Over het verschil in evidentialiteit tussen denk ik en dacht ik

Abstract

Abstract This paper characterizes the difference in evidentiality between two parenthetical constructions in Dutch, denk ik ‘I think’ and dacht ik ‘I thought’. On the basis of a qualitative corpus study of spoken Dutch, in which we systematically compare utterances with evidential denk ik ‘I think’ to their counterparts with dacht ik ‘I thought’ and vice versa, we argue that the difference between the two constructions can be analyzed as a difference between inferential and assumed evidentiality, respectively (Aikhenvald 2004). We argue that it is not a mere coincidence that the difference between inferential and assumed evidentiality is captured by the grammatical difference between two tenses. There is a straightforward relation between the two types of indirect evidentiality and the two tenses. The tenses reflect the times at which the evidence that the inference or assumption is based on has become available to the speaker. The present tense variant denk ik ‘I think’ is used when the speaker infers something on the basis of sensory evidence in the present, whereas the past tense variant dacht ik ‘I thought’ is used when the speaker assumes something on the basis of reportative or sensory evidence obtained in the past.