Skip to main content

Indirect Reports, Information, and Non-declaratives

  • Chapter
Indirect Reports and Pragmatics

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ((PEPRPHPS,volume 5))

Abstract

The study of indirect reports has gained momentum in the last few years and a variety of philosophical and linguistic proposals have provided a very intriguing picture of what appears to be a very complex phenomenon, comprising several interrelated properties. As is usual in the literature, we can distinguish the utterance of a proposition such as (1) by an agent (John) at a given time from a quotation of said utterance (2) and an indirect report of it (3)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allan, K. (2015). The reporting of slurs. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo-Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics (pp. 211ā€“231). Cham: Springer.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Anderson, L., & Lepore, E. (2013). Slurring words. NoĆ»s, 47(1), 25ā€“48.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Andueza, P. (2011). Rhetorical exclamatives in Spanish. PhD dissertation, OSU. Columbus, Ohio.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2004). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • BĆ¼ring, D. (1998). The 59th street bridge accent. London: Routledge.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Capone, A. (2012). Indirect reports as language games. Pragmatics & Cognition, 20, 593ā€“613.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Capone, A. (2013). The pragmatics of indirect reports and slurring. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on pragmatics and philosophy. New York: Springer.

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (1997). Varieties of quotation. Mind, 106, 429ā€“450.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2003). Varieties of quotation revisited. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 51ā€“75.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Croom, A. M. (2014). The semantics of slurs: A refutation of pure expressivism. Language Sciences, 41, 227ā€“247.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Davidson, D. (1968). On saying that. Synthese, 19, 130ā€“146.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Elliott, D. E. (1974). Toward a grammar of exclamations. Foundations of Language, 11(2), 231ā€“246.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Escandell-Vidal, M. V. (1996). Intonation and procedural encoding in interrogatives. In J. GutiĆ©rrez-Rexach & L. Silva-Villar (Eds.), Perspectives on Spanish Linguistics 1 (pp. 35ā€“54). Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics. UCLA.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Escandell-Vidal, M. V. (1999). Los enunciados interrogativos. Aspectos semĆ”nticos y sintĆ”cticos. In GramĆ”tica descriptiva de la lengua espaƱola (pp. 3929ā€“3991). Madrid: Espasa.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers, Joint Ph.D. thesis. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Grosz, P. (2012). On the grammar of optative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    BookĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • GutiĆ©rrez-Rexach, J. (1996). The semantics of exclamatives. In E. Garrett & F. Lee (Eds.), Syntax at sunset (pp. 146ā€“162). Los Angeles: UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics. UCLA.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • GutiĆ©rrez-Rexach, J., & Andueza, P. (2015). The pragmatics of embedded exclamatives. In J. L. Mey & A. Capone (Eds.), Pragmatics in society. New York: Springer.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10, 41ā€“53.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Heim, I. (1994). Interrogative semantics and Karttunenā€™s semantics for ā€˜knowā€™. In R. Buchalla & A. Mittwoch (Eds.), Proceedings of the Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics. Jerusalem. IATL.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481ā€“563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Kaplan, D. (1999). The meaning of ā€˜oopsā€™ and ā€˜ouchā€™. Ms. UCLA. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Krifka, M. (1995). The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 25, 1ā€“49.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Krifka, M. (2014). Embedding illocutionary acts. In T. Roeper & M. Speas (Eds.), Recursion: Complexity in cognition (pp. 125ā€“155). Berlin: Springer.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Maier, E. (2014). Quotation and unquotation in free indirect discourse. Mind & Language, 30, 345ā€“373.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Potts, C. (2007). The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(2), 165ā€“198.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics, 5(6), 1ā€“69.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. K. Munitz & P. K. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy: Essays. New York: New York University Press.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Schlenker, P. (2003). A plea for monsters. Linguistics & Philosophy, 26, 29ā€“120.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Schlenker, P. (2004). Context of thought and context of utterance (a note on free indirect discourse and the historical present). Mind & Language, 19(3), 279ā€“304.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Seymour, M. (2015). Indirect discourse and quotation. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics (pp. 355ā€“376). Cham: Springer.

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Sharvit, Y. (2008). The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguistics & Philosophy, 31, 353ā€“395.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Simons, M. (2003). Presupposition and accommodation: Understanding the Stalnakerian picture. Philosophical Studies, 112, 251ā€“278.

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javier GutiƩrrez-Rexach .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

Ā© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

GutiƩrrez-Rexach, J. (2016). Indirect Reports, Information, and Non-declaratives. In: Capone, A., Kiefer, F., Lo Piparo, F. (eds) Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21395-8_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21395-8_26

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21394-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21395-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics