Cover not available

In:Linguistic Foundations of Narration in Spoken and Sign Languages:
Edited by Annika Hübl and Markus Steinbach
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 247] 2018
► pp. 207–222

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Reporting vs. pretending. Degrees of identification in role play and reported speech

 | University of Oslo
Published online: 25 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.247.09kod
In both role play and reported speech, the actual speaker purports to present the speech of someone else. I analyse and compare the different perspectives that are involved in role play utterances and direct and indirect speech reports. I argue for a conceptual distinction between role play utterances and speech reports and discuss three criteria to distinguish them: (a) metalinguistic marking, (b) communicative intention, and (c) embodiment. Based on this analysis, I propose a hierarchy of identification with the other person, in which role play exhibits the highest degree of identification and indirect speech the lowest.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Perspective
    • 2.1Two notions of perspective
    • 2.2Perspectives in role play
    • 2.3Perspectives in direct and indirect speech
  • 3.Differences between role play utterances and speech reports
    • 3.1Metalinguistic marking
    • 3.2Communicative intention
    • 3.3Embodiment
  • 4.Hierarchy of identification
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (48)
References
Andresen, H. 2005. Role play and language development in the preschool years. Culture & Psychology 11(4): 387–414.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Banfield, A. 1973. Narrative style and the grammar of direct and indirect speech. Foundations of Language 10(1): 1–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bateson, G. 1973. A theory of play and fantasy. In Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution and Epistemology, G. Bateson (ed.), 150–172. London: Granada.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bortolussi, M. & Dixon, P. 2003. Psychonarratology. Foundations for the Empirical Study of Literary Response. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bühler, K. 1999(1934). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Mit einem Geleitwort von Friedrich Kainz. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Gerrig, R. J. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66(4): 764–805.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. 1985. Direct and indirect speech: General problems and problems of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 41–63.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986. Reported speech: Some general issues. In Direct and Indirect Speech, F. Coulmas (ed.), 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. 1998. Coherent voicing. On prosody in conversational reported speech. Interaction and Linguistic Structures 1: 1–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Villiers, J. G. & Pyers, J. E. 2002. Complements to cognition: A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false-belief-understanding. Cognitive Development 17: 1037–1060.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eerland, A., Engelen, J. A. A. & Zwaan, R. A. 2013. The influence of direct and indirect speech on mental representations. PLOS ONE 8(6): 1–9.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ely, R. & McCabe, A. 1993. Remembered voices. Journal of Child Language 20(3): 671–696.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, C. 2002. Nicht-direktes Referat im Deutschen. Typologie und Abgrenzungsprobleme. In Modus, Modalverben, Modalpartikeln, C. Fabricius-Hansen, O. Leirbukt & O. Letnes (eds), 7–29. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Griffin, H. 1984. The coordination of meaning in the creation of a shared make-believe reality. In Symbolic Play. The Development of Social Understanding, I. Bretherton (ed.), 73–100. Orlando FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, P. L.. 2000. The Work of the Imagination. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herrmann, A. & Steinbach, M. 2012. Quotation in sign languages. A visible context shift. In, Quotatives. Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 15], I. Buchstaller & I. Van Alphen (eds) 203–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hickmann, M. 1993. The boundaries of reported speech in narrative discourse: Some developmental aspects. In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, J. A. Lucy (ed.), 63–90. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2003. Evidentiality in Turkic. In Studies in Evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54], A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds), 273–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klewitz, G. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. 1999. Quote-unquote? The role of prosody in the contextualization of reported speech sequences. Interaction and Linguistic Structures 12: 1–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köder, F. 2013. How children acquire reported speech in German and Dutch: A corpus study. In „Perspektiven“ Diskussionsforum Linguistik in Bayern/Bavarian Working Papers in Linguistics 2, B. Sonnenhauser, C. Trautmann & P. Noel (eds), 15–28. Munich: LMU.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.. 1970. Linguistics and natural logic. Synthese 22(2): 151–271.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lohmann, H. & Tomasello, M. 2003. The role of language in the development of false belief understanding: A training study. Child Development 74(4): 1130–1144.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES Project. Tools for Analyzing Talk. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marbach, E. S. & Yawkey, T. D. 1980. The effect of imaginative play actions on language development in five-year-old children. Psychology in the Schools 17: 257–263.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nelson, K. & Gruendel, J. 1986. Children’s scripts. In Event Knowledge. Structure and Function in Development, K. Nelson (ed.), 21–46. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nielsen, M. & Dissanayake, C. 2000. An investigation of pretend play, mental state terms and false belief understanding: In search of a metarepresentational link. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 18(4): 609–624.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noice, H. & Noice, T. 2001. Learning dialogue with and without movement. Memory & Cognition 29(6): 820–827.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nordqvist, Å. 2001a. Speech about Speech. A Developmental Study on Form and Function of Direct and Indirect Speech. Göteborg: Kompendiet.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001b. The use of direct and indirect speech by 1½- to 4-year-olds. Psychology of Language and Communication 5(1): 57–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pellegrini, A. D. & Galda, L. 1982. The effects of thematic-fantasy play training on the development of children’s story comprehension. American Educational Research Journal 19(3): 443–452.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Percus, O. & Sauerland, U. 2003. Pronoun movement in dream reports. In Proceedings of NELS 33, M. Kadowaki & S. Kawahara (eds), 265–284. Amherst MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plank, F. 1986. Über den Personenwechsel und den anderer deiktischer Kategorien in der wiedergegebenen Rede. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 14(3): 294–308.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Recanati, F. 2000. Oratio obliqua, oratio recta. An essay on metarepresentation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, J. & Redeker, G. 1996. Perspective and the representation of speech and thought in narrative discourse. In Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (eds), 291–317. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K.. 1996. Role voicing, gender, and age in preschool play discourse. Discourse Processes 22(3): 289–307.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, C. L., Harris, R. J. & Rothe, A. R. 2001. Embodied cognition through improvisation improves memory for a dramatic monologue. Discourse Processes 31(3): 293–305.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, D.. 2007. Talking Voices. Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, M.. 1999. Imaginary Companions and the Children who Create Them. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, M. & Carlson, S. M. 1997. The relation between individual differences in fantasy and theory of mind. Child Development 68(3): 436–455.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wade, E. & Clark, H. H. 1993. Reproduction and demonstration in quotations. Journal of Memory and Language 32(6): 805–819.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.. 1974. The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Papers in Linguistics 7: 267–307.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D.. 2000. Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In Metarepresentations. A Multidisciplinary Perspective, D. Sperber (ed.), 411–448. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolf, D. P., Rygh, J. & Altshuler, J. 1984. Agency and experience: Actions and states in play narratives. In Symbolic Play. The Development of Social Understanding, I. Bretherton (ed.), 195–217. Orlando FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yao, B., Belin, P. & Scheepers, C. 2011. Silent reading of direct versus indirect speech activates voice-selective areas in the auditory cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23(10): 3146–3152.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. Brain “talks over” boring quotes: Top-down activation of voice-selective areas while listening to monotonous direct speech quotations. NeuroImage 60(3): 1832–1842.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yao, B. & Scheepers, C. 2011. Contextual modulation of reading rate for direct versus indirect speech quotations. Cognition 121(3): 447–453.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue