Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reported Speech in Persian

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Praxis of Indirect Reports

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ((PEPRPHPS,volume 21))

  • 161 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter extensively tackles reported speech in Persian, an area of investigation that is not adequately (and properly) dealt with in the literature of reported speech. After a brief discussion on the universal features of reported speech and how other languages have contributed to this discussion, this chapter reviews previous research on Persian reported speech. The literature of Persian reported speech is underdeveloped and there is still much to say about the intricacies of reported speech in Persian. In this chapter, some authentic data from Persian are employed to show how Persian speakers use direct and indirect reporting in interaction. Persian data also showed cases of ‘quasi-quotation’ where the inclusion of hedges and paraphrasing marks may highlight the reporter’s uncertainty in using source information. In this chapter, implicit indirect reports are explored where the reporter’s perspective was at odds with the original speaker’s viewpoint. Implicit indirect reports were perfect examples of the ‘straw man fallacy’, where a person’s actual argument is substituted by a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the argument made by the original speaker. In the end, the social aspects of reported speech are treated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Of course, the statements and claims are not clearly and explicitly supported by authentic data.

  2. 2.

    Refer to Chap. 5, Sect. 5.5 for further explanation.

  3. 3.

    ‘Samesaying’ refers to the fact that “the report and the speech to be reported have some broad content in common” (Capone, 2016, p. 24).

  4. 4.

    International Phonetic Alphabet is used to transcribe Persian language pronunciation. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Persian for further information.

  5. 5.

    Episodes are the title of the Special Talks held every night. I have provided the name of the episodes to allow the readers to better track Persian reported speech.

  6. 6.

    According to Haßler (2002, p. 145), “[t]he criterion for the bipartition of reported speech is the speaker’s perspective: in direct speech the perspective of the speaker is maintained, in indirect speech, perspective and deixis switch to the position of the reporter.” Haßler continues: “That is why direct speech maintains the most important features of the original utterance, while indirect speech changes pronouns, tenses, deictic elements, intonation and even referential words” (Haßler, 2002, p. 145).

References

  • Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, S. E. (2016). Porque in Spanish oral narratives: Semantic Porque, (meta)pragmatic Porque or both? In A. Capone & J. L. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 615–652). Cham, Switzerland/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boeder, W. (2002). Speech and thought representation in the Kartvelian (South Caucasian) languages. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 3–48). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Borg, E. (2012). Pursuing meaning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, A. (2010). The social practice of indirect reports. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, A. (2012). Indirect reports as language games. Pragmatics & Cognition, 20(3), 593–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, A. (2013). Consequences of the pragmatics of ‘de se’. In A. Capone & N. Feit (Eds.), Attitudes ‘de se’: Linguistics, epistemology and metaphysics (pp. 209–244). Stanford, CA: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capone, A. (2016). The pragmatics of indirect reports: socio-philosophical considerations. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, A. (2018). On the social praxis of indirect reporting. In A. Capone, M. Garcia-Carpintero, & A. Falzone (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics in the world languages (pp. 3–20). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capone, A., & Nodoushan, M. A. S. (2014). On indirect reports and language games: Evidence from Persian. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 8(2), 26–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulmas, F. (1986a). Reported speech: Some general issues. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 1–28). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Coulmas, F. (1986b). Direct and indirect speech in Japanese. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 161–178). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Declerck, R. (1990). Sequence of tenses in English. Folia Linguistica, 24, 513–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebert, K. (1986). Reported speech in some languages of Nepal. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 145–160). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golato, A. (2002). Self-quotation in German: Reporting on past decisions. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 49–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gregoromichelaki, E. (2017). Quotation in dialogue. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp. 195–258). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gregoromichelaki, E., & Kempson, R. (2016). Reporting, dialogue, and the role of grammar. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 115–150). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Güldemann, T., & von Roncador, M. (2002). Preface. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. vii–vix). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haberland, H. (1986). Reported speech in Danish. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 219–253). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haßler, G. (2002). Evidentiality and reported speech in romance languages. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 143–172). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Itakura, H. (2018). Accuracy in reported speech: Evidence from masculine and feminine Japanese language. In A. Capone, M. Garcia-Carpintero, & A. Falzone (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics in the world languages (pp. 315–332). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jay, T., & Janschewitz, K. (2008). The pragmatics of swearing. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 267–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kammerzell, F., & Peust, C. P. (2002). Reported speech in Egyptian. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: a meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 289–322). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kecskes, I. (2016). Indirect reporting in bilingual language production. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 9–30). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer, F. (2016). Indirect and direct reports in Hungarian. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 77–92). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2017). Interpreting straw man argumentation: The pragmatics of quotation and reporting. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Massamba, D. P. B. (1986). Reported speech in Swahili. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 99–120). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh, M. (2017). Scare-Quoting and incorporation. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp. 3–34). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Morady Moghaddam, M. (in press). Appraising and reappraising of compliments and the provision of responses: Automatic and non-automatic reactions. Pragmatics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nodoushan, M. A. S. (2018). Which view of indirect reports do Persian data corroborate? International Review of Pragmatics, 10, 76–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saka, P. (2017). Blah, blah, blah: Quasi-quotation and unquotation. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp. 35–64). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sakita, T. I. (2002). Discourse perspectives on tense choice in spoken-English reporting discourse. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 173–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, Y. (2002). The acceptance of ‘free indirect discourse’: A change in the representation of thought in Japanese. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 109–120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Wurff, W. (2002). Direct, indirect and other discourse in Bengali newspapers. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 121–139). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

    Mostafa Morady Moghaddam

Authors
  1. Mostafa Morady Moghaddam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Morady Moghaddam, M. (2019). Reported Speech in Persian. In: The Praxis of Indirect Reports. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 21. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14269-8_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14269-8_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14268-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14269-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation