Dutch differs from English in that it can use the present tense to refer to durative events that take place at speech time: whereas an English present-tense example such as (353b) cannot refer to a specific walking-on-the-moor event that takes place at speech time n, Dutch present-tense examples such as (353a) are quite normal in such a context; cf. the generalizations in (336) in Section 1.5.2, sub II.

Section 1.5.4 will show that the Dutch simple present/past has a wide range of possible interpretations concerning the location of the eventuality k expressed by the lexical projection of the main verb relative to speech time n or virtual speech-time-in-the-past n': the former can precede, overlap or follow the latter. It is therefore not surprising that Dutch also has special means for expressing progressive aspect, i.e. for expressing that a certain eventuality k is ongoing at n/n'. Here we will briefly discuss the two main grammatical constructions used in Dutch, illustrated in (354); cf. Lemmens (2005/2015) and the references given there.

Example (354a) expresses the progressive by means of non-main verbs which have the same form as the main verbs zitten, liggen and staan denoting the posture of the subject; for this reason the construction is sometimes called the aspectual or progressive posture verb construction, although it should be noted that there is a similar construction with the movement verb lopento walk. The second construction is a more or less idiomatic construction with an aan het + infinitive. The two progressive constructions occur mainly with verbs denoting events in the sense of Figure 3 in Section 1.2.3; the examples in (355) show that they cannot occur with verbs denoting states such as wetento know (and if they do, they impose an event reading on them).

This does not mean, however, that the two constructions can be regarded as (nearly) synonymous. A first reason for claiming this is that the lexical meaning of the main verb counterparts of the semi-aspectual non-main verbs in (354) may still be active in that they can indicate Jan’s posture, although there are many cases in which this meaning is bleached or even absent; cf. Section 6.3.1, sub I, for further discussion. Second, Lemmens (2015) found that there are differences in selection restrictions on the infinitive. This is evident from the fact that we find less variation in terms of types in the constructions with semi-aspectual non-main verbs than in the aan het + infinitive construction, especially considering that the former was better represented in the corpus than the latter: the type/token frequencies were 354/1373 and 440/1040, respectively. Moreover, there is little overlap in the use of infinitives in the two constructions, as they seem to prefer different types of verbs in terms of telicity, again in the sense of Figure 3 in Section 1.2.3: 93,4% of the cases with a semi-aspectual non-main verbs in the corpus are activities such as wachtento wait or kijkento watch; aan het + infinitive constructions also commonly refer to activities (49%), but there are also many cases that refer to achievements (32%) and accomplishments (19%); cf. Section 6.3.1, sub II, for relevant examples. Lemmens further argues that the two constructions place a different focus: the use of semi-aspectual non-main verbs like zitten locates the subject of the clause in a specific event, which typically takes place at speech time n. This is supported by the fact that a Google search (2024, February 8) on the string [zit straks te lezen] yielded no result, whereas the string [zit nu te lezen] is very common (with the same result for the more general activity verb werkento work).

The aan het + infinitive construction also seems to include speech time n, but does not focus on a specific writing event but on the process as a whole; this makes it more suitable for activities that require a longer period of time and thus cannot be completed in one uninterrupted session: while (357a) seems to imply that Jan is actually writing at the moment of speech, example (357b) would still be true if Jan is enjoying a stay with his parents to take a well-deserved pause from writing his thesis.

Since the syntactic properties of semi-aspectual constructions of the form discussed above are discussed in more detail in Section 6.3.1, we will not digress on it here and continue with a discussion of some syntactic properties of the more special (idiomatic) aan het + Vinfinitive + zijn construction; cf. also Bogaards (2020) and the references given there. The aan het + Vinfinitive + zijn construction is problematic in the sense that it is not clear what the exact syntactic status of the aan het + Vinfinitive sequence is: there are reasons to assume that it is a complementive PP headed by the preposition aan, but there are also reasons to assume that it is merely a non-finite form of the verb; cf. Barbiers et al. (2022) for a brief review. The most important evidence for the claim that we are dealing with a complementive aan-PP has to do with word order. Example (358b) shows that the sequence aan het wandelen behaves like a complementive in that it must precede the clause-final verbs (if present); this restriction would be surprising if aan het wandelen were simply an inflected main verb, since main verbs can usually follow the verb by which they are selected, as shown by dat Jan heeft gewandeld op de heithat Jan has walked on the moor and dat Jan wil wandelen op de heithat Jan wants to walk on the moor.

The assumption that we are dealing with a complementive PP also explains the fact, illustrated in (359), that the verb zijn appears as a past participle in the perfect-tense construction. If the aan het + Vinfinitive sequence were simply an inflected verb, we would wrongly expect the infinitive zijn/wezenbe since such complex perfect-tense constructions usually exhibit the so-called infinitivus-pro-participio effect.

