In:Evidence for Evidentiality
Edited by Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop and Gijs Mulder
[Human Cognitive Processing 61] 2018
► pp. 77–97
Chapter 3
I think and I believe
Evidential expressions in Dutch
Published online: 19 July 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.04hoo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.04hoo
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.
Keywords: first person pronoun, grammaticalization, semantic roles, Twitter
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 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
- 3.4Results
- 4.A semantic role analysis of the difference between the two evidentials in Dutch
- 5.Conclusion
Acknowledgment Abbreviations used in glosses References
References (17)
Anderson, L. B. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: typologically regular asymmetries. In W. Chafe, & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (273–312). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Boye, K., & Harder, P. 2009. Evidentiality. Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language, 16, 9–43.
Cornillie, B. 2009. Evidentiality and epistemic modality. On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language, 16, 44–62.
Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L. 2001. Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 339–348.
Foolen, A., & de Hoop, H. 2009. Conflicting constraints on the interpretation of modal auxiliaries. In L. Hogeweg, H. de Hoop, & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect, and modality (303–316). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
de Haan, F. 2001. The relation between modality and evidentiality. Linguistische Berichte, 9, 201–216.
Hogeweg, L. 2009. What’s so unreal about the past: past tense and counterfactuals. In A. Tsangalidis, & R. Facchinetti (Eds.), Studies on English modality in honour of Frank R. Palmer (181–208). Bern: Peter Lang.
Hopper, P. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization Vol. 1 (17–35). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Koring, L. 2012. Don’t shoot the messenger: How subjectivity affects distributional properties. Lingua, 122, 874–890.
Nuyts, J. 1990. Negative-raising reconsidered: Arguments for a cognitive-pragmatic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 559–588.
Plungian, V. A.. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 349–357.
de Schepper, K., van Bergen, G., Lestrade, S., & Stoop, W. 2014. Prag-raising versus Neg-raising. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 19, 105–117.
de Schepper, K., & de Hoop, H. 2012. Construction-dependent person hierarchies. In W. Abraham, & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind across languages, 383–403. Berlin. Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thompson, S. A., & Mulac, A. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In E. C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization Vol. 2 (313–329). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Kotwica, Dorota
Ivanová, Martina
Mulder, Gijs
2017. When feeling is thinking. In Evidentiality Revisited [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 271], ► pp. 105 ff.
Mulder, Gijs
2018. (Yo) creo queas a marker of evidentiality and epistemic modality. In Evidence for Evidentiality [Human Cognitive Processing, 61], ► pp. 99 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. 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.