Cover not available
Part of
Evidentiality Revisited: Cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives
Edited by Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Gerda Haßler and Marta Carretero
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 271] 2017
► pp. 123–148

Chapter 5
Seem-type verbs in Dutch and German

Lijken, schijnen & scheinen

| University of Antwerp
This paper addresses the German seem-type verb scheinen and its Dutch ‘equivalents’ lijken and schijnen. On the basis of an analysis of spoken corpus data, it is shown that these verbs differ with respect to three parameters: 1) their constructional preferences 2) their evidential potential and 3) the degree of subjectivity with which the speaker (or conceptualizer) is typically construed. It will be argued that these three parameters correlate. As a result, a synchronic cline can be presented, in which the three verbs can be arranged.
Keywords: seem-type verbs, inferentiality, hearsay, subjectivity, scope, Dutch, German, constructional preferences, cline
Article outline
  • 1.Why seem-type verbs are interesting
  • 2.The relevant verbs: German scheinen, Dutch schijnen and lijken
    • 2.1The (evidential) semantics of Dutch lijken and schijnen and German scheinen
      • 2.1.1Giving light and resemblance: the origins of schijnen/scheinen and lijken
      • 2.1.2 Lijken and scheinen as inferential evidentials
      • 2.1.3Dutch schijnen as an inferential-reportive evidential
    • 2.2The constructional potential of seem-type verbs in Dutch and German
    • 2.3Constructional preferences: differences between scheinen, schijnen and lijken
  • 3.Aspects of evidentiality: scope, types of evidence, subjectivity
    • 3.1Scope
    • 3.2Types of evidence: from inference to reported
    • 3.3Subjectivity
  • 4.A new corpus analysis: spoken Dutch and German compared
    • 4.1Scope
    • 4.2Types of evidence: from inference to reported
    • 4.3Subjectivity
  • 5.Conclusions: a three-fold cline
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 March 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.271.06mor
References (33)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2009. “ Seem and Evidentiality.” Functions of Language 16 (1): 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Askedal, John Ole. 1998. “Satzmustervariation und Hilfsverbproblematik beim deutschen Verb scheinen .” In Deutsche Grammatik – Thema in Variationen, ed. by Karin Donhauser, and Ludwig M. Eichinger, 49–74. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2010. “Evidence for What? Evidentiality and Scope.” STUF – Language Typology and Universals 63 (4): 290–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Epistemic Meaning: A Crosslinguistic and Functional-Cognitive Study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornillie, Bert. 2007. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-) Auxiliaries. A Cognitive-Functional Approach. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality. On the Close Relationship between Two Different Categories.” Functions of Language 16 (1): 44–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornillie, Bert, and Pedro Gras. 2015. “On the Interactional Dimension of Evidentials. The Case of the Spanish Adverbials.” Discourse Studies 17 (2): 141–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Haan, Ferdinand. 2007. “Raising as Grammaticalization: The Case of Germanic Seem-verbs.” Italian Journal of Linguistics – Rivista di Linguistica 19 (1): 129–150.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2000. “ Scheinen als Faktizitätsmarker.” In Wortschatz und Orthographie in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Festschrift für Horst Haider Munske zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Mechthild Habermann, Peter O. Müller, and Bernd Naumann, 333–355. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
. 2001. “ Scheinen-Probleme: Analogie, Konstruktionsmischung und die Sogwirkung aktiver Grammatikalisierungskanäle.” In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, ed. by Reimar Müller, and Marga Reis, 87–110. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele, and Elena Smirnova. 2010. Evidentiality in German. Linguistic Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faller, Martina T. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD-Dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2014. “Foregrounding evidentiality in (English) academic discourse: Patterned co-occurrences of the sensory perception verbs seem and appear .” Intercultural Pragmatics 11 (3): 333–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koring, Loes. 2012. “Don’t Shoot the Messenger: How Subjectivity Affects Distributional Properties.” Lingua 122: 874–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lampert, Günther, and Martina Lampert. 2010. “Where Does Evidentiality Reside? Notes on (Alleged) Limiting Cases: Seemand Be Like .” STUF – Language Typology and Universals 63 (4): 308–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, María José, and Belén Méndez-Naya. 2014. “From Clause to Pragmatic Marker. A Study of the Development of Like-parentheticals in American English.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15 (1): 36–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín Arrese, Juana I. 2013. “Stancetaking and Inter/Subjectivity in the Iraq Inquiry: Blair vs. Brown.” In English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality, ed. by Juana I. Marín Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita, and Johan van der Auwera, 411–445. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. “Epistemic Legitimisation and Inter/subjecitivty in the Discourse of Parliamentary and Public Inquiries.” Critical Discourse Studies 12 (3): 261–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuckolls, Janis, and Lev Michael. 2014. Evidentiality in interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization. A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philippa, Marlies, Frans Debrabandere, Arend Quak, Tanneke Schoonheim, and Nicoline van der Sijs. 2003–2009. Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: AUP. Accessed via [URL]/.
Sanders, José, and Wilbert Spooren. 1996. “Subjectivity and Certainty in Epistemic Modality: A Study of Dutch Epistemic Modifiers.” Cognitive Linguistics 7 (3): 241–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Usonienė, Aurelija, and Jolanta Šinkūnienė. 2013. “A Cross-linguistic Look at the Multifunctionality of the English verb Seem .” In English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality, ed. by Juana I. Marín Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita, and Johan van der Auwera, 281–336. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie, and Timothy Colleman. 2013. “On the Grammaticalization of (‘t) Schijnt ‘It Seems’ as an Evidential Particle in Colloquial Belgian Dutch.” Folia Linguistica 47 (2): 481–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie, and Torsten Leuschner. 2015. “Dutch (‘t) schijnt/German scheint’s: On the Grammaticalization of Evidential Particles.” Studia Linguistica 69 (1): 86–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Bruggen, Femmy. 1980. “Schijnen, lijken, blijken.” TABU Taalkundig Bulletin 11: 54–62.Google Scholar
Vliegen, Maurice 2011a. “Scheinbar identisch: Niederländisch schijnen, deutsch scheinen .” In Neue linguistische Perspektiven, ed. by Wilfried Kürschner, Reinhard Rapp, Jürg Strässler, Maurice Vliegen, and Heirich Weber, 231–244. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2011b. “Evidentiality. Dutch ‘Seem’ and ‘Appear’ Verbs: ‘blijken’, ‘lijken’, ‘schijnen’.” Linguistics in the Netherlands 28: 125–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2016. “Evidentiality in Early Modern German.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17 (2).Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2010. “Hearsay in European Languages: Toward an Integrative Account of Grammatical and Lexical Marking.” In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, ed. by Gabriele Diewald, and Elena Smirnova, 59–129. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. “A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticization of Evidentiality.” Studies in Language 12, 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

WANG, YI’NA & WEIQIAN LIU
2024.  Björn Wiemer & Juana I. Marín-Arrese (eds.), Evidential marking in European languages: Toward a unitary comparative account. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, 2022. Pp. xvii + 732.. Journal of Linguistics 60:2 ► pp. 478 ff. DOI logo
Hasselgård, Hilde
2023. SeemandAppearand Their Norwegian Verbal Counterparts: A Cross-Register Contrastive Study. English Studies 104:1 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Coussé, Evie & Gerlof Bouma
2022. Semantic scope restrictions in complex verb constructions in Dutch. Linguistics 60:1 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2019. Bibliographie. In La formation grammaticale du traducteur, ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 october 2024. 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.