Principles Governing Indirect Reports

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


In the literature of indirect reports, some general principles governing the practice of indirect reporting are treated (e.g., Principle of Prudence, Paraphrasis/Form Principle, etc.). However, in this chapter, some new principles are introduced that would make life easier for the participants of indirect reports (the original speaker, the reporter, and the hearer). The chapter is divided into discussions on macro (general rules that govern the whole process of indirect reports, embracing all three participants of indirect reports) and micro (target either one or two of the participants in indirect reports) principles. In this chapter, principles such as Principle of Politeness, Principle of Immunity, Principle of Doubt, and Principle of Commitment are introduced. Moreover, in this chapter, some principles proposed by other researchers are taken into considerations and modified based on new justifications.


Paraphrasis/Form Principle Principle of commitment Principle of doubt Principle of immunity Principle of politeness Re-reporting 


  1. Attardo, S. (1997). Locutionary and perlocutionary cooperation: The perlocutionary cooperative principle. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 753–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bilmes, J. (1986). Discourse and behavior. New York/London: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capone, A. (2016). The pragmatics of indirect reports: Socio-philosophical considerations. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., & Kádár, D. Z. (2017). Introduction. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 1–8). London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davidson, D. (2004). Problems of rationality (Vol. 4). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ghita, A. (2001). Negotiation of irony in dialogue. In E. Weigand & M. Dascal (Eds.), Negotiation and power in dialogic interaction (pp. 139–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Givön, T. (1983). Topic continuity in spoken discourse. In T. Givön (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 255–311). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Givön, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Hickmann, M. (1995). Discourse organization and the development of reference to person, space, and time. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 194–218). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 71). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. K. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Terkourafi, M. (2011). From politeness1 to politeness2: Tracking norms of im/politeness across time and space. Journal of Politeness Research, 7, 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thomason, R., Stone, M., DeVault, D. (2006). Enlightened update: A computational architecture for presupposition and other pragmatic phenomena. In D. K. Byron, C. Roberts, S. Schwenter (Eds.), Presupposition accommodation (pp. 1–44). Rutgers and the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  21. Weigand, E. (2010). Dialogue: The mixed game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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