Cover not available
Article published In:
The Rise and Development of Evidential and Epistemic Markers
Edited by Silvio Cruschina and Eva-Maria Remberger
[Journal of Historical Linguistics 7:1/2] 2017
► pp. 190–212

The grammaticalization of Dutch klinken

| University of Oxford
This article demonstrates the diachronic development of present-day Dutch klinken as an evidential copular verb meaning ‘to seem, based on (auditory) evidence’ from the Middle Dutch intransitive verb klinken meaning ‘to give off a clear sound’. I identify four semantic stages in the history of klinken, which are divided by processes of semantic bleaching (14th–16th century, 16th–17th century) and subjectification and copularization (during the 16th century). I claim that the process of copularization is the trigger of both the evidential meaning and the subjective interpretation that copular constructions with klinken receive. Furthermore, I show that, unlike the development of eruitzien ‘look’ and voelen ‘feel’ from cognitive perception verbs, klinken has developed much like the Dutch copular verbs schijnen ‘seem’ and blijken ‘turn out’: from an intransitive verb with a sensory-related meaning.
Keywords: grammaticalization, perception verbs, evidentiality, subjectification, copularization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Evidentiality
    • 2.1Evidentiality and evidential categories
    • 2.2Lexical and grammatical evidentials
  • 3. Klinken in Present-Day Dutch
    • 3.1Descriptive perception verbs
    • 3.2Constructions and their interpretations
      • 3.2.1Adjectival complements
      • 3.2.2Prepositional complements +  NP
      • 3.2.3Prepositional complements +  CP
  • 4.History of klinken
    • 4.1Corpora
    • 4.2Early usage
    • 4.3Semantic change
    • 4.4Syntactic change
  • 5.The grammaticalization of evidential interpretations
  • 6.Source of copularized verbs
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.7.1-2.08poo
References (57)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. Evidentiality in Typological Perspective. Studies in Evidentiality ( Typological Studies in Language 54 ) ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon, 33–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash. 2012. The Logic of Pronominal Resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, Ash & Ida Toivonen. 2012. Copy Raising and Perception. Natural Language Linguistic Theory 30:2.321–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Lloyd B. 1986. Evidentials, Paths of Change, and Mental Maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols, eds., 273–312.Google Scholar
Barron, Julia. 1997. LFG and the History of Raising Verbs. Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference ed. by Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bender, Emily & Dan Flickinger. 1999. Diachronic Evidence for Extended Argument Structure. Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics ed. by Gosse Bouma, Erhard W. Hinrichs, Geert-Jan M. Kruij, & Richard T. Oehrle, 3–19. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1938. General Anthropology. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Donna Brinton. 2010. The Linguistic Structure of Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. L. & Johanna Nichols, eds. 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishers.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2015. The Expression of Evidentiality and Epistemicity: Cases of grammaticalization in Italian and Sicilian. Probus 27:1.1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio & Eva-M. Remberger. 2008. Hearsay and Reported Speech: Evidentiality in Romance. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 331.95–116.Google Scholar
De Haan, Ferdinand. 1999. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18:1.83–101.Google Scholar
. 2007. Raising as Grammaticalization: The case of Germanic SEEM-verbs. Italian Journal of Linguistics 19:1.129–150.Google Scholar
. 2013. The Interaction of Modality and Negation: A typological study. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrick & Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2006. Coming to Terms with Subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 171.365–392.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova. 2010. Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas & Jasper Holmes. 2007. A History of English Evidential Verbs of Appearance. English Language and Linguistics 11:1.1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1991. From V/2 to Subject Clitics: Evidence from Northern Italian. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. II. Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine, 135–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haßler, Gerda. 2002. Evidentiality and Reported Speech in Romance Languages. Reported Discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains ( Typological Studies in Language 52 ) ed. by Tom Güldemann & Manfred Von Roncador, 143–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Evidentiality and the Expression of Speaker’s Stance in Romance Languages and German. Discourse Studies 17:2.182–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helle, Philipp. 2006. A Contrastive Analysis of Perception Verbs in English and German. Munich: GRIN Verlag.Google Scholar
