Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 26:2 (2019) ► pp.216–247

A diachronic corpus study of prenominal zo’n ‘so a’ in Dutch

Pathways and (inter)subjectification

| Lancaster University
Like its English counterpart such, Dutch zo’n has identifying and intensifying uses. The established pathway from the former to the latter is found to constitute a proportional rather than a discrete shift here. The strong presence of intensifying uses from the start, as compared to the older Dutch marker zulk, is argued to be due to preexisting constructions that are alike formally and convey intensification. Zo’n is also found to have a recognitional and an approximating use. The case is made that the former has evolved out of the identifying use and that the latter is a development which is independent from the other uses functionally but has modeled itself on them formally. Finally, it is argued that the semantic shift from identification to intensification is best captured by the well-known pathway from textual to expressive, although the unidirectionality of this cline is uncertain, and that the change from identification to recognition supports a recent proposal to distinguish immediate and extended intersubjectivity.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Formal changes
  • 4.Functional changes
    • 4.1Identifying use
    • 4.2Intensifying use
    • 4.3Recognitional use
    • 4.4Approximating use
  • 5.(Inter)subjectification
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16017.van
References
Auwera, Johan van der & Evie Coussé
2016  Such and sådan – the same but different. Nordic Journal of English Studies 15(3). 15–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der & Kalyanamalini Sahoo
2015 On comparative concepts and descriptive categories, such as they are. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 47(2). 136–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1972 Degree words. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine
2010 English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte
2011 Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlier, Anne & Walter De Mulder
2010 The emergence of the definite article: ille in competition with ipse in Late Latin. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), 241–275.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Merja Kytö
2000 Data in historical pragmatics: spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(2). 175–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens
(eds) 2010 Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demske, Ulrike
2005 Weshalb Demonstrativpronomina nich immer Determinantien sind [Why demonstrative pronouns are not always determiners]. In Franz Josef D’Avis (ed.), Deutsche Syntax: Empirie und Theorie [German syntax: Empiricism and theory], 53–80. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger
2006 Demonstratives, joint attention and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4). 463–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ekberg, Lena
2010 Extended uses of sån (’such’) among adolescents in multilingual Malmö. In Roger Källström & Inger Lindberg (eds.), Young urban Swedish: Variation and change in multilingual settings, 49–65. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
2011 Joint attention and cooperation in the Swedish of adolescents in multilingual settings. In Friederike Kern & Margret Selting (eds.), Ethnic styles of speaking in European metropolitan areas, 217–237. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke
2009 From determining to emphasizing meanings: the adjectives of specificity. Folia Linguistica 43(2). 311–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Identifying and intensifying uses of prenominal such: A data-based approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17(4). 516–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke, Lieselotte Brems & Freek Van de Velde
2012 Intersubjectivty and intersubjectification: Typology and operationalization. English Text Construction 5(1). 128–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke & Freek Van de Velde
2011 A corpus-based account of the development of English such and Dutch zulk: Identification, intensification and (inter)subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 22(4). 765–797. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
2013 Elementary statistical testing with R. In Manfred G. Krug & Julia Schlüter (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change, 361–381. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten C. van den Toorn
1997 Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst [Comprehensive Dutch grammar]. Groningen: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
1976 Cohesion in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2004 On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization, 17–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
2002 On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wisher & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 83–101. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
2001 Articles. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: Volume 11, 831–841. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hole, Daniel & Gerson Klumpp
2000 Definite type and indefinite token: The article son in colloquial German. Linguistische Berichte 1821. 231–244.Google Scholar
Horst, Joop M. van der
2008 Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis [History of Dutch syntax]. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
Horst, Joop M. van der & Freek Van de Velde
2003 Zo vreemd een groep [So strange a group]. Taal en Tongval 15/161. 237–250.Google Scholar
IBM Corp.
2013 IBM SPSS statistics for Windows: Version 22.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
Koninklijke Bibliotheek
2015 Digitale bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse letteren [Digital library of Dutch literature]. The Hague. Available online at [URL]
Narrog, Heiko
2011 The limits of (inter)subjectification. Paper presented in December at the University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Nederlandse Taalunie
Corpus gesproken Nederlands 1.0 [Corpus of spoken Dutch 1.0]. The Hague.
Rayson, Paul E. & Roger Garside
2000 Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics Workshop on Comparing Corpora at their 38th Annual Meeting, 1–6.Google Scholar
Scott, Mike
2012 WordSmith tools version 6. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik
2016 Extracting data from historical material. In Merja Kytö & Päivi Pahta (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics, 181–199. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spinillo, Miriangela
2003 On such . English Language and Linguistics 7(2). 195–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tantucci, Vittorio
2013 Interpersonal evidentiality: The Mandarin V-过 guo construction and other evidential systems beyond the ‘source of information’. Journal of Pragmatics 571. 210–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 From immediate to extended intersubjectification: A gradient approach to intersubjective awareness and semasiological change. Language and Cognition. Available online at [URL]; accessed March 2016.
2016 Textual factualization: The phenomenology of assertive reformulation and presupposition during a speech event. Journal of Pragmatics 1011. 155–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
1982 From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245–271. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–139. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 The semantic development of scalar focus modifiers. In Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), Handbook on the history of English, 335–359. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), 29–71.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher
2002 Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Van Olmen, Daniël
2013 The imperative of say as a pragmatic marker in English and Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 25(3). 247–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Olmen, Daniël & Johan van der Auwera
2014 Over zo’n and zo meer [On zo’n and so on]. In Freek Van de Velde, Hans Smessaert, Frank Van Eynde & Sara Verbrugge (eds.), Patroon en argument: Een dubbelfeestbundel bij het emeritaat van William Van Belle en Joop van der Horst [Pattern and argument: A double festschrift on the occasion of the retirements of William Van Belle and Joop van der Horst], 215–228. Leuven: Leuven University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
WNT
2010 [1864–1998] Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal [Dictionary of the Dutch language]. Leiden. Available online at [URL], accessed July 2015.
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

De Smet, Isabeau
2023. An assessment of the fourth law of Kuryłowicz: does prototypicality of meaning affect language change?. Cognitive Linguistics 34:2 ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo
De Smet, Isabeau & Freek Van de Velde
2020. Semantic differences between strong and weak verb forms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics 31:3 ► pp. 393 ff. DOI logo
De Smet, Isabeau & Freek Van de Velde
2020. A corpus-based quantitative analysis of twelve centuries of preterite and past participle morphology in Dutch. Language Variation and Change 32:2 ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo
Tantucci, Vittorio
2021. Language and Social Minds, DOI logo
Van Olmen, Daniël & Jolanta Šinkūnienė
2021. Introduction. Pragmatic markers and peripheries. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2023. 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.