Cover not available
Part of
The Functional Perspective on Language and Discourse: Applications and implications
Edited by María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco Gonzálvez-García and Angela Downing
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 247] 2014
► pp. 149–168

How did we think?

| University of Antwerp, Belgium
| University of Antwerp, Belgium
This paper presents a diachronic corpus investigation into the Dutch mental state predicate denken ‘think’. It investigates both the semantic development (specifically, the evolution in the non-attitudinal vs. the attitudinal meanings of the verb) and the grammatical development (the evolution in terms of the types of grammatical patterns with which the verb appears), and the correlations between the two, from Old Dutch onwards. The discussion focuses specifically on the implications for our understanding of the processes of grammaticalisation and subjectification, and their correlations: the verb shows clear signs of a process of semantic subjectification, but not of structural grammaticalisation, hence it offers evidence for the assumption that these two processes are less intimately intertwined than is often assumed in the literature.
Published online: 16 May 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.247.08jan
References (28)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. “I think – An English Modal Particle.” In Modality in Germanic Languages , ed. by Toril Swan, and Olan J. Westvik, 1–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper, and Peter Harder. 2007. “Complement-taking Predicates. ” Studies in Language 31: 569–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byloo, Pieter. 2009. Modality and Negation . PhD thesis, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
CD-ROM Middelnederlands . 1998. Den Haag: SDU.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Katrien Deygers, Hilde van Aken, Vicky van den Heede, and Dirk ­Speelman. 2000. “Het ConDiv-corpus geschreven Nederlands.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 5: 356–363.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1991. “On Some Principles of Grammaticisation.” In Approaches to Grammaticalisation , Vol 1 , ed. by Elizabeth Traugott, and Bernd Heine, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Elizabeth Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge ­University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar , vol. 2 . Stanford: Stanford ­University Press.Google Scholar
Nederlandse Taalunie. 2004. Corpus Gesproken Nederlands, Version 2.0 . Leiden: TST-Centrale INL.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2010. “What Conversational English Tells Us about the Nature of Grammar.” In Language Usage and Language Structure , ed. by Kasper Boye, and Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, 3–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 1997. “How do you think?” In A Fund of Ideas , ed. by Christopher S. Butler, J. ��­Connolly, R. Gatward, and R. Vismans, 3–18. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Tensions between Discourse Structure and Conceptual Semantics.” Studies in Language 24: 103–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001a. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualisation . Amsterdam: John ­Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. “Subjectivity as an Evidential Dimension in Epistemic Modal Expressions.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Notions of (Inter)Subjectivity.” English Text Construction 5 (1): 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan, and Wietske Vonk. 1999. “Epistemic Modality and Focus in Dutch. ” Linguistics 37: 699–737.Google Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola. 1982. “The Symbiotic Relationship between Pragmatic Particles and Impromptu Speech.” In Impromptu Speech , ed. by Nils E. Enkvist, 147–177. Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar
Persson, Gunnar. 1993. “Think in a Panchronic Perspective.” Studia Neophilologica 65: 2–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 1998. “I think and its Dutch Equivalents in Parliamentary Debates.” In Corpora and Crosslinguistic Research , ed. by Stig Johansson, and Signe ­Oksefjell, 297–317. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2000. “The Functions of I think in Political Discourse.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10: 41–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1995. “Some Remarks on Comment Clauses.” In The Verb in Contemporary English , ed. by Bas Aarts, and Charles F. Meyer, 290–301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “‘Object complements’ and conversation. ” Studies in Language 26: 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Anthony Mulac. 1991. “A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammati­cisation of Epistemic Parentheticals in English.” In Approaches to Grammaticalisation , Vol 2 , ed. by Elizabeth Traugott, and Bernd Heine, 313–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2010. “(Inter)Subjectivity and (Inter)Subjectification.” In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalisation , ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, 29–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth, and Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2009. The Grammar of Complement-Taking Mental Predicate Constructions in Present-Day Spoken British English . PhD thesis, University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Nuyts, Jan & Karolien Janssens
2019. Parentheticals revisited: The case of Dutchdenken. Folia Linguistica 53:s40-s2 ► pp. 475 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.