Advertisement

Indirect Reports and Societal Pragmatics

  • Alessandro Capone
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 22)

Abstract

Indirect reports are segments of speech which involve a dialogic dimension (clearly constituting a case of polyphony) and, thus, studying them offers a chance for linguistics to again appropriate its original status as a theory that deals with linguistic signs and communication. The practice of indirect reporting intersects with a theory of knowledge because, through an indirect report, knowledge is imparted on the basis of which the hearer will decide whether or not to act and how he should take action. In this chapter, I discuss the issue of opacity and try to defend a pragmatic view of opacity in connection with indirect reports (on the other hand, I believe that opacity in direct quotation is mainly a semantic issue). I try to explain opacity pragmatically, although I accept that there are numerous exceptions that one has to account for (namely, the replacement of NPs with the aim of facilitating the establishment of reference). In this chapter, I also consider the issue of slurs in terms of the opacity of a pragmatic form, and I then accept that we have to consider the societal constraints on the use/mention of slurs (more or less as exceptions to the application of pragmatic opacity).

References

  1. Allan, Keith (2016). The reporting of slurs. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, F. Lo Piparo, eds. Indirect reports and pragmatics, Dordrecht, Springer, 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, Luvell, Lepore, Ernie, 2013. Slurring words. Nous, 47,1, 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Capone, Alessandro (2010). On the social practice of indirect reports (further advances in the theory of pragmemes). Journal of Pragmatics 42, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capone, Alessandro (2013). The pragmatics of indirect reports and slurring. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, M. Carapezza, eds. Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics. Dordrecht, Springer, 153–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capone, Alessandro (2016). The pragmatics of indirect reports. Socio-Philosophical considerations. Dordrecht, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cappelen, Herman, Lepore, Ernie (1997). On an alleged connection between indirect speech and the theory of meaning. Mind & Language 12, 278–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cappelen, Herman, Lepore, Ernie (2005). Insensitive semantics. A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Dascal, Marcelo (2003). Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Devitt, Michael (1996). Coming to our senses: a naturalistic program for semantic localism. Cambridge, CUP.Google Scholar
  10. Eckardt, Regine (2014). The semantics of free indirect discourse. Heidelberg, Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  12. Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive Footing. Pp. 16–46 in Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, edited by Elizabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Korta, Kepa, Perry, John (2011). Critical pragmatics. An inquiry into reference and communication. Cambridge, CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Labov, William, Fanshel, David (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York, Academic.Google Scholar
  15. Lyons, John (1977). Semantics 1–2. Cambridge, CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Macagno, Fabrizio, Capone, Alessandro (2016). Uncommon ground. Intercultural Pragmatics 13(2): 151–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Macagno, Fabrizio, Capone, Alessandro (2017). Presuppositions as defeasible inferences. In K. Allan, A. Capone, I. Kecskes, eds. Pragmemes and theories of language use. Dordrecht, Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Richard, Mark (2013). Context and the attitudes. Meaning in context. Oxford, OUP.Google Scholar
  19. Saka, Paul (2006). The demonstrative and identity theories of quotation. Journal of Philosophy 103 (9), 452–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Saka, Paul (2011). The act of quotation. In: E. Brendal, J. Meibauer, M. Steinbach (Eds.), Understanding quotation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 303–22.Google Scholar
  21. Saul, Jennifer. 2007. Simple sentences, substitutions and intuitions. Oxford, OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Soames, Scott (2015). Rethinking language, mind and meaning. Oxford, OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Capone
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cognitive ScienceUniversity of MessinaMessinaItaly

Personalised recommendations