Chapter 3
I think and I believe
Evidential expressions in Dutch
This chapter focuses on the evidential use of Dutch denken ‘think’ and geloven ‘believe’ with a first person pronoun. On the basis of Twitter data we conclude that some constructions containing these verbs show features of grammaticalization and that the evidentiality at stake can be labelled as ‘inferential’. However, whereas denken is used when rational sources of evidence are involved, geloven typically matches more impressionistic contexts. We also characterize the difference between the two verbs in terms of semantic roles. The subject of denken is an Agent, whereas the subject of geloven is an Experiencer. This accounts for the observation that past tense dacht ik ‘I thought’ can get an evidential reading that geloofde ik ‘I believed’ lacks.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.
I think and I believe as evidentials in Dutch
- 3.Differences between the two verbs in Dutch: evidence from Twitter
- 3.1
I think
- 3.2
I believe
- 3.3Past tense
- 3.4Results
- 4.A semantic role analysis of the difference between the two evidentials in Dutch
- 5.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgment
-
Abbreviations used in glosses
-
References
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y.
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, L. B.
1986 Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: typologically regular asymmetries. In
W. Chafe, &
J. Nichols (Eds.),
Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (273–312). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L.
2001 Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions.
Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 339–348.
Foolen, A., & de Hoop, H.
de Haan, F.
2001 The relation between modality and evidentiality.
Linguistische Berichte, 9, 201–216.
Hogeweg, L.
2009 What’s so unreal about the past: past tense and counterfactuals. In
A. Tsangalidis, &
R. Facchinetti (Eds.),
Studies on English modality in honour of Frank R. Palmer (181–208). Bern: Peter Lang.
Koring, L.
2012 Don’t shoot the messenger: How subjectivity affects distributional properties.
Lingua, 122, 874–890.
Lazard, G.
2001 On the grammaticalization of evidentiality.
Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 359–367.
Narrog, H.
2005 On defining modality again.
Language Sciences, 27, 165–192.
Nuyts, J.
1990 Negative-raising reconsidered: Arguments for a cognitive-pragmatic approach.
Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 559–588.
Plungian, V. A.
2001 The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space.
Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 349–357.
de Schepper, K., van Bergen, G., Lestrade, S., & Stoop, W.
2014 Prag-raising versus Neg-raising.
Nederlandse Taalkunde, 19, 105–117.
de Schepper, K., & de Hoop, H.
2012 Construction-dependent person hierarchies. In
W. Abraham, &
E. Leiss (Eds.),
Modality and Theory of Mind across languages, 383–403. Berlin. Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thompson, S. A., & Mulac, A.
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Ivanová, Martina
2020.
RECENZIE A SPRÁVY.
Journal of Linguistics/Jazykovedný casopis 71:1
► pp. 109 ff.
San Roque, Lila
2019.
Evidentiality.
Annual Review of Anthropology 48:1
► pp. 353 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 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.