تحلیل معنایی گواه‏نمایی در زبان فارسی

Languages are different with regards to marking evidentiality. They have systems in which information source as firsthand versus non firsthand, or direct versus indirect is represented. This paper focuses on modern Persian to examine the existence and representation of this grammatical category. Using examples and based on a descriptive method, this study shows that there is no obligatory morphological means for representing evidentiality in Persian, and the process of referring to the source of information is represented through an optional sentence. Persian uses a syntactic way of referring to information source, that is unlike English which has some lexical way namely expressions such as ‘reportedly, allegedly’, etc. It is therefore argued that encoding information source in Persian is not obligatory, but optional. Moreover, it is illustrated that evidentiality is fused with modality in Persian while a category by its own in only a few languages. Accordingly, it is not a distinct linguistic category in Persian, but a subtype of modality. Different Persian sentences show that there is a strong tendency for declarative sentences, sentences in declarative modality, to be mapped on the right of the continuum in preference to those sentences in subjunctive modality on the left.
 
Extended Abstract
 1. Introduction
Source of information is one of the issues in relation to which different languages ​​of the world exhibit different behaviors. In nearly a quarter of the world's languages, it is important to know that on what sources of information the statements are based, for example, has the speaker seen, heard, been informed by others or deduced according to existing evidence? In these languages, lack of reference to the source of information causes ungrammaticality of the sentence. This grammatical concept encoding the source of information is called "evidentiality". In a simpler sense, evidentiality demonstrates how the speaker has come to know about what he says. Languages ​​act in a variety of ways for representation of evidentiality; some simply mark only the information the speaker has acquired from someone else; while others differentiate between the firsthand and the non-firsthand sources. Some languages ​​also compare the speaker's visually acquired information against information being heard, smelled or otherwise obtained through some other means. However, it should be noted that evidentiality is not related to the degree of the speaker’s assurance regarding the certainty of the sentence or truth and falsehood of the sentence in question.
In connection with the point previously mentioned, it is important to pay attention to two issues; firstly, the question of the compulsory nature of evidentiality in languages; and, secondly, the possibility of distinguishing between "mood" and "evidentiality". In the present article, we are going to find out, from a grammatical point of view, whether we can prove the existence of evidentiality in Persian. Furthermore, we endeavor to realize whether the semantic analysis of the concept confirms the answer to our first question or not.
 
2. Theoretical Framework
In the present paper, we will examine the issues at hand based on the viewpoint as presented in Aikhenvald (2003; 2004; 2007; 2012) regarding “evidentiality” and the perspective of Tabataba'i (2016) concerning “mood”. According to Aikhenvald’s view, some languages ​​have a dual system of evidentiality, and some have a hexagonal system. The representation of the concept in these languages ​​is mandatory and cannot be optionally removed. However, it seems that in recent research endeavors, various scholars have expanded this category in such a way that its representation, not only through bound morphemes, but also through other syntactic tools such as words, is also possible. In addition, it can be optional. Under such circumstances, all verbs, verbs that reflect thinking and adverbs like "probably" in English are indicative of evidentiality. Simply put, if we have such a mindset, then all languages ​​will include the concept of evidentiality. In Aikhenvald's view, such a generalization that leads to lack of transparency and a kind of ambiguity is meaningless and unscientific. According to Tabataba’i (2016), mood is one of verb forms, with the help of which the speaker expresses his or her opinion about the definite, probable, or imperative sense of the verb. In today’s Persian, the verb has three moods including indicative, subjunctive and imperative.
 
3. Research Method
In this study, the author attempts to examine, in an analytical-descriptive manner, the phenomenon of evidentiality in a general sense and specifically in Persian. The author tries to describe the attributes of evidentiality and the conditions leading to its formation, while analyzing the existence of this phenomenon in Persian, using examples based on the linguistic intuition of the writer as a speaker of Persian.
 
4. Research Findings and Discussion
Syntactically, there is no element in Persian in the form of a grammatical morpheme, as part of a closed group, which encodes the source of information. Of the three categories "aspect, mood, and tense," it is "mood" that shows the speaker's attitude toward a certain action and conveys this attitude to the listener or the audience. Therefore, if we are to examine evidentiality, that is to determine the speaker's attitude toward the type of information source that he or she describes and is in this regard, we are inevitably dealing with mood.
In Persian, changing mood satisfies changing the tense of the event, and consequently the meaning. One can confer a continuum of certainty for sentences, with a full certainty point at one end of the spectrum and a full uncertainty point at the other end. Other sentences fall between two poles. Indeed, in sentence "I saw it was raining," there is a certainty that cannot be seen in "It is probably raining." Similarly, the degree of certainty of the sentence "It is probably raining" is higher than "I dreamt it was raining." Accordingly, when the speaker is fully confident about the certainty of an event or news, he or she will generate the sentence in an indicative mood. The lower the speaker's confidence regarding the certainty of the event, the greater the probability of the statement being expressed in the subjunctive mood.
 
5. Conclusion
The present study shows that if we exclude mood from the verbs in Persian, evidentiality cannot be proposed through a semantic verifiable viewpoint. In other words, mood is regarded as the main concept while evidentiality as its subclass. Therefore, evidentiality cannot be considered disregarding "mood". Moreover, it was concluded that Persian speakers refer to the source of information not with the aid of bound morphemes or words, but rather sentences.
Understanding the speaker's attitude on the part of the audience is made on the syntagmatic axis and in the form of the whole sentence, and not merely through a particular syntactic element. Examining this concept with respect to cultural components shows that, basically, evidentiality, in languages ​​ belonging to small societies with a less advanced culture, is represented in a much more complex system comparing other languages.