Indirect Reports and Translation

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


There are similarities (and also differences) between the practice of indirect reporting and translation. Their similarities and differences are important especially when it comes to issues such as translating/reporting slurring as well as the complicated topic of accountability in reporting/translating. Although there are more limitations in translation than indirect reporting, new developments in translation studies have provided the translator with a lot of freedom to make subjective changes based on sociocultural features. In this chapter, it is also argued that indirect reporting and translating are rational procedures that should meet four requirements: verifiability, plausibility, situational adequacy, and value-orientedness. Moreover, the challenging case of Paraphrasis/Form Principle is discussed. It is also shown that, based on Goffman’s theory of dramaturgy, indirect reporting is more relevant and representative of the idea of ‘masking’ since it is more immediate and dialogic than translating. In this chapter, the role of the hearer/reader is discussed and it is shown that the hearer/reader has an important effect on the way the reporter/translator exerts changes to the original utterances. In the end, the neglected case of ‘non-verbal communication’ is covered and it is argued that both the translator and indirect reporter should take non-verbal communication into account during reporting/translating.


Accountability Dramaturgy Non-verbal communication Paraphrasis/Form Principle Rationality Re-reporting Same-saying Translation 


  1. Allan, K. (2016). The reporting of slurs. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 211–232). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ameka, F. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bamgbose, A. (1986). Reported speech in Yoruba. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 77–99). Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2005). Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension (pp. 21–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, R. T. (2001). Psycholinguistic/cognitive approaches. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 185–190). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Besemeres, M., & Wierzbicka, A. (2003). The meaning of the particle lah in Singapore English. Pragmatics and Cognition, 11, 13–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capone, A. (2015). Indirect reports, slurs and the polyphonic speaker. Reti, Saperi, Linguaggi, 2(2014), 13–36.Google Scholar
  8. Capone, A. (2016). The pragmatics of indirect reports: Socio-philosophical considerations. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chierchia, G., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1990). Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Colston, H. L. (2005). On sociocultural and nonliteral: A synopsis and a prophesy. In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension (pp. 1–20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Cronin, M. (2001). Game theory and translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 91–93). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Dascal, M. (2003). Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dascal, M., & Weizman, E. (1987). Contextual exploitation of interpretation clues in text understanding: An integrated model. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective (pp. 31–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, W. (2005). Non descriptive meaning and reference: An ideational semantics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferreira, V. S., Slevc, L. R., & Rogers, E. S. (2005). How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? Cognition, 96(3), 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Gutt, E. A. (1991). Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, J. A., & Knapp, M. L. (Eds.). (2013). Nonverbal communication (Vol. 2). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Harvey, K. (2001). Compensation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 37–40). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Jaworski, A., & Galasiński, D. (2002). The verbal construction of non-verbal behaviour: British press reports of President Clinton’s grand jury testimony video. Discourse & Society, 13(5), 629–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kecskes, I., & Mey, J. L. (Eds.). (2008). Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker hearer. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Kramsch, C. (2000). Social discursive constructions of self in L2 learning. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 133–154). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Moore, L. (2000). You’re ugly, too. In J. Updike & K. Kenison (Eds.), The best American short stories of the century (pp. 652–670). Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  27. Morady Moghaddam, M. (2018). Review of the book The pragmatics of indirect reports: Sociophilosophical considerations, by A. Capone. Lingua, 204, 134–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mueller-Vollmer, K., & Irmscher, M. (Eds.). (1998). Translating literatures, translating cultures: New vistas and approaches in literary studies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Owen, G. E. L. (1965). Aristotle on the snares on ontology. In R. Bambrough (Ed.), New essays on Plato and Aristotle (Vol. 3, pp. 69–96). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Poyatos, F. (1997). Introduction. In F. Poyatos (Ed.), Nonverbal communication and translation: New perspectives and challenges in literature, interpretation and the media (pp. 131–141). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Remland, M. S. (1994). The importance of nonverbal communication in the courtroom. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 2(2), 124–145.Google Scholar
  32. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  33. Schäffner, C. (2001). Action (theory of ‘translation action’). In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 3–5). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Schäffner, C. (2017). Criticism of functionalist theories. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation (2nd ed., pp. 120–121). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simms, K. (1997). Introduction. In K. Simms (Ed.), Translating sensitive texts: Linguistic aspects (pp. 1–27). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  37. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Varela, F. C. (1997). Translating non-verbal information in dubbing. Benjamins Translation Library, 17, 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wallsten, T. S. (1980). Preface. In T. S. Wallsten (Ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior (pp. ix–xvi). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilkins, D. (1992). Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 119–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yule, G. (2010). The study of language (4th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zeki, C. P. (2009). The importance of non-verbal communication in classroom management. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1443–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations