2004
Volume 18, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

This contribution discusses three problems with the analysis of Dutch (‘will’/’shall’) proposed by Verkuyl & Broekhuis. First, they do not distinguish systematically between instances in which the finite form is constituted by the main verb and instances in which the finite form is an auxiliary such as ; the semantics they assume for PRES is too vague to capture the interpretation of tensed forms, especially that of epistemic modals. Second, both diachronic and synchronic evidence suggests that there cannot be an absolute distinction between the temporal and the modal reading of zullen. Third, tense itself may also be used to convey modality. This is particularly clear for the past tense of and it cannot be captured by a temporal definition of PAST.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2013.3.BOOG
2013-01-01
2022-01-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2013.3.BOOG
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error