Advertisement

Direct and Indirect Reports

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

Abstract

In this chapter, the similarities and differences between direct and indirect reports are discussed, concluding that direct reports are more reliable and authoritative while indirect reports are more powerful to take into account subjective manipulations and pragmatic opacity. In this chapter, I applied Hall’s spatial model to direct and indirect reports, arguing that there are few chances of using direct or indirect reports in intimate and public spheres. Moreover, objectivity and subjectivity within direct and indirect reports are covered and it is concluded that there is no clear-cut distinction between direct and indirect reports with regard to subjectivity/objectivity. In other words, direct reports can be as subjective as indirect reports and indirect reports can be as objective as direct reports. The possible transformations in direct and indirect reports are also pointed out, using modal logic to justify that sentences such as ‘He said, My car is not new’ can be transformed to ‘He said that his car was old’ without creating confusion.

Keywords

Direct reports Objectivity Plugs Spatial sphere Subjectivity Transformations Update semantics 

References

  1. Allan, K. (2016). The reporting of slurs. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary (pp. 211–232). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Capone, A. (2016). The pragmatics of indirect reports: Socio-philosophical considerations. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Carnap, R. (1956). The methodological character of theoretical concepts. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Conee, E., & Sider, T. (2005). Riddles of existence: A guided tour of metaphysics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Damian, P. (1998). The letters of Peter Damian 91–120 (O. J. Blum, Trans.). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ebert, K. (1986). Reported speech in some languages of Nepal. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Reported speech: Some general issues (pp. 145–159). Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Fónagy, I. (1986). Reported speech in French and Hungarian. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 255–309). Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Gochet, P. (2011). Possible worlds semantics. In M. Sbisà, J. O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives for pragmatics (Vol. 10, pp. 244–252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hall, E. T. (1963). A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 65(5), 1003–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  14. Hughes, G. E., & Cresswell, M. J. (1996). The new introduction to modal logic. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Lee, B. (1993). Metalanguages and subjectivities. In J. A. Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics (pp. 365–391). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li, C. N. (1986). Direct speech and indirect speech: A functional study. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect reports: Trends in linguistics, studies, and monographs (pp. 29–45). Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Lucy, J. A. (1993). Reflexive language and the human disciplines. In J. A. Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics (pp. 9–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1989). The meaning of meaning. San Diego, CA: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  22. Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Shoham, Y., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2010). Multiagent systems algorithmic: Game-theoretic, and logical foundations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Weigand, E. (2010). Dialogue: The mixed game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wierzbicka, A. (1974). The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Papers in Linguistics, 7, 267–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yule, G. (2010). The study of language (4th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations