Volume 26, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Like its English counterpart , Dutch has identifying and intensifying uses. The established pathway from the former to the latter is found to constitute a proportional rather than a discrete shift here. The strong presence of intensifying uses from the start, as compared to the older Dutch marker , is argued to be due to preexisting constructions that are alike formally and convey intensification. is also found to have a recognitional and an approximating use. The case is made that the former has evolved out of the identifying use and that the latter is a development which is independent from the other uses functionally but has modeled itself on them formally. Finally, it is argued that the semantic shift from identification to intensification is best captured by the well-known pathway from textual to expressive, although the unidirectionality of this cline is uncertain, and that the change from identification to recognition supports a recent proposal to distinguish immediate and extended intersubjectivity.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Auwera, Johan van der & Evie Coussé
    2016Such and sådan – the same but different. Nordic Journal of English Studies15(3). 15–32. 10.35360/njes.374
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.374 [Google Scholar]
  2. Auwera, Johan van der & Kalyanamalini Sahoo
    2015 On comparative concepts and descriptive categories, such as they are. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia47(2). 136–173. 10.1080/03740463.2015.1115636
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2015.1115636 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bolinger, Dwight
    1972Degree words. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110877786
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877786 [Google Scholar]
  4. Breban, Tine
    2010English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110216011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216011 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brems, Lieselotte
    2011Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110252927
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110252927 [Google Scholar]
  6. Carlier, Anne & Walter De Mulder
    2010 The emergence of the definite article: ille in competition with ipse in Late Latin. InKristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), 241–275.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Culpeper, Jonathan & Merja Kytö
    2000 Data in historical pragmatics: spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics1(2). 175–199. 10.1075/jhp.1.2.03cul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.1.2.03cul [Google Scholar]
  8. Davidse, Kristin, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens
    (eds) 2010Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226102
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102 [Google Scholar]
  9. Demske, Ulrike
    2005 Weshalb Demonstrativpronomina nich immer Determinantien sind [Why demonstrative pronouns are not always determiners]. InFranz Josef D’Avis (ed.), Deutsche Syntax: Empirie und Theorie [German syntax: Empiricism and theory], 53–80. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Diessel, Holger
    2006 Demonstratives, joint attention and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics17(4). 463–489. 10.1515/COG.2006.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.015 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ekberg, Lena
    2010 Extended uses of sån (’such’) among adolescents in multilingual Malmö. InRoger Källström & Inger Lindberg (eds.), Young urban Swedish: Variation and change in multilingual settings, 49–65. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2011 Joint attention and cooperation in the Swedish of adolescents in multilingual settings. InFriederike Kern & Margret Selting (eds.), Ethnic styles of speaking in European metropolitan areas, 217–237. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/silv.8.09ekb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.8.09ekb [Google Scholar]
  13. Ghesquière, Lobke
    2009 From determining to emphasizing meanings: the adjectives of specificity. Folia Linguistica43(2). 311–343. 10.1515/FLIN.2009.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIN.2009.009 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2012 Identifying and intensifying uses of prenominal such: A data-based approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics17(4). 516–545. 10.1075/ijcl.17.4.03ghe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17.4.03ghe [Google Scholar]
  15. Ghesquière, Lobke, Lieselotte Brems & Freek Van de Velde
    2012 Intersubjectivty and intersubjectification: Typology and operationalization. English Text Construction5(1). 128–152. 10.1075/etc.5.1.07ghe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.07ghe [Google Scholar]
  16. Ghesquière, Lobke & Freek Van de Velde
    2011 A corpus-based account of the development of English such and Dutch zulk: Identification, intensification and (inter)subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics22(4). 765–797. 10.1515/cogl.2011.028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.028 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gries, Stefan Th
    2013 Elementary statistical testing with R. InManfred G. Krug & Julia Schlüter (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change, 361–381. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511792519.024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511792519.024 [Google Scholar]
  18. Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten C. van den Toorn
    1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst [Comprehensive Dutch grammar]. Groningen: Nijhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976Cohesion in English. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Haspelmath, Martin
    2004 On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. InOlga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization, 17–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.59.03has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.59.03has [Google Scholar]
  21. Heine, Bernd
    2002 On the role of context in grammaticalization. InIlse Wisher & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 83–101. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.08hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.08hei [Google Scholar]
  22. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2001 Articles. InMartin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: Volume1, 831–841. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hole, Daniel & Gerson Klumpp
    2000 Definite type and indefinite token: The article son in colloquial German. Linguistische Berichte182. 231–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Horst, Joop M. van der
    2008Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis [History of Dutch syntax]. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Horst, Joop M. van der & Freek Van de Velde
    2003 Zo vreemd een groep [So strange a group]. Taal en Tongval15/16. 237–250.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. IBM Corp.
