Advertisement

Modes of Wording Direct into Indirect Speech in Intercultural Communication

  • Olga A. ObdalovaEmail author
  • Ludmila Yu. Minakova
  • Aleksandra V. Soboleva
  • Evgeniya V. Tikhonova
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 907)

Abstract

This paper aims to determine the modes of wording indirect reporting of authentic direct utterances by Russian learners of English. We claim that since the process of transferring someone else’s speech involves implication and inferences of the speaker and the hearer correspondingly, when conveying the meaning of the speaker’s authentic message in the form of indirect speech the personal context of the utterance plays a vital role. The experiment to check the hypothesis that direct speech requires not only grammatical and lexical transformations but also a complex pragmatic enrichment was organized. The reporting verbs used by the participants of the experiment to convey the speaker’s intention and the presentation of the speaker’s identity were analyzed. The study proved that when conveying the speaker’s authentic speech meaning in the form of indirect speech the listeners need to shift from the reporting speaker’s perspective to the reported speaker’s perspective to comply with an actual communicative meaning of the utterance. Thus, a foreign language context of communication imposes additional linguistic, extra linguistic, and pragmatic difficulties on the process of English language learners’ interpreting of the utterance which is cognitively demanding and needs to be persistently developed.

Keywords

Direct speech Reported speech Cognitive processes Person identification Reporting verbs 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Istvan Kecskes, Professor of Linguistics and Education at the State University of New York, Albany, the President of the American Pragmatics Association and Editor-in-Chief of the journals Intercultural Pragmatics (De Gruyter) and the Mouton Series in Pragmatics for his supervision, advice and guidance from a very early stage of this research.

