1887
Volume 26, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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’ (2008, 2010, 2014, 2017). Twelve stimulus-utterances belonging to three communicative types () 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19011.obd
2020-03-27
2020-05-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, Dave
    1992Oxford Placement Test 1: Test pack. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides
    2001 Indirect speech acts. Synthese128(1). 183–228. 10.1023/A:1010340508140
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010340508140 [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin, John L.
    1975How to do things with words. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bastiaanse, Roelien
    2011 The retrieval and inflection of verbs in the spontaneous speech of fluent aphasic speakers. Journal of Neurolinguistics24(2). 163–72. doi:  10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
    1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bohan, Jason, Alison J. S. Sanford, Sally Cochrane & Antony J. S. Sanford
    2008Direct and indirect speech modulates depth of processing. Paper presented at14th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP), Cambridge, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bortfeld, Heather
    2003 Comprehending idioms cross-linguistically. Experimental Psychology50(3). 1–14. 10.1026//1617‑3169.50.3.217
    https://doi.org/10.1026//1617-3169.50.3.217 [Google Scholar]
  8. Capone, Alessandro
    2010 On the social practice of indirect reports (further advances in the theory of pragmemes). Journal of Pragmatics42(2). 377–391. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  9. Charkova, Krassimira D. & Laura J. Halliday
    2011 Second- and foreign-language variation in tense backshifting in indirect reported speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition33(1). 1–32. 10.1017/S0272263110000513
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263110000513 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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.
  11. Cieślicka, Anna
    2004 Bilingual language users’ sensitivity to semantic analyzability of L2 idioms: Testing the effect of idiom analyzability in L2 metalinguistic tasks. InJanusz Arabski (ed.), Pragmatics and language learning, 143–164. Kraków: Universitas.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2006 Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research22(2). 114–144. 10.1191/0267658306sr263oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr263oa [Google Scholar]
  13. Coulmas, Florian
    (ed.) 1986aDirect and indirect speech (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 31). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110871968
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968 [Google Scholar]
  14. 1986b Reported speech: Some general issues. InFlorian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech, 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110871968.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.1 [Google Scholar]
  15. Eerland, Anita, Jan A. Engelen & Rolf A. Zwaan
    2013 The influence of direct and indirect speech on mental representations. PLoS One8(6): e65480. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0065480
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065480 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gladkova, Anna
    2017 Communication modes, Russian. In: Young Y. Kim (eds.), The International encyclopedia of intercultural communication1–9Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:  10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0147
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0147 [Google Scholar]
  17. Groefsema, Marjolein
    1992 Can you pass the salt? A short-circuited implicature?Lingua87(1). 103–135. 10.1016/0024‑3841(92)90028‑H
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90028-H [Google Scholar]
  18. 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 Disorders49(4). 486–497. doi:  10.1111/1460‑6984.12080
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12080 [Google Scholar]
  19. Holt, Elizabeth
    2017 Indirect reported speech in storytelling: Its position, design, and uses. Research on Language and Social Interaction50(2). 171–187. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2017.1301302
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1301302 [Google Scholar]
  20. Karimvand, Parisa N.
    2011 Psycholinguistic perspectives on comprehension in second language acquisition. Journal of Language Teaching and Research2(6). 1268–1273. 10.4304/jltr.2.6.1268‑1273
    https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.6.1268-1273 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kecskés, István
    2006 On my mind: Thoughts about salience, context, and figurative language from a second language perspective. Second Language Research22(2). 219–237. 10.1191/0267658306sr266ra
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr266ra [Google Scholar]
  22. 2007 Formulaic language in English lingua franca. InIstván Kecskés & Laurence R. Horn (eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects, 191–219. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kecskes, Istvan
    2008 Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics40, 385-406. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kecskés, István
    2014Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2015 Is the idiom principle blocked in bilingual L2 production?InRoberto Heredia & Anna Cieślicka (eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing, 28–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139342100.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342100.005 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2016 Indirect reporting in bilingual language production. InAlessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer & Franco Lo Piparo (eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics, perspectives in pragmatics (Philosophy & Psychology 5), 9–29. Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑21395‑8_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21395-8_2 [Google Scholar]
  27. 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. System76, 219–232. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2018.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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.
  29. Li, Charles
    1986 Direct and indirect speech: A functional study. InFlorian Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech, 29–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110871968.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.29 [Google Scholar]
  30. 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.
  31. 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]
  32. 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. System38(1). 75–84. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2009.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  33. Vandergrift, Larry
    2006 Second language listening: Listening ability or language proficiency?The Modern Language Journal90(1). 6–18. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2006.00381.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00381.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Vandergrift, Larry & Marzieh H. Tafaghodtari
    2010 Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning60(2). 470–497. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00559.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Wieland, Nellie
    2010 Context sensibility and indirect reports. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research81(1). 40–48. 10.1111/j.1933‑1592.2010.00360.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00360.x [Google Scholar]
  36. 2013 Indirect reports and pragmatics. InAlessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo, Marco Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy, 389–411. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑01011‑3_17
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01011-3_17 [Google Scholar]
  37. Wierzbicka, Anna
    2002 Russian cultural scripts: The theory of cultural scripts and its applications. Ethos30(4). 401–432. 10.1525/eth.2002.30.4.401
    https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.2002.30.4.401 [Google Scholar]
  38. Yao, Bo & Christoph Scheepers
    2011 Contextual modulation of reading rate for direct versus indirect speech quotations. Cognition121(3). 447–453. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.007 [Google Scholar]
  39. 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. NeuroImage60(3). 1832–1842. doi:  10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.111
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.111 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19011.obd
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19011.obd
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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