Does Dutch really have a Passive?

A Mandarin map for Dutch durativity*

“…[pos+ppt] and [pos+inf] differ with regard to this resultativity feature: [pos+inf] presents an activity as ongoing; [pos+ppt] does the same, but for states, which can be understood to have resulted from previous action. Cornelis & Verhagen (1995) already pointed out the stativity of the [pos+ppt]-schema, as well as its formal resemblance to the passive. Formally, [pos+ppt] resembles Dutch compound tense as well, which was also distinguished as a durative category, notated as [aux+ppt].…”

Grammar in the context of intersubjective usage

“…Construction grammar assumes that the grammar of a language does not take the form of a set of abstract rules, as in classical formalist accounts, but rather takes shape as an inventory of form/meaning pairings of which the formal side may range from almost entirely lexicalized expression types to abstract syntactic patterns. Arie Verhagen's work at this stage takes the form of in-depth analyses of various constructions, among them passives (Verhagen 1992, Cornelis & Verhagen 1995, complementation and subordination (Verhagen 2001), the way construction (as in Dutch zich een weg banen ;Verhagen 2003aVerhagen , 2003b, and specifically also causal constructions of various kinds (Kemmer & Verhagen 1994, Verhagen & Kemmer 1997, Verhagen 1998, 2000a, 2000b, Stukker, Sanders & Verhagen 2008, 2009. The perspective in these publications is predominantly contrastive in various ways, for instance in the sense of identifying the subtle distinctions between similar constructions in different languages (Verhagen 2007b), like the way construction in Dutch compared to English.…”