语义学论文.doc

A Journal Review of On the Syntax and Semantics of Evidentials1. Introduction2. A brief summary of the Journal3. Personal ideas on the relationship between evidentials and epistemic modals3.1 The definitions of evidentiality and modality3.2 the relationship evidentials and epistemic modalsFirst, 从定义本身来看， 言据性强调信息来源， 是客观的，而只是情态是客观的Second 从认识过程来看Third, 从语言表达形式来看4. Conclusion1. IntroductionEvidentiality is a universal language phenomenon. As early as 1911, the American linguist Boas discussed this language feature in his book Handbook of American Indian Languages. In 1971, Jakobson first proposed “evidentiality” a linguistic term, since then, evidentiality attractes more and more attention of researchers, and the researches are fruitful. Of the researchers, the most prominent are Chafe and Nichlols (1986), Aikhenvald and Dixon (2003). Chafe and Nichlols (1986) seminal collection of papers on evidentials brought evidential system to the attention of linguists working on languages that lack such systems.The research of evidentiality is of both theoretical and practical significance. This paper, on the basis of the Journal On the Syntax and Semantics of Evidentials, will examine some questions about evidentiality. It consists of four parts: the first part is the introduction. The second is a brier summary of the Journal. In the next part, I will share some personal ideas about the issue of the relationship between evidentiality and epistemic modals. In the last part, I will draw some conclusions.2. A brief summary of the JournalIn the Journal, the Author provides an overview of the three central theoretical issues about evidentiality. First, the Author examines the question whether the evidentials form a coherent closed-class system, independent of other systems of grammar. During this pat, the Author points out that in some languages such as Tariana, the information source is obligatory and the ways to express information source has been grammaricized into a small and closed class. However, in other languages, such as English, unlike Tariana, evidentials are not in grammatical forms but in the form of lexicons. In this case, it is not easy to judge whether the evidentials constitute a closes system. Any way, there are great cross-linguistic differences in the ways to express evidentitiality. Meanwhile, the components of evidential meaning is also discussed. Second, the Author focuses on the question about evidential head. Evidences collected seem to be in favor of the evidential head. However, when it comes to the syntactic analysis, it encounters difficulties. Third, the Author provides a detailed analysis of the issue about the relationship between evidentials and epistemic modals. In this section, the Author firstly points out that researchers since (at least) Boas (1911) have suggested that evidentials fall within the general system of epistemic modality. However, other researchers argued that evidentials differ systemically form epistemic modals. For this, the author lists four points the evidentials differ from epistemic modals. (1). Evidentials do not directly express necessity, possibility or Speaker certainty.(2). Evidentials have different historical sources from epistemic modals.(3). Evidentials generally do not occur in embedded clauses.(4). Evidentials do not weaken the proposition that they attach to.The Author discusses the above four differences respectively. However, in spite of these systemic differences the Author concludes that it is still not clear whether this means they are entirely distinct, or just a special type of epistemic modal. In the following part of this paper, I will share some ideas for this issue: are evidentials epistemic modals.3. Personal ideas about the relationship between evidentials and epistemic modalsThe relationship between evidentials and epistemic modals is an important question in the research on evidentiality. The Journal provides a detailed analysis as mentioned above. Based on this, I will put forward some personal ideas to show that it might be not easy to confirm the evidentals are entirely distinct from epistemic modals, but at least I think we can negate the proposal that evidentiality is a sub-type of epistemic modality for the following three reasons.3.1 from the aspect of the nature of evidentiality.Before we talk about evidentiality and epistemic modality, the fundmental issue is to have a good knowledge of their nature. If people cannot come to consensus at this basic level, it will be no wonder there are great disagreement for the extended issues. As for the definition of evidentiality, there are great disputes (朱永胜). Of them, two definitions are most acknowledged. One is defined by by Aikhenvald and Dixon (2003) as “the grammatical reference to information source”. The other is defined by Chafe and Nichols (1986) as “repertoire of devices for conveying various attitudes towards knowledge”. Saeed (2000:131) advocates that under epistemic modality we looked at ways in which a speaker can mark different attitudes towards the factuality of a proposition. There is a related semantic category