Auxiliary choice with particle verbs of motion in Dutch

Abstract There is a long tradition of analyzing the use of the Dutch perfect auxiliaries hebben “have” and zijn “be” in semantic terms, which has centered around two notions: “change in the subject referent” and “telicity”. The present study argues that “change in the subject referent” is the most viable generalization, in light of attested examples with three particle verbs of motion: omdraaien “turn around”, weglopen “walk/run away” and afdalen “descend (off)”. While (telic) particle verbs are commonly said to take only zijn “be” as their perfect auxiliary, the three particle verbs studied here are shown to occur with hebben as well as zijn, in contexts that do not differ in terms of telicity. These data can be accounted for if the traditional notion of “change in the subject referent” is considered against the background of the cognitive-grammar notion of construal. In particular, the present study argues that zijn is used with these particle verbs when the motion event is construed as a (telic or atelic) change of state on the part of the subject referent, while hebben is used when it is construed as a subject’s executing or engaging in a (telic or atelic) type of act.