Skip to main content

Indirect Reported Speech in Interaction

  • Chapter
Indirect Reports and Pragmatics

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

Abstract

Analysis of the use of reported speech in naturally occurring interaction has tended to concentrate on direct reported speech (DRS). In this chapter I focus on indirect reported speech (IRS), exploring both recurrent aspects of its design, and patterns that underpin its use. I draw on research using conversation analysis, involving investigation of a large corpus of instances from transcribed telephone calls recorded in the U.S. and U.K. I begin by analysing the design of the device and show that the category covers a wide range of reportings including instances that blend with DRS and free-indirect speech at one end of the spectrum, to ones that are loose summaries or glosses of speech at the other. I argue that rather than a specific category, it might be more useful to view it as a range of devices by which speakers can shift footing more or less dramatically, claiming more or less fidelity to the source, and portraying the locution with more or less granularity.

Analysing instances of IRS within sequences reveals why speakers may design their reports in such a way as to shift footing less dramatically than would be the case had they used DRS. The design of IRS renders it particularly useful for a number of recurrent sequential environments. In this chapter I focus on one of these environments – IRS used in narratives as introductory detailing prior to DRS. I show how the IRS forms part of a unit used to convey two main pieces of information to the recipient – the circumstances under which the interaction took place and a broad-brush indication of the nature of the sequence portrayed through subsequent units of DRS. Central to the use of IRS is that it provides a less granular portrayal of the locution(s) in question and does not purport to depict it/them as ‘originally’ produced. This enables speakers to use IRS to briefly characterise the nature or starting point of the interaction, maintaining or facilitating the delivery of introductory detailing, prior to a shift to more extended and granular depiction of utterances using DRS.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more information on CA see Sidnell (2010).

  2. 2.

    A further distinguishing element of IRS, but not DRS, is inclusion of ‘that’ (Li, 1996), but few of the instances in my collection included this complementizer.

References

  • Banfield, A. (1973). Narrative style and the grammar of direct and indirect speech. Foundations of Language, 10, 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banfield, A. (1982). Unspeakable sentences: Narration and representation in the language of fiction. Kegan Paul: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, R. (1986). Story, performance and event: Contextual studies of oral narrative. Cambridge/England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, A. (2015). On the (complicated) relationship between direct and indirect reports. In A. Capone (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W. L. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.) Spoken and written Language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66, 764–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clift, R., & Holt, E. (2007). Introduction. In E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting on talk: Reported speech in interaction (pp. 1–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulmas, F. (1986). Reported speech: Some general issues. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 1–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Forms of talk (pp. 124–159). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Günthner, S. (1997). The contextualization of affect in reported dialogues. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), The language of emotions: Conceptualization, expression and theoretical foundation (pp. 247–275). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action; studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(3), 219–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, E. (2000). Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 425–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, E. (2009). Reported speech. In S. D’hondt, J.-O. Ostman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), The pragmatics of interaction: Handbook of pragmatics highlights (Vol. 4, pp. 190–205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, C. (1986). Direct and indirect speech: A functional study. In C. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 29–45). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayes, P. (1990). Quotation in spoken English. Studies in Language, 14, 325–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHale, B. (1978). Free indirect discourse: A survey of recent accounts. PTL: A. Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature, 3, 249–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. H. (1973). The syntax and semantics of quotation. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 410–418). New York: Holt Rinehart and Wilson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices. Repetition, dialogue and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wierzbicka, A. (1974). The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Papers in Linguistics, 7(3/4), 267–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Holt, E. (2016). Indirect Reported Speech in Interaction. 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_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21395-8_9

  • 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