1887
Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Based on original fieldwork, this paper discusses reported speech and thought constructions in Solega (Dravidian). Following McGregor (1994) we claim that reported speech can only be comprehensively characterised if it is identified as a syntactic construction in its own right, a construction we label a framing construction. In natural discourse, elements of the framing construction, particularly clauses referring to the reporting event, may be left unexpressed. We term framing constructions without a matrix clause ‘defenestrated clauses’. While defenestrated clauses in Solega leave perspective shifts underspecified, they include several distinctive strategies that allow us to reconsider the role of morpho-syntactic marking in the expression of perspective shifts.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18048.si
2019-03-25
2019-10-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2008 “Semidirect Speech in Manambu.” Language Sciences30: 383–422. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  3. Banfield, Ann
    1973 “Narrative Style and the Grammar Direct and Indirect Speech.” Foundations Language10 (1): 1–39. doi: 10.2307/25000702
    https://doi.org/10.2307/25000702 [Google Scholar]
  4. 1982Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blackwell, Natalia L., Marcus Perlman, and Jean E. Fox Tree
    2015 “Quotation as a Multimodal Construction.” Journal of Pragmatics81: 1–7. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, Herbert H.
    2016 “Depicting as a Method of Communication.” Psychological Review123 (3): 324–347. doi:  10.1037/rev0000026
    https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000026 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, Herbert H., and Richard J. Gerrig
    1990 “Quotations as Demonstrations.” Language66: 764–805. 10.2307/414729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  8. D’Arcy, Alexandra
    2015 “Quotation and Advances in Understanding Syntactic Systems.” Annual Review of Linguistics1 (1): 43–61. doi:  10.1146/annurev‑linguist‑030514‑125220
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125220 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dancygier, Barbara
    2016 “Concluding Remarks: Why Viewpoint Matters.” InViewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, ed. byBarbara Dancygier, Wei-lun Lu, and Arie Verhagen, 281–288. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110365467‑013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467-013 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dancygier, Barbara, and Lieven Vandelanotte
    2016 “Discourse Viewpoint Network.” InViewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, ed. byBarbara Dancygier, Wei-lun Lu, and Arie Verhagen, 13–40. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110365467‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467-003 [Google Scholar]
  11. Eckhardt, Regine
    2012 “Particles as Speaker Indexicals in Free Indirect Discourse.” Linguistische Datenverarbeitung, ed. byLotte Hogeweg and Eric McCready and Grégoire Winterstein, (35–36): 99–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Evans, Nicholas
    2006 “A View with a View: Towards a Typology of Multiple Perspective Constructions.” InProceedings of the thirty-first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. byRebecca T. Cover and Yuni Kim, 93–120. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2007 “Insubordination and its uses.” InFiniteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited byIrina Nikolaeva, 366–431. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2013 “Some Problems in the Typology of Quotation: A Canonical Approach.” InCanonical Morphology and Syntax, ed. byDunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina, and Greville G. Corbett, 66–98. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Jakobson, Roman
    1957Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian verb. Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lampert, Martina
    2013 “Cognitive Semantics Goes Multimodal: Looking at Quot(ativ)es in Face-to-face-settings.” International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics4 (2): 103–132. search.proquest.com/docview/1625137999?accountid=8330
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Mathis, Terrie, and George Yule
    1994 “Zero quotatives.” Discourse Processes18 (1): 63–76. doi:  10.1080/01638539409544884
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544884 [Google Scholar]
  19. McGregor, William B.
    1994 “The Grammar of Reported Speech and Thought in Gooniyandi.” Australian Journal of Linguistics14 (1): 63–92. 10.1080/07268609408599502
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268609408599502 [Google Scholar]
  20. 1997Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2013 “Optionality in Grammar and Language Use.” Linguistics51 (6): 1147–1204. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0047
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0047 [Google Scholar]
  22. Munro, Robert, Rainer Ludwig, Uli Sauerland, and David W. Fleck
    2012 “Reported Speech in Matses: Perspective Persistence in Evidential Narratives.” International Journal of American Linguistics78 (1): 41–75. 10.1086/662637
    https://doi.org/10.1086/662637 [Google Scholar]
  23. Nikitina, Tatiana
    2012 “Personal Deixis in Reported Discourse: Towards a Typology of Person Alignment.” Linguistic Typology16 (2): 233–263.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Recanati, François
    2001 “Open Quotation.” Mind110 (439): 637–687. 10.1093/mind/110.439.637
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/110.439.637 [Google Scholar]
  25. Roeck, Marijke De
    1994 “A Functional Typology of Speech Reports.” InFunction and Expression in Universal Grammar, ed. byE. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Jakobson, and S. Rasmussen, 331–351. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sharvit, Yael
    2008 “The Puzzle of Free Indirect Discourse.” Linguistics & Philosophy31: 353–395. 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9039‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9039-9 [Google Scholar]
  27. Si, Aung
    2016The Traditional Ecological Knowledge of the Solega: A Linguistic Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑24681‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24681-9 [Google Scholar]
  28. Sotirova, Violeta
    2004 “Connectives in Free Indirect Style: Continuity or Shift?” Language Literature13 (3): 216–234. 10.1177/0963947004044872
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947004044872 [Google Scholar]
  29. Spronck, Stef
    2012 “Minds Divided: Speaker Attitudes in Quotatives.” InQuotatives: Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, ed. byIsabelle Buchstaller and Ingrid Van Alphen, 71–116. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.15.07spr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.07spr [Google Scholar]
  30. 2015 “Stance as Participant Structure: A Jakobsonian Approach to the Pragmatics and Semantics of Evidentiality.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics29: 193–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2017 “Defenestration: Deconstructing the Frame-In Relation in Ungarinyin.” Journal of Pragmatics114: 104–133. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.016 [Google Scholar]
  32. Spronck, Stef, and Tatiana Nikitina
    2019 “Reported Speech Constructions Are a Dedicated Syntactic Domain: Typological Arguments and Observations.” LinguisticTypology23: 1. 10.1515/lingty‑2019‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0005 [Google Scholar]
  33. Stec, Kashmiri, Mike Huiskes, and Gisela Redeker
    2015 “A Multimodal Analysis of Quotation in Oral Narratives.” OpenLinguistics1: 531–554.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Vandelanotte, Lieven
    2004 “Deixis and Grounding in Speech and Thought Representation.” Journal of Pragmatics36 (3): 489–520. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2009Speech and Thought Representation in English: A Cognitive-Functional Approach. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110215373
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215373 [Google Scholar]
  36. Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
    2011 “The Functions of Represented Speech and Thought in Umpithamu Narratives.” Australian Journal of Linguistics31 (4): 491–517. 10.1080/07268602.2011.625602
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2011.625602 [Google Scholar]
  37. Vološinov, Valentin N.
    1973Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Ed. byLadislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. New York/London: Seminar Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18048.si
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18048.si
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): optional marking , quotation , reported speech and Solega (Dravidian)
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