Abstract
For any speaker, the ability to report the speech of oneself and of others involves a complex interplay of cognitive, linguistic and pragmatic factors. Depending on the form of reporting used, a speaker must be able to produce utterances which contain embedded clauses (e.g. Fran said that she wanted to leave early), employ intonational and other devices which represent prosodic features of another person’s speech (e.g. Bill said, “Yes, I would LOVE to come”), and use lexical devices beyond simply verbs of saying (e.g. Sally went, “Not a chance!”). Apart from these linguistic resources, a range of complex cognitive and pragmatic skills underpins the reporting of speech. A speaker must be able to recall what another person said and how it was said. This requires verbal memory not just of the explicit content and prosodic features of a linguistic utterance, but also of any implied meanings raised by that utterance. The speaker who utters ‘Jack shouted at me, “I really appreciate your unhelpful response to this problem!”’ can only be said to have captured the sarcastic intent with which Jack delivered his utterance if that intent is conveyed in the speaker’s report of Jack’s speech. These implied or pragmatic meanings are only recoverable through intricate processes of reasoning which involve, amongst other things, theory of mind skills.
With so many linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive skills playing a role in reported speech, it might reasonably be expected that clients with communication disorders, and specifically communication disorders in which there are significant cognitive deficits, may experience difficulty with this aspect of language use. Cognitive-communication disorders, which include clients with traumatic brain injury and right-hemisphere damage, are the focus of considerable clinical interest on account of their significant pragmatic and discourse impairments. Yet, remarkably, there has been almost no examination of reported speech in the discourse of these clients and in other children and adults with communication disorders. This article considers why this is the case when many other pragmatic and discourse features have been so intensively investigated. The reasons for this omission, it is argued, are threefold. Firstly, reported speech has a multidimensional structure which draws on competencies in several domains including syntax, prosody, pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions. These domains are typically the focus of distinct academic and clinical disciplines such as linguistics and neuropsychology. However, an integration of knowledge across these disciplines is necessary for the study of reported speech. Secondly, there is a widespread assumption that reported speech has limited communicative value for clients with communication disorders and other clinical conditions. For this reason, reported speech is not judged to be a priority in the clinical assessment and intervention of these individuals. This assumption will be shown to be erroneous through an examination of how adults with aphasia, individuals with amnesia and children with autism spectrum disorders are able to use reported speech to achieve effective communication notwithstanding their cognitive and language disorders. Thirdly, assessment methods used in clinical settings and research studies have tended to overlook ‘complex’ pragmatic behaviours such as reported speech in favour of ‘simple’ pragmatic behaviours. These methods include formal pragmatic language assessments and narrative discourse procedures which are based on story retell. The chapter concludes by considering ways in which future clinical research might productively address reported speech.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Articles on reported speech rarely tackle this topic from a cognitive perspective. A survey of some published titles since 1991 confirms that this is the case: reported speech in Chinese political discourse (Kuo 2001); uses of reporting speech in native American folk narrative (Mishler 2009); reported speech in children’s spontaneous narratives (Maybin 1996); like as a marker of reported speech (Romaine and Lange 1991); non-narrative functions of reported speech (Vincent and Perrin 1999); uses of reported speech in discursive constructions of interracial contact (Buttny and Williams 2000); gender differences in reported speech (Ely and Ryan 2008). Two papers with a cognitive orientation are Smyth’s (1995) study of children’s conceptual perspective-taking in pronoun interpretation in reported speech, and a study of perspective management during story retellings by children with autism spectrum disorders (Stirling et al. 2009).
- 3.
- 4.
The wordless picture book Frog, Where are You? is one of four audiotaped narratives which is included in the Strong Narrative Assessment Procedure (SNAP; Strong 1998). The SNAP is a criterion-referenced measure which is designed to assess narrative discourse skills through the use of story retell. It may be used to evaluate children from 6 to 13 years of age, although comparison data are only available for children from 7 to 10 years of age.
- 5.
- 6.
It is revealing of the lack of developmental studies which have been undertaken on reported speech that a search of titles in a major journal in the area – Journal of Child Language – revealed only one article on this topic. The paper in question is Smyth (1995). A rather unique study by Hemphill et al. (1994) examines developmental changes in direct and reported character speech, among other discourse features, in typically developing children and children with perinatal brain injury between the ages of 5 and 7 years.
References
Bangerter, A., Mayor, E., & Doehler, S. P. (2011). Reported speech in conversational storytelling during nursing shift handover meetings. Discourse Processes, 48, 183–214.
Baynham, M. (1996). Direct speech: What’s it doing in non-narrative discourse? Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 61–81.
Beck, D. (2012). Speech presentation in Homeric epic. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). The children’s communication checklist, version 2 (CCC-2). London: Psychological Corporation.
