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. 149–169

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

Chapter 6
A synchronic and diachronic study of the Dutch Auxiliary “Zou(den)”

 | University of Münster/University of Antwerp
Published online: 21 March 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.271.07har
Abstract
This contribution presents the results of a corpus based investigation of the Dutch auxiliary zou(den). The synchronic and diachronic study demonstrates that the auxiliary can express nine meanings since the oldest language stages, and that its meaning has specialized to hypotheticality. Furthermore, the paper focuses on the evidential function and discusses some grammatical and contextual features that support an evidential interpretation. It is highly probable that linguistic features such as a source reference and the grammatical construction have contributed to the evolution of an evidential meaning.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Modal auxiliaries and the framework
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1The meaning categories
    • 4.2The semantic development of zou(den)
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1 Zou(den) as an evidential marker
    • 5.2The presence of source references
    • 5.3Grammatical and semantic features of evidential zou(den)
    • 5.4The evolution of the evidential meaning
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (44)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, and Norbert Corver. 2015. Syntax of Dutch. Verb and Verb Phrases. Volume II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, and Dirk Noël. 2012. “The Dutch Evidential NCI. A Case of Constructional Attrition.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13 (1): 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Haan, Ferdinand. 2000. “Evidentiality in Dutch.” Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 74–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ebeling, Carl L. 1962. “A Semantic Analysis of the Dutch Tenses.” Lingua 11: 86–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engels, Gerard. 1895. Over het gebruik van den conjunctief en de casus bij Maerlant, een bijdrage tot de Middelnederlandsche Syntaxis. Groningen: Scholtens & Zoon.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij, and Maarten C. van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Second, completely revised edition. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers/Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K., and Christian M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. Fourth edition. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1989. “Layers and operators in Functional Grammar.” Journal of Linguistics 25 (1): 127–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees, and John Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar. A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S. 1969. “The Role of “Zullen” in the Grammar of Modern Standard Dutch.” Lingua 24 (2): 101–154.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Nederlandse Taalunie. 2004. Corpus Gesproken Nederlands, Version 2.0. Leiden: TST-Centrale INL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Over de (beperkte) combineerbaarheid van deontische, epistemische en evidentiële uitdrukkingen in het Nederlands. Wilrijk: Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 108.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. “Kunnen diachroon.” Taal en Tongval 59: 118–148.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. “De-auxiliarization without De-modalization in the Dutch Core Modals: A Case of Collective Degrammaticalization?” Language Sciences 36: 124–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(this volume). “Evidentiality reconsidered.”
Nuyts, Jan, and Pieter Byloo. 2015. “Competing Modals: Beyond (inter)Subjectification.” Diachronica 32 (1): 34–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary (OED). 1989. 2. Ed. Complete text reproduced micrographically. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stoett, Frederik A. 1889/1977. Middelnederlandsche spraakkunst. Syntaxis. Third, revised edition. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard B. Dasher. 2001. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J., and Hans Broekhuis. 2013. “Temporaliteit en Modaliteit.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 18 (3): 306–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vroegmiddelnederlands Woordenboek (VMNW). 1999. Leiden: INL. URL: [URL]/
Warner, Anthony. 1993. English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT). 2007. Leiden: INL. URL: [URL]/
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Garcia Salido, Gabriela & Miranda Amairany Flores Charazo
2024. Speech strategies reported in two Southern Tepehuan languages. LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas 24 ► pp. e024013 ff. DOI logo
Mortelmans, Tanja
2024. Frequency differences in reportative exceptionality and how to account for them. Studies in Language 48:3 ► pp. 682 ff. DOI logo
Mortelmans, Tanja
2025. How do ‘rumours’ and reportative evidentiality match? A comparative study of the French conditional, Dutch zou + inf, and German sollen + inf. Journal of Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Nuyts, Jan
2024. On the link between grammaticalization and subjectification. Studies in Language 48:3 ► pp. 608 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

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