Like its English counterpart such, Dutch zo’n has identifying and intensifying uses. The established pathway from the former to the latter is found to constitute a proportional rather than a discrete shift here. The strong presence of intensifying uses from the start, as compared to the older Dutch marker zulk, is argued to be due to preexisting constructions that are alike formally and convey intensification. Zo’n is also found to have a recognitional and an approximating use. The case is made that the former has evolved out of the identifying use and that the latter is a development which is independent from the other uses functionally but has modeled itself on them formally. Finally, it is argued that the semantic shift from identification to intensification is best captured by the well-known pathway from textual to expressive, although the unidirectionality of this cline is uncertain, and that the change from identification to recognition supports a recent proposal to distinguish immediate and extended intersubjectivity.
Auwera, Johan van der & Evie Coussé. 2016. Such and sådan – the same but different. Nordic Journal of English Studies 15(3). 15–32.
Auwera, Johan van der & Kalyanamalini Sahoo. 2015. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories, such as they are. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 47(2). 136–173.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton.
Breban, Tine. 2010. English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Brems, Lieselotte. 2011. Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Carlier, Anne & Walter De Mulder. 2010. The emergence of the definite article: ille in competition with ipse in Late Latin. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), 241–275.
Davidse, Kristin, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds). 2010. Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Demske, Ulrike. 2005. Weshalb Demonstrativpronomina nich immer Determinantien sind [Why demonstrative pronouns are not always determiners]. In Franz Josef D’Avis (ed.), Deutsche Syntax: Empirie und Theorie [German syntax: Empiricism and theory], 53–80. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
Diessel, Holger. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4). 463–489.
Ekberg, Lena. 2010. Extended uses of sån (’such’) among adolescents in multilingual Malmö. In Roger Källström & Inger Lindberg (eds.), Young urban Swedish: Variation and change in multilingual settings, 49–65. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
Ghesquière, Lobke & Freek Van de Velde. 2011. A corpus-based account of the development of English such and Dutch zulk: Identification, intensification and (inter)subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 22(4). 765–797.
Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Elementary statistical testing with R. In Manfred G. Krug & Julia Schlüter (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change, 361–381. Cambridge: CUP.
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten C. van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst [Comprehensive Dutch grammar]. Groningen: Nijhoff.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Routledge.
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wisher & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 83–101. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.2001. Articles. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: Volume 11, 831–841. Berlin: Mouton.
Hole, Daniel & Gerson Klumpp. 2000. Definite type and indefinite token: The article son in colloquial German. Linguistische Berichte 1821. 231–244.
Horst, Joop M. van der. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis [History of Dutch syntax]. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Horst, Joop M. van der & Freek Van de Velde. 2003. Zo vreemd een groep [So strange a group]. Taal en Tongval 15/161. 237–250.
IBM Corp.2013. IBM SPSS statistics for Windows: Version 22.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.
Koninklijke Bibliotheek. 2015. Digitale bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse letteren [Digital library of Dutch literature]. The Hague. Available online at [URL]
Narrog, Heiko. 2011. The limits of (inter)subjectification. Paper presented in December at the University of Leuven.
Nederlandse Taalunie. Corpus gesproken Nederlands 1.0 [Corpus of spoken Dutch 1.0]. The Hague.
Rayson, Paul E. & Roger Garside. 2000. Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics Workshop on Comparing Corpora at their 38th Annual Meeting, 1–6.
Smitterberg, Erik. 2016. Extracting data from historical material. In Merja Kytö & Päivi Pahta (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics, 181–199. Cambridge: CUP.
Spinillo, Miriangela. 2003. On such. English Language and Linguistics 7(2). 195–210.
Tantucci, Vittorio. 2013. Interpersonal evidentiality: The Mandarin V-过 guo construction and other evidential systems beyond the ‘source of information’. Journal of Pragmatics 571. 210–230.
Tantucci, Vittorio. 2015. From immediate to extended intersubjectification: A gradient approach to intersubjective awareness and semasiological change. Language and Cognition. Available online at [URL]; accessed March 2016.
Tantucci, Vittorio. 2016. Textual factualization: The phenomenology of assertive reformulation and presupposition during a speech event. Journal of Pragmatics 1011. 155–171.
Traugott, Elizabeth C.2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–139. Cambridge: CUP.
Traugott, Elizabeth C.2006. The semantic development of scalar focus modifiers. In Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), Handbook on the history of English, 335–359. Oxford: Blackwell.
Traugott, Elizabeth C.2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), 29–71.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: CUP.
Van Olmen, Daniël. 2013. The imperative of say as a pragmatic marker in English and Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 25(3). 247–287.
Van Olmen, Daniël & Johan van der Auwera. 2014. Over zo’n and zo meer [On zo’n and so on]. In Freek Van de Velde, Hans Smessaert, Frank Van Eynde & Sara Verbrugge (eds.), Patroon en argument: Een dubbelfeestbundel bij het emeritaat van William Van Belle en Joop van der Horst [Pattern and argument: A double festschrift on the occasion of the retirements of William Van Belle and Joop van der Horst], 215–228. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
WNT. 2010 [1864–1998]. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal [Dictionary of the Dutch language]. Leiden. Available online at [URL], accessed July 2015.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
De Smet, Isabeau
2023. An assessment of the fourth law of Kuryłowicz: does prototypicality of meaning affect language change?. Cognitive Linguistics 34:2 ► pp. 261 ff.
2020. Semantic differences between strong and weak verb forms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics 31:3 ► pp. 393 ff.
De Smet, Isabeau & Freek Van de Velde
2020. A corpus-based quantitative analysis of twelve centuries of preterite and past participle morphology in Dutch. Language Variation and Change 32:2 ► pp. 241 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 july 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.