Advertisement

Philosophical Considerations

  • Mostafa Morady Moghaddam
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 21)

Abstract

This chapter aims at discussing the logic of indirect reporting, focusing on Frege’s general semantic theory and Davidson’s Paratactic Theory. Moreover, this chapter talks about Mikhail Bakhtin’s idea of ‘voice’ where indirect reports are considered as hybrid constructions. The epistemology of indirect reports reveals that there is always a conflict in the knowledge/belief dimension. Indirect reports embrace both knowledge and belief whereby the reporter can present his/her intuition during the report. On this account, when the reporting speaker trespasses on his/her knowledge base and resorts to his/her belief system (subjectivity is observed), a knowledge/belief conflict occurs. In this chapter, the process underlying indirect reports and the ‘photosynthetic model’ are elaborated. Seeing indirect reports as a process rather than an end product put emphasis on the refinery and coping processes where the reporter can change the illocutionary force of the utterance to create a specific implicature. Based on the ‘photosynthetic model’, it is argued that the sociocognitive features underlying the report can alter the force of the utterances, where indirect reports are influenced by different sociocognitive trajectories that make it very difficult to definitely predict what would be the end product and the consequence of indirect reporting. Finally, evidentiality, ‘de re/de dicto’ distinction, and ‘de se’ beliefs are dealt with. This chapter concludes that the practice of indirect reporting is a complicated process where the end product and the consequences are not completely predictable. Therefore, the practice of indirect reporting is highly under the influence of the peculiarities of the context (either social or cognitive, or both).

Keywords

Enunciation Evidentiality Knowledge/belief conflict Photosynthetic model Sign Voice Zone of proximal decoding 

