Based on the analysis of 267 tokens derived from editorial columns primarily drawn from two Persian newspapers, following on earlier studies by Chafe, Jahani, Lazard, Dahl, Adel, and Dafouze, and inspired by a series of Hyland’s studies on metadiscourse signals, this study has aimed at investigating evidential markers in these columns. In order to come to grips with the types of evidentials, first, we classify them into two major types – inferential and reportative; the reportative evidentials are further classified into (...) four types. The reportative classification is based, in the first place, on whether the source of information comes from an individual or from a government body, hence institutional. The further classifications are based on their identifiability/specificity. Results show that inferential evidentials comprise about 15% of all the tokens. Among the four reportative types, those whose source is individual and identified/specified and those that are institutional and unidentified/unspecified, coded as TYPE 1 and TYPE 4, respectively, have the highest frequency. The results overall show that Persian editorials in these two papers feature a high frequency of attribution of information to identified sources when the source is individual, but to unidentified sources when the source is institutional. The results also support other authors who claim that the imperfective aspect marker mi-, which is frequent in Persian, is a marker worthy of consideration in evidentiality. (shrink)

Human cognition affects the result of symbolic activity. Evidentiality is a linguistic concept which encodes the source of information and expresses the attitude and confidence of speaker. This paper collects 31 judgments from the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and local people’s courts in the People’s Republic of China (P.R.C) as the research corpus, and analyzes the evidentiality in four aspects: information source, lingual form, evidential function and speaker’s attitude of the information. It is found in this study that: 1) The (...) information sources are divided into four types as cultural belief, sensory experience, verbal rumor and inferential hypothesis; 2) Lingual form consists of three categories: vocabulary, phrase and compound sentence; 3) Evidentiality in court judgments performs four functions: support with citation, induction with description, paraphrase with less responsibility and summarization with reasoning; 4) The reliability of evidentiality presents a two-tier structure based on different information sources. From the perspective of Peirce’s semiotics, the paper analyzes the judicial practice of court judgments with actual data and proposes some suggestions. (shrink)