evidentiality which allows a speaker to communicate her attitude to the source of her information. From the two definitions, we can see that the definition by Aikhenvald and Dixon is a narrow one and the definition by Chafe and Nichols is much broader, which not only includes the reliability of the information source but also the speakers attitudes towards the relevant information. As for the definitions of modality, there are also difference between the narrow one and the broad one. According to Saeed (2000:125), modality is an important semantic category which operates at the sentence level. It is a cover term for devices which allow speakers to express varying degrees of commitment to, or belief in, a proposition. Epistemic modality concerns what is possible or necessary given what is known and what the available evidence is. Deontic modality concerns what is possible, necessary, permissible, or obligatory, given a body of law or a set of moral principles or the like. Broadly speaking, modality includes mood system, such as subjunctive, imperative and indicative. (张成福) in the past, scholars treat evidentiality as a sub-type of epistemic modality. Saeed (2000:131) advocates that under epistemic modality we looked at ways in which a speaker can mark different attitudes towards the factuality of a proposition. Speas (2008: ) Researchers since Boas (1911) have suggested that evidentials fall within the general system of epistemic modality. Just as张伯江（1997）points out that the question lies in that people are used to regarding modality as personal subjective attitudes toward things, while evidentiality depends, to a great degree, the degree of reliability of the objective information source. In spite of the close connection between the two, but they have different point of view to see things. What evidentiality concerns is the degree of reliability which is, in a narrow sense, realized by the grammatical ways. In this sense, evidentiality is of great objectivity while modality is the system to express the speakers subjective attitudes. The information source is usually objective statements. The involvement of the attitudes and evaluation for objective facts should be better categorized into the group of subjective attitudes, that is, modality. Most Davis and Fasola 2007 have argued that the evidential just encodes the type of information source, and speaker certainty is either made explicit with a modal expression or determined pragmatically from what is known about that source. 事实上，正如我们前面已经指出的，现在的传信范畴应该是与时体系统、语气系统及情态系统并存的另一种表达系统，它的功能只能是表达信息来源的可靠性程度。所以本文以下只将张伯江文中表示信息来源的看作传信表达，而将与说话人主观态度有关的归入情态系统。3.2 from the process of inferenceFrom the process of inferring, it is not proper to put evidentiality within the category of epistemic modality. Evidentiality is to provide information source, and modality is to express varying degrees of commitment to, or belief in, a proposition. The degree of such commitment is based on the degree of the reliability of information source. Usually, the higher the degree of reliability is, the higher degree of speakers commitment will be. In this sense, we can say that evidentiality provides prerequisite for people to express modality. Garrett (2001), Faller (2002) have proposed that modality is part of the meaning of inferential/ indirect evidentials, but not of the other types. Spea (953) evidentials express the type of evidence, and modal value is inferred based on contextual factors. Kratzer shows that modal judgments always involve a modal base and an ordering source. It is the evidence that one has for making the modal judgment. Izvorski (1998), Speas (2004a), and Matthewson (2006) all suggest that evidentials serve to provide some kind of information about the modal base: the modal base is one in which the speaker has a certain kind of evidence. Under either of these approaches, the evidential is claimed to give us explicit information about the modal base. Therefore, from the process of thinking, the evidentiality comes before making modal expressions. In this case, it is impossible to say that the base for inferring is the subtype of the inference. This doesnt work from the point of view of logical thinking. So in my opinion, there is no inclusiveness between evidentiality and modality. If there is, it is possible that the epistemic modality is included in evidentiality, but not verse. 3.3 from the ways to express evidentialityBecause there are great cross-linguistic differences, this paper only concerns the ways to express evidentiality in Chinese and English. Considered from this point of view, evidetiality can not be said to be included by epistemic modality for the reason that many ways to express evidentialty do not fall into the category of expressing modality. A typical example is that the cognitive words such as think, believe, tell, reveal, know, see, and hear are all ways to express evidentiality, but they are not belong to modal expressions, not to mention epistemic modals. However, it is true that modal expression is indeed a way to express evidentiality, such as maybe, probably, certainly, possibly, surely, undou