Between epistemic modality and degree: the case of really
Between epistemic modality and degree: the case of really
复制标题
在认识模态和程度之间：真实的情况
DOI：
10.1515/9783110895339.191
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Carita Paradis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Carita Paradis
本文识别并解释了在认知情态和/或程度的图式域中出现的三种不同的really解读。不同的解读是通过[现实]的本体论概念和与语境相关的真实之间的相互作用而产生的。这些读数是：真的作为证据（真理证明），主观强调和程度（强化）的标记。本文对really的阅读具有位置/句法理据的观点提出质疑。相反，它提出的动机因素是语义/语用的性质。这个论点是，真的是由说话人的愿望，以资格的表达与判断的真理认识，认为由发言人。因此，这一条件对真正唤起和接管范围的概念表征类型以及真正本身的韵律突显性起着激励作用。研究表明，配价和语调是解释really在使用场合的主要线索。1.对really、just、only、rather、quite、apparently、absolutely等副词的解释研究表明，它们具有高度的语境敏感性和灵活性。本文将仔细研究really，以解释其各种解释。Stenstrom（1986）的工作真正形成了调查的起点。下面的例子来自Stenstrom（1986：151），她声称really的不同解读是由于位置和句法功能：（1）这个问题真的很令人惊讶（2）这确实是一个令人惊讶的问题（3）这确实是一个令人惊讶的问题（4）这确实是一个令人惊讶的问题（5）真的，这是一个令人惊讶的问题Stenstrom指出，当really放在形容词旁边时，如在（1）和（2）中，它是一个程度修饰语，用作令人惊讶的加强词。但是，实际上越是向左移动，就越不强调令人惊讶，而总的来说，这是一个令人惊讶的问题。当really被置于开头位置时，如（5），它不再强化单个分句成分，而是对整个命题的评论。斯坦斯特罗姆对中间位置以及句法位置和解释之间更确切的相互作用仍然模糊不清。她的结论是，真正决定的功能是位置，韵律和更广泛的背景的综合效果。与Stenstrom相反，我认为阅读的动机因素是语义/语用的性质，而不是句法/位置。显然，位置是解释真的的重要线索，但它并不能严格预测读数的差异。位置是话语语义和语用的语言反映。我主张，上述所有关于really的例子都是认识论的，因为它们对说话者在实际使用情况中所感知到的命题的真实程度作出了评论。然而，它们在范围和与环境的语义交互方面有所不同。在（1）和（2）中，
This paper identifies and explains the emergence of three different readings of really in the schematic domains of epistemic modality and/or degree. The different readings arise through the interaction between the ontological notion of [REALITY] and the construal of really in relation to the context. The readings are: really as a marker of evidentiality (truth attesting), of subjective emphasis and of degree (reinforcement). This paper questions the view that the readings of really are positionally/ syntactically motivated. Instead, it proposes that the motivating factors are semantic/ pragmatic in nature. The argument is that really is conditioned by the speaker’s wish to qualify an expression epistemically with a judgement of truth as perceived by the speaker. This condition thus acts as a motivating force on the type of conceptual representations that really evokes and takes scope over as well as on the prosodic salience of really itself. It is shown that valence and intonation are the main clues to the interpretation of really on the occasion of use. 1. Background and major claims Research on the interpretation of adverbs such as really, just, only, rather, quite, apparently or absolutely shows that they are contextually sensitive and highly flexible. This paper takes a closer look at really in order to account for its various interpretations. Stenstrom’s (1986) work on really forms the starting-point for the investigation. The following examples are from Stenstrom (1986: 151), where she claims that the different readings of really are due to position and syntactic function: (1) this question is really surprising (2) this is a really surprising question (3) this is really a surprising question (4) this really is a surprising question (5) really this is a surprising question Stenstrom states that when really is placed next to the adjective, as in (1) and (2), it is a degree modifier which serves as an intensifier of surprising. But, the further really is moved to the left, the less is the emphasis on surprising and the more it is on the whole a surprising question. When really is placed in initial position, as in (5), it no longer intensifies a single clause element but is a comment on the whole proposition. Stenstrom remains vague about the intermediate positions and about the more exact interaction between syntactic position and interpretation. She concludes that what finally decides the function of really is the combined effect of position, prosody and the wider context. In contrast to Stenstrom, I propose that the motivating factors for the readings are semantic/pragmatic in nature rather than syntactic/positional. Clearly, position is an important clue to the interpretation of really, but it is not strictly predictive of differences in readings. Position is a linguistic reflex of the semantics and pragmatics of an utterance. I claim that all the above examples of really are epistemic in the sense that they make a comment on the degree of truth of the proposition as perceived by the speaker in the actual situation of use. However, they differ in scope and semantic interaction with their environment. In (1) and (2)