Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 26:2 (2019) ► pp.177–215

Two distinct sources – one target

A diachronic contrastive study of the grammaticalization of German scheinen and English seem

| Leibniz Universitat Hannover
| Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
Cross-linguistic diachronic studies have focused on the parallel or divergent development of cognate or functionally equivalent items. This paper traces the diachronic convergent development of two unrelated items by means of a case study, the development of the German verb scheinen ‘shine, emit light’ and English seem ‘(originally) befit, beseem’. Despite their different source meanings, the two verbs have grammaticalized into evidential markers, as is evidenced by the constructions scheinen + zu + infinitive and seem + to + infinitive. We use historical corpus data to show that the two verbs have converged both semantically and syntactically. Semantically the verbs converge when they acquire the sense ‘appear, become visible’, a well-known source of evidentials. Syntactically, scheinen and seem come to occur in the same range of constructional patterns. This development is more advanced in English, so that it is ahead of German by at least four centuries.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1German scheinen and English seem: Sources and targets
      • 2.1.1German scheinen
      • 2.1.2English seem
    • 2.2Evidentiality and the grammaticalization of evidential markers
  • 3.Data and Method
    • 3.1Data
      • 3.1.1German
      • 3.1.2English
      • 3.1.3German and English in comparison
    • 3.2Method
      • 3.2.1General procedure
      • 3.2.2Sense distinctions and constructions
  • 4.Results of the diachronic corpus study
    • 4.1German
      • 4.1.1Old High German
      • 4.1.2Middle High German
      • 4.1.3Early New High German
      • 4.1.4New High German
      • 4.1.5Summary
    • 4.2English
      • 4.2.1Middle English
      • 4.2.2Early Modern English
      • 4.2.3Late Modern English
      • 4.2.4Present-Day English
      • 4.2.5Summary
  • 5.Discussion: A contrastive perspective
    • 5.1Similarities and differences
    • 5.2Convergence towards a common target
    • 5.3Pace of grammaticalization
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.15062.sta
References (47)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2009. Seem and evidentiality. Functions of Language 161. 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. Evidentiality in typological perspective. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality, 1–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Anderson, Lloyd B. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 273–312. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Barber, Charles. 1993. The English language: A historical introduction. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder. 2009. Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 161. 9–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
BNC = The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Available online at [URL]
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert. 2008. On the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of evidential (semi-)auxiliaries in Spanish. In Elena Seoane & María José López-Couso (eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 55–76. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
COSMAS I/II = Corpus Search, Management and Analysis System. 1991–2012. Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim. Available online at [URL]
De Haan, Ferdinand. 1999. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 181. 83–101.Google Scholar
. 2007. Raising as grammaticalization: The case of Germanic seem-verbs. Rivista di Linguistica 19(1). 129–150.Google Scholar
DeReKo = Das Deutsche Referenzkorpus DeReKo. Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim. Available online at [URL]
Diewald, Gabriele. 2001. Scheinen-Probleme: Analogie, Konstruktionsmischung und die Sogwirkung aktiver Grammatikalisierungskanäle. In Reimar Müller & Marga Reis (eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, 87–110. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
. 2004. Faktizität und Evidentialität: Semantische Differenzierungen bei den Modal- und Modalitätsverben im Deutschen. In Oddleif Leirbukt (ed.), Tempus/Temporalität und Modus/Modalität im Deutschen – auch in konstrastiver Perspektive. Internationales Kolloquium, 8–9 September 2000, Bergen, 231–258. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2010. On some problem areas in grammaticalization theory. In Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 17–50. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova. 2010. Evidentiality in German. Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Ilse Wischer. 2013. Markers of futurity in Old High German and Old English: A comparative corpus-based study. In Gabriele Diewald, Leena Kahlas-Tarkka & Ilse Wischer (eds.), Comparative studies in early Germanic languages. With a focus on verbal categories, 195–216. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durrell, Martin, Astrid Ensslin & Paul Bennett. 2007. The GerManC project. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 311. 71–80.Google Scholar
DWB = Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm. 161 Volumes. Leipzig 1854–1961. Available online at [URL]
FnhdC = Das Bonner Frühneuhochdeutsch-Korpus. Available online at [URL]
Gisborne, Nikolas & Jasper Holmes. 2007. A history of English evidential verbs of appearance. English Language and Linguistics 111. 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howe, Chad. 2009. Revisiting perfect pathways: Trends in the grammaticalization of periphrastic pasts. In Patience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds.), New challenges in typology: Transcending the borders and refining the distinctions, 151–174. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johanson, Stig. 2001. The English verb seem and its correspondences in Norwegian: What seems to be the problem? In Karin Aijmer (ed.), A Wealth of English. Studies in honour of Göran Kjellmer, 221–245. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Kali-Korpus: Leibniz Universität Hannover. Available online at [URL]
Koops, Christian & Martin Hilpert. 2009. The co-evolution of syntactic and pragmatic complexity: Diachronic and cross-linguistic aspects of pseudoclefts. In Talmy Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 215–238. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Lauren Delfs. 2004. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn. Available online at [URL]
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Ariel Diertani. 2010. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn. Available online at [URL]
Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor. 2000. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 2nd edn. Available online at [URL]
Lamiroy, Béatrice. 2011. Degrés de grammaticalisation à travers les langues de mème famille. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, NS 191. 167–192.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, Béatrice & Walter De Mulder. 2011. Degrees of grammaticalization across languages. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 302–317. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
MHDWB = Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Available online at [URL]
Mortelmans, Tanja. 2004. Grammatikalisierung und Subjektivierung: Traugott und Langacker revisited. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 321. 188–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press.
Primus, Beatrice. 2012. Semantische Rollen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Wilhelm. 2007. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache: Ein Lehrbuch für das germanistische Studium, 10th edn. Stuttgart: Hirzel.Google Scholar
Stammler, Wolfgang, Karl Langosch & Kurt Ruh. 1978–2007. Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon (Vol. 1–13), 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie & Timothy Colleman. 2015. On the grammaticalization of (’t) schijnt ‘it seems’ as an evidential particle in colloquial Belgian Dutch. Folia Linguistica 471. 481–520.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie & Torsten Leuschner. 2015. Dutch (’t) schijnt and German scheint(’)s: On the grammaticalization of evidential particles. Studia Linguistica 691. 86–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vliegen, Maurice. 2011. Scheinbar identisch: Niederländisch schijnen, deutsch scheinen . In Wilfried Kürschner, Reinhard Rapp, Jürg Strässler, Maurice Vliegen & Heinrich Weber (eds.), Neue linguistische Perspektiven: Festschrift für Abraham P. ten Cate, 231–244. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Katerina Stathi. 2010. The database of evidential markers in European languages: A bird’s eye view of the conception of the database (the template and problems hidden beneath it). Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 631. 275–289.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 121. 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2015. On the grammaticalization of inferential evidential meaning: English seem and German scheinen . Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis, 20(2). 233–271.Google Scholar
2018. Evidentiality and propositional scope in Early Modern German. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 19(1). 122–149.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Diewald, Gabriele, Dániel Czicza & Volodymyr Dekalo
2022. Clause linkage and degrees of grammaticalization. Constructions and Frames 14:1 ► pp. 181 ff. DOI logo
Diewald, Gabriele, Volodymyr Dekalo & Dániel Czicza
2021. Grammaticalization of verdienen into an auxiliary marker of deontic modality. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Lampert, Gunther
2020. Chapter 5. How and why seem became an evidential. In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Schulze, Rainer & Pascal Hohaus
2020. Chapter 1. Modalising expressions and modality. In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.