Article published In: International Journal of Chinese Linguistics
Vol. 9:2 (2022) ► pp.304–328
A discourse-pragmatic functional study of Chinese epistemic markers haoxiang “seem” and keneng “probably”
Published online: 6 December 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijchl.20014.wan
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijchl.20014.wan
Abstract
This study investigates the discourse-pragmatic functions of the epistemic markers haoxiang
“seem” and keneng “probably” in natural conversations of Mandarin Chinese. By examining 107 cases of
haoxiang and 152 cases of keneng in sequential contexts, it demonstrates that both
haoxiang and keneng are hedge expressions showing the speaker’s attitude of lack of
commitment to the truthfulness of their own utterance, which is often driven by an intersubjective motivation.
As epistemic markers, haoxiang tends to mitigate informational certainty that is based on the
speaker’s personal but vague experience, while keneng is often used to mitigate the assertiveness of the
speaker’s personal speculation deduced from background knowledge, general knowledge or commonly accepted logic.
Further, this study claims that both haoxiang and keneng often serve as
politeness devices to mitigate various Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) such as disconfirmation, disagreement or negative assessment.
In either case, haoxiang and keneng are not merely epistemic markers revealing the speaker’s
subjective uncertainty, but also serve as politeness markers for the purpose of intersubjectivity, and their multiple
discourse-pragmatic usages are rooted in their semantic meanings, respectively.
Keywords: epistemic, uncertainty, politeness, mitigator, intersubjectivity
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Epistemic modality
- 1.2Epistemic markers in Mandarin Chinese
- 1.3Previous studies of haoxiang and keneng
- 2.Data
- 3.The epistemic functions of haoxiang and keneng
- 3.1Epistemic usages of haoxiang
- 3.2Epistemic usages of keneng
- 3.3Comparison of the epistemic usages of haoxiang and keneng
- 4.Haoxiang and keneng as politeness markers
- 4.1Haoxiang as a politeness marker
- 4.2Keneng as a politeness marker
- 4.3Haoxiang used in self-praise
- 4.4The derivation of the functions of haoxiang and keneng
- 5.Conclusions
- Note
References
References (39)
Ai, H. (2012). The expression of stance in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study of stance adverbs. Int. J. Asian Lang. Process., 221, 1–14.
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The
Stance Triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking
in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation,
Interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetaking
in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. John Benjamins Publishing.
Endo, T. (2010). Expressing
stance in Mandarin conversation: epistemic and non-epistemic uses of wo juede. University of California.
Fitzmaurice, S. (2004). Subjectivity,
intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: from stance markers to discourse
markers. Discourse
Studies, 6(4):427–448.
Gao, Q. (2012). Interpersonal
Functions of Epistemic Modality in Academic English Writing. Chinese Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 35 (3):352–364.
Gillespie, A. and Cornish, F. (2010). Intersubjectivity:
towards a dialogical analysis. Journal for the theory of Social
Behaviours, 40 (1):19–46.
He, Y. and H. Wang (2013). A
Corpus-Based Study of Epistemic Modality Markers in Chinese Research Articles. Chinese Lexical
Semantics, 199–208.
Hsieh, C.-L. (2005). Modal
Verbs and Modal Adverbs in Chinese: An Investigation into the Semantic Source. UST Working
Papers in
Linguistics, 11: 31–58.
(2006a). Hanyu qingtaici de yuyi jieding: Yuliaoku weiben de yanjiu [The
semantic categorization of Chinese modal expressions: A corpus-based analysis]. Zhongguo Yuwen Yanjius [Chinese Language
Studies], 211: 45–63.
Hsieh, C-L. (2006b). Huayu guangyi yu xiayi qingtaici de fenxi [A study on Chinese
modal expressions in broad and narrow senses]. Huayuwen Jiaoxue
Yanjiu [Chinese Teaching and
Learning], 3(1): 1–25.
Hsieh, C.-L. (2009). Epistemic
stance taking in Chinese media discourse. Research in Theoretical
Linguistics, 31:1–35.
