Search

Lan honen helburua euskarazko ezezko perpausetako aditz nagusiak eta laguntzaileak historian zehar izan duten hurrenkera aztertzea da. Hizkuntzaren historiako hainbat testuren hitz-hurrenkerari begiratuz, aditz nagusia - ezezkoaren marka - aditz laguntzailea ordena (ikusi ez zuen modukoa) perpaus nagusietan desagertzen eta mendekoetan gordetzen dela erakusten da, eta, aldi berean, desberdintasun horri azalpen tipologikoa emateko saioa egiten da. Ezeztapenaren hurrenkerari eragiten dioten zenbait faktoreren inguruan ere (perpaus mota, euskalkia etab.) hausnarketa egiten da. This study aims to investigate the historical development in Basque of the order of the main and auxiliary verb in negated clauses. By analyzing word order in a number of historical texts it is shown that the pattern according to which the negative particle follows the main verb and precedes the auxiliary (as in ikusi ez zuen) is lost in main clauses. At the same time, subordinate clauses are shown to preserve this pattern. An attempt is made to account for this asymmetry in typological terms. A number of factors that affect the order of negation, such as clause type and dialect, are also considered.

The article attempts to highlight the problems in teaching and learning of one Portuguese periphrastic aspect construction. The author will try to present the problem related to multiple possible meanings of the periphrasis as well as factors influencing the meaning. In addition, various Portuguese grammar manuals will be analysed for the presence of information regarding the periphrasis andar a + infinitive to determine whether the information is complete enough for the pupils to use the periphrasis in the proper context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article deals with the peculiarities of modal verbs and periphrastic constructions in modern English and Dutch. The status of these verb groups was determined, and the most recognative features of them were singled out and described. The semantic aspects of these groups were observed in close comparison of English and Dutch. Distinct criteria for the classif cation of modals, auxiliaries and periphrastics were set out. Comparison of similarity and dif erence was based on the belonging of English and Dutch to the West subgroup of the Germanic languages.

Afrikaans is an inflection-poor language and, as expected, a literature review revealed that little agreement exists on how the participle in Afrikaans should be analysed and described. These differences are reflected in three basic issues, namely: a) inaccurate terminology use and vague formulations; b) controversy in arguments about the morphological process (including the distinction between inflection or derivation) responsible for the formation of participles; and c) inconsistency in the recognition of the participle as a form of the verb and whether the form of the verb that is used with auxiliaries (het in the past tense and word/is in the passive) should be regarded as participles. The incongruences above are in fact all variations of the same basic problem: the distinction between inflection and derivation. In an attempt to solve the vague and conflicting descriptions of the participle in Afrikaans, this article proposes a distinction between the participle form of the verb and the form of the verb that is used in periphrastic constructions (PC) - i.e. the past tense and the passive (Figure A). Grammatical analyses and descriptions of Afrikaans are relatively outdated. Before the publication of Kontemporêre Afrikaanse taalkunde (Carstens & Bosman) in 2014, the last revised grammar was published more than a decade ago. Therefore, new theoretical insights have not yet been applied to the description of the participle in Afrikaans. Jenkinson (1993:117118) and Van Huyssteen (2014:184) argue that the inflection-derivation distinction in Afrikaans should not be seen as an absolute distinction, but rather as conceptual gradience, as described in cognitive linguistics. In this regard Tuggy (1985:210213) states that an inflection-derivation continuum can be viewed as a form of categorisation that reflects a more natural interpretation of human cognition. Booij (2002:1920; 2006:660) elaborates on this idea by distinguishing contextual inflection from inherent inflection. This distinction supports the distinction between the participle form and the PC form of the verb. The PC form of the verb correlates fully with contextual inflection, whereas the participle form correlates fully with inherent inflection. This finer distinction is also compatible with Langacker's (1987:145; 2008:119120) view that the participle shows an intermediate character that is situated somewhere between processes and atemporal relations. From the view of a cognitive descriptive framework, the participle form and the PC form of the verb are compared on both the phonological and the semantic poles. Since the present participle form of the verb cannot be confused with the PC form of the verb, the comparison is made specifically between the past participle form (a) and the PC form (b) of the verb. (a) Afrikaans ge- kook -te eier PTCP- boil- PTCP egg "boiled egg" (b) Afrikaans Ek het ;n eier ge- kook. I AUX an egg PST- boil. "I boiled an egg." On the phonological pole, the past participle form of the verb is often used in syntactic constructions with a copula verb, while the PC form of the verb in past tense constructions is always used with the auxiliary het, and with word/is in passive constructions. Furthermore, the word final -d/ -t deletion rule in Afrikaans is complete in the PC form, but not in the participle form. This implies that the PC forms of the verb are never formed by the ambifix ge-V-d/-t (like the participle form) but only with the prefix ge-V. The difference on both the phonological and semantic poles is clear when a prototypical construction schema of a participle form (c) is compared to that of a PC form (d) by making use of the formalism of construction morphology (Booij 2010a:28). (c)[ge[V]id/t]Aj ↔ [completed state of SEMi]j [PTCP[V]iPTCP]Aj ↔ [completed state of SEMi]j (d) [ge[V]i]Vj ↔ [PST of SEMi]j [PST[V]i]Vj ↔ [PST of SEMi]j. Although the morphological structure of the various forms differs, they are often seen as the same form because the participle form is often used without the -d/-t. It is, however, only when the past participle is used prenominally that the -d/-t is realised. Yet, examples exist of past participle forms where the use of the -d is compulsory and they are key in the distinction between the different verb forms. In (e), (f) and (g) the English form of the verb is consistently confused. That is not the case with Afrikaans. In Afrikaans, the PC forms in the past tense (e) and passive (f) would be ungrammatical if d was used, and (g) would have a different meaning without the -d - i.e. that someone confused the speaker and not that the speaker experienced confusion. (e) JD se notas het my verwar. JD's notes confused me. (f) Ek word maklik deur JD se notas verwar. I am easily confused by JD's notes. (g) Ek is só verward vandag. I am so confused today. On the semantic pole, diagrammatic illustrations are presented to demonstrate the difference between the semantic characterisations of the participle form and the passive form of the verb. Both these forms have process bases that are transformed to atemporal relations as a result of summative scanning. Another similarity is the reversed trajectory-landmark organisation. The difference, though, is that the participle form only profiles the final state of the process, while the passive form profiles all the states of the process as they unfold. Adding to this difference, the passive form of the verb needs the auxiliary as another component structure in the resulting composite structure of the passive construction where the auxiliary (word/is) retemporalises the specific content of the passive form (Langacker 2008:125). The participle form and the past tense form of the verb are also distinguished on the semantic pole. Afrikaans does not have the same perfect construction as Dutch or English. When one needs to express a perfect aspectual contour in Afrikaans, one has to make use of adverbs. The past tense construction in Afrikaans (het + ge-V) originated from the Dutch perfect construction and developed into an exclusive tempus marker (Ponelis 1993; Conradie 1999). Consequently, the past tense construction in Afrikaans is a fixed, conventional unit that includes the construction as a whole: auxiliary + past tense form of the verb. The construction marks the verb as preceding the moment of speech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Progressive aspect is a grammatical category which signifies that an event is continuing or taking place (Comrie 1976:33-36; Bybee et al. 1994:126). In two articles, this article and (Breed & Van Huyssteen 2014), we investigate the manner in which two periphrastic constructions, namely the VCOP besig om te V and the VCOP aan die V constructions, are used to express progressive meaning in Afrikaans. The discussions are based on a corpus investigation in which the three Afrikaans periphrastic progressive constructions (the two already mentioned) and the VPOS en V constructions are compared to each other (Breed 2012; Breed & Brisard 2015). Dutch has three similar constructions, and for this reason the constructions were also compared to the Dutch ones where relevant. Breed and Brisard (2015) explains how the VPOS en construction is used to express progressive meaning. In this article and in Breed and Van Huyssteen (2014) the focus is therefore on the specific manner in which the besig and aan die constructions are used as progressive markers. Grammaticalisation theory offers insight into the manner in which grammatical constructions develop. For this reason the origin, development and use of the two relevant periphrastic constructions were investigated from this perspective. Grammaticalisation can be described as the process of language change during which lexical constructions develop systematically into constructions with grammatical meaning. This process of language change is characterised by specific mechanisms or characteristics, for instance universal routes, unidirectional change, lexical origin, semantic generalisation, an increase in frequency and re-analysis (cf. Bybee