English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Comparing (  ’t )  schijnt  to ( zo )  schijnt  het  (lit. ‘so seems it’), the parenthetical use of the verb  schijnen  ‘seem’, we argue that (  ’t )  schijnt  is best analysed as an evidential particle. Although both parenthetical and particle uses of  schijnen  have been subject to particulization, viz. grammaticalization towards particlehood, this grammaticalization path is bifurcated; while (  ’t )  schijnt  is best accounted for by the matrix clause hypothesis, ( zo )  schijnt  het  fits the parataxis hypothesis and is less grammaticalized, not having reached particle status yet. The possible further grammaticalization of ( zo )  schijnt  het  into a more particle-like element is discussed on the basis of recent developments in Netherlandic Dutch, suggesting that distinct grammaticalization paths may lead to similar outcomes. This study calls attention to the need to allow for a certain flexibility of categories when considering cases of grammaticalization such as those affecting  schijnen , bearing in mind that each individual instance of (  ’t )  schijnt  or ( zo )  schijnt  het  can be more or less central to the idealized categories of matrix clause, parenthetical or particle.

On the grammaticalization of ( ’t) schijnt ‘it seems’ as an evidential particle in colloquial Belgian Dutch1