Article published in:
Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics
Edited by Irma Taavitsainen, Andreas H. Jucker and Jukka Tuominen
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 243] 2014
► pp. 213–236

Tracing the history of deontic NCI patterns in Dutch

A case of polysemy copying

| Ghent University
| The University of Hong Kong
While the so-called “nominative-and-infinitive” (NCI) is no longer a productive construction in Dutch, the grammar of Present-day Dutch still contains a small set of lexically substantive NCI patterns, most notably geacht worden te and verondersteld worden te. Like their English formal equivalent be supposed to, these Dutch patterns can instantiate both evidential and deontic constructions, the latter being the most frequent one in Dutch. This study focuses on the history of these deontic uses. We show that, with both patterns, the deontic use did not really take off until well into the second half of the twentieth century, and argue against an analysis in terms of grammaticalization along an (unlikely) “evidential to deontic” path. Instead we present a language-contact hypothesis which attributes the development of the deontic uses of Dutch geacht worden te and verondersteld worden te to polysemy copying or distributional assimilation, English be supposed to providing the model. Additional evidence for the influence of English on this domain of Dutch grammar comes from the newly emerging lexically substantive NCI pattern verwacht worden te ‘be expected to’.
Published online: 11 March 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.243.13col
References

Corpora

BNC
= The British National Corpus (version 3, BNC XML Edition) 2007 Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Online: http://​www​.natcorp​.ox​.ac​.uk/ .
ConDiv
= CONDIV corpus geschreven Nederlands [CONDIV corpus of written Dutch] 1999 Compiled by the QLVL research group at the University of Leuven. More information: see Grondelaers et al (2000).
De Gids
2006 DVD edition of the first 100 volumes (1837–1936) of the periodical De Gids (‘The Guide’). Foundation for Historic Future. More information: www​.historicfuture​.nl .
Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse Letteren
Digital Library of Dutch Literature]. Online: www​.dbnl​.org .
INL38
= 38 miljoen-woorden-corpus [38 million word corpus of Dutch] 1996 Institute for Dutch Lexicology. Online: www​.inl​.nl. More information: see Kruyt and Dutilh (1997).
Project Gutenberg
Online: www​.gutenberg​.org .

Secondary sources

Aijmer, Karin
1972  Some Aspects of Psychological Predicates in English . Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Berkenfield, Catie
2006 “Pragmatic Motivations for the Development of Evidential and Modal Meaning in the Construction ‘be supposed to X’.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7 (1): 39–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finnegan
1999  Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English . Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, and Dirk No
ël 2012 “The Dutch Evidential NCI: A Case of Constructional Attrition.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13 (1): 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter
2009  Modals and Quasi-modals in English . Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse, and Susan Reed
2006 “Mood and Modality in English.” In The Handbook of English Linguistics , ed. by Bas Aarts, and April McMahon, 269–290. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duinhoven, A.M
1991 “Dat siet men wit ende reine wesen: A.c.i.-constructies in het Nederlands.” Nieuwe Taalgids 84: 409–430.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga
1989 “The Origin and Spread of the Accusative and Infinitive Construction in English.” Folia Linguistica Historica 8: 143–217.Google Scholar
1992 “Syntactic Change and Borrowing: The Case of the Accusative-and-infinitive Construction in English.” In Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change , ed. by Marinel Gerritsen, and Dieter Stein, 17–88. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 “The Fortunes of the Latin-type Accusative and Infinitive Construction in Dutch and English Compared.” In Language Change and Language Structure: Older Germanic Languages in a Comparative Perspective , ed. by Toril Swan, Endre Mørck, and Olaf Jansen Westvik, 91–133. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker, and Johan van der Auwera
2012 “What Is ‘Contact-induced Grammaticalization’? Examples from Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean Languages.” In Grammatical Replication and Borrowability in Language Contact , ed. by Björn Wiemer, Bernhard Wälchli, and Björn Hansen, 381–426. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1990  Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction , vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
1993  English Grammar: A Function-based Introduction , vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis
1991 “FG Reflections on ‘Tobacco is said to be harmful’.” Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 17 (1–3): 65–74.
Grondelaers, Stefan, Katrien Deygers, Hilde van Aken, Vicky van den Heede, and Dirk Speelman
2000 “Het CONDIV-corpus geschreven Nederlands.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 5: 356–363.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar
1950 “The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing.” Language 26 (2): 210–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva
2003 “On Contact-induced Grammaticalization.” Studies in Language 27 (3): 529–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005  Language Contact and Grammatical Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey Pullum
2002  The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kruyt, J.G., and M.W.F. Dutilh
1997 “A 38 Million Words Dutch Text Corpus and Its Users.” Lexikos 7: 229–244.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W
1987  The Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou
2005  The Rise of the To -Infinitive . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian
2004 “Corpus Linguistics and Grammaticalisation Theory: Statistics, Frequencies, and Beyond.” In Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English , ed. by Hans Lindquist, and Christian Mair, 121–150. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Colette
2007 “The Spread of Grammaticalized Forms: The Case of be+supposed to.” Journal of English Linguistics 35 (2): 117–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk
1997 “The Choice between Infinitives and that-clauses after believe.” English Language and Linguistics 1 (2): 271–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 “The Passive Matrices of English Infinitival Complement Clauses: Evidentials on the Road to Auxiliarihood?” Studies in Language 25 (2): 255–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “Is There Semantics in All Syntax? The Case of Accusative and Infinitive Constructions vs. that-clauses.” In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English , ed. by Günter Rohdenburg, and Britta Mondorf, 347–377. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “The Nominative and Infinitive in Late Modern English: A Diachronic Constructionist Approach.” Journal of English Linguistics 36 (4): 314–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk, and Timothy Colleman
2009 “The Nominative and Infinitive in English and Dutch: An Exercise in Contrastive Diachronic Construction Grammar.” Languages in Contrast 9 (1): 144–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Believe-type Raising-to-object and Raising-to-subject Verbs in English and Dutch: A Contrastive Investigation in Diachronic Construction Grammar.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15 (2): 157–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk, and Johan van der Auwera
2009 “Revisiting be supposed to from a Diachronic Constructionist Perspective.” English Studies 90 (5): 599–623. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan
2001  Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-pragmatic Perspective . Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary
1989– Third ed. in progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online: http://​www​.oed​.com/ .
Sweetser, Eve
1990  From Etymology to Pragmatics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1989 “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change. Language 65 (1): 31–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, and Vladimir A. Plungian
1998 “Modality’s Semantic Map.” Linguistic Typology 2 (1): 79–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Leuvensteijn, J.A
1997 “Vroegnieuwnederlands (circa 1550–1650).” In Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Taal , ed. by M.C. van den Toorn, W.J.J. Pijnenburg, J.A. van Leuvensteijn, and J.M. van der Horst, 227–272. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Visconti, Jacqueline
2004 “Conditionals and Subjectification: Implications for a Theory of Semantic Change.” In Up and Down the Cline – The Nature of Grammaticalization , ed. by Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde, and Harry Perridon, 169–192. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Warner, Anthony
1982  Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax: A Study of the Wyclifite Sermons . London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel
1968 [1953]  Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems . The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal
1882–1998 Ed. by M. De Vries, L.A. Te Winkel et al. ’s Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Zajicek, Jacques
1970 “Réflexions sur l'accusativus cum infinitivo.” Nieuwe Taalgids 63: 198–208.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra
2003 “On the Generic Origins of Modality in English.” In English Modality in Context: Diachronic Perspectives , ed. by David Hart, 33–69. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Zwart, C
Jan-Wouter 2011  The Syntax of Dutch . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Colleman, Timothy
2016. A reflection on constructionalization and constructional borrowing, inspired by an emerging Dutch replica of the ‘time’-away construction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30 ► pp. 91 ff. Crossref logo
Colleman, Timothy
2018.  In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24], ► pp. 143 ff. Crossref logo
Noël, Dirk
2016. For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30 ► pp. 39 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 july 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.