基于主观性和交互主观性连续统的语篇言据性分析
|
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。
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.
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。
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.
引文
1“传信”一词最早源自马建忠的《马氏文通》，“助字所传之语气有二：曰信，曰疑。故助字有传信者，有传疑者。”摘自吕叔湘与王海棻编著的《马氏文通读本》，1982年版第258页，2000年第2版第536页。
2在《韦氏新大学词典》中，evidence的释义为：an outward sign; something that furnishes proof，即证据是指一种外在的迹象，可以作为证据的事物。
3旧世界证素分布带：Old World evidential belt，主要指有形态证素的语言分布区，包括土耳其语、卡特维里语、保加利亚语、马其顿语、阿尔巴尼亚语、格鲁吉亚语等语言。
4但是在该书第六页的第三条注释中，她又指出，广义而言词汇证素也应该包含在研究范围中。
5在汉语中，的、呢、嘛、喽等语气词也可以被用作证素，传递说话人对所述信息的态度，一些学者认为这些证素比较接近语法化的证素，或者说这些证素正处于语法化的过程中。
6相对客观的信息：信息的客观性是相对于主观性而言，并不存在纯粹的客观信息，这里的客观信息主要是指信息的真值可以通过外部世界中的特定方式得以核实或验证，即和我们前文中提及的共享信息、转述信息相类似。
7因为美国总统竞选电视辩论的第二场采用“市民会议”形式进行，提问者是经过抽样挑选的自由选民，问题针对性太强，且过于庞杂，所以没有选用。
8该软件为免费工具，可到www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/antconc_index.html下载。
9Aikhenvald（2007：209）在论述中认为这些非形态证素应该称为言据性策略，即evidential strategies。
10克利夫兰诊所：美国最大的心血管疾病及心脏外科中心，提倡以患者为本，被称为“能够拯救美国医疗保健的医院”。
11“阿拉伯之春”是指2010年底一直延续到现在，在北非和西亚的阿拉伯国家以及其它地区的一些国家发生的一系列以“民主”和“经济”为议题的社会运动，该运动以公开示威游行和网络串联的方式展开。
12多数学者以说话人的个人“偏好”作为排列层级的依据，但是隐藏在“偏好”之下的概念依据却不尽相同，Willett是以信息的直接性和可靠性作为“偏好”的概念依据，而de Haan以信息的直接性和说话人参与程度作为“偏好”的概念依据。
13识解：指说话人或听话人对一个客观情景加以认识而形成的概念，主观的识解包括视角和意象等，参见Langacker，1991：215，转引自沈家煊，2001：273。
14关于Faller的挑战性测试及其整个论证过程可以具体参看Faller在2002年写的关于库斯科盖丘亚语的言据性研究。
15正如我们在前文中提及的，我们的研究侧重于从说话人/作者的认知域来解读言据性的主观性和交互主观性，所以本文中所有模式都是以说话人/作者的视角为主要出发点来考察整个语篇信度建构过程。
16约翰·班扬（1628-1688）：英国著名作家、布道家，《天路历程》的作者。
Aikhenvald, A. Y. Evidentiality in typological perspective [A]. A. Y. Aikhenvald&R.M. W. Dixon (eds.). Studies in Evidentiality [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company,2003.33-62
Aikhenvald, A. Evidentiality [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2004.1-3,218-219.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. Information source and evidentiality: what can we conclude?[J].Rivista di Linguistica,2007,19(1).207-227
Aikhenvald, A. Y.&R. M. W. Dixon. Evidentials and areal typology: A case-studyfrom Amazonia [J]. Language Sciences,1998,(20).241-257.
Aikhenvald, A. Y.&R. M. W. Dixon (eds.). Studies in Evidentiality [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,2003.
Aijmer, K. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-Based Study of EnglishAdverbs [M]. Berlin, DEU: Mouton de Gruyter,2008.26.
Akatsuka, M. N. On the co-construction of counterfactual reasoning [J]. Journal ofPragmatics,1997,(28).781-794.
Alonso-Almeida, F.&M. González-Vázquez. Exploring Male and Female Voicesthrough Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality in Some Modern English TravelTexts on the Canaries [J]. Research in language,2012,10(2).323-343.
Andersen, H. Abductive and deductive change [J]. Language,1973,(49).765-793.
Anderson, L. B. Evidentials, Paths of Change, and Mental Maps: TypologicallyRegular Asymmetries [A]. W. Chafe&J. Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: theLinguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,1986.273-312.
Aoki, H. Evidentials in Japanese [A]. W. Chafe&J. Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: theLinguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,1986.223-38.
Aronson, H. I. The grammatical categories of the indicative in the contemporaryBulgarian literary language [A]. R. Jakobson (ed.). To honor Roman Jakobson.Vol. I.[C]. The Hague: Mouton,1967.82-98.
Bakhtin, M. Speech Genre and Other Late Essays [M]. Austin: University of TexasPress,1986.93
Barnes, J. Evidentials in the Tuyuca Verb [J]. International Journal of AmericanLinguistics,1984,(50).255-271.
Benveniste, E. Problems in General Linguistics [M]. Coral Gables, FL: University ofMiami Press,1971.224-225.(translated by M. E. M eek)
Boas, F. Introduction [A]. F. Boas (ed.). Handbook of American Indian Languages,Part I (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin40)[C].Washington: Government Printing Office,1911a.1-83.
Boas, F. Kwakiutl [A]. F. Boas (ed.). Handbook of American Indian Languages, PartI (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin40)[C].Washington: Government Printing Office,1911b.423-557.
Boas, F. Language [A]. F. Boas (ed.). General Anthropology [C]. Boston, New York:D. C. Heath and Company,1938.124-145.
Boas, F. Kwakiutl grammar, with a glossary of the suffixes [J]. Transactions of theAmerican Philosophical Society,1947,(37).201-377.
Bréal, M. Semantics: studies in the science of meaning(second edition)[M]. WilliamHeinemann,1964.229-238.
Bussmann, H. Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics [Z]. London/NewYork: Routledge,1996.157.
Bühler, K. Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language [M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing,1934.(translated by D. F.Goodwin)
Bybee, J. L. Mophology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing,1985.184
Bybee, J. L., R. Perkins,&W. Pagliuca. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspectand Mood in the Languages of the World [C]. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress,1994.
Carey, K. Subjectification and the development of the English perfect [A]. D. Stein&S. Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation [C]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1995.83-102.
