5. Analysis
5.4. Evidential and epistemic meaning
60
modality and introduces uncertainty about the propositional content. In the translation, the Norwegian equivalence of copular be (være) and the adjective sannsynlig ('probably') are used, and some epistemic modality is retained because of the adjective. However, there is no doubt that the degree of uncertainty conveyed when we say that something seems probable is greater that when we say that something is probable. Because of this loss of epistemic meaning, the construction is classified as a zero correspondence, even though the epistemicity is not completely gone.
(84) Accurate numbers are difficult to estimate, but it seems probable that the Library contained half a million volumes, each a handwritten papyrus scroll.
(CSA1)
Det er vanskelig å angi nøyaktige tall, men det er sannsynlig at biblioteket omfattet en halv million titler, det vil si håndskrevne papyrusmanuskripter.
(CSA1T)
(It is difficult to provide exact numbers, but it is probable that the library contained half a million titles…)
In other examples, zero correspondence with seem does not necessarily result in loss of meaning. For example, in (85), the verbs seem and hear are both perception verbs, and what they convey is
sensory evidence and the experience of the experiencer: a dizzying feeling and echoing voices. In the Norwegian translation, seem is dropped completely. However, it is clear from the context and the narrative style, that what is stated in the proposition is the experience of the experiencer.
(85) The room seemed to swim and he heard both his and Tom's voice echoing. (MM1) Alt rundt ham fløt, og ekkoet fra hans egen og Toms stemme ringte i ørene. (MM1T) (Everything around him was floating, and the echo from his own [voice] and Tom's voice rang in the ears.)
The fact that appear has a higher number of zero correspondences than seem may be an indicator that it is less modal that seem, and therefore more easily dropped in translation.
61
Table 3. Type and source of evidence in sentences with appear and seem, raw frequencies and percentages.
Appear Seem
Raw
frequencies Percentage Raw
frequencies Percentage
Direct attested visual 25 60 % 85 32 %
Direct attested auditory 2 4 % 4 2 %
Direct attested other 1 2 % 11 4 %
Indirect reported hearsay 2 4 % 11 4 %
Indirect reported folklore 4 2 %
Indirect inferred result Indirect inferred reasoning No evidence/personal judgement Irretrievable from context
6 6 1
14 % 14 % 2 %
54 67 24 7
20 % 25 % 9 % 3 %
Total 43 100 % 269 ~100 %
Direct attested evidence
Seem and appear refer to direct attested evidence (visual, auditory or other) in about two thirds (66
%) of the translation pairs with appear, and more than a third (38 %) of the translation pairs with seem. In the most straightforward examples, appear refers to visible evidence and how something would look or be perceived by the onlooker (86). In other examples sensory evidence is implied (87).
(88) is an example with appear, in which visual or auditory evidence is merely implied.
(86) A completely plain, fawn-coloured antelope standing in a fawn-coloured landscape would appear to be solid-bodied because the sun, beating down on its back, would illuminate this area more than its sides and much more than its belly. (DM1) En fullstendig ensfarget, lysebrun antilope som står i et lysebrunt landskap vil virke massiv og tredimensjonal fordi solen skinner ovenfra og belyser ryggpartiet mer enn flankene og mye mer enn buken. (DM1T)
(A completely fawn-coloured antelope which stands in a fawn-coloured landscape will appear solid-bodied and three-dimensional because the sun shines from above and illuminates the back more than the sides and much more than its belly.) (87) And Roberta, putting her arm swiftly around her friend's shaking shoulders, said
softly, "Faye, Faye darling, Faye, Faye," until the girl suddenly shuddered and seemed to go limp, and collapsed into her arms. (DL2)
Og Roberta la armen om venninnens skuldre og sa lavt: "Faye, kjæreste Faye, Faye, Faye," til jenta plutselig skalv voldsomt og liksom falt sammen i armene hennes. (DL2T)
62
(And Roberta put her arm around her friend's shoulders and said softly: "Faye, Faye darling, Faye, Faye," until the girl suddenly shivered violently and [modal particle]
collapsed in her arms.)
(88) He appears to be talking more to himself now than to her. (ABR1)
Nå virker det som om han snakker mer med seg selv enn med henne. (ABR1T) (Now it appears as if he is talking more to himself than with her.)
