1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Language and Culture
  4. Volume 12, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates the occurrence of solitude speech in self-quotations of speech and thought by looking at non-standard written communication online in three Uralic languages: Estonian, Finnish, and Hungarian. Four different realizations of solitude speech are found in self-quotations of three languages: (i) evaluations of verbal information, (ii) evaluations of the reporter’s action, (iii) self-guiding solitude speech, and (iv) Goffmanian ‘response cries.’ The last type is typical for situations the speaker finds problematic and may occur in the presence of other speakers, while the other types occur when interlocutors are absent. Although evaluations of written verbal material are specific to mostly cultures with a written tradition, similar evaluations, though targeted at the surrounding environment, occur among speakers from cultures with predominantly oral traditions, illustrated with material from traditional narratives of the Northern Siberian Uralic language Nganasan.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00070.tep
2026-02-05
2026-02-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00070.tep
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    (2023a) What everybody knows: Expressing shared knowledge through evidentials. InS. Rodríguez Rosique & J. M. Antolí Martínez (Eds.), Verb and context: The impact of shared knowledge on TAME categories (pp.1–18). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/ivitra.34.01aik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.34.01aik [Google Scholar]
  2. (2023b) Speaking about knowledge: Evidentiality and the ecology of language. Studies in Language, 48(3), 1–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aikhenvald, A. Y., & Storch, A.
    (2013) Linguistic expression of perception and cognition: A typological glimpse. InA. Y. AIkhenvald & A. Storch (Eds.), Perception and cognition in language and culture (pp.1–46). Leiden & Boston: Brill. 10.1163/9789004210127_002
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004210127_002 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alarcón-Rubio, D., Sánchez-Medina, J. A., & Winsler, A.
    (2013) Private speech in illiterate adults: Cognitive functions, task difficulty, and literacy. Journal of Adult Development, 201, 100–111. 10.1007/s10804‑013‑9161‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-013-9161-y [Google Scholar]
  5. Alderson-Day, B., & Fernyhough, C.
    (2015) Inner speech: development, cognitive functions, phenomenology, and neurobiology. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 931–965. 10.1037/bul0000021
     https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000021 [Google Scholar]
  6. Berk, L. E., & R. A. Gravin
    (1984) Development of private speech among low-income Appalachian children. Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 271–286. 10.1037/0012‑1649.20.2.271
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.20.2.271 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brykina, M., Gusev, V., Szeverényi, S. & Wagner-Nagy, B.
    (2018) Nganasan Spoken Language Corpus (NSLC). Version 0.2. hdl.handle.net/11022/0000-0007-C6F2-8
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Buchstaller, I., & van Alphen, I.
    (2012) Introductory remarks on new and old quotatives. InI. Buchstaller & I. van Alphen (Eds.), Quotatives: Crosslinguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp.xii–xxx). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.15.02pre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.02pre [Google Scholar]
  9. Capone, A.
    (2013) The pragmatics of indirect reports and slurring. InA. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics (pp.153–183). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑01014‑4_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_6 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chafe, W.
    (1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, H. H.
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R.
    (1990) Quotations as Demonstrations. Language, 661, 764–805. 10.2307/414729
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cohen, J.
    (2006) Audience identification with media characters. InJ. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp.183–198). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Davidson, K.
    (2015) Quotation, demonstration, and iconicity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 381, 477–520. 10.1007/s10988‑015‑9180‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9180-1 [Google Scholar]
  15. de Vries, L.
    (2013) Seeing, Hearing and Thinking in Korowai, a Language of West Papua. InA. Y. Aikhenvald & A. Storch (Eds.), Perception and cognition in language and culture (pp.111–137). Leiden & Boston: Brill. 10.1163/9789004210127_006
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004210127_006 [Google Scholar]
  16. Diaz, R. M., & Berk, L.
    (Eds.) (1992) Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation. New York & London: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dolgix, B. O.
    (1976) Mifologičeskie skazki i predanija nganasanov [Nganasan mythological fairytales and legends.] Moscow: Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Du Bois, J. W.
    (2009) Interior dialogues: The co-voicing of ritual in solitude. InE. B. Basso & G. Senft (Eds.), Ritual communication. Oxford: Berg.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (2011) Co-opting Intersubjectivity: Dialogic Rhetoric of the Self. InC. Meyer & F. Girke (Eds.), The rhetorical emergence of culture (pp.52–83). Oxford: Berghahn.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fadeev, A.
    (2023) Semiotic Approach to the New Perspectives on Inner Speech. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 571, 1084–1096. 10.1007/s12124‑022‑09738‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09738-9 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goffman, E.
    (1981) [1978] Response Cries. InE. Goffman & D. Hymes (Eds.), Forms of talk (pp.78–124). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Haakana, M.
    (2007) Reported thought in complaint stories. InE. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction (pp.150–178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hasegawa, Y.
    (2005) A study of soliloquy in Japanese. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkley Linguistics Society, 145–156.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2010a) Soliloquy in Japanese and English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.202
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.202 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2010b) The sentence-final particles yo and ne in soliloquial Japanese. Pragmatics, 20(1), 71–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hennoste, T.
    (2004a) Et-komplementlause kesksete põhiverbide funktsioonid eestikeelses vestluses [The functions of the main verbs in the complement sentences with et in Estonian conversations]. Keel ja Kirjandus, 71, 504–524.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2004b) Et-komplementlause kesksete põhiverbide funktsioonid eestikeelses vestluses [The functions of the main verbs in the complement sentences with et in Estonian conversations], Keel ja Kirjandus, 81, 590–610.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2006) Et-komplementlause peaverbide funktsioonid eestikeelses vestluses 2: mõtlema [The functions of the main verbs in the complement sentences with et in Estonian conversations 2: ‘think’]. Lähivertailuja, 171, 119–134.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A.
    (2010) Most people are not WEIRD. Nature466(1). 10.1038/466029a
     https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a [Google Scholar]
  30. Izutsu, M. N., Kim, Y. T., & Izutsu, K.
    (2022) Response Cries or Response Statements? A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Interjectional Expressions in Japanese and English. Contrastive Pragmatics, 3(2), 194–221. 10.1163/26660393‑bja10038
     https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10038 [Google Scholar]
  31. Konnerth, L.
    (2020) Recycling through perspective persistence in Monsang (Trans-Himalayan). Reconstructing the desiderative from a reported intentionality construction. Functions of Language, 27(1), 55–77. 10.1075/fol.20002.kon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.20002.kon [Google Scholar]
  32. Krieken, van K., Hoeken, H., & Sanders, J.
    (2017) Evoking and measuring identification with narrative characters: a linguistic cues framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1190). 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01190
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01190 [Google Scholar]
  33. Krieken, van K., & Sanders, J.
    (2021) Storytelling on oral grounds: viewpoint alignment and perspective taking in narrative discourse. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(634930). 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.634930
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.634930 [Google Scholar]
  34. Labov, W.
    (2006) Narrative pre-construction. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 37–45. 10.1075/ni.16.1.07lab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.16.1.07lab [Google Scholar]
  35. Moghaddam, M.
    (2019) The praxis of indirect reports. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑14269‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14269-8 [Google Scholar]
  36. Nikitina, T., & Bugaeva, A.
    (2021) Logophoric speech is not indirect: towards a syntactic approach to reported speech constructions. Linguistics59(3), 609–633. 10.1515/ling‑2021‑0067
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0067 [Google Scholar]
  37. Nikitina, T., & Aplonova, E.
    (2023) The morphosyntax of reported speech and reported thought: A preliminary survey. InD. E. Casartelli, S. Cruschina, P. Posio & S. Spronck (Eds.), The grammar of thinking: From reported speech to reported thought in the languages of the world (pp.15–41). Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111065830‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111065830-002 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pascual, E.
