過往有相當多的文獻在討論示證性與認知情態為相同還是兩種不同的類別。本論文的目標在探討華語示證詞與認知情態助動詞句法以及示證情境（Evidential Scenarios）選用的差異。本論文討論的示證詞為：好像、看來、顯然、明明、想必、聽說以及看起來。討論的認知情態助動詞為：可能以及應該。
本文依照Sparvoli（2015）的分類，將示證詞分為四組，分別為：結果示證（Result Evidential）、辯證示證（Debate-result Evidential）、推理示證（Reasoning Evidential）以及感官示證（Sensory Evidential）。再來，本文使用Drubig（2001）以及von Fintel and Iatridou（2003）文章中所提出的句法要素來檢視這些示證詞
至於示證情境，本文採用了以下五個情境：由von Fintel and Gillies（2010）所提出的推論測試（Deduction Test）、由Goodhue（2017）所提出的已知／未知測試（Known/unknown Test），以及Sparvoli（2015）所採用的感官證據推理（inference based on sensory evidence）、思考推理（inference based on reasoning）。本文得出的結果是不同的詞跟詞之間，所展現出來的句法特性以及示證情境都不盡相同。

There are a lot of discussion on whether evidentiality and epistemic modality are two distinct categories or they belong to one single category. The goal of this thesis is to examine the syntactic properties and evidential scenarios of evidential and epistemic modal expressions. The evidentials discussed in this thesis are: haoxiang ‘seem’, kanlai ‘seemingly’, xianran ‘obviously’, mingming ‘clearly’, xiangbi ‘presumably’, tingshuo ‘hear.say’, and kanqilai ‘look.like’. The epistemic modals discussed in this thesis are: keneng ‘may’ and yinggai ‘must’.
We adhere to Sparvoli’s (2015) classification and divide evidential expressions in to four distinct groups: result evidentials, debate-result evidentials, reasoning evidentials and sensory evidentials. Subsequently, we analyze the syntactic properties of these evidentials. We examine the criteria Drubig (2001) investigated: in the scope of the scopes of negation, nonassertive, tense/aspect operators, focus, future shift. Also, a criterion proposed by von Fintel and Iatridou (2003): in the scope of quantificational phrases.
Regarding evidential scenarios, we employ five contexts: deduction test proposed by von Fintel and Gillies (2010), known/unknow test proposed by Goodhue (2017), inference based on sensory evidence (including olfactory), and inference based on reasoning employed in Sparvoli’s (2015) work. Our analysis shows that both syntactic properties and evidential scenarios vary from word to word.

Abstract i
摘要 ii
Acknowledgements iii
Table of Contents iv

1. Introduction 1

2. Literature Review 5
2.1 Evidentiality 5
2.2 Syntactic Properties 6
2.3 Evidential Scenarios 12
2.3.1 Sparvoli (2015) 12
2.3.2 von Fintel and Gillies (2010) 15
2.3.3 Goodhue (2017) 15

3. Result Evidentials haoxiang ‘seem’ and kanlai ‘seemingly’ 17
3.1 Syntactic Properties of Result Evidentials haoxiang ‘seem’ and kanlai ‘seemingly’ 17
3.2 Evidential Scenarios of haoxiang ‘seem’, kanlai ‘seemingly’, keneng ‘may’, and yinggai ‘must’ 23
3.3 Interim Summary 27

4. Debate-Result Evidentials xianran ‘obviously’ and mingming ‘clearly’ 30
4.1 Syntactic Properties of Debate-Result Evidentials xianran ‘obviously’ and mingming ‘clearly’ 30
4.2 Evidential Scenarios of Debate-Result Evidentials xianran ‘obviously’ and mingming ‘clearly’ 36
4.3 Interim Summary 39

5. Reasoning Evidentials xiangbi ‘presumably’ 41
5.1 Syntactic Properties of Reasoning Evidentials xiangbi ‘presumably’ 41
5.2 Evidential Scenarios of Reasoning Evidentials xiangbi ‘presumably’ 44
5.3 Interim Summary 46

6. Sensory Evidentials tingshuo ‘hear.say’ and kanqilai ‘look.like’ 48
6.1 Syntactic Properties of Sensory Evidentials tingshuo ‘hear.say’ and kanqilai ‘look.like’ 48
6.2 Evidential Scenarios of Sensory Evidentials tingshuo ‘hear.say’ and kanqilai ‘look.like’ 53
6.3 Interim Summary 57

