英语学术论文中的言据性研究

Contents
序 i
前言 iii
List of abbreviations v
Chapter 1 Introduction
　1.1 What is evidentiality?
　1.2 Approaches to evidentiality
　1.2.1 The typological and cross-linguistic approach
　1.2.2 The cognitive approach
　1.2.3 The pragmatic approach
　1.2.4 Systemic functional linguistics approach
　1.2.5 Other approaches to evidentiality
　1.3 Methodology and data collection
　1.4 Organization of the book
Chapter 2 Toward a three-element model of interpersonal functions ofevidentiality in RAs
　2.1 SFL
　2.1.1 Language as social-semiotic and meaning potential
　2.1.2 Three metafunctions
　2.1.3 Strata and realization
　2.1.4 Evidentiality in transitivity system
　2.1.5 Evidentiality and modality system in SFL
　2.1.6 Evidentiality and grammatical metaphor
　2.1.7 The appraisal theory
　2.1.8 The cognitive approach to language in SFL
　2.2 Genre
　2.2.1 Genre in SFL
　2.2.2 Swale’s and Bhatia’s notions of genre
　2.3 Epistemological stance
　2.4 Metadiscourse
　2.5 A three-element model of interpersonal functions of evidentiality in RAs
　2.5.1 RAs as a persuasive and interactive genre
　2.5.2 Defining the three-element model
　2.6 Analytical framework in the current research
　2.7 Summary
Chapter 3 Classification and distributions of evidentiality in RAs
　3.1 Classifications of evidentiality
　3.1.1 Previous classifications of evidentiality
　3.1.2 Classification of evidentiality in the current study
　3.2 Lexicogrammatical realizations of evidentiality in RAs
　3.2.1 Identification of evidentials in the data
　3.2.2 Lexicogrammatical realizations of evidential types
　3.3 Distribution patterns of evidential types in RAs
　3.3.1 The frequencies of evidential types
　3.3.2 Distribution of evidentials in different evidential types
　3.4 Evidentiality and generic structure of RAs
　3.4.1 The generic structure of RAs
　3.4.2 Relationship between evidential types and generic structure of RAs
　3.5 Summary
Chapter 4 Evidential choice and interpersonal functions of evidentiality in RAs
　4.1 Evidentiality as evaluation
　4.1.1 Evaluative functions of reporting evidentials
　4.1.2 Evidentiality and modal responsibility in RAs
　4.1.3 Evidentiality and dialogism
　4.2 Evidentiality as metadiscourse
　4.2.1 The interpersonal nature of metadiscourse
　4.2.2 Evidentiality as textual metadiscourse
　4.2.3 Evidentiality as interpersonal metadiscourse
　4.2.4 Summary of evidentiality as metadiscourse
　4.3 Evidentiality as writer identity indexing
　4.3.1 Evidentiality and the writer’s credibility
　4.3.2 Evidentiality and the balance between writer’s authority and solidarity
　4.3.3 Evidentiality and writer’s respect and responsibility
Chapter 5 A comparative study of evidentiality in RA s of NS and Chinese writers
　5.1 The necessity of a comparative study
　5.2 Findings of the comparative study
　5.2.1 Similarities found in the comparative study
　5.2.2 Differences found in the comparative study
　5.3 Pedagogical implications
　5.4 Summary
Chapter 6 Conclusion
　6.1 A Summay of the findings in this book
　6.2 Significance of the current study
　6.3 Limitations and suggestions for future research
　Appendixes
　Appendix 1 Data sources
　Appendix 2 Evidentials investigated in the current research
　Appendix 3 Sample of concordance of reporting evidential show
　Bibliography
后记
　List of Tables
　2.1 Modality: examples of ‘type’ and ‘oritentation’ combined
　2.2 Examples of three values of modality of probability
　2.3 An example of metaphor in modality
　2.4 Vande Kopple’s classification system for metadiscourse
　2.5 Crismore et al.’s categorization of metadiscourse (1993: 47-54)
　2.6 Hyland’s categorization of metadiscourse
　3.1 Lexicogrammatical patterns of evidential types in RAs
　3.2 Distribution of evidentials of different evidential types in NS corpus
　4.1 Distribution of reporting evidentials in NS corpus
　4.2 Information sources of reporting evidentials in NS corpus
　4.3 Distribution of the verb groups in reporting evidentials in NS corpus
　4.4 Categories of nouns as evidentials in NS corpus
　4.5 Categories and sample realizations of different degrees of certainty (after the modality system of Halliday)
　4.6 Occurrences of different realizations of degrees of certainty in NS corpus.
　4.7 The monoglossic and the heteroglossic
　4.8 Summary of evidentiality as metadiscourse
　5.1 Evidential types and generic structures of RAs in the two corpora (with frequency per 1，000 words)
　5.2 Realizations of evidential types in NS and Chinese corpora
　5.3 Reporting verbs used in NS and Chinese corpora
　List of Figures
　1.1 Palmer’s model of propositional modality
　1.2 Model of epistemological stance adoption (after Mushin， 2001)
　2.1 Language as a tri-stratal system (after Halliday & Ma

　　Chapter 1
　　Introduction
　　1.1What is evidentiality?