    (2006) Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. 10.1515/COG.2006.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.006 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2014) Fictive Interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.47
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.47 [Google Scholar]
  40. Pascual, E., & Sandler, S.
    (2016) Fictive interaction and the conversation frame: An overview. InE. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and function (pp.3–22). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.01pas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.01pas [Google Scholar]
  41. Pascual, E., & Królak, E.
    (2018) The ‘listen to characters thinking’ novel: Fictive interaction as narrative strategy in English literary bestsellers and their Polish and Spanish translations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 399–430. 10.1075/rcl.00016.pas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00016.pas [Google Scholar]
  42. Piaget, J.
    (1959) [1923] The language and thought of the child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Recanati, F.
    (2001) Open quotation. Mind, 110(439), 637–687. 10.1093/mind/110.439.637
     https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/110.439.637 [Google Scholar]
  44. Romaine, S., & Lange, D.
    (1991) The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech, 66(3), 227–279. 10.2307/455799
     https://doi.org/10.2307/455799 [Google Scholar]
  45. Spronck, S., & Nikitina, T.
    (2019) Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology, 23(1), 119–159. 10.1515/lingty‑2019‑0005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0005 [Google Scholar]
  46. Spronck, S., Van linden, A., Gentens, C., & Sansiñena, M. S.
    (2020) Perspective persistence and irregular perspective shift: Mismatches in form-function pairings. Functions of Language, 27(1), 1–6
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Spronck, S., & Casartelli, D.
    (2021) In a manner of speaking: How reported speech may have shaped grammar. Frontiers in Communication, 61(624486).
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Tannen, D.
    (1986) Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narratives. InF. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp.311–322). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110871968.311
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.311 [Google Scholar]
  49. Teptiuk, D.
    (2019) Quotative indexes in Finno-Ugric (Komi, Udmurt, Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian). University of Tartu dissertation.
  50. (2021) Self-quotative markers in Permic and Hungarian. Linguistica Uralica, 57(3), 213–232. 10.3176/lu.2021.3.04
     https://doi.org/10.3176/lu.2021.3.04 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2022) Towards a database of reported discourse constructions in Finno-Ugric languages. Paper presented atCross-disciplinary Perspectives on Quoting and Speech Reporting, Université Libre de Bruxelles.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (2023) Self-quotations of speech and thought, and how to distinguish them. InD. E. Casartelli, S. Cruschina, P. Posio & S. Spronck (Eds.), The grammar of thinking (pp.171–206). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111065830‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111065830-007 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2024) Perceptual reported speech in traditional Nganasan narratives. Paper presented at theWorkshop on larger discourse units in (spoken) language, CNRS, Villejuif.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Teptiuk, D., & Spronck, S.
    (2022) Interior dialogues: Reported speech and thought in personal and traditional narratives in languages of Aboriginal Australia and Siberia. Paper presented at the55th Annual Meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea, University of Bucharest.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Teptiuk, D., & Nikitina, T.
    (2023) Evidential strategies in narrative discourse: A contrastive approach. Paper presented at the56th Annual Meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea, University of Athens.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Vandelanotte, L.
    (2012) Quotative go and be like: Grammar and grammaticalization. InI. Buchstaller & I. van Alphen (Eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp.174–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.15.11van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.11van [Google Scholar]
  57. Verstraete, J.-C.
    (2011) The functions of represented speech and thought in Umpithamu narratives. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 31(4), 491–517. 10.1080/07268602.2011.625602
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2011.625602 [Google Scholar]
  58. Voloshinov, V. N.
    (1973) [1929] Marxism and the philosophy of language. New York: Seminar Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Vygotsky, L.
    (1986) [1934] Thought and language: Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Wade, E., & Clark, H. H.
    (1993) Reproduction and demonstrations in quotations. Journal of Memory and Language, 321, 805–819. 10.1006/jmla.1993.1040
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1040 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00070.tep
Loading
Self-quotations of solitude speech in online Estonian, Finnish, and Hungarian
International Journal of Language and Culture 12, 89 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00070.tep
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00070.tep
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00070.tep
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): egocentric speech; internet communications; response cries; self-quotations; Uralic

Most Cited

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