et al. 1994:4-5; Croft 1990:257; Heine & Reh 1984:11-12; Hopper & Traugott 2003:1; Lehmann 1995:3). Breed and Van Huyssteen (2014) firstly explains the theory of grammaticalisation. The grammaticalisation of the Afrikaans auxiliary het is given as an example to illustrate specific relevant aspects of grammaticalisation, namely universal routes, unidirectionality, lexical source, semantic bleaching, frequency and reanalysis. Secondly this article explains how the aan die and besig periphrastic constructions originate and develop. One of the most general lexical origins for progressive constructions is constructions with locative meaning (Bybee et al. 1994:129). The motivation behind the development of a progressive from locative constructions is probably due to the connotation of “be in the place of VERBing” or “be at VERBing” (Bybee et al. 1994:129-130). The hypothesis offered by Bybee et al. (1994:131) is that, apart from a few exceptions, all progressive constructions develop from locative meaning. The aan die progressive is a construction of locative origin. The structure of the periphrastic construction can be divided into three parts: firstly, the introductory copulative verb, secondly the locative aan preposition and thirdly the nominalised verb which is preceded by the definite article die. [aan + die] has received unit status and forms the analysed construction of the periphrasis. The aan die progressive therefore supports the hypothesis that progressive constructions develop from locative meanings. The besig progressive’s lexical origin differs from that of the aan die progressive, as well as from the VPOS en progressive (consult Breed 2012; Breed & Brisard 2015), due to the fact that this progressive construction does not have a locative origin. The word “besig” has a lexical meaning which implies that a subject is involved by means of a process which is continuing, and the development of this progressive construction is, therefore, lexically motivated. In this article, we investigate the frequency of these two constructions, as well as the verbs with which each of the constructions prototypically combine. The frequency of the two constructions was investigated in order to determine to what extent the constructions have been generalised. The aan die progressive (approximately 4,900 results in a corpus of circa 60 million words) appears significantly less frequently than the besig progressive (approximately 8,000 results). For the aan die construction a variant construction was also apparent, namely the aan ’t progressive. This construction is, however, very scarce (only 330 results) and is seemingly archaic. Furthermore, it seems as though besig has been generalised to such an extent that the progressive use of this word (62%) in Afrikaans, is more frequent than the lexical use (38%). It seems as though the aan die construction forms strong collocations and has a few specialised uses, amongst others, to be combined with i) inchoative verbs (such as toeneem, afneem, taan and opbou); ii) idiomatic expressions such as aan die brand, aan die slaap and aan die rol; iii) process nouns such as aan die gang and aan die stuur, and iii) activity verbs. The aan ’t progressive seems to be less specialised than the aan die progressive, although this construction is combined mainly with activity verbs. This construction is also generally found in contexts where a feeling of being “old-fashioned” or nostalgic is being conveyed, for example historical novels. The besig progressive combines with a great variety of verb types (i.e. activities, accomplishments and achievements). The frequency of transitive verbs with the besig progressive is also high in comparison to the other Afrikaans periphrastic progressive constructions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Progressive aspect is a grammatical category which signifies that an event is continuing or taking place (Comrie 1976:33-36; Bybee et al. 1994:126). In two articles, this article and Breed and Van Huyssteen (submitted), we investigate the manner in which two periphrastic constructions, namely the VCOP besig om te V and the VCOP aan die V constructions, are used to express progressive meaning in Afrikaans. The discussions are based on a corpus investigation in which the three Afrikaans periphrastic progressive constructions (the two already mentioned) and the VPOS en V constructions are compared to each other (Breed 2012; Breed & Brisard submitted). Dutch has three similar constructions, and for this reason the constructions were also compared to the Dutch ones where relevant. Breed and Brisard (submitted) explain how the VPOS en construction is used to express progressive meaning. In this article and in Breed and Van Huyssteen (submitted) the focus is therefore on the specific manner in which the besig and aan die constructions are used as progressive markers. The main objective of this first article is to show the origin and development of the two constructions, while the focus of the second article is to demonstrate -- on the basis of the results of the corpus investigation -- the specific ways in which the constructions are used. The grammaticalisation theory offers