Carretero, M. The role of evidentiality and epistemic modality in three English spokentexts from legal proceedings [A]. J. I. Marín-Arrese (ed.). Perspectives onEvidentiality and Epistemic Modality [C]. Madrid: Editorial Complutense,2004.25-62.
Chafe, W. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing [A]. W. Chafe&J. Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C].Norwood, NJ: Ablex,1986.261-272.
Chafe, W.&J. Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology[C]. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,1986. viii.
Clark, C. Evidence of evidentiality in the quality press1993and2005[J]. Corpora,2010,5(2).139-160.
Cornillie, B. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-) Auxiliaries: ACognitive-functional Approach [M]. Berlin, DEU: Walter de Gruyter,2007.
Crisp, P. The Pilgrim's Progress: Allegory or novel?[J]. Language and Literature,2012,21(4).328-344.
Croft, W. Typology and Universals [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1990.124-125
Croft, W. Radical Construction Grammar [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2001.
Crystal, D. A Dictionary of Linguistics&Phonetics (3rd)[Z].4thed. Oxford:Blackwell,1991.127.
Davis, C., Potts, C.&M. Speas. The Pragmatic Values of Evidential Sentences [A].M. Gibson&T. Friedman (eds). Proceedings of SALT XVII [C]. CLCPublications,2007.
de Haan, F. The catergory of videntiality [D]. University of New Mexico,1998.
de Haan, F. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: Setting Boundaries [J]. SouthwestJournal of Linguistics,1999,(18).83-101.
de Haan, F. The Place of Inference Within the Evidential System [J]. InternationalJournal of American Linguistics,2001,(67):193-219.
de Haan, F. Encoding speaker perspectives: evidentials [A]. Z. Frajzyngier, A.Hodges&D. S. Rood (eds). Linguistic Diversity And Language Theories [C].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005.
Dendale, P.&L. Tasmowski. Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions [J].Journal of Pragmatics,2001,(33).339-348.
Derbyshire, D. C. Hixkaryana and linguistic typology [M]. Dallas: Summer Instituteof Linguistics,1985.
Diewald, G.&E. Smirnova.(eds.). Empirical Approaches to Language Typology:Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages [C]. Berlin, DEU:Walter de Gruyter,2010.
Diewald, G.&E. Smirnova.(eds.). Evidentiality in German: Linguistic Realizationand Regularities in Grammaticalization [C]. Berlin, DEU: Walter de Gruyter,2010.
Dik, S.&K. Hengeveld. The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology ofperception verb complements [J]. Linguistics,1991,(29).231-259.
Du Bois, J. W. Self evidence and ritual speech [A]. W. Chafe&J. Nichols (eds.).Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, New Jersey:Ablex,1986.313-336.
Duchet, J. L.&R. Pern ska. L’ admiratif albanais: recherche d' un invariant sémantique [A]. Z. Guentchéva (ed.). L’ énonciation médiatisée [C]. Louvain-Paris,1996.31-46.
Faller, M. Semantics and Pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua [D]. StanfordUniversity,2002a.50,68,110-117.
Faller, M. Remarks on evidential hierarchies [A]. I. David, Beaver, L. D. C.Mart-nez, B. Z. Clark&S. Kaufmann (eds.). The Construction of Meaning [C].Stanford: CSLI Publications,2002.42.
Finegan, E., Besnier, N., Blair, D.&Collins, P. Language: its Structure and Use [C].Sydney: Harcourt Brace,1992.
Finegan, E. Subjectivity and subjectivisation: An introduction [A]. D. Stein&S.Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives [C].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1995.1-15.
Fleck, D. Evidentiality and double tense in Matses [J]. Language,2007,83(3).589–614.
Friedman, V. A.1978. On the semantic and morphological influence of Turkish onBalkan Slavic [A]. D. Farkas, W. Jacobsen&K. Todrys (eds.). Papers from theFourteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society [C]. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society,1978.108-118.
Friedman, V. A. Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian[A]. W. Chafe&J. Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding ofEpistemology [C]. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,1986.168-187.
Friedman, V. A. Confirmative/nonconfirmative in Balkan Slavic, Balkan Romance,and Albanian with Additional Observations on Turkish, Romani, Georgian, andLak [A]. L. Johanson&B. Utas (eds.). Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian andNeighbouring Languages [C]. Berlin, DEU: Mouton de Gruyter,2000.329-366.
Friedman, V. A. Evidentiality in the Balkans with special attention to Macedonianand Albanian [A]. A. Y. Aikhenvald&R. M. W. Dixon (eds.). Studies inEvidentiality [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany,2003.189-218.
Givón, T. Evidentiality and Epistemic Space [J]. Studies in Language,1982,(6):23-49.
Givón, T. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction Vol.1[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1984.307-308
Givón, T. Syntax: An Introduction [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsPublishing Company,2001.
González-Vázquez, M. La modalidad epistémico subjetiva/objetiva y su interaccióncon la evidencialidad [A]. J. Oliver-Frade, et al.(eds.). Cien a s de investigaciónsemántica, de Michel Breal a la actualidad. Actas del Congreso Internacional deSemántica [C]. La Laguna: Universidad de La Laguna,2000.
González-Vázquez, M. Las fuentes de la información. Tipología, semántica y pragmática de la evidencialidad [M]. Vigo: Servizo de Publicacións Universidade deVigo,2006.
Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation [Z]. Unpublished manuscript of the WilliamJames Lectures, Harvard University,1967.
Grice, H. P. Logic and conversation [A]. P. Cole&J. L. Morgan (eds.). Syntax andSemantics, Vol.3: Speech Acts [C]. New York: Academic Press,1975.41-58.
Gronemeyer, Claire. Evidentiality in Lithuanian [A]. Working papers46[C]. LundUniversity, Department of Linguistics.1997.93-112.
Gronemeyer, C. The Syntactic Basis of Evidentiality in Lithuanian [Z]. Presented atConference on Syntax and Semantics of Tense and Mood Selection, Universityof Bergamo, July2-4,1998.49.
Guentchéva, Z.(ed.). L’énonciation médiatisée. Vol. I [C]. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters,1996.
Guentchéva, Z.(ed.). L’énonciation médiatisée. Vol. II [C]. Louvain, Belgium:Peeters,2007.
Gurajek, B. Evidentiality in English and Polish [D]. Edinburgh: the University ofEdinburgh,2010.
Haarmann, H. Die indirekte Erlebnisform als grammatische Kategorie: EineEurasische Isoglosse [M]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz,1970.
Hardman, M. J.(ed.). The Aymara language in its social and cultural context: Acollection of essays on aspects of Aymara language and culture [C]. Gainesville:Univ. Presses of Florida,1981.
Hardman, M. J. Data-Source Marking in the Jaqi Languages[A]. W. Chafe&J.Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C].Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,1986.113-136.
Hoff, B. J. Evidentiality in Carib Particles: Affixes, and a Variant of Wackernagel’sLaw [J]. Lingua,1986,(69).49-103.
Hoijer, H. Some Problems of American Indian linguistic research [A]. Papers fromthe Symposium on American Indian Linguistics Held at Berkeley [C]. Berkeleyand Los Angeles: University of California Press,1985.3-12.
Hsieh, Chia-Ling. Evidentiality in Chinese newspaper reports: subjectivity/objectivity as a factor [J]. Discourse Studies,2008,(10).205-229.
Hyland, K. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse [J].Discourse Studies,2005,7(2).173–192.
Ifantidou, E. Evidentials and Relevance [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company,2001.8,15.
Jacobsen, W. H. Jr. The Heterogeneity of Evidentials in Makah [A]. W. Chafe&J.Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C].Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,1986.3-28.
Jakobson, R. Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb[D]. Department ofSlavic Languages and Literatures, Harvard University,1957.（Reprinted inSelectied writings2: Word and language. Jakobson, R.(ed.). the Hague andParis: Mouton,1971.130-147.）
Johanson, L.&B. Utas.(eds.). Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and neighbouringlanguages [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
Kemmer, S. Emphatic and reflexive–self: Expectations, viewpoint, and subjectivity[A]. D. Stein&S. Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation [C].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1995.55-82.
Krawczyk, E. Do you have evidence for that evidential?[A]. C. Hutchinson&E.Krawczyk (eds.). Georgetown University Working Papers in TheoreticalLinguistics, Vol. VII [OL]. http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/linguistics/tlwp/volumes.html.2009.
Langacker, R. W. Observations and speculations on subjectivity [A]. J. Hamian (ed.).Iconicity in Syntax [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins,1985.120.
Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites [M].Standford: Standford University,1987.
Langacker，R．W. Subjectification [J]．Cognitive Linguistics,1990,(1).5-38．
Langacker, R. W. The contextual basis of cognitive semantics [A]. J. Nuyts&E.Pederson (eds.). Language and Conceptualization [C]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1997.229-252.
Langacker, R. W. Conceptualization, Symbolization, and Grammar [A]. M.Tomasello (ed.). The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and FunctionalApproaches to Language Structure [C]. Mahwah, NJ and London: Erlbaum,1998.1-39.
Langacker, R. W. Losing control: Grammaticalization, subjectification, andtransparency [A]. A. Blank&P. Koch (eds.). Historical Semantics andCognition [C]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter,1999.
Langacker, R. W. Deixis and Subjectivity [A]. F. Brisard (ed.). Grounding: TheEpistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference [C]. Berlin, DEU: Mouton de Gruyter,2002.7-27.
Langacker, R. W. Subjectification, grammaticization, and conceptual archetypes [A].A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis,&B. Cornillie (eds.). Subjectification: VariousPaths to Subjectivity [C]. Berlin, DEU: Mouton de Gruyter,2006.18-19.
Lazard, G. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2001,(33).358-368.
Lee, D. D. Conceptual implications of an Indian Language [J]. Philosophy of Sciences,1938,(5).89-102.
Lee, D. D. Linguistic reflection of Wintu thought [J]. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics,1944,(10).181-187. Reprinted in Freedom and Culture(Spectrum Books S-6). Lee, D. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,1959.121-130.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1983.
Lyons, J. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1977.452,739,787,793.
Lyons, J. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?[A]. R. J. Jarvella&W. Klein(eds.). Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics [C].Chiester and New York: John Wiley,1982.101-124.
Lyons, J. Subjecthood and subjectivity [A]. M. Yaguello (ed.). Subjecthood andsubjectivity: proceedings of the colloquium, the status of the subject in linguistictheory [C]. Paris: Ophrys,1993.14.
Lyons, J. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1995.13,337.
Marín-Arrese, J.(ed.). Perspectives on Evidentiality and Modality [C]. Madrid:Editorial Complutense,2004.
Matlock, T. Metaphor and the Grammaticalization of Evidentials [C]. Proceedings ofthe Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,1989,(15).215-225.
Mayer, R. Abstraction, context, and perspectivization--Evidentials in discoursesemantics [J]. Theoretical Linguistics,1990,(16).101-163.
Mithun, M. Evidential Diachrony in Northern Iroquoian [A]. W. Chafe&J. Nichols(eds.). Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, NewJersey: Ablex,1986.89-112.
Mortensen, J. Epistemic and Evidential Sentence Adverbials in Danish and English: AComparative Study [D]. Roskilde: Roskilde University,2006.
Mushin, I. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling [M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,2001.19,24,56.
Nikiforidou, K.&D. Katis. Subjectivity and conditionality: The marking of speakerinvolvement in Modern Greek [A]. A. Foolen&F. van der Leek (eds.).Constructions in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the InternationalCognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam,1997[C]. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins,2000.217-238.
Nuyts, J. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsPublishing Company,2001.34.
Nuyts, J. Modality: Overview and Linguistic Issues [A]. W. Frawley (ed.). TheExpression of Modality [C]. Berlin, DEU: Mouton de Gruyter,2005.14,18.
Oswalt, R. L. The Evidential System of Kashaya [A]. W. Chafe&J. Nichols (eds.).Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, New Jersey:Ablex,1986.29-45.stman, J. You know: A Discourse Functional Approach [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1981.
Palmer, F. R. Mood and modality [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1986.7,51,66-67.(2nd ed. published in2001).
Papafragou, A., Li, P. Y., Choi,&Han, C. Evidentiality in language and cognition [J].Cognition,2007,(103).253-299.
Plungian, V. A. The Place of Evidentiality within the Universal Grammatical Space[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2001,33(3).349-357.
Plungian, V. A. Types of verbal evidentiality marking: an overview [A]. G. Diewald&E. Smirnova (eds.). Empirical Approaches to Language Typology: LinguisticRealization of Evidentiality in European Languages [C]. Berlin, DEU: Walter deGruyter,2010.15-58.
Rooryck, J. Evidentiality, Part I [J]. Glot International,2001,(5).125-133.
Saeed, J. Semantics [M]. Oxford: Blackwell (北京:外语教学与研究出版社),1997/2000.
Sanders, J.&W. Spooren. Subjectivity and certainty in epistemic modality: A studyof Dutch epistemic modifiers [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1996,(7).241-264.
Sanders, J.&W. Spooren. Perspective, subjectivity and modality from a cognitivelinguistic point of view [A]. W. A. Liebert, G. Redeker,&L. Waugh (eds.).Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins,1997.85-112.
Sapir, E. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speeeh [M]. NewYork: Hareouri,Brace and Co.,1921.
Sapir, E. Takelma [A]. F. Boas (ed.). Handbook of American Indian Languages, Part2[C]. Washington: Government Printing Office,1922. l-296.
Schiffrin, D. Discourse Markers [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1987.
Schiffrin, D. The Principle of Intersubjectivity in Communication and Conversation[J]. Semiotica,1990,(80):121-151.
Schoroup, L. C. Common Discourse Particles in English [M]. New York: Garland,1985.
Sherzer, E. An Ariel-Typological Study of the Americanindian Languages [D]. Northof Mexico, University of Pennsylvania,1968. Requoted from W. Jacobson,1986.
Schlichter, A. The origins and deictic nature of Wintu evidentials [A]. W. Chafe&J.Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C].Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,1986.46-59
Slobin, D. I.&A. A. Aksu-Ko. Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of the Turkishevidential [A]. P. J. Hopper (ed.). Tense-aspect: Between semantics andpragmatics [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1982.185-200.
Stein, D.&S. Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: linguistic perspectives[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1995.
Swadesh, M. Nootka internal syntax [J]. International Journal of AmericanLinguistics,1939,(9).77-102.
Traugott, E. C. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example ofsubjectification in semantic change [J]. Language,1989,(65).31-55.
Traugott, E. C. Subjectivization in grammaticalization [A]. D. Stein&S. Wright(eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995.
Traugott, E. C. Revisiting Subjectification and Intersubjectification [A]. H. Cuyckens,K. Davidse&L. Vandelanotte (eds.). Subjectification, Intersubjectification andGrammaticalisation [C]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter,1997.
Traugott E. C. From Subjectification to Intersubjectification [A]. R. Hickey (ed.).Motives for Language Change [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003.33,128.
Traugott, E. C.&Dasher, R. B. Regularity in Semantic Change [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2002.20,23.
van der Auwera, J.&V. A. Plungian. On modality’s semantic map [J]. LinguisticTypology,1998,(2).79-124.
van Eemeren, F. H.&Grootendorst, R. Argumentation， Communication, andFallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective [M]. Hillsdale: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,1992. xiii.
van Eemeren, F. H.&Grootendorst, R. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: ThePragma-Dialetical Approach [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2004.1.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R.&Henkemans, A. F. S. Argumentation:Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation [M]. New Jersey: Lwrence ErlbaumAssociates,2002. xii.
Verhagen, A. Subjectification, syntax, and communication [A]. D. Stein&S. Wright(eds.). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: linguistic perspectives [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995.103-128.
Verhagen, A. Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Why matrixclauses may be more dependent than complements [A]. T. Sanders, J.Schilperoord&W. Spooren (eds.). Text Representation. Linguistic andpsychological aspects [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany,2001.337-357.
Verhagen, A. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2005.4-5.
Viechnicki, G. B. Evidentiality in Scientific Discourse [D]. Chicago, IL: TheUniversity of Chicago Press,2002.
Willett, T. A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality [J].Studies in Language,1988,(12).51-97.
陈颖.现代汉语传信范畴研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社，2009.
樊青杰.现代汉语传信范畴研究[D].北京语言大学英语语言文学专业博士学位论文，2008.
房红梅.言据性的系统功能研究[D].复旦大学英语语言文学专业博士学位论文,2005.
房红梅.言据性研究述评[J].现代外语，2006，(2)：191-196.
房红梅、马玉蕾.言据性·主观性·主观化[J].外语学刊，2008，(4)：96-99.
高名凯.汉语语法论[M].北京:科学出版社，1957.
谷振诣.论证与分析——逻辑的应用[M]．北京：人民出版社，2000．2
胡壮麟.语言的可证性[J].外语教学与研究，1994，(1)：9-15.
胡壮麟.可证性，新闻报道和论辩语体[J].外语研究，1994，(2)：22-28.
胡壮麟.汉语的言据性和语篇分析[J].湖北大学学报，1995，(2)：13-23.
江荻.藏语拉萨话的体貌、示证及自我中心范畴[J].语言科学，2005，(1)：70-88.
乐耀.国内传信范畴研究综述[J].汉语学习，2011，(1)：62-72.
李讷、安珊迪、张伯江.从语法角度讨论语气词“的”[J].中国语文，1998，(2).
廖秋忠.廖秋忠文集[M].北京：北京语言学院出版社，1992.
吕叔湘.中国文法要略[M].北京:商务印书馆，1944.
马建忠.马氏文通读本[M].上海:上海教育出版社，2000.
牛保义.国外实据性理论研究[J].当代语言学，2005，(1)：53-61.
钱钟书.围城[M].人民文学出版社（第二版），1991.
沈家煊.语言的“主观性”和“主观化”[J].外语教学与研究，2001，(4)：268-275.
汤斌.英语疫情新闻中言据性语篇特征的系统功能研究[D].复旦大学英语语言文学专业博士学位论文，2007.
陶红印.从共时语法化与历时语法化相结合的视点看汉语词汇语法现象的动态特征.华中师范大学语言学讲座讲义，2007.
涂家金.当代西方论辩研究的三个视角及启示[J].江西社会科学，2012，(6)：90-95.
王德春、陈瑞瑞.语体学[M].南宁：广西教育出版社，2000.
王敏、杨坤.交互主观性及其在话语中的体现[J].外语学刊，2010，(1)：48-51.
王天华.复述话语语用策略中的可证性[J].外语学刊，2006，(3)：64-67.
王天华.论言据性的语义范围[J].外语学刊，2010，(1):81-84.
吴福祥.近年来语法化研究的进展[J].外语教学与研究，2004，(1)：18-24.
徐盛桓.逻辑与实据——英语IF条件句研究的一种理论框架[J].现代外语，2004，(4)：331-339.
严辰松.语言如何表达“言之有据”——传信范畴浅说[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2000，(1)：4-7.
杨林秀.英语科研论文中的言据性[D].厦门大学英语语言文学专业博士学位论文，2009.
余光武.言据范畴的语义与表达层次初探——基于汉语语料的考察[J].外语与外语教学，2010，(2)：40-44.
张伯江.认识观的语法表现[J].国外语言学（当代语言学），1997，(2)：15-19.
张成福、余光武.论汉语的传信表达——以插入语研究为例[J].语言科学，2003，(3).