    IBM Corp. 2013IBM SPSS statistics for Windows: Version 22.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Koninklijke Bibliotheek
    Koninklijke Bibliotheek 2015Digitale bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse letteren [Digital library of Dutch literature]. The Hague. Available online atwww.dbnl.org
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Narrog, Heiko
    2011 The limits of (inter)subjectification. Paper presented inDecember at the University of Leuven.
  29. 2012 Beyond intersubjectification: Textual uses of modality and mood in subordinate clauses as part of speech-act orientation. English Text Construction5(1). 29–52. 10.1075/etc.5.1.03nar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.03nar [Google Scholar]
  30. Nederlandse Taalunie
    Nederlandse Taalunie. Corpus gesproken Nederlands 1.0 [Corpus of spoken Dutch 1.0]. The Hague.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rayson, Paul E. & Roger Garside
    2000 Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics Workshop on Comparing Corpora at their 38th Annual Meeting, 1–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Scott, Mike
    2012WordSmith tools version 6. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Smitterberg, Erik
    2016 Extracting data from historical material. InMerja Kytö & Päivi Pahta (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics, 181–199. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139600231.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600231.012 [Google Scholar]
  34. Spinillo, Miriangela
    2003 On such. English Language and Linguistics7(2). 195–210. 10.1017/S1360674302001004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674302001004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Tantucci, Vittorio
    2013 Interpersonal evidentiality: The Mandarin V-过 guo construction and other evidential systems beyond the ‘source of information’. Journal of Pragmatics57. 210–230. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.013 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2015 From immediate to extended intersubjectification: A gradient approach to intersubjective awareness and semasiological change. Language and Cognition. Available online atjournals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10088734&fileId=S1866980815000265; accessedMarch 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2016 Textual factualization: The phenomenology of assertive reformulation and presupposition during a speech event. Journal of Pragmatics101. 155–171. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  38. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    1982 From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. InWinfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245–271. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.24.09clo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.24.09clo [Google Scholar]
  39. 2003 From subjectification to intersubjectification. InRaymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–139. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2006 The semantic development of scalar focus modifiers. InAns van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), Handbook on the history of English, 335–359. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470757048.ch14
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757048.ch14 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2010 (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. InKristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), 29–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher
    2002Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Van Olmen, Daniël
    2013 The imperative of say as a pragmatic marker in English and Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics25(3). 247–287. 10.1017/S1470542713000123
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542713000123 [Google Scholar]
  44. Van Olmen, Daniël & Johan van der Auwera
    2014 Over zo’n and zo meer [On zo’n and so on]. InFreek Van de Velde, Hans Smessaert, Frank Van Eynde & Sara Verbrugge (eds.), Patroon en argument: Een dubbelfeestbundel bij het emeritaat van William Van Belle en Joop van der Horst [Pattern and argument: A double festschrift on the occasion of the retirements of William Van Belle and Joop van der Horst], 215–228. Leuven: Leuven University Press. 10.2307/j.ctt14jxsr0.17
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt14jxsr0.17 [Google Scholar]
  45. WNT
    WNT 2010 [1864–1998]Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal [Dictionary of the Dutch language]. Leiden. Available online atgtb.inl.nl/?owner=WNT, accessedJuly 2015.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error