2004
Volume 27, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

Many languages use verbs of perception to express evidentiality. This paper studies the evidential use of the object-oriented perception verb ‘look’ in Dutch. The results of a Twitter corpus study show that, whereas ‘looks as if’ occasionally comes with an evidential interpretation, the construction ‘looks like’ predominantly expresses inferential evidentiality. A diachronic investigation shows how the evidential reading of this construction developed from the object-oriented use of the verb, through a stage in which the construction is used to mark a prediction. This predictive reading, which is still available in present-day Dutch, is not evidential. It does not indicate a speaker has supporting evidence for a factual claim, but rather they have evidence for something they expect to become a fact in the near future. Our diachronic study also reveals how another construction, with a subject-oriented verb ‘see (from it)’, once used to be an expression of inferential evidentiality as well. This particular construction appears to have lost the competition to its object-oriented counterpart ‘looks like’, as it is no longer attested. We argue that the construction ‘looks like’ has fully developed into an evidential construction, since its current primary function is to express evidentiality.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2022.2.007.HOOP
2022-10-01
2022-12-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Albelda Marco, Marta & MarliesJansegers (2019). From visual perception to evidentiality: A functional empirical approach to se ve que in Spanish. Lingua220, 76-97.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, Lloyd B. (1986). Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: typologically regular asymmetries. In: W.Chafe & J.Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 273-312.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir A.Plungian (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology2, 79-124.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boogaart, Ronny, TimothyColleman & GijsbertRutten (2014). Constructions all the way everywhere: Four new directions in constructionist research. In: R.Boogaart, T.Colleman & G.Rutten (eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 1-14.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Boye, Kasper & PeterHarder (2009). Evidentiality. Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language16, 9-43.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Boye, Kasper, Evavan Lier & EvaTheilgaard Brink (2015). Epistemic complementizers: a cross-linguistic survey. Language Sciences51, 1-17.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cornillie, Bert (2009). Evidentiality and epistemic modality. On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of language16, 44-62.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. The Letters as loot/Brieven als buit corpus (2015). Marijkevan der Wal, GijsbertRutten, JudithNobels & TanjaSimons (eds.). Leiden. <http://brievenalsbuit.inl.nl>
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Corpus Gysseling = CG: see Gysseling.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Corpus van Reenen-Mulder = CRM (corpus with fourteenth century charters): see Nederlab
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Delpher (Newspapers, books and magazines from the Royal Library): <www.delpher.nl> (Last consulted: May, 2021)
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Diewald, Gabriele & ElenaSmirnova (2010). Evidentiality in German. Linguistic realization andregularities in grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Foolen, Ad, Helende Hoop & GijsMulder (2018). Evidentiality: How do you know? In: A.Foolen, H.de Hoop & G.Mulder (eds.), 1-16.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Foolen, Ad, Helende Hoop & GijsMulder (eds.) (2018). Evidence for evidentiality. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Foster, Daniel, SuzanneAalberse & WesselStoop (2019). Examining Twitter as a source for address research using Colombian Spanish. In: B.Kluge, M.I.Moyna, H.J.Simon, J.Warren (eds.). It’s not all about you: New perspectives on address research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 75-90.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gipper, Sonja (2018). From similarity to evidentiality. Uncertain visual/perceptual evidentiality in Yurakaré and other languages. In: A.Foolen, H.de Hoop & G.Mulder (eds.), 257-280.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, Adele E. (2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Griffioen, Laura, Helende Hoop & GijsMulder (2018). Over het verschil in evidentialiteit tussen ‘denk ik’ en ‘dacht ik’. Internationale Neerlandistiek56, 121-140.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gysseling, Maurits (1977-1987). Corpus van Middelnederlandse teksten (tot en met het jaar 1300). Reeks I: Ambtelijke bescheiden, 9 delen; Reeks II: Literaire handschriften, 6 delen, ‘s-Gravenhage = Corpus Gysseling (CG). <gysseling.corpus.taalbanknederlands.inl.nl>
    [Google Scholar]
  21. de Haan, Ferdinand (2000). Evidentiality in Dutch. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 74-85.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. de Haan, Ferdinand (2001). The relation between modality and evidentiality. Linguistische Berichte9, 201-216.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. de Haan, Ferdinand (2007). Raising as grammaticalization: the case of Germanic seem-verbs. Rivista di Linguistica19, 129-150.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hill, Nathan (2017). Perfect experiential constructions: the inferential semantics of direct evidence. In: L.Gawne & N. W.Hill (eds.), Evidential Systems of Tibetan languages. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 131-159.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hengeveld, Kees & Marize M.Dall’Aglio Hattnher (2015). Four types of evidentiality in the native languages of Brazil. Linguistics53, 479-524.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. de Hoop, Helen, AdFoolen, GijsMulder & Veravan Mulken (2018). I think and I believe. Evidential expressions in Dutch. In: A.Foolen, H.de Hoop & G.Mulder (eds.), 77-97.