Advertisement

Reported Speech in Persian

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

Abstract

This chapter extensively tackles reported speech in Persian, an area of investigation that is not adequately (and properly) dealt with in the literature of reported speech. After a brief discussion on the universal features of reported speech and how other languages have contributed to this discussion, this chapter reviews previous research on Persian reported speech. The literature of Persian reported speech is underdeveloped and there is still much to say about the intricacies of reported speech in Persian. In this chapter, some authentic data from Persian are employed to show how Persian speakers use direct and indirect reporting in interaction. Persian data also showed cases of ‘quasi-quotation’ where the inclusion of hedges and paraphrasing marks may highlight the reporter’s uncertainty in using source information. In this chapter, implicit indirect reports are explored where the reporter’s perspective was at odds with the original speaker’s viewpoint. Implicit indirect reports were perfect examples of the ‘straw man fallacy’, where a person’s actual argument is substituted by a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the argument made by the original speaker. In the end, the social aspects of reported speech are treated.

Keywords

Free indirect discourse Implicit indirect reports Persian Phonosyntactic properties Polyphony Quasi-quotation Self-quotation Straw man fallacy 

References

  1. Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackwell, S. E. (2016). Porque in Spanish oral narratives: Semantic Porque, (meta)pragmatic Porque or both? In A. Capone & J. L. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 615–652). Cham, Switzerland/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boeder, W. (2002). Speech and thought representation in the Kartvelian (South Caucasian) languages. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 3–48). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borg, E. (2012). Pursuing meaning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capone, A. (2010). The social practice of indirect reports. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capone, A. (2012). Indirect reports as language games. Pragmatics & Cognition, 20(3), 593–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capone, A. (2013). Consequences of the pragmatics of ‘de se’. In A. Capone & N. Feit (Eds.), Attitudes ‘de se’: Linguistics, epistemology and metaphysics (pp. 209–244). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  8. Capone, A. (2016). The pragmatics of indirect reports: socio-philosophical considerations. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Capone, A., & Nodoushan, M. A. S. (2014). On indirect reports and language games: Evidence from Persian. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 8(2), 26–42.Google Scholar
  11. Coulmas, F. (1986a). Reported speech: Some general issues. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 1–28). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coulmas, F. (1986b). Direct and indirect speech in Japanese. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 161–178). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Declerck, R. (1990). Sequence of tenses in English. Folia Linguistica, 24, 513–544.Google Scholar
  14. Ebert, K. (1986). Reported speech in some languages of Nepal. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 145–160). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.Google Scholar
  15. Golato, A. (2002). Self-quotation in German: Reporting on past decisions. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 49–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gregoromichelaki, E. (2017). Quotation in dialogue. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp. 195–258). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Güldemann, T., & von Roncador, M. (2002). Preface. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. vii–vix). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haberland, H. (1986). Reported speech in Danish. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 219–253). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Jay, T., & Janschewitz, K. (2008). The pragmatics of swearing. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kammerzell, F., & Peust, C. P. (2002). Reported speech in Egyptian. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: a meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 289–322). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2017). Interpreting straw man argumentation: The pragmatics of quotation and reporting. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Massamba, D. P. B. (1986). Reported speech in Swahili. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 99–120). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.Google Scholar
  29. McCullagh, M. (2017). Scare-Quoting and incorporation. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp. 3–34). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morady Moghaddam, M. (in press). Appraising and reappraising of compliments and the provision of responses: Automatic and non-automatic reactions. Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  31. Nodoushan, M. A. S. (2018). Which view of indirect reports do Persian data corroborate? International Review of Pragmatics, 10, 76–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saka, P. (2017). Blah, blah, blah: Quasi-quotation and unquotation. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp. 35–64). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sakita, T. I. (2002). Discourse perspectives on tense choice in spoken-English reporting discourse. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 173–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Suzuki, Y. (2002). The acceptance of ‘free indirect discourse’: A change in the representation of thought in Japanese. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 109–120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van der Wurff, W. (2002). Direct, indirect and other discourse in Bengali newspapers. In T. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 121–139). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations