Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 353–395

The puzzle of free indirect discourse

Research Article


The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on the familiar puzzle of free indirect discourse (FID). FID shares some properties with standard indirect discourse and with direct discourse, but there is currently no known theory that can accommodate such a hybrid. Based on the observation that FID has ‘de se’ pronouns, I argue that it is a kind of an attitude report.


Free indirect discourse Discourse Tense 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abusch D. (1997) Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 1–50 doi:10.1023/A:1005331423820 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altshuler, D. (2004). A simultaneous perception of things: SOT in Russian. Snippets 8.Google Scholar
  3. Altshuler, D. (to appear). Narrative effects in Russian indirect reports and what they reveal about the meaning of the past tense. Proceedings of SALT 18.Google Scholar
  4. Anand, P. (2006). De de se. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
  5. Anand, P., & Nevins, A. (2004). Shifty operators in changing contexts. Proceedings of SALT XIV.Google Scholar
  6. Banfield A. (1982) Unspeakable sentences. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bobaljik J. (2008) Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. Linguistic Review 25: 203–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borer, H. (1981). Heybetim leSoniyim Sel ha-maba ha-meSulav (Linguistic aspects of the combined discourse). ha-Sifrut, 30–31, 35–57.Google Scholar
  9. Castañeda H.-N. (1966) “He”: A study in the logic of self-consciousness. Ratio 7: 130–157Google Scholar
  10. Chierchia G. (1989) Anaphora and attitudes de se. In: Bartsch R., van Benthem J., van Emde Boas P. (eds) Semantics and contextual expression. Foris, Dordrecht, pp 1–31Google Scholar
  11. Clements (1979) The logophoric pronun in Ewe: It’s role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10: 141–177Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, R. (1979). The interpretation of pronouns. In F. Heny & H. Schnelle (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (vol. 10, pp. 61–92).Google Scholar
  13. Cresswell M., von Stechow A. (1982) belief generalized. Linguistics andPhilosophy 5: 503–535 doi:10.1007/BF00355585 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doron, E. (1990). Point of view. CSLI/Stanford, Report No. CSLI-90-143.Google Scholar
  15. Doron, E. (1991). Point of view as a factor of content. In S. Moore & A. Wyner (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 1 (pp. 51–64). Cornell University.Google Scholar
  16. Dowty D. (1982) Tense, time adverbs and compositional semantic theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 23–55 doi:10.1007/BF00390692 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Enç M. (1987) Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633–657Google Scholar
  18. Heim, I. (1992). Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. University of Tuebingen, SfS Report 07-93.Google Scholar
  19. Heim, I. (1994). Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. In H. Kamp (Ed.), Ellipsis, tense and questions, (pp. 143–170). DYANA deliverable R2.2.B, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Heim, I. (2005). Features on bound pronouns. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  21. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Jespersen, O. (1931). A modern English grammar on historical principles, Part IV, syntax, third volume, time and tense. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitatsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
  23. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993) From discourse to logic. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  24. Kamp H., Rohrer C. (1983) Tense in texts. In: Bäuerle R., Schwarze C., Stechow A. (eds) Meaning, use and interpretation of language. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 250–269Google Scholar
  25. Kaplan D. (1977) Demonstratives. In Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaplan D. (1979) On the logic of demonstratives. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 81–98 doi:10.1007/BF00258420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kratzer, A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. Proceedings of SALT, VIII, CLC. Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  28. Kratzer, A. (to appear). Making a pronoun. Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
  29. Lewis D. (1979) Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88: 513–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ogihara T. (1996) Tense, attitudes and scope. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  31. Partee B. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70(18): 601–609 doi:10.2307/2025024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Percus, O., & Sauerland, U.(2003). On the LFs of attitude reports. In M. Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7, pp. 228–242. Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
  33. Potts, C. (2007). The dimensions of quotation. In C. Barker & P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp. 405–431). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Quine W.V.O. (1956) Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy 53: 177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reinhart, T. (1991). Self-representation. manuscript.Google Scholar
  36. Schlenker, P. (1999). Propositional attitudes and indexicality. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  37. Schlenker P. (2003) A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120 doi:10.1023/A:1022225203544 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schlenker P. (2004) Context of thought and context of utterance (a note on Free Indirect Discourse and the Historical Present). Mind & Language 19: 279–304 doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2004.00259.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schlenker, P. (2005). Comments on Sharvit’s “Embedded Pronouns”. Handout of talk presented at Syntax and Semantics with Attitude, April 2005, USC.Google Scholar
  40. Schlenker, P. (to appear). Indexicality and Logophoricity. In K. von Heusinger, P. Portner, & C. Maienborn (Eds.), Handbook of semantics.Google Scholar
  41. Sharvit Y. (2003a) Tense and identity in copular constructions.NaturalLanguageSemantics 11: 363–393 doi:10.1023/A:1025528225951 Google Scholar
  42. Sharvit Y. (2003b) Embedded tense and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 669–681 doi:10.1162/ling.2003.34.4.669 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sharvit, Y. (2004). Free indirect discourse and de re pronouns. In R. Young (Ed.), Proceedings of semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14 (pp. 305–322). CLC Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  44. von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
  45. von Stechow, A. (1995). On the proper treatment of tense. Proceedings of SALT 6.Google Scholar
  46. von Stechow, A. (2003). Feature deletion under semantic binding: Tense, person, and mood under verbal quantifiers. Text of the NELS33 talk.Google Scholar
  47. Zimmermann, E. (1991). Kontextabhängigkeit. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: ein internationals Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations