This article discusses the way in which the VPOS+and+VINF-periphrastic construction is used in Afrikaans to express progressive aspectual meaning. The discussion is based on the results of a corpus based investigation which examined the specific ways in which the use of this construction differs from that of the other two Afrikaans periphrastic progressive constructions, namely the aan+die/’t+VINF construction and the is+besig+om+te+VINF-construction. Since three peer constructions can be identified in Dutch (i.e. the VPOS+te+VINF, the aan+het+VINF and the zijn+bezig+te+VINF construction), the Afrikaans VPOS en-construction was, where relevant, compared with the Dutch VPOS te-construction. The article also shows the way in which the VPOS en-construction came into being. To indicate the way in which the use of this construction differs from the uses of the other constructions mentioned, the grammaticalisation theory was used to firstly look at the frequency of the construction and secondly at the verb collocations of this construction.

This paper is the first in-depth study of the main human impersonal pronouns in Afrikaans: jy 'you', ('n) mens '(a) human' and hulle 'they'. It adopts a double questionnaire approach, consisting of an acceptability judgment task for one group of participants and a completion task for another group. On the theoretical side, we test the different dimensions proposed in two of the most recent semantic maps of human impersonal pronouns. The first map features vague, inferred and specific existential uses, which vary in the kind/degree of (un)knownness. The second one distinguishes existential contexts that only allow a plural interpretation from existential contexts that are neutral with respect to number. The results of our questionnaires indicate not only that the dimensions of number and (un)knownness involve gradual instead of categorical distinctions but also that they interact with one another, with decreasing acceptability and usage of hulle along both of them. More generally, the completion task data suggest that human impersonal pronouns are not the preferred strategy for impersonalization in existential contexts anyway. On the descriptive side, we show that Afrikaans has a division of labor between ('n) mens and jy on the one hand and hulle on the other. The former are restricted to universal-internal uses, the latter to universal-external, speech act verb and existential ones. The data also reveal that speakers may consider the less grammaticalized form 'n mens more acceptable but that they tend to employ more grammaticalized mens. It thus attests to the usefulness of combining the two types of questionnaire. Keywords impersonal, pronoun, Afrikaans, questionnaire, semantic map 1. are a collective that has the right and/or power to install speed cameras. The police and the government are two likely candidates. This semi-impersonal existential use is typically called 'corporate' (a term that goes back to Pesetsky 1996, p. 39). (2) a. Eng In Greece, they drive quite unpredictably. b. Eng They have installed new speed cameras here. The three uses that Siewierska and Papastathi (2011) regard as genuinely impersonal are illustrated in (1b) and (3). They differ in the type or level of (un)knownness, as argued by Cabredo Hofherr (2006) among others. In the 'vague' use in (1b), the set of human participants cannot be identified by the interlocutors but there is said to be at least one specific person who committed the known act of stealing the car. In (3a), the speaker gathers from the situation, i.e. the smell in the room, that the essentially unknown event of consuming pizza there must have occurred and that an unidentifiable (group of) eater(s) must have existed. This use is labeled 'inferred'. In the 'specific' use in (3b), the event takes place at a particular place and time and the interlocutors may thus have certain expectations about who is performing it. Despite the situational potential for identification, the (set of) individual(s) knocking on the door is not explicitly named, however. (3) a. Eng They ha...

