Reported speech

Reported speech describes speech that is framed as occurring at some other time. Reported speech typically occurred in the past (e.g., “I told him, ‘I’m busy’”), but it can also describe speech that will occur in the future (e.g., “I will tell him, ‘I’m busy’”). By analogy, discourse analysts can also study reported thought, reported action, or reports of any other performable display—“she said X,” “she thought X,” or “she did X,” where “X” can be any sign that is attributed to the actor referred to as “she.” Reported speech marks a division between the narrating and narrated events in discursive interaction: the speaker who is reporting the speech is located in the narrating event, while the speaker whose speech is being reported is located in a narrated event, even if it is the same biographical person. Describing someone else’s speech or action provides a powerful opportunity to voice or characterize them in the narrated event, and speakers routinely do this in ways that have implications for evaluation, positioning, and social action in the narrating event. Reported speech is also a common means of linking speech events across pathways.

Reported speech is often divided into two main types: direct and indirect, although there are in fact intermediate forms like “indirect freestyle” (Fludernik, 1993). Consider the following ways that Mr. Bader could report to someone what Pete said:

“Pete said, ‘you wish you were a little boy again’.”

“Pete said that I want to be a little boy again.”

In the first report, Mr. Bader would be presenting reported speech directly, quoting the words that Pete uttered. In the second sentence, Mr. Bader would be presenting reported speech indirectly, summarizing Pete’s utterance. The former claims to represent precisely what Pete said: “you wish you were a little boy again.” The latter merely paraphrases what Pete said: “that I want to be a little boy again.” Notice the shift in participant deictics used in the two cases. Yon refers to Mr. Bader when directly quoting Pete, and I refers to Mr. Bader when indirectly quoting Pete. In direct reported speech, deictics are used as if they were occurring in the narrated event (i.e., you/Mr. Bader who is narrated), whereas in indirect reported speech, deictics are centered in the narrating event (i.e., I/Mr. Bader who is narrating).

In practice, it is not always clear when speech is reported. For example, in line 004, Hyo says, “send you to the office,” and in line 006, he says, “no I will bring the hammer down.” Perhaps Hyo is reporting the (hypothetical or anticipated) speech of Mr. Bader, even though both utterances lack a clear framing (that is, Hyo does not explicitly say: “you should say, ‘I will bring the hammer down.’”). Hyo is apparently speaking as if he were Mr. Bader, such that I refers to Mr. Bader (not Hyo) and yon in line 004 refers to students (perhaps including Hyo himself). Hyo is speaking as if he were Mr. Bader, appropriating his voice and elaborating his utterance as Hyo playfully imagines it should be.

Reported speech can be useful for discourse analysis in various ways. Reported speech creates or elaborates narrated events, and these events can be resources for performing social action. In Hyo’s case, two events are in play: Mr. Bader describing what he might do to students and Hyo hypothetically describing what Mr. Bader might do to students. Depending on how it is formulated, Hyo’s reported speech could have implications both for interpreting the first narrated event (perhaps implying that Mr. Bader would not actually do what he is describing, for example) and for the narrating event (perhaps characterizing Mr. Bader himself as harsh, or perhaps as lacking courage).

Reported speech also gives a speaker the opportunity to put words into the mouth of the quoted speaker, which allows the speaker to characterize that person. Reported speech often deploys nietapragniatic verbs, “verbs of speaking,” which are powerful ways of characterizing narrated speakers and positioning people in the narrating event (Silverstein, 1976). Compare the following ways that Mr. Bader could report what Pete said:

“Pete said, ‘you wish you were a little boy again’.”

“Pete insightfully remarked that I want to be a little boy again.”

“Pete rudely interrupted me.”

The metapragmatic verb that Mr. Bader chooses would position him with respect to the narrated event and with respect to Pete. Said is the most neutral of the three metapragmatic descriptions, while insightfully remarked and rudely interrupted make more presuppositions about the nature of the narrated event (e.g., it was rude) and about Pete’s character. These characterizations also have implications for the narrating event. For example, Pete may be an undisciplined student who lacks academic promise. Metapragmatic verbs sometimes contrast with the content of reported speech, creating ironic and other effects. The second preceding report might exemplify this, if we presuppose that no reasonable person could claim that Mr. Bader wanted to be a boy again.