References

  1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J. L. (1979 [1961]). Philosophical papers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. (1973). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (R.W. Rotsel, Trans.) Ann Arbor, MI: Ardis.Google Scholar
  4. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. In M. Holquist (C. Emerson, & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bianchi, C. (2011). Contextualism. In M. Sbisà, J. O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives for pragmatics (Vol. 10, pp. 53–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Björklund, M. (2011). Mikhail Bakhtin. In M. Sbisà, J. O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives for pragmatics (Vol. 10, pp. 38–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blakemore, D. (1994). Evidence and modality. In R. Asher & J. Simpson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 1183–1186). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brandt, L. (2013). The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Capone, A. (2010). The social practice of indirect reports. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Capone, A. (2016). The pragmatics of indirect reports: Socio-philosophical considerations. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Cappelen, A., & Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive semantics: A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carston, R. (1991). Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 33–51). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chafe, W. L., & Nichols, J. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. L. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261–272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  15. Chandler, D. (2007). The basics: Semiotics. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chisholm, R. (1976). Knowledge and belief: ‘De dicto’ and ‘de re’. Philosophical Studies, 29(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clift, R., & Holt, E. (2007). Introduction. In E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction (pp. 1–15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Coulmas, F. (1986). Reported speech: Some general issues. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect reports: Trends in linguistics, studies, and monographs (pp. 1–28). Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Couzen, H. D. (1981). The critical circle. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Davidson, D. (1968). On saying that. Synthese, 19, 130–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davidson, D. (1979). Quotation. Theory and Decision, 11, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davis, W. (2016). A theory of saying reports. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 291–332). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. de Saussure, F. (1983 [1916]). Course in general linguistics (R. Harris, Trans.). London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  25. Dewey, J. (1908). What does pragmatism mean by practical? The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 5(4), 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift. Eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle, Germany: Verlag Louis Nebert. [English translation: Begriffsschrift, A formula Language, Modeled upon that for Arithmetic. In J. van Heijenoort (Ed.), From Frege to Gödel, A source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931 (pp. 1–82). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.]Google Scholar
  27. Garvey, T. G. (2000). The value of opacity: A Bakhtinian analysis of Habermas’s discourse ethics. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 33(4), 370–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gignac, A. (2016). Enunciation, personification, and intertextuality. In B. J. Oropeza & S. Moyise (Eds.), In exploring intertextuality: Diverse strategies for new testament interpretation of texts (pp. 176–186). Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Grice, P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 9, pp. 113–128). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  30. Haack, S. (2014). Do not block the way of inquiry. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, 50(3), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harnish, R. M. (2007). Frege on direct quotation. Essays in Philosophy, 8(1), 8.Google Scholar
  32. Higginbotham, J. (2003). Remembering, imagining, and the first person. Manuscript. California: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  33. Hookway, C. (2012). The pragmatic maxim: Essays on Peirce and pragmatism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hookway, C. (2016). Pragmatism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/pragmatism/.
  35. Ifantidou, E. (2001). Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jakobson, R. (1971). Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. In R. Jakobson (Ed.), Selected writings (Vol. II: Word and language, pp. 130–147). The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.Google Scholar
  37. James, W. (1922[1907]). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kasser, J. (2011). How settled are settled beliefs in “the fixation of belief”? Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, 47(2), 226–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kelly, G. J., McDonald, S., & Wickman, P. O. (2012). Science learning and epistemology. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 24, pp. 281–291). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Levi, I. (2012). Pragmatism and inquiry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levi, I. (2016). How infallible but corrigible full belief is possible. In H. Arló-Costa, V. F. Hendricks, & J. van Benthem (Eds.), Readings in formal epistemology: Sourcebook (pp. 247–268). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review, 88(4), 513–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Liszka, J. J. (1996). A general introduction to the semeiotic of Charles S. Peirce. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Ludwig, K. (Ed.). (2003). Donald Davidson. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Maier, E. (2009). Presupposing acquaintance: A unified semantics for de dicto, de re and de se belief reports. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(5), 429–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mithun, M. (1986). Evidential diachrony in northern Iroquoian. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 89–112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  50. Morris, C. W. (1971). Writings on the general theory of signs. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nicholson, D. W. (2016). Philosophy of education in action: An inquiry-based approach. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nikulin, D. V. (2006). On dialogue. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  53. Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Parsons, T. (1982). What do quotation marks name? Frege’s theories of quotation and that-clauses. Philosophical Studies, 42, 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Partee, B. H. (1973). The syntax and semantics of quotation. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 410–418). New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  56. Peirce, C. S. (1897). Fallibilism, continuity, and evolution. CP, 1, 141–175.Google Scholar
  57. Peirce, C. S. (1931[1958]). Collected writings (8 vols). (C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, & A. W. Burks, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Récanati, F. (2001). What is said. Synthese, 128, 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rojo, L. M., & Pujol, A. G. (2011). Michel Foucault. In M. Sbisà, J. O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives for pragmatics (Vol. 10, pp. 85–103). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sambre, P. (2013). Fleshing out embodied language and intersubjectivity: An exploration of Merleau-Ponty’s legacy to cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Semiotics, 4(1), 189–224.Google Scholar
  61. Sbisà, M. (2011). John L. Austin. In M. Sbisà, J. O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives for pragmatics (Vol. 10, pp. 26–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schirato, T. (2011). Deconstruction. In M. Sbisà, J. O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives for pragmatics (Vol. 10, pp. 71–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schmid, W. (2010). Narratology: An introduction. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  64. Seymour, M. (1994). Indirect discourse and quotation. Philosophical Studies, 74, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Seymour, M. (2016). Indirect discourse and quotation. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. L. Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics (pp. 355–376). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  66. Shelley, M. (2006). Empiricism. In F. English (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration (pp. 338–339). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  67. Stojnic, U., & Lepore, E. (2018). Semantics and what is said. In A. Capone, M. Garcia-Carpintero, & A. Falzone (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics in the world languages (pp. 21–38). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  68. Taylor, K. A. (2002). De re and de dicto: Against the conventional wisdom. Noûs, 36, 225–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van de Craen, P. (2011). Hermeneutics. In M. Sbisà, J. O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives for pragmatics (Vol. 10, pp. 125–130). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Von Kutschera, F. (2012). Philosophy of language (Vol. 71). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  71. Ward, G., & Birner, B. (1993). The semantics and pragmatics of and everything. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weigand, E. (2010). Dialogue: The mixed game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wettstein, H. (2016). Speaking for another. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 405–434). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wittgenstein, L. (1997). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  75. Zwicky, A. M. (1971). In a manner of speaking. Linguistic Inquiry, 2(2), 223–233.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mostafa Morady Moghaddam
    • 1
  1. 1.Shahrood University of TechnologyShahroodIran

Personalised recommendations