|
In linguistics, evidentiality is, broadly, the indication of the nature of evidence for a given statement; that is, whether evidence exists for the statement and/or what kind of evidence exists. An evidential (also verificational or validational) is the particular grammatical element (affix, clitic, or particle) that indicates evidentiality. Languages with only a single evidential have had terms such as mediative, médiatif, médiaphorique, and indirective used instead of ''evidential''. ==Introduction== All languages have some means of specifying the source of information. European languages (such as Germanic and Romance languages) often indicate evidential-type information through modal verbs ((フランス語:devoir), (オランダ語:zouden), (デンマーク語:skulle), (ドイツ語:sollen)) or other lexical words (adverbials) ((英語:reportedly)) or phrases (English: ''it seems to me''). Some languages have a distinct grammatical category of evidentiality that is required to be expressed at all times. The elements in European languages indicating the information source are optional and usually do not indicate evidentiality as their primary function — thus they do not form a grammatical category. The obligatory elements of grammatical evidentiality systems may be translated into English, variously, as ''I hear that'', ''I see that'', ''I think that'', ''as I hear'', ''as I can see'', ''as far as I understand'', ''they say'', ''it is said'', ''it seems'', ''it seems to me that'', ''it looks like'', ''it appears that'', ''it turns out that'', ''alleged'', ''stated'', ''allegedly'', ''reportedly'', ''obviously'', etc. Alexandra Aikhenvald (2004) reports that about a quarter of the world's languages have some type of grammatical evidentiality. She also reports that, to her knowledge, no research has been conducted on grammatical evidentiality in sign languages. A first preliminary study on evidentiality in sign language has been conducted by Laura Mazzoni on LIS (Italian sign language). Many languages with grammatical evidentiality mark evidentiality independently from tense-aspect or epistemic modality (which is the speaker's evaluation of the information, i.e. whether it is reliable, uncertain, probable). Grammatical evidentiality may be expressed in different forms (depending on the language), such as through affixes, clitics, or particles. For example, Eastern Pomo has four evidential suffixes that are added to verbs, ''-ink’e'' (nonvisual sensory), ''-ine'' (inferential), ''-·le'' (hearsay), ''-ya'' (direct knowledge). : (McLendon 2003) The use of evidentiality has pragmatic implications in languages that do not mark evidentiality distinctly from epistemic modality. For example, a person who makes a false statement qualified as a belief may be considered mistaken; a person who makes a false statement qualified as a personally observed fact will probably be considered to have lied. In some languages, evidential markers also serve other purposes, such as indicating the speaker's attitude to, or belief in, the statement. Usually a direct evidential marker may serve to indicate that the speaker is certain about the event stated. Using an indirect evidential marker, such as one for hearsay or reported information, may indicate that the speaker is uncertain about the statement, or doesn't want to take responsibility for its truth. A "hearsay" evidential may then have the undertone of "that's what they say; whether or not it's true is nothing I can take responsibility for". In other languages, this is not the case. Therefore one should distinguish between such evidential markers that only mark source of knowledge, and such evidential markers that serve other functions, such as marking epistemic modality. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Evidentiality」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|