Startseite Indirect reports as semantic-pragmatic games
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Indirect reports as semantic-pragmatic games

  • Sepideh Yasrebi

    Sepideh Yasrebi is a PhD student at State University of New York, Albany. She received her M.Sc. in Teaching English as a Second language from Hofstra University in New York in 2015. She investigates language use maturity of English language learners in US K-12 schools. Her research interests lie in intercultural pragmatics, semantics-pragmatics interface, and discourse analysis with social theory.

    EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 23. August 2019
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

This paper examines indirect reports from the lens of socio-cognitive approach (SCA) to pragmatics. Indirect reports have the capacity to re-mold the substance of the original utterance as a whole. In direct reporting, the original utterance is produced in an actual situational context, and then, it is being reported by a different speaker in a new situational context. So, the utterance which was initially produced is only interpretable in the light of the common ground A whereas the reported utterance is only interpretable in the light of common ground B. We have it from Kecskes (2013. Intercultural pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press: 159) that “common ground is both an a priori existing and a cooperatively constructed mental abstraction. Likewise, the main condition of reporting is the need of the hearer: there would be no need for reported speech if the audience were already aware of the content of the report. For that reason, the process of meaning making in reporting, that is, the transmission and simultaneously creation of meaning is inextricably bound with the question of context, salience, common ground, pragmatics, semantics and syntax, not to mention all those bodily gestures and expressions that can, or more importantly, cannot be registered in language.

About the author

Sepideh Yasrebi

Sepideh Yasrebi is a PhD student at State University of New York, Albany. She received her M.Sc. in Teaching English as a Second language from Hofstra University in New York in 2015. She investigates language use maturity of English language learners in US K-12 schools. Her research interests lie in intercultural pragmatics, semantics-pragmatics interface, and discourse analysis with social theory.

References

Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Bach, Kent. 2004. Minding the gap. In C. Bianchi (ed.), The semantics/pragmatics distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Suche in Google Scholar

Capone, Alessandro. 2010. On the social practice of indirect reports (further advances in the theory of pragmemes). Journal of Pragmatics 42. 377–391.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.013Suche in Google Scholar

Capone, Alessandro. 2012. Indirect reports as language games. Pragmatics & Cognition 20(3). 593–613.10.1075/pc.20.3.07capSuche in Google Scholar

Capone, Alessandro. 2016. The pragmatics of indirect reports: Socio-philosophical considerations (Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 8), xii+364. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-41078-4Suche in Google Scholar

Capone, Alessandro & Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan. 2014. On indirect reports and language games: Evidence from Persian. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio 8(2). 26–42.Suche in Google Scholar

Coulmas, Florian (ed.). 1986. Direct and indirect speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110871968Suche in Google Scholar

Grice, H. Paul. 1957. Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66(3). 377–388.10.2307/2182440Suche in Google Scholar

Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Holt, Elizabeth. 2017. Indirect reported speech in storytelling: Its position, design, and uses. Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(2). 171–187.10.1080/08351813.2017.1301302Suche in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics 42(11). 2889–2897.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008Suche in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar

Recanati, François. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615382Suche in Google Scholar

Sperber, Deirdre & Wilson, Dan. 1995. Relevance theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar

Voloshinov, Valentin. N. & Michail M. Bakhtin. 1986. Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Wieland, Nellie. 2013. Indirect reports and pragmatics. In Capone Alessandro, Lo Piparo Franco & Capapezza Marco (eds.), Perspective on pragmatics and philosophy, 389–412. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-01011-3_17Suche in Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2019-08-23
Published in Print: 2019-08-27

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 13.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ip-2019-0023/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen