This paper is devoted to a comparative study of evidentiality in RAs (Research Articles) of NS (Native speakers) and Chinese writers. It examines whether cultural factors influence the writer's choice concerning evidentiality and the interpersonal functions of evidentiality. First, it illustrates the necessity of the comparative study. Second, it presents the findings, including the similarities and the differences. Third, the pedagogical implications are pointed out Keywords: Evidentiality; Comparative Study; RAs
IntroductionAs a pervasive linguistic phenomenon in almost all languages, evidentiality has recently been arousing the interest of linguists and has become a hot research topic in linguistics. It has been studied from various perspectives (e.g. Chafe, 1986; Palmer, 1990 Palmer, , 2001Mushin, 2000Mushin, , 2001 Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004;Hu, 1994aHu, , 1994bFang, 2005; Tang, 2007; Yang, 2009 Yang, , 2010. Each has its own interest, purpose and research focus and sheds light on evidentiality. To further the study of evidentiality in RAs written by the writers from different cultural background, this paper makes a comparative study of evidentiality in RAs in applied linguistics written by NS and Chinese speakers. The study shows that the use of evidentiality in RAs is both universal, cultural, and language-specific.
Definition of Evidentialitiy in the Current StudyEvidentiality has become a hot research topic in linguistics. However, 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. The first is whether evidentiality is a grammatical category or a semantic one. The second is what the semantic scope of evidentiality is.As to the issue of whether evidentiality is a grammatical category or a semantic one, studies 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: p. 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 informationwhether seen, heard, or inferred-as obligatory aspects."From Boas' words, it can be seen that in some languages, evidentiality is an obligatory category. As to how to express evidentiality, different languages demonstrate different evidential systems. Tariana, an Arawak language, spoken in the multilingual area of the Vaupes in northeast Amazonia, has a complex evidential system. In this language, one cannot (cannot) 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 ...