Holierhoek, Christina M. G. 1978. Auditory Verbs in Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1974–1976 ed. by Wim Zonneveld, 81–101. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 1990. About AgrP. Linguistic Inquiry 21:4.551–576.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2014. English Copy Raising Constructions: Argument realization and characterization condition. Linguistics 52:1.167–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koring, Loes. 2013. Seemingly Similar: Subjects and displacement in grammar, processing, and acquisition. Utrecht University PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2009. This Construction Looks Like a Copy is Optional. Linguistic Inquiry 40:2.343–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 11.5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Sounds Like ‘Like’. Linguistic Analysis 251:1–2.70–77.Google Scholar
Lesage, Clair, Nalini Ramlakhan, Ida Toivonen, & Chris Wildman. 2015. The Reliability of Testimony and Perception: Connecting epistemology and linguistic evidentiality. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society ed. by David C. Noelle, Rick Dale, Anne S. Warlaumont, Jeff Yoshimi, Teenie Matlock, Carolyn D. Jennings, & Paul P. Maglio. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje. 2009. The Copula Cycle. Cyclical Change ed. by Elly van Gelderen, 209–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1983. Transitive Adjectives: A case of categorial reanalysis. Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles 11 ed. by Frank Heny & Barry Richards, 253–289. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2002. Tipping the Scales: The syntax of scalarity in the complement of seem. Syntax 5:3.219–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poortvliet, Marjolein. 2016. Copy Raising in English, German and Dutch: Synchrony and diachrony. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28:4.370–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Forthcoming. Perception and Predication Copular Evidentials: A synchronic and diachronic study of descriptive perception verbs in Dutch. University of Oxford PhD Thesis.
Potsdam, Eric & Jeffrey T. Runner. 2001. Richard Returns: Copy raising and its implications. Proceedings of CLS 371.453–468.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica & Nina Hyams. 2014. The Acquisition of Syntactically Encoded Evidentiality. Language Acquisition 21:2.173–198 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rogers, Andy. 1971. Three Kinds of Physical Perception Verbs. Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April 16–18, 206–222. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
. 1972. Another Look at Flip Perception Verbs. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society ed. by Paul M. Peranteau, Judith N. Levi, & Gloria C. Phares, 303–315. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
. 1974. Physical Perception Verbs in English: A study in lexical relatedness. University of California, Los Angeles PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Squartini, Mario. 2004. Disentangling Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Romance. Lingua 114:7.873–895. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Evidentiality in Interaction: The concessive use of the Italian future between grammar and discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 44:15.2116–2128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1996. Subjectification and the Development of Epistemic Meaning: The case of promise and threaten . Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and comparative perspectives ed. by Swan Toril & Olaf J. Westvik, 185–210. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2001. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Gelderen, Elly. 2014. Changes in Psych-verbs: A reanalysis of little v. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 131.99–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. The Copula Cycle. Lingue e Linguaggio 14:2.287–301Google Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 1984. The Verbs of Perception: A typological study. Explanations for Language Universals ed. by Brian Butterworth, Bernard Comrie, & Östen Dahl, 123–162. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. The Verbs of Perception. Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, & Wolfgang Raible. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Vliegen, Maurice. 2011. Evidentiality. Dutch ‘seem’ and ‘appear’ verbs: blijken, lijken, schijnen . Linguistics in the Netherlands 28:1.125–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2009. Auditory Evidentiality in English and German: The case of verbs. Lingua 119:7.1083–1095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010a. Evidentiality, Polysemy, and the Verbs of Perception in English and German. Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages ed. by Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova, 249–279. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010b. Evidentiality and Perception Verbs in English and German. Oxford: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. (Inter)Subjectivity and Evidential Perception Verbs in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 43:1.347–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willet, Thomas. L. 1988. A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality. Studies in Language 121.51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Cheng, Yan & Chris Sinha
2023. A Cognitive Semantics Analysis of the Directional Motion Verbs wang往 and lai 来in the YiChing. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 94 ► pp. 303 ff. DOI logo
Poortvliet, Marjolein
2021. Early Alternatives to Dutch Descriptive Perception Verb Constructions: A Comparison of Two Bible Translations1. Transactions of the Philological Society 119:2 ► pp. 258 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.