Skip to main content

On the social praxis of indirect reporting

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Indirect Reports and Pragmatics in the World Languages

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ((PEPRPHPS,volume 19))

Abstract

Indirect reports are segments of speech involving a dialogic dimension (clearly constituting a case of polyphony) and thus studying them offers a chance to linguistics to appropriate again its original status as a theory that deals with linguistic signs and communication. The practice of indirect reporting intersects with a theory of knowledge, as, through the indirect report, knowledge is imparted on the basis of which the Hearer will decide whether to act or not and how s/he should take action. In this chapter, I discuss the issue of opacity and try to defend a pragmatic view of opacity in connection with indirect reports (instead, I think that opacity in direct quotation is mainly a semantic issue). I try to explain opacity pragmatically, although I accept that there are numerous exceptions one has to account for (namely replacements of NPs with the aim of facilitating the establishment of reference). In this paper, I also consider the issue of slurs, in terms of opacity of the pragmatic kind and I then accept that we have to consider the societal constraints on the use/mention of slurs (more or less as exceptions to the application of pragmatic opacity).

For this essay, a report is X’s re-presentation to Y of what Z said. It is often the case that Z is identical with X at some earlier time. Occasionally, Y and X are the same person, but that is of little interest in this essay. X’s report is never exactly identical with Z’s utterance; even if the same words are captured, the context is different, the voice will be different, the speaker’s intentions may be different, the medium may be different. Often X will choose to render the report more coherent by rearranging what was said, and/or more vivid by embellishing the original to attract and/or maintain audience attention. When X’s report ρ is compared with Z’s utterance v, the accuracy of ρ depends on whether or not Z’s message in v can be reconstructed from it. In other words, the content of ρ is dependent on the content of v. An accurate report ρ re-presents the illocutionary point of the source utterance v. (Allan 2016, 211–212).

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
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.

    Allan (2016) makes the point that both direct and indirect reporting may contain features of indirecteness and uses the translation problem to point it out. You can directly report what someone speaking a different language said in your own language: this involves a level of indirectness. This point is well taken. Sometimes, in fact, as I pointed out in Capone (2016), it is not easy to differentiate direct and indirect reporting.

  2. 2.

    There are problems with other discourse markers, such as ‘However’, ‘Oh’, ‘well’ and ‘Anyway’. While these may function syntactically as sentence adverbials (and not necessarily as connectives), a problem I see is that insertion after ‘that’ (as in “Mary said that, however, she would never go to Paris”, even assuming that the story about mixed quotation (invoked by Keith Allan (personal communication) works, creates an interpretative ambiguity which cannot be easily resolved in the absence of contextual clues. Who is responsible for the voice, at this point: the reporting speaker or the reported speaker? Pragmatic principles like the ones I used in Capone (2010) would ensure that the voice is attributed to the reported speaker, but, of course, there may be contextual clues in the opposite direction. This may be a reason why people are reluctant to insert discourse markers in that-clauses of indirect reports.

References

  • Allan, Keith. 2016. The reporting of slurs. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, F. Lo Piparo, eds. Indirect reports and pragmatics, Dordrecht, Springer, 211–232.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Luvell. Lepore, Ernie. 2013. Slurring words. Nous 47/1, 25–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capone, Alessandro. 2010. On the social practice of indirect reports (further advances in the theory of pragmemes). Journal of Pragmatics 42, 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, Alessandro. 2013. The pragmatics of indirect reports and slurring. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, M. Carapezza, eds. Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics. Dordrecht, Springer, 153–185.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, Alessandro. 2016. The pragmatics of indirect reports. Socio-Philosophical considerations. Dordrecht, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen, Herman, Lepore, Ernie, 1997. On an alleged connection between indirect speech and the theory of meaning. Mind & Language 12, 278–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen, Herman, and Ernest Lepore. 2005. Insensitive semantics. A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dascal, Marcelo. 2003. Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Devitt, Michael, 1996. Coming to our senses: a naturalistic program for semantic localism. Cambridge, CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckardt, Regine. 2014. The semantics of free indirect discourse. Heidelberg, Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. 1981. Form of talk. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. 2007. Interactive Footing. Pp. 16–46 in Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, edited by Elizabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepa Korta, John Perry. 2011. Critical pragmatics. An inquiry into reference and communication. Cambridge, CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Labov William, Fanshel, David, 1977. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York, Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics 1–2. Cambridge, CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, Capone, Alessandro. 2016. Uncommon ground. Intercultural Pragmatics 13(2): 151–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, Capone, Alessandro. 2017. Presuppositions as defeasible inferences. In K. Allan, A. Capone, I. Kecskes, eds. Pragmemes and theories of language use. Dordrecht, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard, Mark. 2013. Context and the attitudes. Meaning in context. Oxford, OUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Saka, Paul. 2006. The demonstrative and identity theories of quotation. Journal of Philosophy 103 (9), 452–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saka, Paul. 2011. The act of quotation. In: E. Brendal, J. Meibauer, M. Steinbach (Eds.), Understanding quotation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 303–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saul, Jennifer, 2007. Simple sentences, substitution and intuitions. Oxford, OUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Soames, Scott. 2015. Rethinking language, mind and meaning. Oxford, OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wettstein, Howard. 2016. Speaking for another. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, F. Lo Piparo, eds. Indirect reports and pragmatics. Dordrecht, Springer, 405–435.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Capone .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Capone, A. (2019). On the social praxis of indirect reporting. In: Capone, A., García-Carpintero, M., Falzone, A. (eds) Indirect Reports and Pragmatics in the World Languages. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78771-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78771-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78770-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78771-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics