Advertisement

What Can Linguistics Learn From Indirect Reports?

  • Grazia BasileEmail author
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 20)

Abstract

This paper draws on Alessandro Capone’s recent monograph (The Pragmatics of indirect reports. Socio-philosophical considerations. Springer Verlag, Cham, 2016) with a view to promoting debate on the importance of reporting and, in particular, of indirect reporting as a paradigmatic case of a language game revealing the entire subjectivity of a speaker, their illocutionary and perlocutionary intent. The framework for the study of indirect reporting is furnished by pragmatics – or, rather, by sociopragmatics – in that it is concerned with what happens within the social fact (as Saussure called it), where the practices of signifying come to life, including the practice of referring to what others have said.

Keywords

Reported speech Indirect speech (or report) Language game Footing Sociopragmatics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allan, K. (2012). Pragmatics in the (English) Lexicon. In: K. Allan, K. M. Jaszczolt, (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 227–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, K. (ed.) (2016a). Handbook of Linguistics. London - New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Allan, K. (2016b). Reports, Indirect Reports, and Illocutionary Point. In: A. Capone etal. (eds.), Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. Interdisciplinary Studies (pp. 211–232). Cham: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Aronoff, M., Rees-Miller, J. (eds.) (2017). The Handbook of Linguistics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Authier, J. (1978). Les formes du discours rapporté. Remarques syntaxiques et sémantiques à partir des traitements proposes. Paris: Université de Paris VIII, DRLAV, 17, pp. 1–87.Google Scholar
  6. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin-London: University of Texas Press (or. ed. Voprosy literatury i estetiki. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo «Chudožestvennaja literatura», 1975).Google Scholar
  7. Bally, Ch. (19654). Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Berne: FranckeVerlag; 1st ed. Paris: Librairie Ernest Leroux,1932.Google Scholar
  8. Banfield, A. (1973). Narrative Style and the Grammar of Direct and Indirect Speech. Foundations of Language, 10(1), 1–39.Google Scholar
  9. Braber, N. etal. (eds.) (2015). Exploring Language and Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bublitz, W., Norrick, N. R. (eds.) (2011). Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin –Boston: The Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  11. Capone, A. (2013). The Pragmatics of Quotation, Explicatures and Modularity of Mind. Pragmatics and Society, 4(3), 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Capone, A. (2016). The Pragmatics of Indirect Reports. Socio-philosophical Considerations. Cham: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Capone, A. etal. (2016). Introduction. In: A. Capone etal. (eds.), Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. Interdisciplinary Studies (pp. 1–5). Cham: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Coulmas, F. (1986). Reported Speech: Some General Issues. In: F. Coulmas (ed.), Direct and Indirect Speech (pp. 1–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  16. Dascal, M. (2003). Interpretation and Understanding. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  17. Dascal, M. etal. (1996). Games in Language. In: M. Dascal etal. (eds.), Sprachphilosophie (pp.1371–1392), vol. II. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Davidson, D. (1968–s1969). On Saying That. Synthese, 19, 130–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Mauro, T. (19753). Introduzione alla semantica. Roma-Bari: Laterza; 1st ed. 1965.Google Scholar
  20. Durkheim, É. (1984). The Division of Labour in Society. Engl. trans. by W. D. Halls. Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press (or. ed. De la division du travail social. Paris: Félix Alcan, 1893).Google Scholar
  21. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Habermas, J. (2001). On the Practice of Social Interaction. Preliminary Studies on the Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. Holt, E. (2016). Indirect Reported Speech in Interaction. In: A. Capone et al. (eds.), Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. Interdisciplinary Studies (pp. 1–5). Cham: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Huang, Y. (2014). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jaszczolt, K. (2005). Default Semantics. Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling Contexts: A Dynamic Model of Meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London - New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  31. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mey, J. L. (20012). Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1st ed. 1993.Google Scholar
  33. Mey, J. L. (2016). Preface. In: A. Capone, The Pragmatics of Indirect Reports. Socio-philosophical Considerations (pp. vii-ix). Cham: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Morris, C. (1938). Foundations of a Theory of Signs. In: International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, vol. 1, n. 2 (pp. 1–59). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mortara Garavelli, B. (2009). La parola d’altri. Prove di analisi del discorso riportato. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso; 1st ed. Sellerio, 1985.Google Scholar
  36. Norrick, N. (2016). Indirect Reports, Quotation and Narrative. In: A. Capone et al. (eds.), Indirect Reports and Pragmatics (pp. 93–113). Cham: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  37. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Saussure, F. de (1959). Course in General Linguistics. Engl. transl. by W. Baskin. New York: Philosophical Library (or. ed. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Editions Payot, 1916).Google Scholar
  39. Sperber, D., Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Stockwell, P., Whiteley, S. (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of Stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Verschueren, J. (1987). Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation. Vol. 1 of IPRA Working Document. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar
  42. Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  43. Voloshinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
  44. Vygotskij, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Engl. transl. by A. Kozulin. Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press, (or. ed. Myšlenie i reč. Psichologičeskie issledovanija. Moskva – Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe Social’no-Ekonomiceskoe Izdatel’stvo, 1934).Google Scholar
  45. Wieland, N. (2013). Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. In A. Capone etal. (eds.), Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy (pp. 389–411). Cham: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson, D. (2000). Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In: D. Sperber (ed.), Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 127–162). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wilson, D., Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and Relevance. Mind, 111, 583–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Engl. transl. by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Backwell (or. ed. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1953).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Studi UmanisticiUniversità di Salerno (Italy)FiscianoItaly

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options