The findings also show that appear is more frequently used to convey visual evidence than seem.
Appear refers to direct attested visual evidence in more than half the translation pairs (60 %), compared to seem, which refers to direct attested evidence in about a third of sentences (32 %).
The most frequent Norwegian correspondences for appear when referring to direct attested evidence are virke som, se ut som/til and late til. The Norwegian correspondence se ut som has an obvious link to visible evidence. The correspondence virke som for seem and appear is more difficult to gloss – the closest meaning is perhaps 'to give the impression of something' or 'to invite a certain interpretation' both of which convey that there must be some attested evidence that triggers a comparison either with how something looks (the given impression) or how something is interpreted (evidence that the interpretation is based on.) The correspondence late til has a similar link to direct evidence: late til is best glossed as 'give impression of being', 'pretend to be' or 'look as if', which all emphasize the presence of attested evidence.
Moreover, both instances of fremstå in my material are connected to visual evidence and how someone carries themselves, i.e. how they look or are perceived. (5.2.5).
Another finding is that all but one of the zero correspondences for appear happens when appear refers to direct attested visual evidence. This indicates that when something is seen, there is little room for doubt and no reason to hedge, therefore the epistemic modality or evidentiality may be dropped in the translation.
Indirect evidence
Indirect evidence is referred to more frequently with seem than with appear. This applies to all categories of indirect evidence – reported or inferred. In total, seem communicates indirect evidence in more than half of the sentences in my material (51 %) compared to appear (34 %).
Inferred evidence is the most common type of indirect evidence for both seem and appear.
Inferences are notoriously tricky to analyse with respect to modality and evidentiality because they combine evidence and personal judgement, and it is sometimes difficult to determine which is which (see chapter 2.6.). The variables in this thesis distinguish between inferences based on observable results which are more evidential (89), and inferences based on logic and personal reasoning, which are more epistemic (90). Type of evidence is presented in 4.3.2. In (89) and (90) the source of the modality in the proposition is the reasoning of the speaker based on his own observations, in (91) the evidence is the speaker's comparison of his own observations to reported evidence.
(89) It seemed that bingo afternoons left her so exhausted both physically and
emotionally that she never had enough energy left to cook an evening meal. (RD1) Bingospillingen var tydeligvis så slitsom at hun ikke hadde krefter igjen til å lage en skikkelig middag. (RD1T)
63
(The bingo was evidently so tiring that she did not have the strength left to make a proper dinner.)
(90) My mother appeared to be coping well in fact, she seemed almost exhilarated. (JB1) Moren min lot til å ta det bra — faktisk virket hun nesten oppstemt, men så fikk hu kreft, overalt. (JB1T)
(My mother appeared to take it well – in fact she seemed almost exhilarated, but then she got cancer, everywhere.)
(91) The tales he had heard about evacuees did n't seem to fit Willie. (MM1)
Historiene Tom hadde hørt om evakuerte unger stemte visst ikke i Willies tilfelle.
(MM1T)
(The stories Tom had heard about evacuated kids did [modal particle] not fit in Willie's case.)
A total of 45 % of translation pairs with seem are inferences compared to 28 % for appear. For seem, inferences based on logic and reasoning are more frequent than inferences based on some
observable result (25 % to 20 %). For translation pairs with appear, there is an even split between the two subtypes of inferences (14 % and 14 %). These findings indicate that seem is used to convey personal judgement and epistemic modality more often than appear, and vice versa; that appear is used more frequently to convey evidentiality.
The Norwegian correspondences for seem in inferences based on reasoning are very diverse. The most frequent ones are virke som, synes, se ut som/til and late til. Not surprisingly, correspondences with cognitive verbs are also found in this category; correspondences like føles som, kjennes som, minne om and etter alt å dømme. When appear is used in inferences based on reasoning, synes is the preferred Norwegian correspondence (once expressed as tilsynelatende). The only other
correspondence is forekomme, which occurs only in this one instance in my material.
