Abstract
In the literature of indirect reports, some general principles governing the practice of indirect reporting are treated (e.g., Principle of Prudence, Paraphrasis/Form Principle, etc.). However, in this chapter, some new principles are introduced that would make life easier for the participants of indirect reports (the original speaker, the reporter, and the hearer). The chapter is divided into discussions on macro (general rules that govern the whole process of indirect reports, embracing all three participants of indirect reports) and micro (target either one or two of the participants in indirect reports) principles. In this chapter, principles such as Principle of Politeness, Principle of Immunity, Principle of Doubt, and Principle of Commitment are introduced. Moreover, in this chapter, some principles proposed by other researchers are taken into considerations and modified based on new justifications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
A good Samaritan encourages the speaker or hearer to do his/her best to satisfy the conversational partner’s needs or wants.
- 2.
The reporter should distinguish between his/her voice and that of the original speaker in a way that is easily identified by the hearer.
- 3.
This view is more logical considering that we cannot tell others what to say as far as it is ‘them’ that should be held responsible for what they utter. However, if the reporter indirectly reports someone else’s utterances as a reference, it means that the responsibility of that report is not completely on the shoulder of the original speaker (in ‘translation’, the case is different though).
- 4.
As mentioned by Gregoromichelaki and Kempson (2016, p. 132), “Free indirect discourse is similar to indirect reporting in that there is potential shift of tenses and indexicals.” They continue by stating that, “usually there are no overt reporting indications and some features of direct discourse (such as direct questions and vocatives) are maintained so that there is only a partial shift of perspective towards the reportee.”
- 5.
The ostensive behaviour should be matched with the ability and the preferences of the audience. Refer to Chap. 3, Sect. 3.8, for further information.
- 6.
As reported by Capone (2016, p. 157), Epistemic Hygienics Principle is defined as: “Do not accept sentences that could mislead your future selves, it is clear that creating indirect reports by resorting to inferential steps that can mislead our future selves is illicit.” Although this principle is originally about the reporter, it can be related to the hearer’s role as well. Therefore, based on the Principle of Doubt, the hearer should not accept reports that would mislead his/her future behaviour.
- 7.
According to Bamgbose (1986), this phenomenon is called ‘hearsay reports’ whereby “the reporter is repeating something which has been passed down from one or more previous reporters” (p. 94).
- 8.
Capone (2016) states that there is always a danger that non-serious speech is reported seriously, omitting all clues and cues that show the flippancy of the original speaker.
References
Attardo, S. (1997). Locutionary and perlocutionary cooperation: The perlocutionary cooperative principle. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 753–779.
Bamgbose, A. (1986). Reported speech in Yoruba. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 77–99). Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.
Bilmes, J. (1986). Discourse and behavior. New York/London: Plenum Press.
Capone, A. (2016). The pragmatics of indirect reports: Socio-philosophical considerations. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
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.
Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., & Kádár, D. Z. (2017). Introduction. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 1–8). London: Palgrave.
Davidson, D. (2004). Problems of rationality (Vol. 4). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ghita, A. (2001). Negotiation of irony in dialogue. In E. Weigand & M. Dascal (Eds.), Negotiation and power in dialogic interaction (pp. 139–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givön, T. (1983). Topic continuity in spoken discourse. In T. Givön (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 255–311). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givön, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Hickmann, M. (1995). Discourse organization and the development of reference to person, space, and time. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 194–218). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 71). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, D. K. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Terkourafi, M. (2011). From politeness1 to politeness2: Tracking norms of im/politeness across time and space. Journal of Politeness Research, 7, 159–185.
Thomason, R., Stone, M., DeVault, D. (2006). Enlightened update: A computational architecture for presupposition and other pragmatic phenomena. In D. K. Byron, C. Roberts, S. Schwenter (Eds.), Presupposition accommodation (pp. 1–44). Rutgers and the University of Michigan.
Weigand, E. (2010). Dialogue: The mixed game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yule, G. (2010). The study of language (4th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Morady Moghaddam, M. (2019). Principles Governing Indirect Reports. 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_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14269-8_6
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)