Het is wel zo handig om die constructie te gebruiken

References

1. Boogaart, R., & Reuneker, A. (2017). Intersubjectivity and Grammar. In: B.Dancygier (Red.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 188–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.013
   [Google Scholar]
2. Finegan, E. (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: an introduction. In: D.Stein & S.Wright (Reds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 1–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511554469.001
   [Google Scholar]
3. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001
   [Google Scholar]
4. Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Hogeweg, L. (2009). The meaning and interpretation of the Dutch particle wel. Journal Of Pragmatics, 41(3), 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.012
   [Google Scholar]
6. Instituut voor de Nederlandse Taal. (2022). Corpus Hedendaags Nederlands [Dataset]. https://ivdnt.org/corpora-lexica/corpus-hedendaags-nederlands/
   [Google Scholar]
7. Klein, H. (1998). Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages (Vol. 21). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.21
   [Google Scholar]
8. König, E. (2018). Beyond exophoric and endophoric uses: Additional discourse functions of demonstratives. In: Å.Næss, A.Margetts, & Y.Treis (Reds.), Demonstratives in discourse (pp. 21–42). Berlijn: Language Science Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5–38.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Lyons, J. (1982). Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In: R. J.Jarvella & W.Klein (Reds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 101–124). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Niemegeers, S. (2009). Dutch modal particles maar and wel and their English equivalents in different genres. Translation And Interpreting Studies, 4(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.4.1.03nie
    [Google Scholar]
13. van Olmen, D. (2019). A diachronic corpus study of prenominal zo’n ‘so a’ in Dutch: Pathways, analogy and (inter)subjectification. Functions Of Language, 26(2), 217–248. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16017.van
    [Google Scholar]
14. van Olmen, D., & van der Auwera, J. (2014). Over zo’n en zo meer. In: F.Van der Velde, H.Smessaert, F.Van Eynde, & S.Verbrugge (Reds.), Patroon en Argument (pp. 215–228). Leuven: Leuven University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Rossi, G., & Zinken, J. (2016). Grammar and social agency: The pragmatics of impersonal deontic statements. Language, 92(4), 296–325. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0083
    [Google Scholar]
16. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139173438
    [Google Scholar]
17. Smeets, I. (2023, 19mei). En dan nu het briljante: een factcheck aan het einde van de podcast. De Volkskrant. <https://www.volkskrant.nl/weten-schap/en-dan-nu-het-briljante-een-factcheck-aan-het-einde-van-de-podcast~bdece983/?referrer=https://www.google.com/>
    [Google Scholar]
18. de Smet, H., & Verstraete, J. (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog.2006.011
    [Google Scholar]
19. Traugott, E. (2010). Revisiting subjectication and intersubjectication. In: K.Davidse & L.Vandelanotte (Reds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 29–70). Berlijn, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In: D.Stein & S.Wright (Reds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 31–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511554469.003
    [Google Scholar]
21. Traugott, E. C. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In: R.Hickey (Red.), Motives for language change (pp. 124–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511486937.009
    [Google Scholar]
22. Traugott, E. C. (2022). Discourse Structuring Markers in English: A historical constructionalist perspective on pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructiegrammatica en “usage based” taalkunde. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 10, 197–222.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Verhagen, A. (2007). Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Wang, Y., & Xu, J. (2013). The interrelation between evaluative categories and evaluated items. Linguistics And The Human Sciences, 8(1), 29–61. https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v8i1.29
    [Google Scholar]