Buttny, R., & Williams, P. L. (2000). Demanding respect: The uses of reported speech in discursive constructions of interracial contact. Discourse & Society, 11, 109–133.
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2007). Language turned on itself: The semantics and pragmatics of metalinguistic discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cliff, R. (2006). Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10, 569–595.
Cummings, L. (2005). Pragmatics: A multidisciplinary perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Cummings, L. (2007). Clinical pragmatics: A field in search of phenomena? Language & Communication, 27, 396–432.
Cummings, L. (2009). Clinical pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummings, L. (2012). Establishing diagnostic criteria: The role of clinical pragmatics. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 8, 61–84.
Cummings, L. (2014a). Pragmatic disorders. Dordrecht: Springer.
Cummings, L. (2014b). Pragmatic disorders and theory of mind. In L. Cummings (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of communication disorders (pp. 559–577). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummings, L. (2014c). Clinical pragmatics and theory of mind. In A. Capone, F. L. Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics (Series: Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 23–56). Dordrecht: Springer.
Cummings, L. (2016). Clinical pragmatics. In Y. Huang (Ed.), Oxford handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dewart, H., & Summers, S. (1988). The pragmatics profile of early communication skills. Windsor: NFER Nelson.
Duff, M. C., Hengst, J., Tranel, D., & Cohen, N. J. (2007). Talking across time: Using reported speech as a communicative resource in amnesia. Aphasiology, 21, 702–716.
Ely, R., & Ryan, E. (2008). Remembering talk: Individual and gender differences in reported speech. Memory, 16, 395–409.
Hemphill, L., Feldman, H. M., Camp, L., Griffin, T. M., Miranda, A.-E. B., & Wolf, D. P. (1994). Developmental changes in narrative and non-narrative discourse in children with and without brain injury. Journal of Communication Disorders, 27, 107–133.
Hengst, J. A., Frame, S. R., Neuman-Stritzel, T., & Gannaway, R. (2005). Using others’ words: Conversational use of reported speech by individuals with aphasia and their communication partners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 137–156.
Holt, E., & Clift, R. (Eds.). (2006). Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Janssen, T., & van der Wurff, W. (Eds.). (1996). Reported speech: Forms and functions of the verb. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Johnen, T., & Meyer, B. (2007). Between connectivity and modality: Reported speech in interpreter-mediated doctor-patient communication. In J. Rehbein, C. Hohenstein, & L. Pietsch (Eds.), Connectivity in grammar and discourse (pp. 395–417). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Johnstone, B. (1993). Community and contest: Midwestern men and women creating their worlds in conversational storytelling. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 62–80). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kindell, J., Sage, K., Keady, J., & Wilkinson, R. (2013). Adapting to conversation with semantic dementia: Using enactment as a compensatory strategy in everyday social interaction. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48, 497–507.
Kuo, S.-H. (2001). Reported speech in Chinese political discourse. Discourse Studies, 3, 181–202.
Li, C. N. (1986). Direct and indirect speech: A functional study. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 29–46). Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lucy, J. A. (Ed.). (1993). Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maybin, J. (1996). Story voices: The use of reported speech in 10–12 year-olds’ spontaneous narratives. Current Issues in Language and Society, 3, 36–48.
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Press.
Mertz, E. (1993). Learning what to ask: Metapragmatic factors and methodological reification. In J. A. Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics (pp. 159–174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mishler, C. (2009). ‘He said, they say’: The uses of reporting speech in native American folk narrative. Fabula, 22, 239–249.
Phelps-Terasaki, D., & Phelps-Gunn, T. (2007). Test of pragmatic language-2. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
Prutting, C. A., & Kirchner, D. M. (1987). A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 105–119.
Reilly, J., Losh, M., Bellugi, U., & Wulfeck, B. (2004). “Frog, where are you?” Narratives in children with specific language impairment, early focal brain injury, and Williams syndrome. Brain and Language, 88, 229–247.
Romaine, S., & Lange, D. (1991). The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech, 66, 227–279.
Smyth, R. (1995). Conceptual perspective-taking and children’s interpretation of pronouns in reported speech. Journal of Child Language, 22, 171–187.
Stirling, L. F., Barrington, G., Douglas, S., & Delves, K. (2009). Analysis of perspective management and reported interaction in story retellings by children with ASD and typically developing children. Electronic Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 31–38.
Strong, C. J. (1998). The Strong narrative assessment procedure. Eau Claire: Thinking Publications.
Vincent, D., & Perrin, L. (1999). On the narrative vs non-narrative functions of reported speech: A socio-pragmatic study. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3, 291–313.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cummings, L. (2016). Reported Speech: A Clinical Pragmatic Perspective. 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_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21395-8_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21394-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21395-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)