Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-7031
  • E-ISSN: 1877-8798
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This article examines how and why participants in conversation modify the reported speech made by another speaker, and proffer a second saying in subsequent talk. Two types of modified reportings are identified: (1) explicit modifications, and (2) implicit modifications. Both types are shown to treat the first reported speech as inadequate, and lay claim to speaker’s epistemic authority or priority over the reported talk vis-a-vis other interlocutors. Further, explicit modifications of a prior report generally display a stronger epistemic stance than implicit modifications.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aikhenvald, A.Y. , and R.M.W. Dixon
    (eds) 2003Studies in Evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.54
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.54 [Google Scholar]
  2. Atkinson, J.M. , and J. Heritage
    (eds) 1984Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Auer, P
    1992 “Introduction: John Gumperz’ Approach to Contextualization.”InThe Contextualization of Language, ed. by P. Auer and A. Di Luzio , 1–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.22.03aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.03aue [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakhtin, M.M
    1981The Dialogic Imagination, ed. by M. Holquist , trans. by C. Emerson and M. Holquist . Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Banfield, A
    1973 “Narrative Style and the Grammar of Direct and Indirect Speech.”Foundations of Language10: 1–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Blom, J.P. , and J.J. Gumperz
    1972 “Social Meaning in Linguistic Structure: Code-Switching in Norway.”InDirections in Sociolinguistics, ed. by J. Gumperz and D. Hymes , 407–434. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolden, G
    2004 “The Quote and Beyond: Defining Boundaries of Reported Speech in Conversational Russian.”Journal of Pragmatics36: 1071–1118. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.015 [Google Scholar]
  8. Buttny, R
    1998 “Putting Prior Talk into Context: Reported Speech and the Reporting Context.”Research on Language and Social Interaction31 (1): 45–58. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3101_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3101_3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chafe, W.L
    1982 “Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing and Oral Literature.”InSpoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, ed. by D. Tannen , 35–53. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chafe,W.L. , and J. Nichols
    (eds) 1986Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, H
    2010 “Studies on Reported Speech.”Journal of Nanjing University of Science and Technology23 (6): 71–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark, H.H. , and R.J. Gerrig
    1990 “Quotations as Demonstrations.”Language66: 764–805. doi: 10.2307/414729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  13. Clayman, S.E
    2013 “Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address Terms.”Journal of Pragmatics57: 290–302. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Clift, R
    2006 “Indexing Stance: Reported Speech as an Interactional Evidential.”Journal of Sociolinguistics10(5): 569–595. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2006.00296.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00296.x [Google Scholar]
  15. 2007 “Getting There First: Non-Narrative Reported Speech in Interaction.”InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by E. Holt and R. Clift , 120–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dong, X
    2008 “Blending of Direct Discourse and Indirect Discourse in Actual Texts.”Language Science7 (4): 367–376.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Coulmas, F
    1985 “Direct and Indirect Speech: General Problems and Problems of Japanese.”Journal of Pragmatics9: 41–63. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(85)90047‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90047-5 [Google Scholar]
  18. (ed.) 1986Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110871968
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968 [Google Scholar]
  19. Couper-Kuhlen, E
    1999 Coherent Voicing: On Prosody in Conversational Reported Speech.”InCoherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create it and How to Describe it, ed. by W. Bublitz and U. Lenk , 11–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.63.05cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.05cou [Google Scholar]
  20. Drew, P. , and J. Heritage
    1992 “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction.”InTalk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by P. Drew and J. Heritage , 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Drew, P. , and M. Sorjonen
    1997 “Institutional Discourse.”InDiscourse as Social Interaction, ed. by T.A. van Dijk , 92–118. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Drew, P. , and A. Wootton
    (eds) 1988Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Du Bois, J.W. , S. Schuetze-Coburn , S. Cumming , and D. Paolino
    1993 “Outline of Discourse Transcription.”InTalking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, ed. by J.A. Edwards and M.D. Lampert , 45–87. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Goffman, E
    1971Relations in Public. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1974/1986Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. York, Pennsylvania: Northeastern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1981Forms of Talk. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Golato, A
    2000 “An Innovative German Quotative for Reporting on Embodied Actions: Und ich so/und er so ‘And I’m Like/and He’s Like’.”Journal of Pragmatics32 (1): 29–54. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00030‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00030-2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Goodwin, C
    2007 “Interactive Footing.”InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by E. Holt and R. Clift , 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Goodwin, M.H
    1990He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.”InSyntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Speech Acts, ed. by P. Cole and J.L. Morgan , 41–58. New York: Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gumperz, J.J
    1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  32. 1992 “Contextualization and Understanding.”InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 11), ed. by A. Duranti and C. Goodwin , 229–252. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gumperz, J.J. , and J. Cook-Gumperz
    1982 “Introduction: Language and the Communication of Social Identity.”InLanguage and Social Identity, ed. by J.J. Gumperz , 1–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Günthner, S
    1997 “The Contextualization of Affect in Reported Dialogues.”InThe Language of Emotions: Conceptualization, Expression and Theoretical Foundation, ed. by S. Niemeier and R. Dirven , 247–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.85.19gun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.85.19gun [Google Scholar]
  35. Guo, J. , and H. Shen
    2004 “Analysis of the Meaning of Renjia based on a Cognitive Model Unfamiliar.”Chinese Teaching in the World1: 28–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hayashi, M
    1997 “An Exploration of Sentence-Final Uses of the Quotative Particle in Japanese Spoken Discourse.”InJapanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. VI, ed. by H. Sohn and J. Haig , 565–581. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Heritage, J
    1984aGarfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1984b “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement.”InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage , 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2012a “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.”Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 30–52. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2012b “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.”Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 1–29. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  41. Heritage, J. , and G. Raymond
    2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.”Social Psychology Quarterly68 (1): 15–38. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  42. Holt, E
    1996 “Reporting on Talk: The Use of Direct Reported Speech in Conversation.”Research on Language and Social Interaction29 (3): 219–245. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2000 “Reporting and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech.”Research on Language and Social Interaction33: 425–454. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_04
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_04 [Google Scholar]
  44. Holt, E. , and R. Clift
    (eds) 2007Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Jefferson, G
    1978 “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation.”InStudies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by J. Schenkein , 219–248. New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50016‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50016-1 [Google Scholar]
  46. 1983 “Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature.”Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature30.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 1985 “On the Interactional Unpackaging of a ‘Gloss’.”Language in Society14: 435–66. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500011465
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500011465 [Google Scholar]
  48. Jespersen, O
    1924The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Jia, Z
    2000 “The Reporting Speech and Its Pragmatic Functions.”Journal of Foreign Languages2: 35–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kamio, A
    1997Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.48
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.48 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kim, M
    2003 “Reported Speech as an Interactive Resource: An Examination of Korean Quotative Constructions.”InJapanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 12, ed. by W. McClure , 3–15. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Klewitz, G. , and E. Couper-Kuhlen
    1999 “Quote-Unquote: The Role of Prosody in the Contextualization of Reported Speech Sequences.”Pragmatics9: 459–485. doi: 10.1075/prag.9.4.03kle
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.4.03kle [Google Scholar]
  53. Kuo, S
    2001 “Reported Speech in Chinese Political Discourse.”Discourse Studies3 (2): 181–202. doi: 10.1177/1461445601003002002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003002002 [Google Scholar]
  54. Labov, W
    1972Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Leech, G.N. , and M.H. Short
    1981Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Li, C
    1986 “Direct and Indirect Speech: A Functional Study.”InDirect and Indirect Speech, ed. by F. Coulmas , 29–45. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Li, X
    2011 Reported Speech in Academic Discourse: Dialogues between Different Voices.”Journal of South China Normal University (Social Science Edition)6: 141–147.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Lin, H
    1999Reported Speech in Mandarin Conversational Discourse. Unpublished PhD dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Lü, J
    2013 “The Discourse Features of Reported Speech in Court Trials.”Rhetoric Learning6: 74–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Lucy, J.A
    (ed) 1993Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Meta-pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621031
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031 [Google Scholar]
  61. Luke, K.K. and W. Zhang
    2007 “Retrospective Turn Continuations in Mandarin Chinese Conversation.”Pragmatics17 (4): 605–635. doi: 10.1075/prag.17.4.04luk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.04luk [Google Scholar]
  62. Ma, B. , and W. Guan
    2012 “Zero Quotatives in Chinese Conversations.”Journal of Foreign Languages35 (4): 24–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Maynard, S.K
