【作者】 陈征；

【导师】 俞东明；

【作者基本信息】 上海外国语大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 言据性是说话人/作者对所述命题的信息来源及其信度进行说明的语言表征，同时编码了说话人/作者对所述命题的态度评价和介入程度。言据性研究能够帮助我们更好地了解人们的认知规律和语言规则之间的对应关系，而针对英语论辩性语篇中言据性系统的研究将进一步解析英语言据性系统及其语篇信度建构模式。本文是一项理论论述和实例论证相结合的研究。本文研究是建立在言据性相关研究的基础之上，重新审视信息来源与证素使用之间的关联性，通过证素在语篇中的具体表现，探讨说话人/作者的语篇言据性建构模式和策略。然后，从Langacker的语言主观性研究和Traugott和Verhagen的语言交互主观性研究视角切入，通过融合相关理论和认识建立一个主观性和交互主观性连续统，用以分析说话人/作者是如何在语篇中通过编码言据性表述来构建论辩过程和观点信度。在实例论证部分，本文以Language and Literature期刊中的二十篇学术论文和2008年、2012年两届美国总统竞选的六场电视辩论文稿等英语论辩性语篇为主要分析语料，以英语语篇言据性系统为主要研究对象，并将语言的主观性和交互主观性连续统融入分析过程，从个体和整体视角来探讨证素选用的语用、认知和心理动因，并且通过具体语段分析来考察说话人/作者如何通过特定的言据性策略来表达相应的认识立场，以及如何通过不同命题所体现的认识立场之间的相互协作从整体上构建语篇信度，然后归纳和总结论辩性语篇中的信度建构模式。通过理论论述和实例分析，本文对语篇言据性系统及其运作模式做出了如下阐释：（1）言据性是语言“信而有征”的表现形式，证素是命题信息“有据可查”的编码形式。在编码言据性表述的过程中，信息来源的分类模式是研究言据性主观性和交互主观性的切入点。根据言据性信息来源的多种分类模式，以及所述信息在说话人/作者和听话人/读者的认知域内所处的位置及其对双方的可及性，个体所可能持有的信息可以分为三类，即共享信息、个人信息和转述信息。而这三类信息的信度根据共享性和稳定性呈依次递减趋势，这就是信息来源的基本信度层级系统。（2）说话人/作者在话语动态过程中持有的认识立场是一个包括强主观性、主观性、交互主观性倾向和交互主观性在内的连续统：语言的主观性表明说话人/作者对命题的观点和评价仍然停留在说话人/作者的主体域内，而交互主观性则表明说话人/作者已将视角转向听话人/读者，对命题的识解和评述中已经将对方的认知和理解包含在内，逐渐进入了听话人/读者的认知域，形成了主体间关系。这个连续统对说话人/作者构建语篇的过程不断产生影响。（3）言据性是语篇展开的关键一环，言据性系统是语篇“言之有据”的显性标记。在语篇言据性系统中，证素体现了说话人/作者的主观性和交互主观性。主观性证素是语篇构建的基础，但是随着交际的发展，说话人/作者有着越来越多的交互主观性需求。言据性的主观性和交互主观性之间的协作关系对语篇功能的实现和人际意义的达成起着重要的促进作用。（4）论辩性语篇通过高信度理据论证个人观点，语篇的可信性是语篇整体建构的基础，因此论辩性语篇中言据性的主观性和交互主观性是有理有序，逐层推进，逐渐在听话人/读者认知域中形成论点的可及性和信度层级，并服务于论辩性语篇的交际目的。总而言之，语篇言据性是语篇构建者深层认知活动在语言表层的显性反映，体现了主体在观点表述、命题组织、信度构建过程中的主观能动性和交互意识。本研究的理论发现和实证结论将对相关研究领域，例如语篇分析、论文写作、翻译教学等，产生有益的影响和推广性，可以更好地服务于英语语篇教学和学习，并通过理论概括和模式归纳为提高中国学者和学生的论文阅读、写作、翻译能力提供系统方法和途径，帮助他们克服因言据性等语言标记而造成的语言表述问题，从而以更有效的方式传播自己的新观点、新发现、新成果。更多还原

【Abstract】 Evidentiality is the linguistic representation encoding the information source ofthe said proposition and indicating its credibility, and broadly defined, it alsoembodies the speaker’s/writer’s assessment of information sources and his/herinvolvement in the said proposition. The study of evidentiality gives rise to a betterknowing of the correspondence between human’s cognitive laws and linguistic rules,and especially, the present study on evidential system in English argumentativediscourses will further explore English evidential system and its patterns in theprocess of discourse construction.This dissertation presents a combined work of theoretical analysis and empiricalstudy. With the related work of evidentiality in the field of typology as rationale,complemented by Langacker’s study on subjectivity and Traugott’s study oninter-subjectivity, especially Verhangen’s grammatical interpretation forinter-subjectivity, the current study centers on reexamining the correlation betweeninformation source and the use of evidentials based on the previous work, attemptingto further explore how speaker/writer establishes discourse credibility by selectingevidentials and collaborating the whole evidential system in discourses, and ifpossible, shedding light on semantic and syntactic implications of evidentiality. It isworth noting that in this dissertation, a continuum composed of strong subjectivity,subjectivity, inter-subjective intent and inter-subjectivity has been formed andmeanwhile applied to examine how speaker/writer organizes the whole argumentationand ensures the reliability of arguments through evidential expressions.In the part of empirical research, a corpus is built consisting of twenty researcharticles from Language and Literature and six US televised presidential debates of theyear2008and2012. In analyzing evidential system in these English argumentativediscourses, the continuum of subjectivity and inter-subjectivity has been applied toexplore pragmatic, cognitive and psychological motives for the selection of specificevidentials from both individual and holistic perspectives, examine by scrutinizingseveral long paragraphs how speaker/writer employs certain evidential strategies to express his/her corresponding epistemological stance and how he/she ensures theauthenticity of the whole discourse through overall collaboration of differentepistemological stances embodied by single propositions, and finally summarize themodes for establishing the credibility of arguments in argumentative discourses.Based on the corroboration between theoretical argumentation and corpusanalysis, this dissertation has yielded the following findings on discourse evidentialsystem:i. Evidentiality indicates that human communication is supported by evidence,while evidential embodies that information in the said proposition is well documented.Before choosing evidentials to encode corresponding evidential meaning, clarifyingand updating the taxonomy of information sources is a good start for betterunderstanding the subjectivity and inter-subjectivity speakers/writers intend to expressthrough evidential expressions. By synthesizing previous taxonomies held by differentscholars, and considering the location of the said information in cognitive domains ofspeaker/writer and hearer/reader respectively as well as its accessibility to them, theinformation an individual possibly holds can be classified into three: sharedinformation, personal information and reported information, and the credibility ofthese three categories of information decreases successively according to theirsharability and stability, which forms the basic credibility hierarchy of informationsources.ii. The epistemological stance held by speakers/writers in the process ofdiscourse construction is actually a continuum composed of strong subjectivity,subjectivity, inter-subjective intent and inter-subjectivity, which leads to theincompatibility between information source and evidential strategy. Subjectivity inlanguage indicates that speakers/writers make their judgment and assessment of thesaid proposition from the domain of their own, while inter-subjectivity manifests thatspeakers/writers begin to turn their focus away from their own domains tohearers’/readers’ and come to take hearers’/readers’ cognitive construal andunderstanding into their own interpretation and evaluation, which means a newrelationship starts to take shape between the two parties of language communication, and hearers/readers are no longer the passive side but as other subjects, enjoy thesame status as speakers/writers. This continuum exerts continuous influence onspeakers/writers in the course of discourse construction.iii. Evidentiality is the key to discourse framing, and evidential expressionsexplicitly mark the reliability of discourse. In discourse evidential system, evidentialsare linguistic embodiment of speakers’/writers’ subjectivity and inter-subjectivity.Generally speaking, subjective evidentials are the basic elements of discourses, butwith the development of human communication, speakers/writers gradually havemore demand for inter-subjectivity and gradually take hearers’/readers’ face intoconsideration, which are mainly reflected in changes of personal pronouns, explicitcoding of shared information, coding forms of reported information, etc. Subjectivityand inter-subjectivity of evidential meaning are well compatible in discourses, whichhelps realize textual functions and express interpersonal meaning.iv. Argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can bereached through logical reasoning, which includes debates and negotiations which areconcerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions. Argumentative discourseas a mode of rhetoric is the discourse that reproduces the whole argumentativeprocess through the organization of verbal language, diagrams, tables, etc. Inargumentative discourses, credibility is a basic tenet for discourse construction, andtherefore, speakers/writers demonstrate personal views by means of arguments ofhigh credibility. After analyzing evidential strategies in the above two categories ofargumentative discourses, the finding shows that speakers/writers properly employand adjust subjectivity and inter-subjectivity in the use of evidentials for the purposeof hierarchically forming the credibility of single propositions into an interlockingentirety and meanwhile increasing the accessibility of subjectified objectiveknowledge to hearers/readers, and then by means of influencing the construal processof hearers/readers, speakers/writers make understandings of both sides compatible toreach the given communicative aims.In conclusion, evidentiality in discourse mirrors deep-level cognitive activities ofdiscourse organizers and meanwhile reflects subjective initiative and interactive intention of subjects in the process of expressing views, organizing propositions andbuilding credibility. The findings of the current study have implications for Englishlearning and teaching, especially for reading, writing and translating Englishargumentative discourses, providing Chinese scholars and learners with efficientmethods and strategies to improve their capability in English thesis reading, practicingand writing, and helping them reduce misunderstanding and ambiguity caused byevidential markers and the like, and then express their new ideas and spread newproducts in a better manner.更多还原