A general linguistic use of progressive aspect is to express some kind of subjective meaning. In other words, this aspectual construction is applied to postulate the speaker's attitude towards or emotional involvement with a particular situation. Although this practice occurs in all three Afrikaans progressive constructions, it is clear that the postural progressive in Afrikaans in particular became specialised with respect to subjective expression. The CPV 1 en construction is even used in constructions that cannot be interpreted as progressive situations (for example, stative or anterior situation types), and furthermore this construction collocates significantly strongly with negative communication verbs (verbs like skinder 'gossip', kla 'complain' and pla 'bother'). The subjective use of progressive constructions in Afrikaans has not received much attention to date. In two complementary articles (this article and The subjective use of postural verbs in Afrikaans (II): a corpus analysis of CPV en in Zefrikaans) the development and use of the CPV en as a subjective or interpretative construction, are investigated. Based on a relevant literature review, the purpose of this article is to propose a development route for the evolution of the subjective CPV en construction; and to highlight some typical characteristics of the subjective CPV en construction, on the basis of a pilot corpus study. The modal CPV en construction develops in five phases. During the first two phases, the postural verb is used to express the physical or spatial orientation of the subject. During the third and fourth phases, the postural verb develops into an aspectual auxiliary verb. It is only in the fourth phase that the progressive construction is used in modal contexts. In the last, fifth phase, the progressive meaning of the CPV en construction fades completely and it evolves into a pure modal construction. The subjective CPV en construction is characterised by two typical characteristics: firstly, the construction is mostly used in negative contexts (such as insult, blame, self-reproach or judgement) and secondly, it is mainly used in informal or spoken language. It does not appear frequently in a corpus of written Standard Afrikaans.

In 'n tweetal artikels (hierdie artikel en Breed & Van Huyssteen 2014) stel ons ondersoek in na die wyse waarop twee perifrastiese konstruksies, te wete die VKOP besig om te V- en die VKOP aan die V-konstruksies, gebruik word om progressiewe betekenis in Afrikaans uit te druk. Die bespreking word gebaseer op 'n korpusondersoek waarin drie Afrikaanse perifrastiese progressiewe konstruksies (d.i. die twee genoemde konstruksies, sowel as die VPOS en V-konstruksie; sien Breed 2012 en Breed & Brisard 2015) met mekaar vergelyk is. Drie ewekniekonstruksies word in Nederlands gevind, en daarom word die konstruksies ook, waar ter sake, met die Nederlandse konstruksies vergelyk. In Breed (2012) word die grammatikaliseringsproses verduidelik, en daar word aangetoon dat die aan die-/aan het-konstruksies lokatiewe oorsprong het, terwyl die oorsprong van die besig-/bezig-konstruksies leksikaal gemotiveerd is. In hierdie artikel word die frekwensie van die twee konstruksies ondersoek en daar word bewys dat daar aansienlike verskille tussen die verspreiding van die Afrikaanse en Nederlandse konstruksies is. Die werkwoorde waarmee elk van die konstruksies prototipies kombineer, word bestudeer en daar word bevind dat die Afrikaanse besig-konstruksie met 'n groot aantal werkwoordtipes kan kombineer, terwyl die aan die-progressiefkonstruksie meer gespesialiseerd is.

Given the common ancestry of Dutch and Afrikaans, it is not surprising that they use similar periphrastic constructions to express progressive meaning: aan het (Dutch) and aan die/’t (Afrikaans) lit. ‘at the’; bezig met/(om) te (Dutch) lit. ‘busy with/to’ and besig om te lit. ‘busy to’ (Afrikaans); and so-called cardinal posture verb constructions (zitten/sit ‘sit’, staan ‘stand’, liggen/lê ‘lie’ and lopen/loop ‘walk’), CPV te (‘to’ Dutch) and CPV en (‘and’ Afrikaans). However, these cognate constructions have grammaticalized to different extents. To assess the exact nature of these differences, we analyzed the constructions with respect to overall frequency, collocational range, and transitivity (compatibility with transitive predicates and passivizability). We used two corpora that are equal in size (both about 57 million words) and contain roughly the same types of written text. It turns out that the use of periphrastic progressives is generally more widespread in Afrikaans than in Dutch. As far as grammaticalization is concerned, we found that the Afrikaans aan die- and CPV-constructions, as well as the Dutch bezig- and CPV-constructions, are semantically restricted. In addition, only the Afrikaans besig- and CPV en-constructions allow passivization, which is remarkable for such periphrastic expressions.*