    1996 “Multivoicedness in Speech and Thought Representation: The Case of Self-Quotation in Japanese.”Journal of Pragmatics25: 207–226. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00097‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00097-2 [Google Scholar]
  64. 2005 “Another Conversation: Expressivity of Mitaina and Inserted Speech in Japanese Discourse.”Journal of pragmatics37:837–869. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  65. Mayes, P
    1990 “Quotation in Spoken English.”Studies in Language14: 325–363. doi: 10.1075/sl.14.2.04may
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.14.2.04may [Google Scholar]
  66. Mushin, I
    2001 “Japanese Reportive Evidentiality and the Pragmatics of Retelling.”Journal of Pragmatics33: 1361–1390. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00078‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00078-3 [Google Scholar]
  67. Myers, G
    1999 “Functions of Reported Speech in Group Discussions.”Applied Linguistics20 (3): 376–401. doi: 10.1093/applin/20.3.376
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.376 [Google Scholar]
  68. Niemelä, M
    2010 “The Reporting Space in Conversational Storytelling: Orchestrating All Semiotic Channels for Taking a Stance.”Journal of Pragmatics42: 3258–3270. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.015 [Google Scholar]
  69. Park, Y
    2009 “Interaction between Grammar and Multimodal Resources: Quoting Different Characters in Korean Multiparty Conversation.”Discourse Studies11 (1): 79–104. doi: 10.1177/1461445608098499
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608098499 [Google Scholar]
  70. Peng, J
    2001 “A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis of Language Report in English and Chinese.”Foreign Language Teaching and Research (bimonthly)33 (5): 359–366.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Romaine, S. , and D. Lange
    1991 “The Use of Like as a Marker of Reported Speech and Thought: A Case of Grammaticalization in Progress.”American Speech66 (3): 227–279. doi: 10.2307/455799
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455799 [Google Scholar]
  72. Sacks, H
    1984 “On Doing ‘Being Ordinary’.”InStructures of Social Action, ed. by J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage , 413–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 1992Lectures on Conversation, vol. I & II, ed. by G. Jefferson . Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Schegloff, E.A
    1996 “Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematic.”InStudies in Anaphora, ed. by B. Fox , 437–485. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.33.14sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.14sch [Google Scholar]
  75. 2000 “On a Turn’s Possible Completion, More or Less: Increments and Trail-Offs.” Paper presented at the Euro-conferences on Interactional Linguistics , Spa, Belgium.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  77. Shen, D
    1991a “Function of Different Modes of Speech in Narrative Fiction.”Foreign Language Teaching and Research1: 13–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 1991b “On the Idiosyncrasies of Modes of Speech Presentation in Chinese Narrative Fiction.”Peking University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition)4: 76–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Sohn, S. , and M. Park
    2003 “Indirect Quotations in Korean Conversations.”InKorean/Japanese Linguistics 11, ed. by P. Clancy , 105–118. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Stivers, T. , and F. Rossano
    2010 “Mobilizing Response.”Research on Language and Social Interaction43: 3–31. doi: 10.1080/08351810903471258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  81. Stivers, T
    2005 “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights From Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction38 (2): 131–158. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 [Google Scholar]
  82. 2007 “Alternative Recognitionals in Person Reference.”InPerson Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives, ed. by N.J. Enfield and T. Stivers , 73–96. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.005 [Google Scholar]
  83. Tang, Q
    2004 “Reporting in Academic Texts.”Foreign Languages and Their Teaching2: 3–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Tannen, D
    1986 “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narrative.”InDirect and Indirect Speech, ed. by F. Coulmas , 311–332. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 1989Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Vlatten, A
    1997Quotatives, Reported Speech, and Constructed Dialogue in Everyday German Conversation: A Conversation Analytic Perspective. Unpublished PhD dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Wierzbicka, A
    1974 “The Semantics of Direct and Indirect Discourse.”Papers in Linguistics7(3/4): 267–307. doi: 10.1080/08351817409370375
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817409370375 [Google Scholar]
  88. Willett, T.A
    1988 “A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality.”Studies in Language12: 51–97. doi: 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  89. Xin, B
    1998 “A Critical Analysis of Reported Speech in News Reports.”Foreign Language Teaching and Research2 (114): 9–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 2013a “Reported Speech in Chinese News Titles (I).”Rhetoric Learning5 (179): 48–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 2013b “Reported Speech in Chinese News Titles (II).”Rhetoric Learning6 (180): 20–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Xu, J
    1996 “Direct Reported Speech in Narrative Discourse.”Language Teaching and Research1: 52–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Yang, Y. , and Z. Lin
    2008 “English Reporting Sentences: Functional and Pragmatic Perspectives.”Journal of Northeast Normal University ( Philosophy and Social Sciences)1 (231): 151–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Yue, Y
    2011Evidentiality and Its Interaction with Other Linguistic Categories in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Peking University.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Zhang, R
    1997 “Forms and Functions of Free Indirect Reported Speech and Free Direct Reported Speech.”English Knowledge9 (96): 19–20.
    [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error