The fact that the aan-PP must precede the clause-final verbs and that the verb zijnto be appears as a participle in perfect-tense constructions suggests that we are dealing with a copular-like construction with a complementive aan-PP. This is further supported by the fact that zijnto be can be replaced by the modal verbs lijkento appear, schijnento seem and blijkento turn out, which are also traditionally analyzed as copular verbs; cf. (360a). The same applies to copular verbs like blijvento remain and rakento get in (360b&c). For completeness’ sake, the primed examples illustrate the unsuspected copular use of these verbs.

Similar support is provided by the fact that undative verbs like hebbento have, krijgento get and houdento keep can occur in this construction, as shown in (361), since Section A28.2.1, sub IB, shows that these verbs can be used as semi-copular verbs; the examples in (361) are adapted from Booij (2010: §6).

A final piece of evidence for the assumption that the sequence aan het + Vinfinitive functions as a complementive is that it can also occur in resultative-like constructions such as (362), again adapted from Booij (2010). Such resultative constructions are often of a more or less idiomatic nature; note that these examples do not express progressive aspect, but are resultative.

If the aan het + Vinfinitive phrase is indeed a complementive PP, then the phrase het + Vinfinitive is most likely an inf-nominalization, which seems to be the direction that Booij (2010:163) is heading. That this is indeed conceivable is shown by the fact, illustrated in (363), that the sequence het + Vinfinitive sometimes alternates with an undisputed noun phrase, as in the quite frequent constructions with the undisputed noun phrase het werkthe work.

We are dealing with a noun phrase in (363), as can also be seen from the fact that the article dethe can be used; we find examples such as (364) with more or less the same meaning as the primeless examples in (360). Note in passing that a Google search (26/4/2022) for the strings [aan het kletsen V] and [aan de klets V] suggests that the copular verb zijn prefers the infinitive kletsen, raken prefers the noun klets, and blijven has no clear preference between the options; however, an examination of more minimal pairs is needed to determine whether this is indeed a general tendency.

It should be noted that the proposed analyses may also be supported by the fact that certain German dialects allow constructions such as Ich bin am Arbeiten, where am can be seen as a contraction of the preposition an and the dative neuter article dem; cf. Bhatt & Schmidt (1993). However, if we are indeed dealing with inf-nominalization in the progressive aan het + Vinfinitive + zijn construction, we should conclude that noun phrases following the preposition aan exhibit more restricted behavior than regular nominalizations; while (365a) shows that such nominalizations can normally be modified by an adverbially or attributively used adjective, example (365b) shows that it is not possible to modify the infinitive in the aan het + Vinfinitive sequence in the same way; modification is possible, but only if the modifier is an adverbial phrase preceding the aan het + Vinfinitive sequence, as in (365b').

Something similar to the restrictions on modifiers applies to the internal argument(s) of the input verb. While nominalizations such as het boeken lezen/het lezen van de boekenthe reading of (the) books are perfectly acceptable, example (366a) is not; the expression of the direct object boekenbooks is possible, but only if it is external to the aan het + Vinfinitive sequence, as in (366a'). Essentially the same holds for complementives such as helderblauwbright blue; while nominalizations such as het lichtblauw verven van het hek are perfectly acceptable, the (b)-examples in (366) show that the complementive must be external to the aan het + Vinfinitive sequence; cf. also Lemmens (2012).

The examples in (365) and (366) strongly suggest that infinitives in the sequence aan het + Vinfinitive must be bare in the sense that they cannot be accompanied by any other material, but examples (367a&b) show that there are exceptions to this general rule: when the verb forms a fixed collocation with a bare noun, as in paard rijdento ride horseback, or with a predicative adjective, as in dronken voerento ply someone with liquor, the nonverbal part of the collocation noun can be either external or internal to the aan het + Vinfinitive sequence; cf. Smits (1987), Booij (2010) and the references cited there. The same applies to verbal particles, which are argued in Section 2.2.1 to function as complementives as well.

It will be clear that the unacceptability of the primeless examples in (366) is problematic for the assumption that infinitives in aan het + Vinfinitive sequences are inf-nominalizations, and thus also for the hypothesis that we are dealing with complementive aan-PPs. In fact, the acceptability of the primed examples is even more problematic for this hypothesis, since it would imply that the supposed inf-nominalizations are able to license the inherited complements of their input verbs by assigning them a thematic role and/or case in the position external to the aan-PP; this would clearly be unprecedented.

