Premium
Early Alternatives to Dutch Descriptive Perception Verb Constructions: A Comparison of Two Bible Translations 1
Author(s) -
Poortvliet Marjolein
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
transactions of the philological society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.333
H-Index - 26
eISSN - 1467-968X
pISSN - 0079-1636
DOI - 10.1111/1467-968x.12215
Subject(s) - predicative expression , linguistics , verb , perception , construction grammar , adjective , subject (documents) , descriptive research , psychology , history , sociology , noun , computer science , philosophy , social science , neuroscience , library science
Copular constructions (i.e. Subject‐Verb‐Predicative adjective) containing the Dutch descriptive perception verbs eruitzien ‘look’, klinken ‘sound’, voelen ‘feel’, ruiken ‘smell’ and smaken ‘taste’ (e.g. Zij klinkt blij ) emerged throughout Middle Dutch and Early Modern Dutch. It is surprising, then, that no descriptive perception verb constructions are found in the Dutch Bible translation from 1637, even though seventy instances are found in the translation from 2004. This article looks into what alternative strategies are used in the 1637 translation instead of the descriptive perception verb constructions in the 2004 translation. It is found that there are four patterns: the use of a copular construction with zijn ‘be’ or schijnen ‘seem’, the use of the construction X's appearance is Y , the use of a construction with a cognitive perception verb, and, lastly, the use of a parenthetical construction. The use of these alternative constructions instead of descriptive perception verb constructions in the 1637 Bible translation can be explained by the fact that the 1637 translation (1) was aimed to reflect the traditional Greek and Hebrew sources (accounting for ≈65% of the alternative constructions found); and (2) still followed (archaic) Middle Dutch grammar.