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.*

While the transfer of English nouns into Texas German has received substantial scholarly attention, there currently exist no detailed studies on the transfer of English verbs into Texas German in particular and German-American dialects in general. This paper therefore discusses English verbs that are code-switched and loan-translated into Texas German from both a synchronic and diachronic perspective, using data collected by the Texas German Dialect Project since 2001. The analysis serves two purposes. The first is to provide an overview of English verbs used by Texas German speakers: how these verbs are integrated into German structures, and whether they have become established in the Texas German lexicon. The second goal is to show how analyzing verbal transfers in contact situations underscores the dynamic, interactive nature of language contact and structure. This part of the analysis is motivated by Backus & Dorleijn’s (2009) discussion of loan translation, which emphasizes that existing classifications of language contact phenomena must be rethought, as many instances of transference are not clearly captured by existing categories. Thus, this study goes beyond a lexical analysis of English verbs in Texas German by discussing how lexical transfer interacts with morphology, semantics, and syntax.*