This problem does not arise if we assume that the aan het + Vinfinitive sequence is simply a regular main verb, i.e. that the aan het part functions as a kind of inflection comparable to the prefix ge- in past participles; cf. Smits (1987). Although this is an unconventional move, it may not be too far-fetched, given that we proposed a similar analysis for the element te preceding infinitives in Section 1.3, sub IIIA1. The main reason given there for the claim that te is a prefix and not an independent word is that it behaves like the prefix ge- in that it is always left-adjacent to the verbal element/stem; this is illustrated again in (368).

If we compare the examples in (368) with those in (367), we immediately see that this argument does not carry over to the sequence aan het + Vinfinitive; there are cases in which the infinitive can be separated from the aan het part by nonverbal material. The claim that the aan het part is a kind of inflection on the infinitive therefore requires extensive motivation (which Smits does indeed try to provide). If we add this to the problem illustrated in (358b) above, viz. that the aan het-phrase must precede the finite verb in clause-final position, we see that the analysis according to which the aan het + Vinfinitive sequence is an inflected verb form is not without its problems either. We conclude that the internal organization of the progressive aan het + Vinfinitive + zijn construction is still far from clear and therefore requires further investigation; we refer the reader to Bogaards (2020) and Barbiers et al. (2022) for more recent discussions, which argue that there are different types of aan het + Vinfinitive constructions that differ in their internal structure.

Inchoative aspect can be expressed by the verb beginnento begin/start, as in (369a). Since the object of the verb lezen must precede the verb beginnen in clause-final position, it is often assumed in traditional grammars that the latter verb is not a main verb with a clausal complement, but a non-main verb which forms a verbal complex with the main verb lezen. However, it is far from clear whether this is sufficient to claim that beginnen is a non-main verb, as some undisputed main verbs show similar behavior; cf. Chapter 4 for a relevant discussion.

Example (370a) shows that terminative aspect cannot be expressed by a verbal complex. Instead, the constructions in (370b&c) are used: the verb stoppento stop selects a met-PP with an inf-nominalization denoting the terminated activity. That we are dealing with a true nominalization is clear from the fact that the object of the input verb can be realized as a postnominal van-PP or, if the object is indefinite, as a prenominal noun phrase; cf. Section N15.2.3.2.

The previous subsections have shown that aspect can be expressed by using certain (non-main) verbs such as zittento sit and special markers as aan het to express progressive aspect. This does not exhaust the possibilities: prospective effect, which expresses that some event is about to take place, can be expressed by means of the more or less fixed collocation op het punt staan te Vinfinitive, as in (371); cf. Bogaards (2023). Syntactically, the construction seems to involve a complementive PP op het puntat the point, which therefore must precede the clause-final verb in the primed examples, and an extraposed infinitival clause.

Given that the PP op het punt and the infinitival clause must necessarily co-occur, it is plausible that they make up a clausal constituent, i.e. that the infinitival clause is part of the complementive. This proposal can be backed by the fact that the infinitival clause can sometimes be replaced by a van-PP, with a nominal infinitive as its complement. The PP can be placed to the immediate left of the clause-final verb, which indicates that it belongs to the complementive, because complementives usually cannot be separated from clause-final verbs by other material: cf. dat Jan (meestal) erg aardig (*meestal) isthat Jan is usually very nice.

Bogaards (2023) notes that examples with a van-PP can be further reduced by omitting part of the nominal complement (cf. Els staat op het punt van bevallen); there are also various additional restrictions on the distribution of the nominalized verb in the van-PP. First, the van-PP is only possible with achievements (i.e. non-durative, non-stative verbs); cf. *dat Peter op het punt van naar Brussel rijden staat. Second, the achievement verb cannot be transitive, as shown by the examples in (373) with the verb winnento win, which can be used both transitively and intransitively.

Note that the examples above indicate only that the events are imminent, not that their realization is guaranteed; the speaker uttering (371a) on the phone can still prevent Peter from leaving if the caller says that the meeting Peter is going to has been canceled. In fact, perfect-perfect examples such as (374) typically express that the event has not taken place. This may be for pragmatic reasons, since the speaker can be expected to know whether Peter has left or not; cf. Grice’s (1975) maxim of quantity.

The discussion above has demonstrated that prospective aspect can be expressed by the complementive construction op (het punt) ... staan, which indicates that the subject is located at a moment in time at which the event mentioned by the infinitive is imminent. However, this is not the only way to do this; the examples in (375) show that a similar reading can be expressed in irrealis contexts by adverbial phrases like (zo)juist/netjust; the meaning of the primeless examples seems fully compositional. We have added the primed examples in order to show once more that the adverbials simply add the notion of imminence; there is no guarantee that the event will take place.

This section has discussed various means of expressing prospective aspect; cf. Bogaards (2023) for more discussion.