komt ingefietst/fietsen On the Diachronic and Diatopic Dimension of Dutch komen COME + Motion Verb Jeffrey Pheiff, Deutscher Sprachatlas Marburg & Lea Schäfer, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf Typological Context Periphrastic constructions with COME have been primarily grammmaticalized to express tense. In the Germanic language group, COME has not undergone grammaticalization to the same degree that related GO has. Nevertheless, COME has acquired some special functions. One concerns the combination of COME with a motion verb that functions as an expression of aspect and modality, and perhaps even tense. German, Dutch, and Yiddish varieties show considerable morphological variation (Schäfer submitted). Modern Dutch Dutch komen ‘come’ can occur with a past participle (1) or an infinitive (2) of a motion verb, or with the present participle (3) if the focus is on the manner of movement: (1) De agent kwam de straat in gefietst.PTCP (2) De agent kwam de straat in fietsen.INF (3) De agent kwam fietsend de straat in.PPR ‘The police officer came cycling into the street’ Diachronically, it has been claimed that the PTCP variant has been losing ground in spoken Standard Dutch (e.g. Dal 1994; Vogel 2005); however, Beliën (2016) shows that it still has a strong footing. Diatopically, there appear to be slight regional, country-specific preferences for Standard Dutch (Haeseryn et al. 1997) as well as idiolectal variation (Cornips 2002). Speakers can use either the PTCP or the INF variant. This raises the question as to the semantic differentiation of the two (e.g. Beliën 2016; Schäfer submitted). Diachrony Hirao (1965: 226) claims the PTCP variant is older. In the 13 th century, the use of the INF increased (Hirao 1965: 206; Van der Horst 2008: 910). According to the Corpus Middelneder- lands, INF and PTCP have existed in parallel since the 14 th century. Additionally, a gerund form (4) also existed and is still attested (cf. DynaSAND testzin 330). (4) Dese riuiere comt lopende vten aerdschen ‘This river comes running out of the ground’ (“Reis van Jan van Mandevill” 1462: 35) Online Survey We created an online survey consisting of 16 puzzle and 16 judgement tasks. Central Question According to Beliën (2016:30) “both variants [PTCP and INF] describe an unfolding, unidirectional motion event towards a contextually construable vantage point” but “the variant with the past participle highlights the end of a process, while the infinitive variant does not”. This claims remains to be systematically tested and forms the starting point of our investigation. Dialects The dialects show regional preferences for the INF in the north and for PTCP in the southeast (cf. Figure 1, 2 and 3). For Map 1, we searched 62 dialect dictionaries (van der Sijs 2015 et seq.) and 23 dialect grammars for attestations of the verb komen with a motion verb (cf. Figure 1). Data from a survey done in 1978 (cf. Figure 2) and in 2000–2003 (cf. Figure 3) show a similar distribution. Figure 1: Findings in dictionaries Figure 2: Meertens vragenlijst no. 52 Figure 3: DynaSAND question no. 310 Tested Variables and Constraints • Morphological Variation: PTCP, (te-)INF, gerund • Semantic constraints: PATH (external movement) vs. MANNER (internal movement); inchoative (background/ phase) vs. ingressive (start) or egressively (end) • Morpho-semantic restriction: MOVE verbs need a particle for expression of PATH-meaning; is it obligatory in Dutch e.g. aan (cf. Talmy 1985) • Grammaticalization: Is there a connection to the grammaticalization of the future with gaan (cf. Beheydt 2005, Fehringer 2017)? • Can komen be used as an ingressive raising verb? Please share this survey. Dank je wel! Link to the online survey: www.soscisurvey.de/beweging/ References Sjef Barbiers et al. Dynamische Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten (DynaSAND). 2006. URL http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/sand. Griet Beheydt. Future time reference: English and dutch compared. Perspectives on variation: sociolinguistic, historical, comparative, pages 251–274, 2005. Maaike Beliën. Exploring semantic differences in syntactic variation: Dutch komen ‘come’ with a past participle or an infinitive. From Variation to Iconicity, page 17–32, 2016. Leonie Cornips. Een vreemde eend in het rijtje. over het aspectueel hulpwerkwoord ‘komen’. In verband met Jan Luif, 2002. URL cf.hum.uva.nl/poldernederlands/backup_luif/luif/cornips.htm. Ingerid Dal. Indifferenzformen in der deutschen Syntax. Betrachtungen zur Fügung ‘ich kam gegangen’. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, XVII:489–497, 1954. Carol Fehringer. Internal constraints on the use of ‘gaan’ versus ‘zullen’ as future markers in spoken dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde, pages 359–387, 2017. Walter Haeseryn and others (ed.). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (=ANS). 1997. Kuzo Hirao. Fügungen des Typs ‘kam gefahren’ im Deutschen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 87:204–226, 2005. Corpus Middelnederlands. Based on the Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek. 1250–1500. URL tst-centrale.org/nl/tst-materialen/corpora. Lea Schäfer. ‘kommen’ und Bewegungsverb in westgermanischen Varietäten. Syntax aus Saarbrücker Sicht, 3, submitted. Nicoline van der (ed.) Sijs. elektronische Woordenbank van de Nederlandse Dialecten (eWND). 2015–. URL http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/ewnd. Leonard Talmy. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 3:57–149, 1985. Joop Van der Horst. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. 2008. Petra Vogel. Neue Überlegungen zu den Fügungen des Typus ‘sie kamen gelaufen’. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 33(1):57–77, 2005. Contact • jeffrey.pheiff@staff.uni-marburg.de • lea.schaefer@phil.hhu.de