References

  1. 1.
    Gural, S.K., Mitchell, L.A.: Model’ formirovaniya grammatiko-diskursivnyh navykov u studentov neyazykovogo vuza na osnove kognitivnogo podhoda [Grammar-discursive skills formation model in students of English (EFL) at a high school on the basis of the cognitive approach]. Lang. Cult. 3(35), 146–154 (2016). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gural, S.K., Smokotin, V.M.: Mezhyazykovaya i mezhkul’turnaya kommunikaciya v period globalizacii. [Interlingual and cross-cultural communication during the period of globalization]. Lang. Cult. 4(24), 14–23 (2013). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sysoyev, P.V., Ezhikov, D.A.: Teaching students verbal communication on the bases of synchronous video-internet-technologies. Lang. Cult. 2(6), 58–68 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sysoyev, P.V., Evstigneeva, I.A., Evstigneev, M.N.: The development of students’ discourse skills via modern information and communication technologies. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 200, 114–121 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kecskes, I., Obdalova, O.A., Minakova, LYu., Soboleva, A.V.: A study of the perception of situation-bound utterances as culture-specific pragmatic units by Russian learners of English. System 76, 219–232 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bezukladnikov, K.E., Zhigalev, B.A., Kruze, B.A., Novoselov, M.N., Vikulina, M.A., Mosina, M.A., Dmitrieva, E.N., Novoselova, S.N., Oskolkova, V.R.: ESP Teaching, Learning, Assessment: Modern Tools, Strategies, Practices, 2nd edn. Perm State Humanitarian Pedagogical University; Linguistic University of Nizhniy Novgorod, Perm (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhigalev, B.A., Bezukladnikov, K.E.: Writing as the aim and means in teaching a foreign language: problems of assessment. Life Sci. J. 11, 685–689 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bezukladnikov, K.E., Novoselov, M.N., Kruze, B.A.: The international teachers foreign language professional communicative competency development. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 154, 329–332 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Obdalova, O.A., Minakova, LYu., Tikhonova, E.V., Soboleva, A.V.: Insights into receptive processing of authentic foreign discourse by EFL learners. In: Filchenko, A., Anikina, Zh (eds.) Linguistic and Cultural Studies: Traditions and Innovations 2017, LKTI, pp. 231–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Obdalova, O.A.: Modelling conditions for students’ communication skills development by means of modern educational environment. In: Al-Mahrooqi, R., Denman, C. (eds.) Bridging the Gap Between Education and Employment: English Language Instruction in EFL Contexts, pp. 73–91. Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, Bern (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Obdalova, O.A., Minakova, LYu., Soboleva, A.V.: The study of the role of context in sociocultural discourse interpretation through the discursive-cognitive approach. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 413, 38–45 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kecskes, I.: Indirect reporting in bilingual language production. In: Capone, A., Kiefer, F., Lo Piparo, F. (eds.) Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol. 5, pp. 9–29. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kperogi, F.A.: Common errors of reported speech in Nigerian English. http://www.farooqkperogi.com. Accessed 05 June 2018
  14. 14.
    Oluwakemi, T.O.: I was like as a quotative device: implications for indirect or reported speech in Nigerian English usage. Asia Pac. J. Multidiscip. Res. 5(2), 94–103 (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Köder, F.M.: Between Direct and Indirect Speech: The Acquisition of Pronouns in Reported Speech. University of Groningen, Groningen (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coulmas, F.: Reported speech: Some general issues. In: Coulmas, F. (ed.) Direct and Indirect Speech, pp. 1–28. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Groefsema, M.: Processing for relevance. A pragmatically based account of how we process natural language. Ph.D. thesis, University of London (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E.: Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Pearson Education, Harlow (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Asher, N., Lascarides, A.: Indirect speech acts. Synthese 128, 183–228 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marinchenko, D.B.: Sposoby peredachi chuzhoj rechi v rechi mladshih shkol’nikov [The ways of speech reporting in grade school students]. Ph.D. thesis, Taganrog state pedagogical institute (2006). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Latysheva, S.V.: Modusnaya obuslovlennost’ aspektual’noj formy predikata v pridatochnom predlozhenii vyskazyvaniya s kosvennoj rech’yu [Mode dependence of predicate aspectual form in reported clause]. Ph.D. thesis, Irkutsk State Linguistic University (2008). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bohan, J., Sanford, A.J., Cochrane, S., Sanford, A.J.S.: Direct and indirect speech modulates depth of processing. In: The 14th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP), pp. 287–307. Springer, Cham/Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yao, B., Scheepers, C.: Contextual modulation of reading rate for direct versus indirect speech quotations. Cognition 121, 447–453 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eerland, A., Engelen, J.A.A., Zwaan, R.A.: The influence of direct and indirect speech on mental representations. PLoS One 8(6), 1–9 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Savel’eva, G.K.: Algoritm obrazovaniya standarta dlya zameny pryamoj rechi kosvennoj [Standard formation algorithm for substituting direct speech for indirect]. Philol. Sci. Issues Theory Pract. 3(10), 141–144 (2011). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anderson, L.: When reporting others backfires. In: Capone, A., Kiefer, F., Lo Piparo, F. (eds.) Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, pp. 253–264. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Obdalova, O.A.: Exploring the possibilities of the cognitive approach for non-linguistic EFL students teaching. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 154, 64–71 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Soboleva, A.V., Obdalova, O.A.: Kognitivnaja gotovnost’ k mezhkul’turnomu obshheniju kak neobhodimyj komponent mezhkul’turnoj kompetencii. [Cognitive readiness for intercultural communication as an essential component of intercultural competence]. Lang. Cult. 1(29), 146–155 (2015). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Soboleva, A.V., Obdalova, O.A.: Organizaciya processa formirovaniya mezhkul’turnoj kompetencii studentov s uchetom kognitivnyh stilej obuchayushchihsya [Organization of students’ intercultural competence formation in view of their cognitive styles]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstnevvogo universiteta 392, 191–198 (2015). (in Russian)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nkansah, N.B.: Reporting verbs and stance in front page stories of Ghanaian newspapers. Engl. Specif. Purp. World 40(14), 1–22 (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thomas, S., Hawes, T.: Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. Engl. Specif. Purp. 13(2), 129–148 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hyland, K.: Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Longman, London (2000)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thompson, G., Ye, Y.: Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Appl. Linguist. 12(4), 365–382 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bell, A.: The Language of News Media. Blackwell, Oxford (1991)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thomson, G.: Collins Cobuild English Guides: 5. Reporting. HarperCollins Publishers, London (1994)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lyons, J.: Semantics, vol. 1–2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1977)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Diessel, H.: Deixis and demonstratives. In: Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., Portner, P. (eds.) Semantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, pp. 2407–2431. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kaplan, D.: Demonstratives. In: Almog, J., Perry, J., Wettstein, H. (eds.) Themes from Kaplan, pp. 481–563. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1989)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Arnold, J., Brown-Schmidt, S., Trueswell, J.: Children’s use of gender and order of mention in pronoun processing. Lang. Cogn. Process. 22, 527–565 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kecskes, I.: The paradox of communication: a socio-cognitive approach. Pragmat. Soc. 1(1), 50–73 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kecskes, I.: Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kecskes, I.: Explorations into Chinese as a Second Language. Springer, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kecskes, I., Zhang, F.: Activating, seeking and creating common ground: a sociocognitive approach. Pragmat. Cogn. 17(2), 331–355 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kecskes, I., Zhang, F.: On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition. In: Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F. (eds.) Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy, pp. 375–395. Springer, Dordrecht (2013)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Obdalova, O.A., Minakova, LYu., Soboleva, A.V.: Issledovanie roli konteksta v interpretacii sociokul’turno-markirovannogo diskursa na osnove kognitivno-diskursivnogo podhoda [A study of the role of the context in the adequacy of the representation of foreign speech in indirect communication]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstnevvogo universiteta 413, 38–45 (2016). (in Russian)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Larina, T.: Directness vs. Indirectness in Russian and English Communicative Cultures. LAUD, Essen (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tomsk State UniversityTomskRussian Federation
  2. 2.Tomsk Scientific Center SB of RASTomskRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations