Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and its Interfaces as related to the Expression of Intention
Edited by István Kecskés
[Pragmatics & Cognition 26:1] 2019
► pp. 85–111

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

Indirect reporting and pragmatically enriched context

A case study into Russian learners of English

ORCiD logo with link | Tomsk State University
ORCiD logo with link | Tomsk State University
ORCiD logo with link | Tomsk State University
Published online: 27 March 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19011.obd
Abstract
This article examines the pragmatic comprehensibility of indirect reporting. The research problem is to determine how Russian EFL learners (linguists and non-linguists) are able to turn original utterances expressing the intentions of native speakers of American English in direct speech into indirect reports to a third party. Two major issues are analyzed: adequacy of semantic content and preservation of pragmatic enrichment. The study was carried out employing the framework of Kecskes’ Socio-Cognitive Approach (2008, 2010, 2014, 2017). Twelve stimulus-utterances belonging to three communicative types (statements, questions, commands/requests) were video-recorded. Qualitative and quantitative analyses revealed that the participants met with some difficulties preserving the speaker’s intention while interpreting attached pragmatic enrichment and perlocutionary effect. Both cohorts of Russian EFL learners were able to preserve the semantic content relatively efficiently, but encountered substantial difficulties inferring a complex pragmatic content.
Article outline
  • 1.Background to the study
    • 1.1Introduction
    • 1.2Problem statement
  • 2.Methodology and data
    • 2.1The participants
    • 2.2Methods
      • 2.2.1Experimental procedure
      • 2.2.2Qualitative approach
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Analysis and discussion
    • 4.1Q1: The extent of keeping the original lexical content
    • 4.2Q2: Preservation of pragmatic enrichment
    • 4.3The correlation between parameters P1 and P2
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (39)
References
Allan, Dave. 1992. Oxford Placement Test 1: Test pack. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2001. Indirect speech acts. Synthese 128(1). 183–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1975. How to do things with words. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bastiaanse, Roelien. 2011. The retrieval and inflection of verbs in the spontaneous speech of fluent aphasic speakers. Journal of Neurolinguistics 24(2). 163–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohan, Jason, Alison J. S. Sanford, Sally Cochrane & Antony J. S. Sanford. 2008. Direct and indirect speech modulates depth of processing. Paper presented at 14th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP), Cambridge, UK.
Bortfeld, Heather. 2003. Comprehending idioms cross-linguistically. Experimental Psychology 50(3). 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Capone, Alessandro. 2010. On the social practice of indirect reports (further advances in the theory of pragmemes). Journal of Pragmatics 42(2). 377–391. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charkova, Krassimira D. & Laura J. Halliday. 2011. Second- and foreign-language variation in tense backshifting in indirect reported speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(1). 1–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Choj, Chzhi En. 2001. Sposoby peredachi chuzhoj rechi v russkom yazyke [Ways of expression of another’s speech in Russian]. Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cieślicka, Anna. 2004. Bilingual language users’ sensitivity to semantic analyzability of L2 idioms: Testing the effect of idiom analyzability in L2 metalinguistic tasks. In Janusz Arabski (ed.), Pragmatics and language learning, 143–164. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research 22(2). 114–144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian (ed.). 1986a. Direct and indirect speech (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 31). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986b. Reported speech: Some general issues. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech, 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eerland, Anita, Jan A. Engelen & Rolf A. Zwaan. 2013. The influence of direct and indirect speech on mental representations. PLoS One 8(6): e65480. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gladkova, Anna. 2017. Communication modes, Russian. In: Young Y. Kim (eds.), The International encyclopedia of intercultural communication 1–9 Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein. 1992. Can you pass the salt? A short-circuited implicature? Lingua 87(1). 103–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groenewold, Rimke, Roelien Bastiaanse, Lyndsey Nickels & Mike Huiskes. 2014. Perceived liveliness and speech comprehensibility in aphasia: The effects of direct speech in auditory narratives. International Journal for Language & Communication Disorders 49(4). 486–497. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karimvand, Parisa N. 2011. Psycholinguistic perspectives on comprehension in second language acquisition. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2(6). 1268–1273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskés, István. 2006. On my mind: Thoughts about salience, context, and figurative language from a second language perspective. Second Language Research 22(2). 219–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In István Kecskés & Laurence R. Horn (eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects, 191–219. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 401, 385-406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskés, István. 2014. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Is the idiom principle blocked in bilingual L2 production? In Roberto Heredia & Anna Cieślicka (eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing, 28–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Indirect reporting in bilingual language production. In Alessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer & Franco Lo Piparo (eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics, perspectives in pragmatics (Philosophy & Psychology 5), 9–29. Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskés, István, Olga A. Obdalova, Ludmila Yu Minakova & Aleksandra V. Soboleva. 2018. Study of the perception of situation-bound utterances as culture-specific pragmatic units by Russian learners of English. System 761, 219–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Latysheva, Svetlana V. 2008. Modusnaya obuslovlennost’ aspektual’noj formy predikata v pridatochnom predlozhenii vyskazyvaniya s kosvennoj rech’yu [Modus conditionality of the aspectual form of predicates in a subclause with indirect speech]. Irkutsk: Baikal State University of Economics and Law dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Charles. 1986. Direct and indirect speech: A functional study. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech, 29–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marinchenko, Diana B. 2006. Sposoby peredachi chuzhoj rechi v rechi mladshih shkol’nikov [Methods of transferring someone else’s speech in the speech of junior schoolchildren]. Taganrog: Taganrog State Pedagogical Institute dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rost, Michael. 2005. L2 listening. In: Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research on second language learning and teaching, 503–527. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smemoe, Wendy B. & Rachel Hansen. 2010. The effects of direct and indirect speech acts on native English and ESL speakers’ perception of teacher written feedback. System 38(1). 75–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandergrift, Larry. 2006. Second language listening: Listening ability or language proficiency? The Modern Language Journal 90(1). 6–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandergrift, Larry & Marzieh H. Tafaghodtari. 2010. Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning 60(2). 470–497. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wieland, Nellie. 2010. Context sensibility and indirect reports. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81(1). 40–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Indirect reports and pragmatics. In Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo, Marco Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy, 389–411. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2002. Russian cultural scripts: The theory of cultural scripts and its applications. Ethos 30(4). 401–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yao, Bo & Christoph Scheepers. 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
Yao, Bo, Pascal Belin & Christoph Scheepers. 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
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue