On the Social Practice of Indirect Reports

Capone, Alessandro

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41078-4_2

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As is the case in biology, the two approaches to the study of language should complement, rather than contradict, each other. The depth of treatment of indirect reports in Capone ( 2010 , 2012 , 2014 ), for instance, cannot be easily quantified today, yet I bet, it will guide some quantitative research of the future—form grounds for novel, quantitative analysis. The other way round, the results of quantitative research can well serve to inform classical linguistic propositions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, at this place I must start from selecting a specific perspective to see whether it could be relevant for language studies. I decided to limit myself to the theory of science as explicated by Bunge ( 1967 , 1973 , 1996 , 1999 , 2003 ), and constrained by Altmann’s ( 1978 ) assumption about self-originating and self-regulatory character of language. Therefore, before proceeding further, first I shall outline Bunge’s ( 1973 ) view of the methodology of empirical sciences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Linguistic research in the empirical paradigm as outlined by Mario Bunge

Zielińska

2016

SpringerPlus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In view of the critique of the methodology of the dominant interdisciplinary research involving language studies as the main component, in particular clinical linguistics, Cummings (Pragmatic disorders. Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy and psychology, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht, 2014) proposes that “It is perhaps appropriate at this point to move the debate onto non-empirical grounds.” In Cummings (2014: 113) she starts such a debate on the grounds of the philosophy of language and pragmatics. In this article, I propose to expand that debate by including the input of the philosophy of science. I start the discussion by presenting the way one may carry out language research in the paradigm of empirical sciences from the perspective outlined in Bunge (Scientific research. Strategy and philosophy. Berlin, Springer, 1967; Method, model and matter (synthese library). D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1973; Emergence and convergence: qualitative novelty and the unity of knowledge. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 2003) and constrained by Altmann’s (Towards a theory of language. Glottometrica 1:1–25, 1978) assumption about self-originating and self-regulatory nature of language.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic research in the empirical paradigm as outlined by Mario Bunge

Zielińska

2016

SpringerPlus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this regard, Wong (2010, p. 2932) argues that[…] what language is about goes beyond lexicon and grammar to include non-formal features like conversational routines, frequency of use of certain expressions, the avoidance of certain ways of speaking, pragmemes, etc., which can only be satisfactorily explained with reference to culture.With regard to Bakhtin’s concept of DVD, this article illustrates that L2 indirect reports do not always abide by a fair paraphrase (i.e., the retelling of what the original speaker said) of the original speaker, for the learners can infuse their subjective manipulation from several sources into the original speaker’s discourse. In this sense, this article sheds light and elaborates on the claim that ‘the interests and the point of view of the reporter cannot prevail over those of the original speaker’ (Capone, 2010, p. 381). Against this backdrop, this article makes an attempt to answer the following questions: Do Iranian EFL learners change or maintain the syntactic/semantic/pragmatic features of the original sentences when indirectly reporting others in the classroom? What is the nature of the possible syntactic/semantic/pragmatic alterations made by Iranian EFL learners when reporting others? …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…These changes also contain functional intentions and communicative aims which can move away from the original speaker’s perspective. In this regard, Nodoushan (2017, p. 80) states that ‘[h]uman agents who produce linguistic utterances have certain intentions (in so doing), which are mutually manifest for both themselves and their interlocutors’ Capone (2010, p. 382) also argues that ‘[i]n the case of indirect reports, we have got a speaker′, a hearer, and a speake’ (the original speaker); both speaker′ and speaker ‘take responsibility for the content of the that-clause in case all goes well, that is to say, in case the indirect reporting is felicitous’. It seems that Capone’s view of DVD assimilates more closely with Bakhtin’s definition of the first type of DVD 2 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Samesaying and double-voiced discourse in Iranian EFL learners’ production of L2 reported speech

Moghaddam

Tommerdahl

2022

Lang. cogn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considering the paucity of research done on the reported speech of L2 speakers compared with the body of work based on native speakers, particularly in the domain of education, this study investigates ‘polyphony’ (the dialogic nature of discourse) in the indirect reports of Iranian English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners in light of Bakhtin’s concept of ‘double-voiced discourse’ (DVD) (Bakhtin, 1984; Zbikowski, 2002). The goal of the article was to characterise the types of reporting attested in L2 data in the language-learning classroom and to analyse instances of discord between speakers’ voices to better understand what gives rise to these differences in an additional language. To achieve this, we observed naturally occurring interactions between Iranian EFL learners to see how they change the original speech in their indirect reports via the use of semantic and syntactic transformations. The findings revealed traces of distorted reported speech that not only refute the monophonic nature of indirect reports among the interactants but also emphasise the representational characteristics of DVD in its different forms. Samesaying and distorted reported speech are closely examined in accord with the nature of an L2 produced in a language-learning classroom. This article contributes to interlanguage pragmatics, with a focus on sociopragmatic variations that delve into intersubjectivity in language interaction in an institutional context.

show abstract

“… 3 For a recent analysis of indirect reports, effectively combining semantic and pragmatic considerations, see Capone ( 2010 , 2016) . …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The semantics of person and de se effects in free indirect discourse

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this contribution we will address the main puzzling empirical issues that have been formulated around Free Indirect Discourse (FID): the constraints on the use of first person pronouns and of proper names (as well as of definite descriptions), the reasons why different grammatical features (person, gender, number) give rise to presuppositions that must be resolved at different levels of interpretation in FID, the factors that account for the observation that person and tense behave similarly in FID. At the same time, we will also discuss the main controversies to which the ongoing debate on FID has given rise in the literature, showing that Schlenker (Mind Lang 19(3):279–304, 2004)’s distinction between a Context of Thought (CT) and a Context of Utterance (CU) still provides a fundamentally valid insight into the nature of FID, in spite of many qualifications that are necessary and some well-motivated criticism. However, our main task here is more ambitious than simply taking a stand on the many unsettled controversies surrounding FID. In fact, we claim that Schlenker’s split between CU and CT can be derived in a principled way from the inner nature of FID as a linguistic process of ‘phenomenal identification’, whereby a Higher Experiencer attempts at reproducing (at a distinct time) the phenomenal experience proper to a Lower Experiencer. This distinction between qualitatively identified but numerically distinct experiences provides the conceptual basis for the derivation of virtually all remarkable properties of FID (including its somehow intermediate status between Direct and Indirect Discourse), while connecting, at the same time, with some intriguing semantic properties of first-person pronouns, such as the different varieties of de se readings.

show abstract

On the Social Practice of Indirect Reports

Cited by 5 publications

References 33 publications

Linguistic research in the empirical paradigm as outlined by Mario Bunge

Linguistic research in the empirical paradigm as outlined by Mario Bunge

Samesaying and double-voiced discourse in Iranian EFL learners’ production of L2 reported speech

The semantics of person and de se effects in free indirect discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About