朱永生.试论现代汉语的言据性[J].现代外语，2006，(4)：331-337.
2在《韦氏新大学词典》中，evidence的释义为：an outward sign; something that furnishes proof，即证据是指一种外在的迹象，可以作为证据的事物。
3旧世界证素分布带：Old World evidential belt，主要指有形态证素的语言分布区，包括土耳其语、卡特维里语、保加利亚语、马其顿语、阿尔巴尼亚语、格鲁吉亚语等语言。
4但是在该书第六页的第三条注释中，她又指出，广义而言词汇证素也应该包含在研究范围中。
5在汉语中，的、呢、嘛、喽等语气词也可以被用作证素，传递说话人对所述信息的态度，一些学者认为这些证素比较接近语法化的证素，或者说这些证素正处于语法化的过程中。
6相对客观的信息：信息的客观性是相对于主观性而言，并不存在纯粹的客观信息，这里的客观信息主要是指信息的真值可以通过外部世界中的特定方式得以核实或验证，即和我们前文中提及的共享信息、转述信息相类似。
7因为美国总统竞选电视辩论的第二场采用“市民会议”形式进行，提问者是经过抽样挑选的自由选民，问题针对性太强，且过于庞杂，所以没有选用。
8该软件为免费工具，可到www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/antconc_index.html下载。
9Aikhenvald（2007：209）在论述中认为这些非形态证素应该称为言据性策略，即evidential strategies。
10克利夫兰诊所：美国最大的心血管疾病及心脏外科中心，提倡以患者为本，被称为“能够拯救美国医疗保健的医院”。
11“阿拉伯之春”是指2010年底一直延续到现在，在北非和西亚的阿拉伯国家以及其它地区的一些国家发生的一系列以“民主”和“经济”为议题的社会运动，该运动以公开示威游行和网络串联的方式展开。
12多数学者以说话人的个人“偏好”作为排列层级的依据，但是隐藏在“偏好”之下的概念依据却不尽相同，Willett是以信息的直接性和可靠性作为“偏好”的概念依据，而de Haan以信息的直接性和说话人参与程度作为“偏好”的概念依据。
13识解：指说话人或听话人对一个客观情景加以认识而形成的概念，主观的识解包括视角和意象等，参见Langacker，1991：215，转引自沈家煊，2001：273。
14关于Faller的挑战性测试及其整个论证过程可以具体参看Faller在2002年写的关于库斯科盖丘亚语的言据性研究。
15正如我们在前文中提及的，我们的研究侧重于从说话人/作者的认知域来解读言据性的主观性和交互主观性，所以本文中所有模式都是以说话人/作者的视角为主要出发点来考察整个语篇信度建构过程。
16约翰·班扬（1628-1688）：英国著名作家、布道家，《天路历程》的作者。
Aikhenvald, A. Y. Evidentiality in typological perspective [A]. A. Y. Aikhenvald&R.M. W. Dixon (eds.). Studies in Evidentiality [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company,2003.33-62
Aikhenvald, A. Evidentiality [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2004.1-3,218-219.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. Information source and evidentiality: what can we conclude?[J].Rivista di Linguistica,2007,19(1).207-227
Aikhenvald, A. Y.&R. M. W. Dixon. Evidentials and areal typology: A case-studyfrom Amazonia [J]. Language Sciences,1998,(20).241-257.
Aikhenvald, A. Y.&R. M. W. Dixon (eds.). Studies in Evidentiality [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,2003.
Aijmer, K. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-Based Study of EnglishAdverbs [M]. Berlin, DEU: Mouton de Gruyter,2008.26.
Akatsuka, M. N. On the co-construction of counterfactual reasoning [J]. Journal ofPragmatics,1997,(28).781-794.
Alonso-Almeida, F.&M. González-Vázquez. Exploring Male and Female Voicesthrough Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality in Some Modern English TravelTexts on the Canaries [J]. Research in language,2012,10(2).323-343.
Andersen, H. Abductive and deductive change [J]. Language,1973,(49).765-793.
Anderson, L. B. Evidentials, Paths of Change, and Mental Maps: TypologicallyRegular Asymmetries [A]. W. Chafe&J. Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: theLinguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,1986.273-312.
Aoki, H. Evidentials in Japanese [A]. W. Chafe&J. Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: theLinguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,1986.223-38.
Aronson, H. I. The grammatical categories of the indicative in the contemporaryBulgarian literary language [A]. R. Jakobson (ed.). To honor Roman Jakobson.Vol. I.[C]. The Hague: Mouton,1967.82-98.
Bakhtin, M. Speech Genre and Other Late Essays [M]. Austin: University of TexasPress,1986.93
Barnes, J. Evidentials in the Tuyuca Verb [J]. International Journal of AmericanLinguistics,1984,(50).255-271.
Benveniste, E. Problems in General Linguistics [M]. Coral Gables, FL: University ofMiami Press,1971.224-225.(translated by M. E. M eek)
Boas, F. Introduction [A]. F. Boas (ed.). Handbook of American Indian Languages,Part I (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin40)[C].Washington: Government Printing Office,1911a.1-83.
Boas, F. Kwakiutl [A]. F. Boas (ed.). Handbook of American Indian Languages, PartI (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin40)[C].Washington: Government Printing Office,1911b.423-557.
Boas, F. Language [A]. F. Boas (ed.). General Anthropology [C]. Boston, New York:D. C. Heath and Company,1938.124-145.
Boas, F. Kwakiutl grammar, with a glossary of the suffixes [J]. Transactions of theAmerican Philosophical Society,1947,(37).201-377.
Bréal, M. Semantics: studies in the science of meaning(second edition)[M]. WilliamHeinemann,1964.229-238.
Bussmann, H. Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics [Z]. London/NewYork: Routledge,1996.157.
Bühler, K. Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language [M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing,1934.(translated by D. F.Goodwin)
Bybee, J. L. Mophology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing,1985.184
Bybee, J. L., R. Perkins,&W. Pagliuca. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspectand Mood in the Languages of the World [C]. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress,1994.
Carey, K. Subjectification and the development of the English perfect [A]. D. Stein&S. Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation [C]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1995.83-102.
Carretero, M. The role of evidentiality and epistemic modality in three English spokentexts from legal proceedings [A]. J. I. Marín-Arrese (ed.). Perspectives onEvidentiality and Epistemic Modality [C]. Madrid: Editorial Complutense,2004.25-62.
Chafe, W. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing [A]. W. Chafe&J. Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C].Norwood, NJ: Ablex,1986.261-272.
