Chapter published in:Evidence for Evidentiality
Edited by Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop and Gijs Mulder
[Human Cognitive Processing 61] 2018
► pp. 77–97
I think and I believe
Evidential expressions in Dutch
This chapter focuses on the evidential use of Dutch denken ‘think’ and geloven ‘believe’ with a first person pronoun. On the basis of Twitter data we conclude that some constructions containing these verbs show features of grammaticalization and that the evidentiality at stake can be labelled as ‘inferential’. However, whereas denken is used when rational sources of evidence are involved, geloven typically matches more impressionistic contexts. We also characterize the difference between the two verbs in terms of semantic roles. The subject of denken is an Agent, whereas the subject of geloven is an Experiencer. This accounts for the observation that past tense dacht ik ‘I thought’ can get an evidential reading that geloofde ik ‘I believed’ lacks.
- 2. I think and I believe as evidentials in Dutch
- 3.Differences between the two verbs in Dutch: evidence from Twitter
- 3.1 I think
- 3.2 I believe
- 3.3Past tense
- 4.A semantic role analysis of the difference between the two evidentials in Dutch
Abbreviations used in glosses
Published online: 19 July 2018
Anderson, L. B.
Boye, K., & Harder, P.
Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L.
Foolen, A., & de Hoop, H.
de Haan, F.
Hopper, P. J.
Plungian, V. A.
de Schepper, K., van Bergen, G., Lestrade, S., & Stoop, W.
de Schepper, K., & de Hoop, H.
Cited by 2 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2022. 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.