第二节 认识情态范畴
认识情态一般从说话人关于命题或者话语内容的承诺程度(degree of commitment)、信心程度(degree of confidence)或确信程度(degree of certainty)的角度来进行定义。
Lyons认为认识情态表达的是说话人关于句子所表达的命题和命题所描写情景的态度或观点。因此,认识情态关注的说话人关于命题真值的评估状态,包括正确性(verified)、错误性(falsified)或不确定性(undecided)等,他将认识情态分为客观认识情态(objective epistemic modality)和主观认识情态(subjective epistemic modality)。客观认识情态指的是概率的逻辑结论(logical conclusion of probability);主观认识情态指的是说话人对所说话语的限定(qualification)。主观认识情态中,说话人对命题真值的真实性或虚假性的主观承诺(subjective commitment)可能与他对客观可能性(objective possibility)或可能性程度(degree of probability)的知识(knowledge)完全无关。[19]Lyons认为认识情态表达了说话人自己的信仰(belief)和态度(attitude),而不是作为中立的观察者(a neutral observer)来报告事件存在这样或那样的状态(state of affairs)。[20]因此,在Lyons看来,情态跟说话人的知识(knowledge)和信仰(belief)有关。
Coates认为认识情态关注说话人关于可能性的假设(assumptions)或评估(assessment),表明说话人关于所表达的命题真值的信心程度(confidence)。[21]
Holmes认为认识情态表达的是说话人关于话语所断言命题真值正确性的确信程度(degree of certainty)。[22]
Bybee、Perkins和Pagliuca认为认识情态用于说话人做出断言,表明说话人对命题真值的承诺程度(commitment)。[23]
Auwera、van der Auwera、Schalley和Nuyts(2005)认为认识情态关注说话人关于自己断言真值的不确定程度(degree of uncertainty),并指出“不确定性”(uncertainty)是认识情态的本质。
Nuyts认为认识情态是说话人关于语言表达的事件状态可能性的评估(evaluation),这种评估的可能性构成了一个认知尺度(epistemic scale)。认知尺度从事件状态确定发生(certainty),到事件状态发生与否的中立或不可知立场(neutral or agnostic stance),再到事件状态的确定不会发生,说话人的认识处于认知尺度肯定(positive)和否定(negative)两极之间的中间位置(intermediary positions)。[24]
Palmer认为认识情态表达说话人关于命题叙实性的评价(judgment),包括推理、推论和假设,并把认识情态和表达信息来源的传信范畴分开。[25]
Boye认为认识情态意义应该包括确定性(certainty)、可能性(possibility)和较大可能性(也叫盖然性probability)等。[26]Boye将认识情态定义为说话人关于命题认识程度的支持(support)或者说话人关于命题的确信程度(degree of confidence)。他把认识情态的认知尺度描写为从对命题的高认识性支持(high epistemic support),到中等程度的认识性支持(neutral epistemic support),再到对命题否定(negative counterpart of a proposition)的高认识性支持(high epistemic support)的连续过程,具体描写为“knowledge>certainty>epistemic necessity>probability>likelihood>uncertainty>epistemic possibility>doubt>unlikelihood>epistemic impossibility”。[27]
认识情态范畴和传信范畴的关系比较复杂。从传统哲学的自然认识论(natural epistemology)的角度来说,传信关注的是人类知识(knowledge)的来源(source)和可靠性(reliability)。[28]在传统哲学的认识论(epistemology)看来,标记了信息的来源就等同于标记了信息的可靠性,因此,广义上的传信范畴标记的是说话人关于事实的知识(knowledge of reality)的态度;Matthews将传信界定义为标记所做陈述的证据的可靠性或来源的小品词(particle)。[29]Dendale和Tasmowski认为很多语言的传信系统不仅仅标记信息的来源,还标记说话人关于信息可靠性的态度。[30]Chafe认为认识情态是传信情态的一个次类,认识情态与说话人对命题真值的态度相关,而传信范畴则和知识的来源(source of knowledge)、知情的状态(mode of knowing)和知识的可靠性(reliability of the knowledge)相关。[31]Haan(1997)认为传信范畴主要表达说话人对句子提供的证据性信息的性质(nature of the evidence)做出断言(assertion);认识情态对说话人关于所陈述内容的确信程度(degree of commitment)做出评估(evaluation)。
冯军伟认为认识情态与传信情态都可以表达说话人对于句子命题真值的判断,但是,二者在认知机制的模式、所编码的情态意义、说话人的确信程度、主客观性程度等诸多方面存在明显的差异。认识情态是一种对命题真值的评估机制,传信情态则是一种通过推理手段进行的论证机制;认识情态侧重说话人对信息的态度,而传信情态则侧重信息的来源;认识情态所表达的说话人的确信程度有强弱之分,而传信情态所提供的信息来源则没有强弱之别,因此,认识情态的主观性程度要高于传信情态的主观性程度。[32]
Hengeveld和Mackenzie认为应该将报告性的传信表达(reportative evidential expressions)和认识情态分开,将直接性传信表达(direct evidential expressions)放在(主观)认识情态表达中,将推理性传信表达(inferential evidential expressions)放在与(主观)认识情态表达并列的位置上。[33]
Chafe从狭义的角度界定传信,认为传信仅仅标记知识的来源;[34]Chung和Timberlake将传信界定义为“认识的模式”(epistemological mode),同样关注信息的来源。[35]
综上所述,本书综合Bybee、Perkins和Pagliuca(1994)、Nuyts(2001)和Boye(2016)关于认识情态范畴的相关论述,将认识情态界定为说话人对语言所表达的命题真值的可能性评估和断言,表达了说话人关于命题的确信程度(degree of certainty)和承诺程度(degree of commitment)。说话人关于命题真值的确信程度处于从肯定(positive)到否定(negative)的认识尺度(epistemic scale)之中,说话人的认识尺度是一个连续统(continuum):知识(knowledge)>确定性(certainty)>认识的必要性(epistemic necessity)>很大可能性(probability)>较大可能性(likelihood)>不确定性(uncertainty)>认识上可能性(epistemic possibility)>怀疑性(doubt)>不可能性(unlikelihood)>认识上的不可能性(epistemic impossibility)。说话人关于命题真值的承诺程度也处于一个连续统中,连续统的一端是对命题真值的完全承诺(complete commitment),另一端是说话人对命题真值承诺的完全分离(complete detachment)。对命题真值的完全承诺往往由命题的认识范畴来承担,与命题真值的完全分离则一般由“引用”(quotation)和“提到”(mention)(即“传信范畴”)来承担。[36]
[1] Emile Benveniste,Problèmes de Linguistique(Problems in General Linguistics),Translated by M.E. Meek,Coral Gablres,F.L.:University of Miami Press,1971,p.229.
[2] John Lyons,Semantics,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1977,p.452.
[3] F. R. Palmer,Mood and Modality(2nd edition),Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001,pp.1-69.
[4] Michael R. Perkins,Modal Expressions in English,Norwood,NJ:Ablex,1983,pp.6-7.
[5] Heiko Narrog,Modality,Subjectivity,and Semantic Change. A Cross-linguistic Perspective,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2012,p.21.
[6] Johan van der Auwera,V. A. Plungian,“Modality's Semantic Map”,Linguistic Typology,Vol.2,Issue 1,1998,p.80.
[7] 转引自彭利贞《现代汉语情态研究》,博士学位论文,复旦大学,2005年,第21页。
[8] M. A. K. Halliday,An Introduction to Functional Grammar,London:Edward Arnold,1994,pp.147-150.
[9] M.Stubbs,“A Matter of Prolonged Fieldwork:Notes towards a Modal Grammar of English”,Applied Linguistics,Vol.7,Issue 1,1986,p.1.
[10] Jennifer Coates,Women,Men and Language:A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language,London:Longman,1986,p.9.
[11] Senko K. Maynard,Discourse Modality:Subjectivity,Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language,Philadelphia,P.A.:John Benjamins Publishing Co.,1993,pp.38-39.
[12] F. R. Palmer,Mood and Modality(2nd edition),Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001,pp.1-10.
[13] Joan L. Bybee,Suzanne Fleischman,“Modality in Grammar and Discourse:An Introductory Essay”,In Joan L. Bybee,Suzanne Fleischman(ed.),Modality in Grammar and Discourse,Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins,1995,pp.2-3.
[14] Ekkehard König,Peter Siemund,“Speech Act Distinctions in Grammar”,In Timothy Shopen(ed.),Language Typology and Syntactic Description Volume I:Clause Structure,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2007,pp.280-281.
[15] Jan Nuyts,John Vander Auwera,The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2016,pp.10-23.
[16] John Lyons,Semantics,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1977,pp.793-823.
[17] F. R. Palmer,Mood and Modality(2nd edition),Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001,pp.22-76.
[18] Heiko Narrog,Modality,Subjectivity,and Semantic Change. A Cross-linguistic Perspective,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2012,pp.8-12.
[19] John Lyons,Semantics,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1977,pp.791-793.
[20] John Lyons,Language,Meaning and Context,Suffolk:Fontana,1981,p.237.
[21] Jennifer Coates,The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries,London:Croom Helm,1983,p.18.
[22] Janet Holmes,“Hedging Your Bets and Sitting on the Fence:Some Evidence for Hedges as Support Structures”,The Reo,Vol.27,1984,p.348.
[23] Joan L. Bybee,Revere D. Perkins,William Pagliuca,The Evolution of Grammar:Tense,Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World,Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1994,pp.179-180.
[24] Jan Nuyts,Epistemic Modality,Language,and Conceptualization,Amsterdam:Benjamins,2001,p.21.
[25] F. R. Palmer,Mood and Modality(2nd edition),Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001,pp.22-43.
[26] Kasper Boye,Epistemic Meaning:A Coss-linguistic and Functional-Cognitive Study,Berlin:Mouton de Gru yter,2012,p.31.
[27] Kasper Boye,“The Expression of Epistemic Modality”,In Jan Nuyts,John Vander Auwera(ed.),The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2016,p.117.
[28] W. L. Chafe,J. Nichols(eds.),Evidentiality:The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology(Advances in Discourse Processes 20),Norwood,N.J.:Ablex,1986,p.vii.
[29] Richard Matthews,Words and Worlds:On the Linguistic Analysis of Modality,Frankfurta,M.:Lang,1991,p.120.
[30] P. Dendale,L. Tasmowski,“Introduction:Evidentiality and Related Notions”,Journal of Pragmatics,Vol.33,2001,p.343.
[31] W.L. Chafe,“Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing”,In W. Chafe,J. Nichols(ed.),Evidentiality:The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology(Advances in Discourse Processes 20),Norwood,N.J.:Ablex,1986,p.263.
[32] 冯军伟:《认识情态与传信情态》,《云南师范大学学报》(对外汉语教学与研究版)2012年第3期。
[33] K. Hengeveld,J. L. Mackenzie,Functional Discourse Grammar:A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure,New York:Oxford University Press,2008,pp.152-175.
[34] W.L. Chafe,“Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing”,In W. Chafe,J. Nichols(ed.),Evidentiality:The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology(Advances in Discourse Processes 20),Norwood,N.J.:Ablex,1986,p.263.
[35] Sandra Chung,Alan Timberlake,“Tense,Aspect and Mood”,In Timothy Shopen(ed.),Language Typology and Syntactic Description(Vol. 3),Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1985,pp.244-246.
[36] M.Stubbs,“A Matter of Prolonged Fieldwork:Notes towards a Modal Grammar of English”,Applied Linguistics,Vol.7,Issue 1,1986,pp.1-5.