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jansegers, Marlies & Stefan Th.Gries (2020). Towards a dynamic behavioural profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory16, 145-187.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Koring, Loes (2012). Don’t shoot the messenger: How subjectivity affects distributional properties. Lingua122, 874-890.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lazard, Gilbert (2001). On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics33, 359-367.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lehmann, Christian (1985). Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile20, 303-318.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. MNW: Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek (1885-1952). EelcoVerwijs & JakobVerdam (eds.). ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. <http://gtb.inl.nl/search/>
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Malamud, Sophia A. (2012). Impersonal indexicals: one, you, man, and du. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics15, 1-48.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mulder, Gijs (2018). (Yo) creo que as a marker of evidentiality and epistemic modality. Evidence from Twitter. In: A.Foolen, H.de Hoop & G.Mulder (eds.), 99-120.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Müller, Neele (2013). Tense, aspect, modality, and evidentiality marking in South American indigenous languages. PhD dissertation, Radboud University. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Nederlab : A laboratory for research on the patterns of change in the Dutch language and culture. <https://www.nederlab.nl/onderzoeksportaal/>
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Nexis Uni: (National news sources from 1990). <https://www.ru.nl/library/search/databases/databases/information/information-nexis-uni>
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Nuyts, Jan (2001). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics33, 383-400.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. ONW: Oudnederlands Woordenboek (2009). Tanneke H.Schoonheim, KennyLouwen, Marijke A.Mooijaart, W.J.J.Pijnenburg & ArendQuak (eds.). Leiden: Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie. <http://gtb.inl.nl/search/>
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Piepers, Joske, Mariavan de Groep, Hansvan Halteren & Helende Hoop (2021). ‘Amsterdam, you’re raining!’ First-hand experience in tweets with spatiotemporal addressees. Journal of Pragmatics176, 97-109.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Plungian, Vladimir A. (2001). The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics33, 349-357.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Poortvliet, Marjolein (2017). The grammaticalization of Dutchklinken. Journal of Historical Linguistics7, 190-212.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Poortvliet, Marjolein (2018). Perception and predication: A synchronic and diachronic analysis of Dutch descriptive perception verbs as evidential copular verbs. PhD dissertation, University of Oxford: New College.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Reinarz, Lukas, Hugode Vos & Helende Hoop (2016). Conflicting constraints in the comparative cycle. Journal of Germanic Linguistics28, 403-425.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. San Roque, Lila & RobynLoughnane (2012). The New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. Linguistic Typology16, 111-167.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. de Schepper, Kees & Helende Hoop (2012). Construction-dependent person hierarchies. In: W.Abraham & E.Leiss (eds.), Modality and theory of mind elements across languages. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 383-403.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Thompson, Sandra A. & AnthonyMulac (1991). A quantitative perspective on grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In: E.C.Traugott & B.Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 313-329.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & GraemeTrousdale (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Ünal, Ercenur, AdriennePinto, AnnBunger & AnnaPapafragrou (2016). Monitoring sources of event memories: A cross-linguistic investigation. Journal of Memory and Language87, 157-176.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Viberg, Åke (1983). The verbs of perception: a typological study. Linguistics21, 123-162.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Vliegen, Maurice (2011). Evidentiality. Dutch seem and appear verbs blijken, lijken, schijnen. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2011, 125-137.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. VMNW: Vroegmiddelnederlands Woordenboek (2001). W.J.J.Pijnenburg, Karina H.van Dalen-Oskam, Karien A. C.Depuydt, Tanneke H.Schoonheim (eds.). Leiden: Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie. <http://gtb.inl.nl/search/>
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Whitt, Richard J. (2009). Auditory evidentiality in English and German: The case of perception verbs. Lingua119, 1083-1095.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Whitt, Richard J. (2011). (Inter)Subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics43, 347-360.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Willett, Thomas (1988). A cross-linguistic study of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language12, 51-97.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. WNT: Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (1882-1998). Matthiasde Vries, Lambert A.te Winkel (eds.). ’s Gravenhage/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff/Brill. <http://gtb.inl.nl/search/>
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Zappavigna, Michele (2017). Twitter. In: C.R.Hoffmann, W.Bublitz (eds.), Pragmatics of Social Media. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 201-224.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2022.2.007.HOOP
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2022.2.007.HOOP
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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