Dutch ('t) schijnt and german scheint(')s: on the grammaticalization of evidential particles

Abstract

This paper presents a contrastive study of on the one hand ('t) schijnt ('it seems'), a form of the Dutch verb of appearance schijnen ('seem'), and on the other hand, a similar use of the German cognate scheinen, viz. scheint(')s (lit. 'seems it'). On the basis of corpus data, using a mainly qualitative methodology, we argue that these forms of schijnen and scheinen have grammaticalized into evidential particles. We demonstrate that ('t) schijnt and scheint(')s evolved via distinct grammaticalization paths, the former via the path outlined by matrix-clause hypothesis and the latter via that of the parataxis hypothesis, and that ('t) schijnt has reached a higher degree of grammaticalization than scheint(')s.

Syntactic analyses of discourse particles through the microvariation of Basque <italic>ote</italic>

“…22 As for their interpretation the verb expressing 'to give' also conveys 'to seem', 'to be of one's opinion/ judgement'. Those interpretations are closer to the evidentiality expressed by the discourse particles omen and ei as similar correspondences have been claimed in other languages such as Dutch or German (Schoonjans 2012; Van Bogaert & Leuschner 2015;Cruschina & Remberger 2017). Regarding the particle ote, Lakarra (2019) claims that it may have developed as follows: the action of giving, seeming, believing > apparently, it seems to somebody that, probably > perhaps, doubt.…”

Indirect evidentiality in Dutch and German: a contrastive corpus study of the seem-type verbs schijnen and scheinen

“…The remarkable dominance of the reportive complement construction het schijnt dat in spoken Belgian Dutch could thus be due to the influence of French. By the same token, Van Bogaert & Leuschner (2015) found most reportive uses of the German particle scheints in colloquial Southern German including Switzerland and Austria, which again -at least in the case of Switzerland -points to language contact with French as a possible explaining factor for the reportive use. More research, however, would be necessary in order to come up with a fully satisfying answer to this question.…”

“…This also holds for German scheints, which arose via a different grammaticalization path than its Belgian Dutch counterpart and has not acquired the same degree of formal grammaticalization as Dutch ('t) schijnt. Other differences between particle and parenthetical use have been described by Van Bogaert & Colleman (2013) and Van Bogaert & Leuschner (2015).…”

“…As this use has already been extensively discussed in the literature (see Van Bogaert & Colleman 2013;Van Bogaert & Leuschner 2015), I will not treat it in great detail here. Suffice it to say that the Belgian Dutch particle ('t) schijnt is a hearsay evidential with a high degree of formal grammaticalization.…”

“…she seem.prs.3sg ill to be.inf 'She seems to be ill' Just like English seem, both verbs pattern in a wide variety of construction types: they are not only found in combination with an infinitive preceded by te/zu, but can also function as copular verbs, in adverbial and parenthetical constructions or as matrix verbs in impersonal constructions followed by a complementizer (Dutch dat, German dass 'that' or German als (ob) 'as if'). Although these superficial observations make it tempting to equate German scheinen with Dutch schijnen, a number of previous studies (especially Vliegen 2011a-b; Van Bogaert & Colleman 2013; Van Bogaert & Leuschner 2015) have revealed remarkable differences that preclude such an equation. The main differences between the two verbs pertain to their preferences for particular constructional patterns, the specifics of their evidential meaning and their overall frequency, details of which will be presented in section 2.…”