Chafe, W.&J. Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology[C]. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,1986. viii.
Clark, C. Evidence of evidentiality in the quality press1993and2005[J]. Corpora,2010,5(2).139-160.
Cornillie, B. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-) Auxiliaries: ACognitive-functional Approach [M]. Berlin, DEU: Walter de Gruyter,2007.
Crisp, P. The Pilgrim's Progress: Allegory or novel?[J]. Language and Literature,2012,21(4).328-344.
Croft, W. Typology and Universals [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1990.124-125
Croft, W. Radical Construction Grammar [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2001.
Crystal, D. A Dictionary of Linguistics&Phonetics (3rd)[Z].4thed. Oxford:Blackwell,1991.127.
Davis, C., Potts, C.&M. Speas. The Pragmatic Values of Evidential Sentences [A].M. Gibson&T. Friedman (eds). Proceedings of SALT XVII [C]. CLCPublications,2007.
de Haan, F. The catergory of videntiality [D]. University of New Mexico,1998.
de Haan, F. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: Setting Boundaries [J]. SouthwestJournal of Linguistics,1999,(18).83-101.
de Haan, F. The Place of Inference Within the Evidential System [J]. InternationalJournal of American Linguistics,2001,(67):193-219.
de Haan, F. Encoding speaker perspectives: evidentials [A]. Z. Frajzyngier, A.Hodges&D. S. Rood (eds). Linguistic Diversity And Language Theories [C].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,2005.
Dendale, P.&L. Tasmowski. Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions [J].Journal of Pragmatics,2001,(33).339-348.
Derbyshire, D. C. Hixkaryana and linguistic typology [M]. Dallas: Summer Instituteof Linguistics,1985.
Diewald, G.&E. Smirnova.(eds.). Empirical Approaches to Language Typology:Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages [C]. Berlin, DEU:Walter de Gruyter,2010.
Diewald, G.&E. Smirnova.(eds.). Evidentiality in German: Linguistic Realizationand Regularities in Grammaticalization [C]. Berlin, DEU: Walter de Gruyter,2010.
Dik, S.&K. Hengeveld. The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology ofperception verb complements [J]. Linguistics,1991,(29).231-259.
Du Bois, J. W. Self evidence and ritual speech [A]. W. Chafe&J. Nichols (eds.).Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, New Jersey:Ablex,1986.313-336.
Duchet, J. L.&R. Pern ska. L’ admiratif albanais: recherche d' un invariant sémantique [A]. Z. Guentchéva (ed.). L’ énonciation médiatisée [C]. Louvain-Paris,1996.31-46.
Faller, M. Semantics and Pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua [D]. StanfordUniversity,2002a.50,68,110-117.
Faller, M. Remarks on evidential hierarchies [A]. I. David, Beaver, L. D. C.Mart-nez, B. Z. Clark&S. Kaufmann (eds.). The Construction of Meaning [C].Stanford: CSLI Publications,2002.42.
Finegan, E., Besnier, N., Blair, D.&Collins, P. Language: its Structure and Use [C].Sydney: Harcourt Brace,1992.
Finegan, E. Subjectivity and subjectivisation: An introduction [A]. D. Stein&S.Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives [C].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1995.1-15.
Fleck, D. Evidentiality and double tense in Matses [J]. Language,2007,83(3).589–614.
Friedman, V. A.1978. On the semantic and morphological influence of Turkish onBalkan Slavic [A]. D. Farkas, W. Jacobsen&K. Todrys (eds.). Papers from theFourteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society [C]. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society,1978.108-118.
Friedman, V. A. Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian[A]. W. Chafe&J. Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding ofEpistemology [C]. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,1986.168-187.
Friedman, V. A. Confirmative/nonconfirmative in Balkan Slavic, Balkan Romance,and Albanian with Additional Observations on Turkish, Romani, Georgian, andLak [A]. L. Johanson&B. Utas (eds.). Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian andNeighbouring Languages [C]. Berlin, DEU: Mouton de Gruyter,2000.329-366.
Friedman, V. A. Evidentiality in the Balkans with special attention to Macedonianand Albanian [A]. A. Y. Aikhenvald&R. M. W. Dixon (eds.). Studies inEvidentiality [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany,2003.189-218.
Givón, T. Evidentiality and Epistemic Space [J]. Studies in Language,1982,(6):23-49.
Givón, T. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction Vol.1[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1984.307-308
Givón, T. Syntax: An Introduction [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsPublishing Company,2001.
González-Vázquez, M. La modalidad epistémico subjetiva/objetiva y su interaccióncon la evidencialidad [A]. J. Oliver-Frade, et al.(eds.). Cien a s de investigaciónsemántica, de Michel Breal a la actualidad. Actas del Congreso Internacional deSemántica [C]. La Laguna: Universidad de La Laguna,2000.
González-Vázquez, M. Las fuentes de la información. Tipología, semántica y pragmática de la evidencialidad [M]. Vigo: Servizo de Publicacións Universidade deVigo,2006.
Grice, H. P. Logic and Conversation [Z]. Unpublished manuscript of the WilliamJames Lectures, Harvard University,1967.
Grice, H. P. Logic and conversation [A]. P. Cole&J. L. Morgan (eds.). Syntax andSemantics, Vol.3: Speech Acts [C]. New York: Academic Press,1975.41-58.
Gronemeyer, Claire. Evidentiality in Lithuanian [A]. Working papers46[C]. LundUniversity, Department of Linguistics.1997.93-112.
Gronemeyer, C. The Syntactic Basis of Evidentiality in Lithuanian [Z]. Presented atConference on Syntax and Semantics of Tense and Mood Selection, Universityof Bergamo, July2-4,1998.49.
Guentchéva, Z.(ed.). L’énonciation médiatisée. Vol. I [C]. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters,1996.
Guentchéva, Z.(ed.). L’énonciation médiatisée. Vol. II [C]. Louvain, Belgium:Peeters,2007.
Gurajek, B. Evidentiality in English and Polish [D]. Edinburgh: the University ofEdinburgh,2010.
Haarmann, H. Die indirekte Erlebnisform als grammatische Kategorie: EineEurasische Isoglosse [M]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz,1970.
Hardman, M. J.(ed.). The Aymara language in its social and cultural context: Acollection of essays on aspects of Aymara language and culture [C]. Gainesville:Univ. Presses of Florida,1981.
Hardman, M. J. Data-Source Marking in the Jaqi Languages[A]. W. Chafe&J.Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C].Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,1986.113-136.
