Cover not available
Part of
Evidence for Evidentiality
Edited by Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop and Gijs Mulder
[Human Cognitive Processing 61] 2018
► pp. 77–97

Chapter 3
I think and I believe

Evidential expressions in Dutch

 | Radboud University Nijmegen
 | Radboud University Nijmegen
 | Radboud University Nijmegen
 | Radboud University Nijmegen
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.
Keywords: first person pronoun, grammaticalization, semantic roles, Twitter
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
Published online: 19 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.04hoo
References (17)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Boye, K., & Harder, P. 2009. Evidentiality. Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language, 16, 9–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L. 2001. Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 339–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foolen, A., & de Hoop, H. 2009. Conflicting constraints on the interpretation of modal auxiliaries. In L. Hogeweg, H. de Hoop, & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect, and modality (303–316). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Haan, F. 2001. The relation between modality and evidentiality. Linguistische Berichte, 9, 201–216.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization Vol. 1 (17–35). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koring, L. 2012. Don’t shoot the messenger: How subjectivity affects distributional properties. Lingua, 122, 874–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, G. 2001. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 359–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, H. 2005. On defining modality again. Language Sciences, 27, 165–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J. 1990. Negative-raising reconsidered: Arguments for a cognitive-pragmatic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 559–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plungian, V. A.. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 349–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Schepper, K., van Bergen, G., Lestrade, S., & Stoop, W. 2014. Prag-raising versus Neg-raising. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 19, 105–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., & Mulac, A. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In E. C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization Vol. 2 (313–329). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Ivanová, Martina
2020. RECENZIE A SPRÁVY. Journal of Linguistics/Jazykovedný casopis 71:1 ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
San Roque, Lila
2019. Evidentiality. Annual Review of Anthropology 48:1 ► pp. 353 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.