This chapter has reviewed many previous literatures with respect to the epistemic
stance expressions of actuality. Because most of the truth-related expressions are adverbials, we first review the syntactic positions and functions of epistemic adverbials. Epistemic stance adverbials can be put in any position of a sentence, either initially, medially, or finally. Epistemic adverbials of actuality in the initial and final positions indicate the whole statement as true or real. When it is put medially before the predicate, the adverbials are often regarded as an intensifier. Intensifiers not only denote the intensity toward the predicate but also imply a scalar inference. Therefore, the scalar property is a key to distinguish epistemic adverbials from intensifiers.
However, Paradis (2003) argues that the three readings of really—truth attesting, emphasizing, and degree reinforcing—are all epistemic in that they all involve the speaker’s subjectivity. Wu (2010) also points out the interactive uses of zhende in Mandarin Chinese such as response tokens and minimal response. According to the stance triangle proposed by Du Bois (2007), stancetaking needs a tri-action of addresser, addressee, and shared object. Truth-related epistemic stance expressions across languages conform to the model of stance triangle, displaying subjective and intersubjective functions. The various functions and syntactic positions of the truth-related expressions are argued by Wu (2010), Li (2003), and Chen (2010) as a result of being in the process of grammaticalization. Truth-related adverbials conform to the Adverbial Cline proposed by Traugott (1995), moving from internal manner adverb, sentential epistemic adverb, to discourse marker and the pragmatic-semantic tendencies established by Traugott and Dasher (2002:40). The polysemous meanings of truth-related expressions can be claimed to follow a general pattern instead of a language idiosyncrasy. In the following section, we will discuss the discourse-pragmatic functions of truth-related expressions in TSM.
Chapter Three Analysis of TREs in TSM 3.0 Introduction
This section will analyze TREs in our database. TREs in TSM basically originate from the morpheme 真 tsin ‘real’, 實 sit ‘true/truth’ and 正 tsiann ‘real, square.’ Tsin
‘real’ has high frequency of occurrence (440 tokens in the database) and a lone tsin expresses truth-related meanings and functions either as an intensifier (e.g. 真真真真水 tsin sui ‘really beautiful’) to reinforce the degree of a gradable predicate or as an emphasizer (Quirk et al. 1985) to strengthen the force of a predicative expression (e.g.
民間 e 輿論攏真真真真給你肯定 Ming-kan e u-lun long tsin ka li khun-tin ‘Public opinions really approve you.’). As it has become a fully grammaticized adverb and has fixed
semantic functions and syntactic positions, tsin will not be discussed below6. Tsin attached with a nominative/associative e forms 真 e tsin-e ‘really’ (15 tokens) to express truth-related meaning7. The frequent compound of tsin is 真正 tsin-tsiann (61 tokens). 正經 tsing-king ‘serious’ also has truth-related meanings (thirteen tokens).
有影 u-iannn ‘having-shadow’ is often used to denote the truth as real/existential (73 tokens). 實 sit has two frequent compounds: 誠實 tsiann-sit (eight tokens) and 實在 sit-tsai (106 tokens)8. In total, there are six major TREs in the database. Table 3 lists their frequency of occurrence:
6 More evidence on this grammaticization can be best manifested in I-lan accent of TSM. When tsin of the degree-intensifying use, it changes into a different tone tsin51 (Li 2008) from the citation tone tsin44, which provides a solid proof that tsin becomes an intensifier. Li (2008) called it a degree adverb.
Tsin as an intensifier conveys the subjectivity in that the degree adjectives and evaluative predicates are themselves involved with subjective meanings and when they co-occur with intensifiers, the subjective meaning is even stronger.
7 Tsin-e has two other variants due to assimilation: tsin-le (1 token) and tsin-ne (2 tokens). The variants are all counted in the category of tsin-e.
8 We acknowledge that there are also other TREs in TSM. The reason why they are not included in the present study is the number of token is too small such as 正港 e tsiann-kang-e ‘genuine’ (2 tokens).
Table 3. Frequency of TREs in the database
In the following discussion, we will show that TREs not only referentially point out the truth value of the proposition but also are often used to convey subjective evaluative meanings such as adding emphasis to the statement or the predicate.
What’s more, TREs play an important role in the collaborative production of a discourse such as showing affective emotions and agreement. Also, when compounded with verbs of communication, they act as a discourse marker.
As TREs usually indicate more than objective truth-value of a statement, we analyze them according to their syntactic patterning and their collocational and situational contexts. In light of previous analyses (Quirk et al. 1985, Cheng 1992, Paradis 2003, Paradis and Bergmark 2003, McCarthy 2003, Li 2003, Chen 2008, Lenker 2007, Wu 2010), we divide the TREs in our database into three categories according to their pragmatic functions: truth-describing, expressive, and interactive.
The truth-describing function is similar to propositional meaning (Lenker 2007), truth-attesting function (Paradis 2003), and descriptive meaning (Wu 2010).
Truth-describing TREs in question include those TREs which are used to indicate the truth quality of an entity and meanwhile, the truth-value can be verified from the discourse. Expressive function here is related to truth-emphasizing and
Item Frequency
真 e Tsin-e 18
真正(是) Tsin-tsiann(-si) 64
正經 Tsing-king 13
有影 U-iannn 71
誠實 Tsiann-sit 8
實在(是) Sit-tsai(-si) 103
Total 277
degree-reinforcing meaning (Lenker 2007). Also, we include those TREs which involve the speaker’s subjective assessment and whose truth cannot be verified.
Interactive TREs is related to the concept of intersubjectivity--the speaker regards addressee as an active participant in the conversation (Traugott 2003). For example, TREs can be used as a response token, expressing one’s agreement or showing surprise. When they collocate with a verb of saying kong, they are used to preface a dispreferred statment.
In the following, Section 3.1 discusses the truth-describing use of TREs, expressive in Section 3.2, interactive use in Section 3.3. Chapter summary and discussion is provided in Section 3.4.