Hoff, B. J. Evidentiality in Carib Particles: Affixes, and a Variant of Wackernagel’sLaw [J]. Lingua,1986,(69).49-103.
Hoijer, H. Some Problems of American Indian linguistic research [A]. Papers fromthe Symposium on American Indian Linguistics Held at Berkeley [C]. Berkeleyand Los Angeles: University of California Press,1985.3-12.
Hsieh, Chia-Ling. Evidentiality in Chinese newspaper reports: subjectivity/objectivity as a factor [J]. Discourse Studies,2008,(10).205-229.
Hyland, K. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse [J].Discourse Studies,2005,7(2).173–192.
Ifantidou, E. Evidentials and Relevance [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company,2001.8,15.
Jacobsen, W. H. Jr. The Heterogeneity of Evidentials in Makah [A]. W. Chafe&J.Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C].Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,1986.3-28.
Jakobson, R. Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb[D]. Department ofSlavic Languages and Literatures, Harvard University,1957.（Reprinted inSelectied writings2: Word and language. Jakobson, R.(ed.). the Hague andParis: Mouton,1971.130-147.）
Johanson, L.&B. Utas.(eds.). Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and neighbouringlanguages [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
Kemmer, S. Emphatic and reflexive–self: Expectations, viewpoint, and subjectivity[A]. D. Stein&S. Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation [C].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1995.55-82.
Krawczyk, E. Do you have evidence for that evidential?[A]. C. Hutchinson&E.Krawczyk (eds.). Georgetown University Working Papers in TheoreticalLinguistics, Vol. VII [OL]. http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/linguistics/tlwp/volumes.html.2009.
Langacker, R. W. Observations and speculations on subjectivity [A]. J. Hamian (ed.).Iconicity in Syntax [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins,1985.120.
Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites [M].Standford: Standford University,1987.
Langacker，R．W. Subjectification [J]．Cognitive Linguistics,1990,(1).5-38．
Langacker, R. W. The contextual basis of cognitive semantics [A]. J. Nuyts&E.Pederson (eds.). Language and Conceptualization [C]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1997.229-252.
Langacker, R. W. Conceptualization, Symbolization, and Grammar [A]. M.Tomasello (ed.). The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and FunctionalApproaches to Language Structure [C]. Mahwah, NJ and London: Erlbaum,1998.1-39.
Langacker, R. W. Losing control: Grammaticalization, subjectification, andtransparency [A]. A. Blank&P. Koch (eds.). Historical Semantics andCognition [C]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter,1999.
Langacker, R. W. Deixis and Subjectivity [A]. F. Brisard (ed.). Grounding: TheEpistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference [C]. Berlin, DEU: Mouton de Gruyter,2002.7-27.
Langacker, R. W. Subjectification, grammaticization, and conceptual archetypes [A].A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis,&B. Cornillie (eds.). Subjectification: VariousPaths to Subjectivity [C]. Berlin, DEU: Mouton de Gruyter,2006.18-19.
Lazard, G. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2001,(33).358-368.
Lee, D. D. Conceptual implications of an Indian Language [J]. Philosophy of Sciences,1938,(5).89-102.
Lee, D. D. Linguistic reflection of Wintu thought [J]. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics,1944,(10).181-187. Reprinted in Freedom and Culture(Spectrum Books S-6). Lee, D. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,1959.121-130.
Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1983.
Lyons, J. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1977.452,739,787,793.
Lyons, J. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?[A]. R. J. Jarvella&W. Klein(eds.). Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics [C].Chiester and New York: John Wiley,1982.101-124.
Lyons, J. Subjecthood and subjectivity [A]. M. Yaguello (ed.). Subjecthood andsubjectivity: proceedings of the colloquium, the status of the subject in linguistictheory [C]. Paris: Ophrys,1993.14.
Lyons, J. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1995.13,337.
Marín-Arrese, J.(ed.). Perspectives on Evidentiality and Modality [C]. Madrid:Editorial Complutense,2004.
Matlock, T. Metaphor and the Grammaticalization of Evidentials [C]. Proceedings ofthe Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,1989,(15).215-225.
Mayer, R. Abstraction, context, and perspectivization--Evidentials in discoursesemantics [J]. Theoretical Linguistics,1990,(16).101-163.
Mithun, M. Evidential Diachrony in Northern Iroquoian [A]. W. Chafe&J. Nichols(eds.). Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, NewJersey: Ablex,1986.89-112.
Mortensen, J. Epistemic and Evidential Sentence Adverbials in Danish and English: AComparative Study [D]. Roskilde: Roskilde University,2006.
Mushin, I. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling [M].Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,2001.19,24,56.
Nikiforidou, K.&D. Katis. Subjectivity and conditionality: The marking of speakerinvolvement in Modern Greek [A]. A. Foolen&F. van der Leek (eds.).Constructions in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the InternationalCognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam,1997[C]. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins,2000.217-238.
Nuyts, J. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsPublishing Company,2001.34.
Nuyts, J. Modality: Overview and Linguistic Issues [A]. W. Frawley (ed.). TheExpression of Modality [C]. Berlin, DEU: Mouton de Gruyter,2005.14,18.
Oswalt, R. L. The Evidential System of Kashaya [A]. W. Chafe&J. Nichols (eds.).Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C]. Norwood, New Jersey:Ablex,1986.29-45.stman, J. You know: A Discourse Functional Approach [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1981.
Palmer, F. R. Mood and modality [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1986.7,51,66-67.(2nd ed. published in2001).
Papafragou, A., Li, P. Y., Choi,&Han, C. Evidentiality in language and cognition [J].Cognition,2007,(103).253-299.
Plungian, V. A. The Place of Evidentiality within the Universal Grammatical Space[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2001,33(3).349-357.
Plungian, V. A. Types of verbal evidentiality marking: an overview [A]. G. Diewald&E. Smirnova (eds.). Empirical Approaches to Language Typology: LinguisticRealization of Evidentiality in European Languages [C]. Berlin, DEU: Walter deGruyter,2010.15-58.
Rooryck, J. Evidentiality, Part I [J]. Glot International,2001,(5).125-133.
Saeed, J. Semantics [M]. Oxford: Blackwell (北京:外语教学与研究出版社),1997/2000.
Sanders, J.&W. Spooren. Subjectivity and certainty in epistemic modality: A studyof Dutch epistemic modifiers [J]. Cognitive Linguistics,1996,(7).241-264.
Sanders, J.&W. Spooren. Perspective, subjectivity and modality from a cognitivelinguistic point of view [A]. W. A. Liebert, G. Redeker,&L. Waugh (eds.).Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins,1997.85-112.
