This chapter provides a general summary of the book. In addition, this chapter talks briefly about how indirect reporting can help us better conceptualise pragmatics. Similarly, this chapter provides a discussion on how I generally see indirect reporting, referring to a ‘generative element’ underlying its construct. Indirect reports embrace a ‘generative element’, enabling speakers to generate implicature through pragmatic opacity. As a result, the hearer should be able to distinguish between ‘what is said’ and ‘what is implied’, since indirect reports are not just about paraphrasing others’ utterances; rather, they include the evaluative load and the perspective of both the reporter and the original speaker. Finally, I make an argument for what is still missing from our knowledge of indirect reporting, and how future research can help bridge the gap.
Automatic (semantic) processes Generative element Pragmatic opacity Sociocognitive manoeuvres Unpredictability Value judgement
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Capone, A. (2012). Indirect reports as language games. Pragmatics & Cognition, 20(3), 593–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capone, A. (2013). The pragmatics of quotation, explicatures and modularity of mind. Pragmatics and Society, 4(3), 259–284.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar