressivity defocuses a situation’s boundaries (Behrens et al. Reference Behrens, Flecken and Carroll2013:98), whereas ingressivity focuses its initial boundary (see Xiao & McEnery Reference Xiao and McEnery2004, section 5.3). Hence [ingr[prog[pred]]] in 4b entails taking a situation and defocusing its boundaries, only to then (re)focus one of them—a somewhat roundabout procedure.Footnote ¹⁰ In my view, this particular outcome of Booij’s analysis reflects the top-down approach that starts from the notion progressive (and the form that is assumed to be tied to this notion). The fact that Booij (Reference Booij2010) includes prog in the conceptual definition of an ingressive construction is characteristic of this type of approach. In section 4, I put forward an alternative to the relation between 4a and 4b as analyzed by Booij (Reference Booij2010).

3. Constructional Networks and Horizontal Links.

Construction-based approaches to language—most prominently CxG—model linguistic knowledge as symbolic pairings of form and meaning called constructions organized in a taxonomic network (sometimes referred to as “the Construction”; for example, Verhagen Reference Verhagen2005:211, Van de Velde 2014:145). Constructions occupy a position in the network defined by their relations to other constructions (Diessel Reference Diessel2019:200). Together they form so-called construction families (ibid., 199). One way of organizing constructions is by vertical relations, from concrete to gradually more abstract linguistic patterns. To illustrate how this system works, Hilpert (Reference Hilpert2014:58) gives the example of the fully lexically specified idiom face the music with the noncompositional meaning ‘accept responsibility’. This idiom is one instantiation of the transitive verb face + OBJ, which in turn generalizes upward to the maximally schematic English transitive construction V OBJ. Vertical relations are thus token-to-type and type-to-token links, where token and type are relative terms: The expression face the music is a token that instantiates the type the transitive verb face + OBJ, which itself is a token that instantiates the type V OBJ.

As has been pointed out frequently in recent years, vertical relations are not sufficient to capture the associations between constructions (see, among others, Van de Velde 2014, Audring Reference Audring2019, Diessel Reference Diessel2019, Sommerer & Smirnova 2020).Footnote ¹¹ If there are similarities between constructions but no productive overarching construction they generalize to, these links cannot be modeled by appealing to abstraction. Instead, such constructions operate at the same level of schematicity without projecting upward to a more abstract (common) representation. Different terms are in circulation for this type of links between constructions, including “syntactic paradigms” (Van de Velde 2014), “sister relations” (Audring Reference Audring2019), and “horizontal relations” (Van de Velde 2014, Diessel Reference Diessel2019, Sommerer & Smirnova 2020). As noted by Van de Velde (2014:141), horizontal relations “have been somewhat neglected in comparison with the vertical relations,” particularly at the syntactic level.

According to Diessel’s (2019:200) analysis of German, horizontal relations are defined by similarities and differences between constructions. As an illustrative example, he discusses copular clauses and stative passives in German, which are not linked vertically either to the same schema or to each other and yet exhibit considerable similarity. In Dutch, copular clauses and stative passives both consist of a subject, the copula/auxiliary zijn ‘be’, and a complement: an adjective in the former and a participle in the latter, that is, subj zijn adj/ptcp (I am using Diessel’s 2019:200 notation). So, although de lamp is aan ‘the lamp is on’ (copular) and de lamp is aangezet ‘the lamp has been turned on’ (passive) are instantiations of different constructions, they are alike formally (syntagms) and semantically (resultant states). Diessel thus argues that constructions such as subj zijn adj/ptcp are defined not just by vertical links to more general/specific schemata but also by mutual horizontal relations. These relations can be viewed in terms of the syntactic and semantic similarities and differences between the constructions in question. The next two sections analyze the aan het-progressive and similar patterns in these terms to establish the horizontal links between them.

4. A Bottom-Up Approach.

4.4. Aan-Constructions Are Restricted to Certain Matrix Verbs.

Situational aan-constructions usually combine with some matrix verb, as shown in 5. When they do, they select verbs from the same limited pool, unlike locational PPs. The infinitival pattern aan het V_INF combines with a larger number of different verbs than aan de V_STEM/aan D N: There are 12 core verbs that are found with aan het V_INF. It has been observed that these verbs can be distinguished along two dimensions: i) progressive versus ingressive viewpoint, and ii) (non)causativity (Haeseryn et al. Reference Haeseryn, Romijn, Geerts, de Rooij and van den Toorn1997:1048–1054; Van Pottelberge Reference Van Pottelberge2004:27–51; Booij Reference Booij2010:146–168; Bogaards 2020:62–91, Reference Bogaards2022:6–7; Boogaart & Bogaards Reference Boogaart and Bogaards2023). Table 1 lists all 12 core verbs.Footnote ¹⁴

Table 1. Matrix verbs that occur with aan het V_INF.

This observation is unidirectional: Locational aan-PPs are not barred from occurring with the verbs in table 1, but their situational counterparts are restricted to this verb pool. To illustrate, the locational PP from 7 may be combined with houden ‘keep’, krijgen ‘obtain’, and zijn ‘be’ from table 1, but also with other verbs, such as zich bevinden ‘be situated’, kleven ‘stick’, and prijken ‘adorn’, as shown in 11. Situational aan het bier ‘having beer’ in 12 is limited to the first three. Again, the combinatorial patterns in 12 apply to aan het V_INF and aan de V_STEM as well.

1. (11)

   

1. (12)

   

As observed before, not all matrix verbs in table 1 combine with aan de V_STEM/aan D N. For example, slaan ‘hit’ and maken ‘make’ in 13a and 13b, respectively, yield ungrammatical results.

1. (13)

   

To get a better empirical handle on the combinatorial tendencies of aan de V_STEM/aan D N with the matrix verbs in table 1, queries were conducted in the SoNaR corpus of written Dutch. A set of 10 common types of aan de V_STEM and aan D N (based on corpus data from SoNaR in Bogaards Reference Bogaards2020) were selected, as shown in 14.

1. (14)

   

Tokens were then extracted with a finite verb directly preceding or following these aan-sequences. If the token in question behaved like a situational aan-construction (in the ways outlined in sections 4.2 and 4.3), then the finite verb was lemmatized. Table 2 shows the core matrix verbs that combine with the types of aan de V_STEM and aan D N in 14, ordered by absolute frequency. As expected, maken ‘make’ and slaan ‘hit’ are absent from table 2. Moreover, zetten ‘put’ does not combine with either pattern, and krijgen, komen, and houden are not attested with aan D N. Table 2 also contains one matrix verb that does select aan D N but is not present in table 1: the posture verb zitten ‘sit’. For aan D N, there seems to be free variation between zitten and zijn, as shown in 15.

Table 2. Matrix verbs that combine with each of the patterns in 14 (based on the data from SoNaR).

1. (15)

   

In sum, situational aan-constructions are only compatible with a limited number of matrix verbs, with some extra matrix verbs tied specifically to aan het V_INF and aan D N. Based on these data, there is not one generalization that captures the properties of the slot for the matrix verb in 6, as each of the three situational aan-constructions imposes its own restrictions.

5. A Family of Situational Aan-Constructions.

The previous section laid out relevant similarities and differences between aan het V_INF, aan de V_STEM, and aan D N. Starting out with the general meaning, these aan-constructions share situational reference. Borrowing Booij & Audring’s characterization of aan de V_STEM as “involved in the […] action [V_STEM]” (2018:223), the patterns’ denotation can be defined as in 19. For aan de V_STEM/aan D N, but not aan het V_INF, this involvement can be habitual. For aan D N, the derivation of situational reference from N is specified as metonymic.

1. (19)

   

The patterns in 19 differ from locational aan-PPs in several syntactic respects: The determiner het/de may not be substituted with another determiner, the variable element V_INF/V_STEM/N may not be modified, and the aan-constituent does not allow R-extraction. Moreover, the optional matrix verb V is restricted to a closed set, which varies according to construction. These matrix verbs contribute either a progressive or an ingressive aspectual viewpoint. The restrictions are listed in 20.

1. (20)

   

With aan het V_INF, the matrix verb determines whether there are positions for a direct object and a verbal particle to the left of aan. These positions are only allowed with zijn. Moreover, they are never available in the aan de V_STEM and aan D N constructions. Following Bogaards et al. (Reference Bogaards, Boogaart, Barbiers, Vogels and Leufkens2022), I therefore assume that there are two syntactic constructions with an infinitival slot: one with zijn and one with another matrix verb, as shown in 21. The constructions aan de V_STEM and aan D N pattern with 21b regardless of their matrix verb. In aan het V_INF zijn on the one hand, and aan de V_STEM and aan D N on the other, the verb zijn thus does not have the same status: The verb zijn licenses the OBJ- and PTCL-slots in 21a in the former but not in the latter. Therefore, there is no single element V that would generalize over all three constructions. Property 20d must therefore be reformulated as 22d.

1. (21)

   

1. (22)

   

Taken together, the descriptions in 19–21 constitute a bundle of formal and functional properties defining a family of situational aan-constructions in Dutch, which the aan het-progressive is a member of. Based on these descriptions, the question arises as to how these constructions are related. Specifically, is there an overarching schema aan D X linking these constructions vertically (see 6), and/or are they connected horizontally?

The similarities in 20a–c suggest that, minimally, horizontal relations are needed to account for the properties shared by these constructions. Given the contrast between 21a, 21b, and 22d, I take the position here that an additional generalization along the lines of 6 is not warranted. For speakers to know which matrix verbs in 22d go with which patterns, these combinations must be stored separately, particularly considering the structural contrast in 21. These complex relations are better captured by horizontal links that would connect the shared matrix verbs in 22d, the semantics in 21, and the structural restrictions in 20a–c. Figure 1 visualizes the family of situational aan-constructions as conceptualized presently.Footnote ¹⁵ Subscripts a–d (for example, d.1 in V_d.1) index the specific formal properties bundled in 20a–c and 22d. Subscript e indexes the viewpoint-aspectual semantics schematized in 20e.

Figure 1. A family of situational aan-constructions (indices refer to 20a–c,e and 22d).

Figure 1 postulates a larger family of aan-constructions than previously assumed (for example, in Booij Reference Booij2010, Lemmens Reference Lemmens2015), and, in my view, one that is also placed on a broader empirical footing—which is something gained by adding a bottom-up approach to the mostly top-down treatment of (progressive) aspect.