语义学论文可选材料Deontic modality has to do with influencing actions, states or events and expressing what Searle calls “directives.” Epistemic modality is about how the speaker makes a judgment about the truth of the proposition.Modality is defined as “semantic category which expresses the attitude of the speaker towards that expressed in the sentence (Bussmann, 1996: 307)”Evidentiality, as a linguistic phenomenon, is pervasive in all languages.The semantic categories of evidentiality are hypothesized to be universal and language-independent. The only difference lies in the fact that evidential markers are language-specific. ( 房红梅2)in some languages like Wintu, evidentiality is grammaticalized in its grammatical system; in others like English and Chinese, evidentiality is lexically marked, and there are still some languages like Japanese that have both grammatical and lexical evidential markers.(16) as far as the current evidential studies are concerned, there are no unified agreements on the definitions, scope, and classifications of evidentiality and evidentials. Scholars of evidentiality show great enthusiasm for the specific descriptions of evidential markers and evidential systems in languages. This somehow has hinderedevidential studies from developing onto a more theoretical level.We will investigate to see if epistemic meaning tends to become increasingly situated in the speaker’s subjective belief state or attitude toward the proposition.The classification between epistemic and deontic modality is one of the most fundamental issue in discussion of modality. deontic modality is involved with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally responsible agents, wherears epistemic modality is concerned with matters of knowledge and belief (Lyons 1977). Palmer (1990) distinguished the three types of modality with the following definitions. Dynamic modality is related with the ability your volition of the subject of the sentence. Deontic modality has to do with influencing actions, states or events and expressing what Searle calls “directives.”Epistemic modality is about how the speaker makes a judgment about the truth of the proposition.广义的情态范畴不仅指具有形态表现的各种语气（如直陈的、虚拟的或祈使的），还指不同的句子类型（如陈述句、疑问句和命令句等）。
狭义的情态主要是用来指说话人对所述内容的态度。
Lyons(1977:452)认为，情态是句中的命题以外的成分或修饰命题的成分，是说话人对句子所表达的命题或命题所描写的情景的观点或态度，也就是说，情态是指语句中的非事实性(non-factuality)成分。
Palmer （1986：51-125）详细讨论了两类情态：知识情态（epistemic modallity）和义务情态(deontic modality),两者都涉及主观性与非事实性，知识情态涉及说话者对命题的信仰、知识、真实性的态度和观点，而义务情态涉及说话人/或他人的行动。
以往学者们对传信范畴的研究大都是将其放在情态范畴里面讨论。
但正如张伯江（1997）指出的，问题在于，人们习惯上是把情态看成表达说话人的主观态度的，而传信问题却在很大程度上取决于客观信息来源的可靠程度，二者之间虽然关系密切，但关注角度不同。
传信范畴所关心的是信息来源的可靠性，直接的语法反映是狭义的传信表达系统，从这个意义上说，传信系统具有一定的客观性，相应的，情态系统是表达说话者自身认识及评价的主观态度系统。
话语信息来源是属于客观陈述，而涉及到说话人对客观真实概念的态度及肯定强度的最好还是将其归于主观态度范畴，即情态范畴。
这种区分的好处是可以以此更清晰的观察和分析语言中的各种成分的性质和表达功能，从而对一些语言现象做出更为合理的解释。
事实上，正如我们前面已经指出的，现在的传信范畴应该是与时体系统、语气系统及情态系统并存的另一种表达系统，它的功能只能是表达信息来源的可靠性程度。
所以本文以下只将张伯江文中表示信息来源的看作传信表达，而将与说话人主观态度有关的归入情态系统。
The Journal provides an overview of the central theoretical questions addressed in recent research on Evidential morphemes. First, I discuss the question of whether Evidentials constitute a coherent closed-class system, independent of other systems of grammar. Next, I briefly consider the evidence for an Evidential head in the syntactic representation. Finally, I review the ways in which Evidentials resemble and differ form epistemic modals.Research on whether evidentials constitute a distinct grammatical category finds that on one hand, there are languages with a small, closed, obligatory sets of morphemes that encode information source, and in such languages the range of possible evidential categories is small and abstract. As Aikhenvald (2004) urges, researches should be carful to distinguish between grammaticized evidental systems and the wide range of other ways of expressing how the speaker acquired her knowledge. On the other hand, insight into the components of evidential meaning has come from research on languages in which evidentiality is expressed by tense, aspect, or modal morphemes. Such languages suggest that we might want to look for afiner-grained analysis involving several interacting components, even in languages that grammaticize evidentiality with a designated morpheme.The evidence in favor of an evidential head comes from morpheme ordering in some languages and parallel adverb ordering in other languages. It is difficult at this point to tell whether these facts should have a syntactic explanation, since we lack independent evidence involving word order or other syntactic diagnostics. It may just be that no one has looked for such data. Research investigating the relationship between evidentials and topic/ focus structure could turn up evidence bearing on this issue.Evidentials differ systemically from epistemic modals, but it is not clear whether this means they are entirely distinct, or just a special type of epistemic modal.Evidential morphemes are particles, suffixes, or words that express the source of information or type of evidence that a speaker has for the information being conveyed. While all languages have the means to convey information source, markers of information source are highly grammaticized or even obligatory in many languages. Although the meanings conveyed by evidential morphemes can be expressed in English by means of parenthetical phrases, epistemicmodals, adverbs, and speech or attitude predicates, evidential morphemes in some languages, such as Tariana, are obligatory and closed class.Are evidentials epistemic modals?the relationship between evidentials and epistemic modals has been a central question guiding research on evidential systems. Researchers since Boas (1911) have suggested that evidentials fall within the general system of epistemic modality.。