　　Evidentiality， a pervasive linguistic phenomenon in almost all the languages， has recently been arousing the interest of linguists and has become a hot research topic in linguistics. However， so far there has been no consensus yet on what evidentiality is and what kind of linguistic category it is. The disagreements mainly occur in the following aspects: whether evidentiality is a grammatical category or a semantic one; what the semantic scope of evidentiality is and its place in linguistic study， i.e. its relationship with other linguistic categories， especially its close relationship with modality.
　　As to the first issue of whether evidentiality is a grammatical category or a semantic one， researches have shown that it is language-specific. In about a quarter of the world’s languages， every statement is required to specify the type of source on which it is based―for example， whether the speaker sees it， hears it， infers it from indirect evidence， or learns it from someone else. This linguistic category， whose primary meaning is information source， is called ‘evidentiality’. In Boas’ (1938: 133) words， ‘while for us definiteness， number， and time are obligatory aspects， we find in another language location near the speaker or someone else， [and] source of information―whether seen， heard， or inferred―as obligatory aspects.’
　　From Boas’ words， we can see that in some languages， evidentiality is an obligatory category. As to the linguisitic expression of evidentiality， different languages present different evidential systems. For instance， Tariana， an Arawak language spoken in the multilingual area of the Vaupes in northeast Amazonia， has a quite complex evidential system. In this language， one can not simply say ‘Jose played football’. Instead， speakers have to specify whether they see the event happen， hear it， or know about it because somebody else tells them， etc. This is achieved through a set of evidential markers fused with tense. Omitting an evidential in Tariana will result in an ungrammatical and highly unnatural sentence. Look at the following examples.
　　(1a) Juse ifida di-manika-ka.
　　‘Jose has played football (we saw it)’
　　(1b) Juse ifida di-manika-mahka.
　　‘Jose has played football (we heard it)’
　　(1c) Juse ifida di-manika-nihka.
　　‘Jose has played football (we infer it from visual evidence)’
　　(1d) Juse ifida di-manika-sika.
　　‘Jose has played football (we assume this on the basis of what we already know)’
　　(Adapted from Aikhenvald， 2004: 2)
　　The examples above show that evidentiality is obligatory in the language of Tariana. To mark the information source， some markers are used， such as ka， mahka， nihka and sika， and these markers are later termed as evidentials or evidential markers in evidential studies. These instances also show that in Tariana evidentiality is a grammatical category and it is expressed through affixes or clitics.
　　However， the grammatical evidential system in Tariana is only one of the understandings of evidentiality and evidentials for if evidentiality is defined from the formal perspective， it seems that evidentiality only occurs in some languages， but not a universal concept. For example， in the languages of English， Chinese， German and so on， there are no grammaticalised evidential systems and in these languages， there are no affixes or clitics to express evidentiality. But this is not to say that in these languages there is no evidentiality. In fact， concerning evidentiality， there has been existing different research orientations. While some linguists still show great enthusiasm for describing the grammatical evidential systems of some languages， more researchers agree that evidentiality is not a grammatical form， but a semantic category. Therefore， the semantics of evidential is universal and exist in almost all the languages in the world. The differences exist in whether it is obligatory or optional and how the semantics is construed in grammatical， lexical or whatever forms. For example， the language of Japanese presents a quite complex system of evidential coding. It has both grammaticalised and non-grammaticalised evidentials (Mushin， 2001). Unlike Tariana and Japanese， the evidential category in English is not grammaticalised (Lazard， 2001). Yet， English has a rich repertoire of evidential devices (Chafe， 1986). It has a broad range of devices such as verbs， adverbs， adjectives， nouns and so on. According to Chafe (1986: 261)， the difference between some Indian languages and English in evidentiality is not a matter of evidential vs. no evidentials. It is partly a question of how evidentiality is expressed: is it by suffixes， adverbs and what?
　　Studies have also shown that while some linguists still stick to the grammaticalised evidentials and exclude other realization forms of evidentiality， more researchers tend to take evidentiality as a semantic one and study various forms in different lan