Integrating Theory with Practice: An Alternative Approach to Reported Speech in English

Abstract

Standard characterizations of reported speech in English grammars and ESL textbooks are shown to be incomplete. A more explicit description is proposed emphasizing (a) a clear differentiation between direct and indirect speech using prosodic, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic criteria; (b) the role of deixis in explaining the internal syntactic adjustments in indirect speech; and (c) the importance of semantic concerns. A checklist based on this more complete analysis of English reported speech is provided for evaluating the presentation of English reported speech, as well as a short critique of the coverage of English reported speech in six current ESL textbooks. Finally, a more explicit characterization of English reported speech—intended for the ESL classroom—is presented.

Indirect Speech Utterance: Intersubjective Approach

“…The elements of RSC such as pronouns, verbs, and adverbs from the original utterance "must conform to the here and now of the act of reporting. Whether or not this necessitates a change from the original utterance depends on the relevance of the pointing (deictic) qualities of these words for the present act of reporting" [5]. The later work of this author studying the children's deictic changes signalling direct or indirect speech singles out another significant factor, i.e.…”

“…Most of ISU studies suggest that it is the speaker's responsibility. Depending on his or her intention, ISU is supposed to "recreate the atmosphere originally present" or to give a "flat" depiction of the event [5]. Therefore, the idea of something basic like event description and something concomitant like original atmosphere leads to the conclusion that ISU is a categorization of the communicative event.…”

At the intersection of text and talk: On the reproduction and transformation of language in the multi-lingual evaluation of multi-lingual texts

“…Direct and indirect speech tend to be implemented differently, the former separating by means of pauses and higher initial pitch whereas the latter tends to take the pitch contour of a constative (Goodell 1987;Roth 2010). Vološinov, however, suggests that the boundaries are flexible; and because there might be a progressive uptake of another's discourse in situ, we can anticipate intonational changes associated with reported words and phrases.…”

“…The following fragment begins when the expert reads aloud the number of the current item and then the first sentence of the English and French versions. (Readers will note that the French direct report of the text is without the accentuation that the literature tends to suggest marks direct reports [e.g., Goodell 1987] When asked, the expert then first points to the English text, in contrast to the first reading, accentuating "afloat" whereas two previously existing accentuations (kINda, fORce) have disappeared (turn 09). He continues to the French text and, while following it along with his middle finger, says in English "`whAT ↑`kInda ↑`fOrce keeps the canoe afloat" (turn 10).…”

Reported speech: empirical corpus findings compared with EFL/ESL textbook presentations

“…indirect speech), however, has been identified as a complex, but often over-simplified area of English grammar. In particular, many linguists, teachers, and students have criticized how reported speech is presented to students who are trying to learn English as a second language (ESL) or English as a foreign language (EFL) (Goodell, 1987;Thompson, 1996;Yule, Mathis, & HopKins, 1992). The main thrust of the criticism is that the ESUEFL grammar textbooks teach students to report speech in ways inconsistent with real life.…”