Article published in:
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. 149169
References

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, and Norbert Corver
2015Syntax of Dutch. Verb and Verb Phrases. Volume II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Byloo, Pieter, and Jan Nuyts
2014 “Meaning Change in the Dutch Core Modals: (Inter)subjectification in a Grammatical Paradigm.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 46: 85–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, and Dirk Noël
2012 “The Dutch Evidential NCI. A Case of Constructional Attrition.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13 (1): 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1985Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Haan, Ferdinand
2000 “Evidentiality in Dutch.” Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 74–85.Google Scholar
Ebeling, Carl L.
1962 “A Semantic Analysis of the Dutch Tenses.” Lingua 11: 86–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Engels, Gerard
1895Over het gebruik van den conjunctief en de casus bij Maerlant, een bijdrage tot de Middelnederlandsche Syntaxis. Groningen: Scholtens & Zoon.Google Scholar
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
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij, and Maarten C. van den Toorn
1997Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Second, completely revised edition. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers/Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K., and Christian M. Matthiessen
2014Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. Fourth edition. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harmes, Ingeborg
2014 “Wat zou het? Een synchrone en diachrone analyse van zou(den).” In Patroon en argument. Een dubbelfeestbundel bij het emeritaat van William Van Belle en Joop van der Horst, ed. by Freek Van de Velde, Hans Smessaert, Frank Van Eynde, and Sara Verbrugge, 365–378. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees
1989 “Layers and operators in Functional Grammar.” Journal of Linguistics 25 (1): 127–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees, and John Lachlan Mackenzie
2008Functional Discourse Grammar. A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, Theo A.M.
1989 “Die Hilfsverben ndl. zullen und dt. werden: modal oder temporal?” In Tempus – Aspekt – Modus: die lexikalischen und grammatischen Formen in den germanischen Sprachen, ed. by Werner Abraham, and Theo Janssen, 65–82. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S.
1969 “The Role of “Zullen” in the Grammar of Modern Standard Dutch.” Lingua 24 (2): 101–154.Google Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana I.
(this volume). “Multifunctionality of evidential expressions in discourse: Evidence from cross-linguistic case studies.”
Mortelmans, Tanja
2009 “Erscheinungsformen der indirekten Rede im Niederländischen und Deutschen: zou-, soll(te)- und der Konjunktiv I.” In Modalität: Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus, ed. by Werner, Abraham, and Elisabeth Leiss, 171–187. Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 77 Tübingen: Stauffenburg-Verlag.Google Scholar
. (this volume). “Seem-type Verbs in Dutch and German: lijken, schijnen & scheinen.”
Mortelmans, Tanja, and Jeroen Vanderbiesen
2011 “Dies will ein Parlamentarier ‘aus zuverlässiger Quelle’ erfahren haben. Reportives wollen zwischen sollen und dem Konjunktiv I der indirekten Rede.”. In Modalität und Evidentialität – Modality and evidentiality, ed. by Gabriele Diewald, and Elena Smirnova, 69–88. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Nederlandse Taalunie
2004Corpus Gesproken Nederlands, Version 2.0. Leiden: TST-Centrale INL.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan.
2001Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization. A Cognitive-pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Over de (beperkte) combineerbaarheid van deontische, epistemische en evidentiële uitdrukkingen in het Nederlands. Wilrijk: Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 108.Google Scholar
2005 “The Modal Confusion: On Terminology and the Concepts behind it.” In Modality: Studies in Form and Function, ed. by Alex Klinge, and Henrik H. Müller, 5–38. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
2007 “Kunnen diachroon.” Taal en Tongval 59: 118–148.Google Scholar
2008 “Qualificational Meanings, Illocutionary Signals, and the Cognitive Planning of Language Use.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 185–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “De-auxiliarization without De-modalization in the Dutch Core Modals: A Case of Collective Degrammaticalization?Language Sciences 36: 124–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(this volume). “Evidentiality reconsidered.”
Nuyts, Jan, and Pieter Byloo
2015 “Competing Modals: Beyond (inter)Subjectification.” Diachronica 32 (1): 34–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan, Pieter Byloo, and Janneke Diepeveen
2010 “On Deontic Modality, Directivity, and Mood: The Case of Dutch mogen and moeten .” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 16–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
1989 2. Ed. Complete text reproduced micrographically. Oxford: Clarendon 1991.Google Scholar
Roels, Linde, Tanja Mortelmans, and Johan van der Auwera
2007 “Dutch Equivalents of the German Past Conjunctive: Zou + Infinitive and the Modal Preterit.” In Tense, Mood and Aspect: Theoretical and Descriptive Issues, ed. by Louis de Saussure, Jacques Moeschler, and Genoveva Puskas, 177–196. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena, and Gabriele Diewald
2013 “Kategorien der Redewiedergabe im Deutschen: Konjunktiv I versus sollen.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 41 (3): 443–471. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stoett, Frederik A.
1889/1977Middelnederlandsche spraakkunst. Syntaxis. Third, revised edition. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1989 “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: an Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change.” Language 65: 31–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 “Syntax.” In The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume 1. The Beginnings to 1066, ed. by Hogg, Richard M., 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard B. Dasher
2001Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vanderbiesen, Jeroen
2015 “The Grounding Functions of German Reportives and Quotatives.” Studies van de BKL = Travaux du CBL = Papers of the LSB 9: 16–39.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J., and Hans Broekhuis
2013 “Temporaliteit en Modaliteit.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 18 (3): 306–323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
2001 “Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system.” Journal of Pragmatics 33, 1505–1528. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vroegmiddelnederlands Woordenboek (VMNW)
1999 Leiden: INL. URL: http://​gtb​.inl​.nl/
Warner, Anthony
1993English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Björn
2010 “Hearsay in European Languages: Towards an Integrative Account of Grammatical and Lexical Marking.” In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, ed. by Gabriele Diewald, and Elena Smirnova, 59–130. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT)
2007 Leiden: INL. URL: http://​gtb​.inl​.nl/