7. Conclusion 59
7.1 Summary on the Thesis 59
7.2 Possible Direction for Future Research 62

References 64

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, Lloyd B. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In Chafe,Wallace & Nichols, Johanna (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 273–312. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Brugman, Claudia M. & Macaulay, Monica. 2015. Characterizing evidentiality. Linguistic Typology 19(2). 201–237. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282582528_Characterizing_evidentiality) (Accessed 2021-05-21.)
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1986. Evidentiality in english Conversation and Academic Writing. In Chafe, Wallace & Nichols, Johanna (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 261–272. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Chafe, Wallace L & Nichols, Johanna (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Chappell, Hilary. 2001. A typology of evidential markers in Sinitic languages, In Chappell, Hilary (ed.), Sinitic grammar: synchronic and diachronic perspectives, 56–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Haan, Ferdinand. 1999. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18(1). 83–101.
Davis, Christopher & Potts, Christopher & Speas, Margaret. 2007. The pragmatic values of evidential sentences. Proceedings of SALT 17. 71–88. (https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2966/2706) (Accessed 2021-05-30.)
Drubig, Hans Bernhard. 2001. On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. Tübingen: University of Tübingen. (Manuscript.) (https://www.lingexp.uni-tuebingen.de/sfb441/b2/papers/DrubigModality.pdf) (Accessed 2021-05-30.)
Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford: Stanford University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Faller, Martina. 2006. Evidentiality below and above speech acts. Manchester: University of Manchester. (Manuscript.) (https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GZiZjBhO/Faller-evidentiality.above.below.pdf) (Accessed 2021-05-30.)
von Fintel, Kai & Gillies, Anthony S. 2010. Must ... stay ... strong! Natural Language Semantics 18(4). 351–383.
von Fintel, Kai & Iatridou, Sabine. 2003. Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry 34(2). 173–198.
Goodhue, Daniel. 2017. Must φ is felicitous only if φ is not known. Semantics and Pragmatics 10(14). https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.14.
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Universiteit van Amsterdam. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Hsieh, Chia-Ling (謝佳玲). 2006a. Hanyu qingtaici de yuyijieding: yulekuweiben de yanjiu 漢語情態詞的語意界定：語料庫為本的研究. Zhongguo Yuwen yanjiu 中國語文研究 21. 45–63.
Hsieh, Chia-Ling（謝佳玲). 2006b. Huayu guangyi yu xiayi gingtaici de fenxi 華語廣義與狹義情態詞的分析. Huayuwen jiaoxue yanjiu 華語文教學研究 3(1). 1–25.
Hsiao, Pei-Yi. Katherine.(蕭佩宜). 2015. Issues on evidentiality and attitudes in Chinese languages. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. Proceedings of SALT VII. 222–239.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1972. Possible and must. In Kimball, John P. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol 1, 1–20. New York: Academic Press.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In von Stechow, Arnim & Wunderlich, Dieter (eds.). Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, 639–650. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Krawczyk, Elizabeth Allyn. 2012. Inferred Propositions and the Expression of the Evidence Relation in Natural Language: Evidentiality in Central Alaskan Yup’ik Eskimo and English. Washington DC: Georgetown University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Lee, Chungmin & Park, Jinho (eds.). 2020. Evidentials and modals. Leiden: Brill.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2020. Evidence type, evidence location, evidence strength. In Lee, Chungmin, & Park, Jinho (eds.), Evidentials and modals, 82–120. Leiden: Brill.
Matthewson, Lisa & Davis, Henry & Rullmann, Hotze. 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’át'imcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7. 201–254.
Rooryck, Johan. 2001. Evidentiality, part I. Glot International 5. 125–133.
Sparvoli, Carlotta. 2015. “The roast must be done!”: Inferred evidentials in Chinese. Torre di Babele 11, 289–332.
Speas, Peggy. 2008. On the syntax and semantics of evidentials. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5). 940–965.
Shlonsky, Ur. (ed.). 2015. Beyond functional sequence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan & Yang, Ching-Yu Helen. 2022. On the Syntax of Mirativity: Evidence from Mandarin Chinese. In Simpson, Andrew (ed.), New Explorations in Chinese Theoretical Syntax: Studies in Honor of Yen-Hui Audrey Li, 431–444. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Waldie, Ryan & Peterson, Tyler & Rullmann, Hotze & Mackie, Scott. 2009. Evidentials as epistemic modals or speech act operators: Testing the tests. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of Languages of the Americas 14, Purdue University. (http://evidentialchicago.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/46624592/Waldie_Peterson_Rullmann_Mackie_2009_Evidentials.pdf) (Accessed 2021-05-03.)
Willett, Thomas. 1988. Cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1). 51–97.