5.4.2. No evidence/personal belief as source of modality
In about a tenth (9 %) of the translation pairs with seem, there is little or no manifestation of evidence in the original language. For example, in (92) the proposition is a formulation of speaker's opinion, and no evidence is presented. Even though there may be some evidence that has triggered the opinion, the personal judgement is present in the sentences, the evidence is not. Translation pairs in this category thus convey epistemic modality.
(92) She seemed reluctant to admit that much. (SG1) Hun virket uvillig til å innrømme såpass. (SG1T) (She seemed unwilling to admit that much)
The only example in which appear does not refer to any evidence in my material, is a special case of interpreting the letter of the law, making it both epistemic and evidential (93) with a zero
correspondence as its translation:
(93) 2. If it appears to the Contracting Parties that such an association should be extended to other committees which present similar characteristics, the EEA Joint Committee may amend Protocol 37. (AEEA1)
64
2. Dersom avtalepartene kommer til at tilknytningen burde utvides til andre komitéer med lignende kjennetegn, kan EØS-komitéen endre protokoll 37. (AEEA1T)
(2. If the Contracting Parties arrive at the conclusion that the association should be extended to other committees with similar characteristics, the EEA Joint Committee may amend Protocol 37.)
The fact that only translation pairs with seem – bar the one exception above - fall into this category, supports the hypothesis that seem has a stronger component of epistemic assessment than appear.
The most frequent Norwegian correspondences in translation pairs with no evidence are virke or virke som, which are almost twice as frequent as synes and være som.
5.4.3. Distribution of sense groups
The contrastive analysis shows that the sense partition that seem and appear have in common (Group 2s for seem and Group 1A for appear) is the most frequent meaning of both seem and appear. 63 % of the translation pairs with seem and 65 % of the translation pairs with appear are categorized as members of these sense groups (Table 4).
Table 4. Distribution of sense-groups of seem and appear, raw frequencies and percentages.
seem appear
Sense groups Raw
frequencies Percentage Raw
frequencies Percentage
Group 1S (arte seg som) 1 ~ N/A N/A
Group 2S (virke, se ut som) 170 63 % N/A N/A
Group 3S (være som om) 14 5 % N/A N/A
Group 1A (virke, se ut som) N/A N/A 28 65 %
Group 2A (fremstå som) N/A N/A 2 5 %
Group 3A (fremgå) N/A N/A 1 2 %
Other
Zero correspondences
46 38
17 % 14 %
3 9 %
8 19 %
Total 269 ~100 % 42 ~100 %
The other sense partitions are far less frequent. The second most frequent sense partition for seem (Group 3S) is that of a more deeply rooted similarity (to be or feel like something). This sense partition is unique to seem and make up five percent of the translation pairs. The second most frequent for appear (Group 2A) is the sense partition that adds emphasize to the given impression (fremstå).
65
The correlation between the sense partitions and type of evidence support the findings from the Semantic Mirrors-Analysis that the different senses of seem and appear can be ranked according to how evidential or how epistemic they are (5.2.6.). They range from referring only to direct evidence and showing a high degree of evidentiality on the left of the scale, to indicating personal judgement and a high degree of epistemic modality on the far right of the scale, as illustrated in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Sense groups and degree of evidentiality and epistemic modality.
Both translation pairs with fremstå as a correspondence for appear (Group 2A) refer to direct attested visual evidence and the sense group is thus placed on the left-hand side of the scale. The sense group with arte seg som (glossed as 'take form as' or 'pretend to be') as a correspondence for seem (Group 2S) also denotes direct attested visual evidence and is placed on the left, with high degree of evidentiality.
The largest sense group for seem (Group 2S), of which the largest sense group for appear (Group 1A) is a subset, refers to direct, indirect and inferred evidence. The correspondence fremgå, which was determined by the semantic Mirror analysis as being inferential based on observable evidence, has ' Indirect inferring reasoning' as its source of evidence according to the contrastive analysis. This source of evidence has a strong component of epistemic modality (2.7.), and the sense group is on the far end of the scale. The third sense group for seem (Group 3S) is somewhat heterogeneous with respect to its inferential source, in that four translation pairs have no evidence/personal judgement, four translation pairs are inferences based on reasoning, and two translation pairs are inferences based on result, which means that 70 % of the members of this sense group indicate epistemic assessment, placing it on the far end of the scale.