insight into the manner in which grammatical constructions develop. For this reason, the origin, development and use of the two relevant periphrastic constructions were investigated from this perspective. Grammaticalisation can be described as the process of language change during which lexical constructions develop systematically into constructions with grammatical meaning (Bybee et al. 1994; Hopper & Traugott 2003; Lehmann 1995). This process of language change is characterised by specific mechanisms or characteristics, for instance universal routes, unidirectional change, lexical origin, semantic generalisation, an increase in frequency and re-analysis. This first article firstly explains the theory of grammaticalisation. The grammaticalisation of the Afrikaans auxiliary het is given as an example to illustrate specific relevant aspects of grammaticalisation. Secondly, it explains how the aan die and besig periphrastic constructions originate and develop. One of the most general lexical origins of progressives is constructions with locative meaning (Bybee et al. 1994:129). The motivation behind the development of a progressive from locative constructions is probably the connotation of "be in the place of VERBing" or "be at VERBing" (Bybee et al. 1994:129-130). The hypothesis offered by Bybee et al. (1994:131) is that, apart from a few exceptions, all progressive constructions develop from locative meaning. The aan die progressive is a construction of locative origin. The structure of the periphrastic construction can be divided into three parts: firstly, the introductory copulative verb; secondly, the locative aan preposition; and thirdly, the nominalised verb which is preceded by the definite article die [aan + die] has received unit status and forms the analysed construction of the periphrase. The aan die progressive therefore supports the hypothesis that progressive constructions develop from locative meanings. The besig progressive's lexical origin differs from that of the aan die progressive, as well as from the VPOS en progressive (consult Breed 2012; Breed & Brisard submitted), due to the fact that this progressive construction does not have a locative origin. The word besig has a lexical meaning which implies that a subject is involved in a process which is continuing, and the development of this progressive construction is, therefore, lexically motivated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The above article is an attempt to analyze the influence of tens in which the auxiliary verb appears on the aspectual value of the periphrastic construction. We have analyzed some periphrases expressing different aspectual values and shown that in some cases the aspectual value of a periphrase depends on the tens of the auxiliary verb (basic opposition: Pretérito Imperfeito vs. Pretérito Perfeito Simples). We have used the classification of auxiliary verbs by Maria Helena Mira Mateus (1983). In the detailed analysis of the aspectual values of different periphrases we have taken into account the semantic value of the verb (classification by Zeno Vendler 1967).

The above article is an attempt to analyze the influence of tens in which the auxiliary verb appears on the aspectual value of the periphrastic construction. We have analyzed some periphrases expressing different aspectual values and shown that in some cases the aspectual value of a periphrase depends on the tens of the auxiliary verb (basic opposition: Pretérito Imperfeito vs. Pretérito Perfeito Simples). We have used the classification of auxiliary verbs by Maria Helena Mira Mateus (1983). In the detailed analysis of the aspectual values of different periphrases we have taken into account the semantic value of the verb (classification by Zeno Vendler 1967). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In typological and contrastive investigations, constructions that designate similar categories of meaning in different languages are often assigned to the same grammatical category. In order for a linguistic investigation to be truly comparative, however, it is not enough for the constructions that are being compared to be mere translation equivalents: they must be identifiable as genuine grammatical constructions in the languages in question. This problem becomes particularly acute with periphrastic constructions, as on formal grounds they cannot always be easily distinguished from free syntactic combinations. This article seeks to define periphrastic constructions on the basis of a renewed interpretation of Saussure's (1916) theory of the linguistic sign. It is argued that in order for periphrastic grammatical constructions to constitute linguistic signs in their own right they must meet the same criteria as lexemes or morphemes, i.e. they must be combinations of a specific linguistic content with specific formal characteristics. This definition is applied to several constructions in the Germanic languages that have been treated as progressives in the literature; the empirical evidence shows that the status of some of them as linguistic signs, and hence as genuine grammatical constructions, is questionable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]