Sapir, E. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speeeh [M]. NewYork: Hareouri,Brace and Co.,1921.
Sapir, E. Takelma [A]. F. Boas (ed.). Handbook of American Indian Languages, Part2[C]. Washington: Government Printing Office,1922. l-296.
Schiffrin, D. Discourse Markers [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1987.
Schiffrin, D. The Principle of Intersubjectivity in Communication and Conversation[J]. Semiotica,1990,(80):121-151.
Schoroup, L. C. Common Discourse Particles in English [M]. New York: Garland,1985.
Sherzer, E. An Ariel-Typological Study of the Americanindian Languages [D]. Northof Mexico, University of Pennsylvania,1968. Requoted from W. Jacobson,1986.
Schlichter, A. The origins and deictic nature of Wintu evidentials [A]. W. Chafe&J.Nichols (eds.). Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [C].Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,1986.46-59
Slobin, D. I.&A. A. Aksu-Ko. Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of the Turkishevidential [A]. P. J. Hopper (ed.). Tense-aspect: Between semantics andpragmatics [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1982.185-200.
Stein, D.&S. Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: linguistic perspectives[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1995.
Swadesh, M. Nootka internal syntax [J]. International Journal of AmericanLinguistics,1939,(9).77-102.
Traugott, E. C. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example ofsubjectification in semantic change [J]. Language,1989,(65).31-55.
Traugott, E. C. Subjectivization in grammaticalization [A]. D. Stein&S. Wright(eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995.
Traugott, E. C. Revisiting Subjectification and Intersubjectification [A]. H. Cuyckens,K. Davidse&L. Vandelanotte (eds.). Subjectification, Intersubjectification andGrammaticalisation [C]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter,1997.
Traugott E. C. From Subjectification to Intersubjectification [A]. R. Hickey (ed.).Motives for Language Change [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003.33,128.
Traugott, E. C.&Dasher, R. B. Regularity in Semantic Change [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2002.20,23.
van der Auwera, J.&V. A. Plungian. On modality’s semantic map [J]. LinguisticTypology,1998,(2).79-124.
van Eemeren, F. H.&Grootendorst, R. Argumentation， Communication, andFallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective [M]. Hillsdale: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,1992. xiii.
van Eemeren, F. H.&Grootendorst, R. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: ThePragma-Dialetical Approach [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2004.1.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R.&Henkemans, A. F. S. Argumentation:Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation [M]. New Jersey: Lwrence ErlbaumAssociates,2002. xii.
Verhagen, A. Subjectification, syntax, and communication [A]. D. Stein&S. Wright(eds.). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: linguistic perspectives [C]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995.103-128.
Verhagen, A. Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Why matrixclauses may be more dependent than complements [A]. T. Sanders, J.Schilperoord&W. Spooren (eds.). Text Representation. Linguistic andpsychological aspects [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany,2001.337-357.
Verhagen, A. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2005.4-5.
Viechnicki, G. B. Evidentiality in Scientific Discourse [D]. Chicago, IL: TheUniversity of Chicago Press,2002.
Willett, T. A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality [J].Studies in Language,1988,(12).51-97.
陈颖.现代汉语传信范畴研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社，2009.
樊青杰.现代汉语传信范畴研究[D].北京语言大学英语语言文学专业博士学位论文，2008.
房红梅.言据性的系统功能研究[D].复旦大学英语语言文学专业博士学位论文,2005.
房红梅.言据性研究述评[J].现代外语，2006，(2)：191-196.
房红梅、马玉蕾.言据性·主观性·主观化[J].外语学刊，2008，(4)：96-99.
高名凯.汉语语法论[M].北京:科学出版社，1957.
谷振诣.论证与分析——逻辑的应用[M]．北京：人民出版社，2000．2
胡壮麟.语言的可证性[J].外语教学与研究，1994，(1)：9-15.
胡壮麟.可证性，新闻报道和论辩语体[J].外语研究，1994，(2)：22-28.
胡壮麟.汉语的言据性和语篇分析[J].湖北大学学报，1995，(2)：13-23.
江荻.藏语拉萨话的体貌、示证及自我中心范畴[J].语言科学，2005，(1)：70-88.
乐耀.国内传信范畴研究综述[J].汉语学习，2011，(1)：62-72.
李讷、安珊迪、张伯江.从语法角度讨论语气词“的”[J].中国语文，1998，(2).
廖秋忠.廖秋忠文集[M].北京：北京语言学院出版社，1992.
吕叔湘.中国文法要略[M].北京:商务印书馆，1944.
马建忠.马氏文通读本[M].上海:上海教育出版社，2000.
牛保义.国外实据性理论研究[J].当代语言学，2005，(1)：53-61.
钱钟书.围城[M].人民文学出版社（第二版），1991.
沈家煊.语言的“主观性”和“主观化”[J].外语教学与研究，2001，(4)：268-275.
汤斌.英语疫情新闻中言据性语篇特征的系统功能研究[D].复旦大学英语语言文学专业博士学位论文，2007.
陶红印.从共时语法化与历时语法化相结合的视点看汉语词汇语法现象的动态特征.华中师范大学语言学讲座讲义，2007.
涂家金.当代西方论辩研究的三个视角及启示[J].江西社会科学，2012，(6)：90-95.
王德春、陈瑞瑞.语体学[M].南宁：广西教育出版社，2000.
王敏、杨坤.交互主观性及其在话语中的体现[J].外语学刊，2010，(1)：48-51.
王天华.复述话语语用策略中的可证性[J].外语学刊，2006，(3)：64-67.
王天华.论言据性的语义范围[J].外语学刊，2010，(1):81-84.
吴福祥.近年来语法化研究的进展[J].外语教学与研究，2004，(1)：18-24.
徐盛桓.逻辑与实据——英语IF条件句研究的一种理论框架[J].现代外语，2004，(4)：331-339.
严辰松.语言如何表达“言之有据”——传信范畴浅说[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2000，(1)：4-7.
杨林秀.英语科研论文中的言据性[D].厦门大学英语语言文学专业博士学位论文，2009.
余光武.言据范畴的语义与表达层次初探——基于汉语语料的考察[J].外语与外语教学，2010，(2)：40-44.
张伯江.认识观的语法表现[J].国外语言学（当代语言学），1997，(2)：15-19.
张成福、余光武.论汉语的传信表达——以插入语研究为例[J].语言科学，2003，(3).
朱永生.试论现代汉语的言据性[J].现代外语，2006，(4)：331-337.