Karkkainen, E. (2006). Stance
taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text and
Talk, 26(6):699–731.
Li, X. J. (2015). Xiangsi, Bini, Tuice, Fouding – “haoxiang” “sihu” “fangfu” de Duowei
Fenxi [Similarity, Simile, Conjecture, Negation: “ – The multiple analysis
of “haoxiang (like)” “sihu (seem)” “fangfu (as
if)”]. In Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese Language
Learning]. 21:3–13
Li, C. N. and S. A. Thompson. (1983). The
category “auxiliary” in Mandarin. In Ting-Chi Tang, Robert L. Cheng, and Ying-Che Li (eds.), Studies
in Chinese Syntax and
Semantics. pp.113–126.
Lim, N-E. (2009). Stance-taking
with Wo Juede in conversational
Chinese. In Proceedings of 21st North American Conference on Chinese
Linguistics (NACCL-21) Vol.21, pp. 323–340. Bryant University.
Lin, Jo-wang and C. J. Tang. (1995). Modals
as verbs in Chinese: A GB perspective. Collection of Sinica
Academia 66(1): 53–105.
Liu, B. (2009). Chinese
Discourse Markers in Oral Speech of Mainland Mandarin Speakers. Proceedings of the 21st North
American Conference on Chinese Linguistics
(NACCL-21), 21: 358–374.
McEnery, T. R. Xiao, and Y. Tono. (2006). Corpus-Based
Language Studies: An Advanced Resource
Book. Routledge.
Nuyts, J. (2001). Subjectivity
as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of
Pragmatics, 33 (3):383–400.
(2005). Modality:
overview and linguistic issues, in W. Frawley (Ed.), The
Expression of
Modality (pp. 1–26). Mouton de Gruyter.
Pizziconi, B. (2009). The
interactional Consequences of Epistemic Intedexicality-Some Thoughts on the Epistemic
Marker-kamoshirenai. In B. Pizziconi & M. Kizu (Eds), Japanese
Modality: Exploring its Scope and Interpretation. Palgrave Macmillan.
Qu, C.-X. (2010). Hanyu Gongneng Pianzhang Yufa [A Functional-Discourse Grammar
of Mandarin Chinese].
Reynold, B. L. & Y. Hsieh. (2019). A
corpus study of stance adverbs in modern Mandarin Chinese –yexu, keneng,
haoxiang. The Linguistics
Journal. 13(1):52–72.
Sawada, H. (2007). On
Epistemic Modality: A Pragmatic Approach. Studies in
Pragmatics. V91, 73–88. The Pragmatics Society of Japan.
Suzuki, S. (1998). Tte
and Nante: Markers of psychological distance in Japanese conversation. Journal
of
Pragmatics, 29 (4):429–462.
Tang, L. (2000). Hanyu de qingtai fuci: Yuyi neihan yu jufa gongneng [Modal
adverbs in Chinese: Semantic contents and syntactic functions]. Zhongyang
Yanjiuyuan Lishi Yuyan Yanjiusuo Jikan [Collected Papers of the Institute of
History and Philosophy, Academia
Sinica]. 77(1): 199–219.
Tang, Ting-Chi, and Zhi-Zen Tang. 1997. Huayu qingtaici xulun (Introduction to Chinese modal expressions). In World Chinese Education Association (ed.), Diwujie Shijie Huayuwen Jiaoxue Yantaohui Lunwenji: Yuwen Fenxi (Proceedings of the Fifth World Chinese Teaching Conference: Linguistic Analysis). pp.175–197. Taipei: World Chinese Publishing.
Traugott, Elizabeth. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity
and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte (Eds.) Subjectification,
Intersubjectification and
Grammaticalization (pp.29–74). Walter de Gruyter.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal
level theory of psychological distance. Psychological
Review, 1171: 440–463.
Wang, Y. (2018). From
subjectivity to intersubjectivity: A functional study of the Japanese epistemic
marker-kamo, in M. E. Hudson, Y. Matsumoto, J. Mori (Eds.) Advances
in Pragmatics Research on
Japanese (PP.173–197). John Benjamins.
