Cover not available

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. 123–148

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 5
Seem-type verbs in Dutch and German

Lijken, schijnen & scheinen

 | University of Antwerp
Published online: 21 March 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.271.06mor
Abstract
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.
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
References (33)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2009. “ Seem and Evidentiality.” Functions of Language 16 (1): 63–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2010. “Evidence for What? Evidentiality and Scope.” STUF – Language Typology and Universals 63 (4): 290–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Epistemic Meaning: A Crosslinguistic and Functional-Cognitive Study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert. 2007. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-) Auxiliaries. A Cognitive-Functional Approach. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele, and Elena Smirnova. 2010. Evidentiality in German. Linguistic Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faller, Martina T. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD-Dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koring, Loes. 2012. “Don’t Shoot the Messenger: How Subjectivity Affects Distributional Properties.” Lingua 122: 874–890. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. “Epistemic Legitimisation and Inter/subjecitivty in the Discourse of Parliamentary and Public Inquiries.” Critical Discourse Studies 12 (3): 261–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuckolls, Janis, and Lev Michael. 2014. Evidentiality in interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Bruggen, Femmy. 1980. “Schijnen, lijken, blijken.” TABU Taalkundig Bulletin 11: 54–62.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2016. “Evidentiality in Early Modern German.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17 (2).Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Pisciotta, Flavio
2024. When constructional choice is a matter of context: sembrare-constructions across a continuum of text genres. CogniTextes Volume 25 DOI logo
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 28 november 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue