A Corpus-based Study Of English Argumentative Discourse

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.