Volume 32, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



This study attempts to describe how metapragmatic devices can exert change in indirect reporting. This was achieved through the analysis of naturally occurring indirect reports during interaction. Specifically, indirect reports were extracted from a series of expert talks (≈800 minutes) broadcast by Iranian national TV. The analysis of these expert talks showed cases of communicative ‘know-hows’, where Persian speakers managed the dialogue in terms of their interpretation of the original utterance. Accordingly, Persian speakers negotiated the degree of reflexivity by changing the verb of saying and by adhering to specific syntactic markers. Thus, contrary to previous research, the present study revealed that Persian indirect reports can benefit from some syntactic markers to show that speakers do not perfectly adhere to the pragmatic force of the original speaker’s utterance. By contrast, Persian speakers use classes of markers, or contextualisation clues (Gumperz 1982), to show their control over the utterances. These markers are generally used to indicate politeness, uncertainty, and summarisation in Persian indirect reports. Such markers can distinguish indirect reports in Persian from those of other languages such as English.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Anton, Corey
    1998 “‘About Talk’: The Category of Talk-reflexive Words.” Semiotica121: 193–212. 10.1515/semi.1998.121.3‑4.193
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1998.121.3-4.193 [Google Scholar]
  2. Blackwell, Sarah E.
    2016 “Porque in Spanish Oral Narratives: Semantic Porque, (Meta)Pragmatic Porque or Both?” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. byAlessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, 615–652. Heidelberg, Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_25
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_25 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blakemore, Diane
    1994 “Evidence and Modality.” InThe Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. byR. Asher, and J. Simpson, 1183–1186. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Borg, Emma
    2012Pursuing Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588374.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588374.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Caffi, Claudia
    2009 “Metapragmatics.” InConcise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (2nd ed.), ed. byJacob L. Mey, 625–630. Amsterdam: Elsevier, Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Capone, Alessandro
    2010 “The Social Practice of Indirect Reports.” Journal of Pragmatics42: 377–391. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2013 “Consequences of the Pragmatics of ‘De Se’.” InAttitudes ‘De Se’: Linguistics, Epistemology and Metaphysics, ed. byAlessandro Capone, and N. Feit, 209–244. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2016The Pragmatics of Indirect Reports: Socio-philosophical Considerations. Cham: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2018 “On the Social Praxis of Indirect Reporting.” InIndirect Reports and Pragmatics in the World Languages, ed. byAlessandro Capone, M. Garcia-Carpintero, and A. Falzone, 3–20. Heidelberg, Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2019Pragmatics and philosophy: Connections and ramifications. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑19146‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19146-7 [Google Scholar]
  11. Capone, Alessandro, and Mohammad A. Salmani Nodoushan
    2014 “On Indirect Reports and Language Games: Evidence from Persian.” Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio8(2): 26–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cavell, Stanley
    1988 “Declining Decline: Wittgenstein as a Philosopher of Culture.” Inquiry31(3): 253–264. 10.1080/00201748808602153
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00201748808602153 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chafe, Wallace L., and Johanna Nichols
    1986 “Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing.” InEvidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. byW. Chafe, and J. Nichols, 261–272. New Jersey: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. DeAngelis, William James
    2007Ludwig Wittgenstein-A Cultural Point of View: Philosophy in the Darkness of this Time. Cornwall: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gal, Susan
    2009 “Linguistic Anthropology.” InConcise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (2nd ed.), ed. byJacob L. Mey, 519–533. Amsterdam, Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gumperz, John J.
    1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hübler, Axel, and Wolfram Bublitz
    2007 “Introducing Metapragmatics in Use.” InMetapragmatics in Use, ed. byW. Bublitz, and A. Hübler, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.165.02hub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.02hub [Google Scholar]
  19. Ifantidou, Elly
    2001Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.86
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.86 [Google Scholar]
  20. Itakura, Hiroko
    2018 “Accuracy in Reported Speech: Evidence from Masculine and Feminine Japanese Language.” InIndirect Reports and Pragmatics in the World Languages, ed. byAlessandro Capone, M. Garcia-Carpintero, and A. Falzone, 315–332. Heidelberg, Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ilie, Cornelia
    2016 “Metadiscursive Strategies in Dialogue: Legitimising Confrontational Rhetoric?” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. byAlessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, 601–614. Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_24
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_24 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jakobson, Roman
    1960 “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” InStyle in Language, ed. byT. A. Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Levinson, Stephan C.
    1988 “Putting Linguistics on a Proper Footing: Explorations in Goffman’s Participation Framework.” InGoffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, ed. byP. Drew and, A. Wootton, 161–227. Polity Press: Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lucy, John A.
    1993a “Reflexive Language and the Human Disciplines.” InReflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. byJ. A. Lucy, 9–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621031.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.003 [Google Scholar]
  25. 1993b “Metapragmatic Presentationals: Reporting Speech with Quotatives in Yucatec Maya.” InReflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. byJ. A. Lucy, 91–125. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621031.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.007 [Google Scholar]
  26. Mey, Jacob L.
    2001Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Morady Moghaddam, Mostafa, and Alessandro Capone
    2020 “Metalanguage and Subjectivity in Indirect Reports.” Lingua, 236: 102784. 10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102784
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102784 [Google Scholar]
  28. Saka, Paul
    2017 “Blah, Blah, Blah: Quasi-quotation and Unquotation.” InThe Semantics and Pragmatics of Quotation, ed. byP. Saka, and M. Johnson, 35–64. Heidelberg, Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑68747‑6_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68747-6_2 [Google Scholar]
  29. Salmani Nodoushan, Mohammad A.
    2015 “The Secret Life of Slurs from the Perspective of Reported Speech.” Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio9(2): 92–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2017 “Lexemes, Practs, and Those Who Have Yet to Decide.” Linguistik Online81: 77–93. 10.13092/lo.81.3648
    https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.81.3648 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2018 “Which View of Indirect Reports Do Persian Data Corroborate?” International Review of Pragmatics10: 76–100. 10.1163/18773109‑00901008
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00901008 [Google Scholar]
  32. Sharifian, Farzad
    2005 “The Persian Cultural Schema of Shekasteh-nafsi: A Study of Compliment Responses in Persian and Anglo-Australian Speakers.” Pragmatics & Cognition13(2): 337–361. 10.1075/pc.13.2.05sha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.13.2.05sha [Google Scholar]
  33. 2011Cultural Conceptualisations and Language: Theoretical Framework and Applications (vol.1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clscc.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.1 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Weigand, Edda
    2010Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  36. Weizman, Elda, and Marcelo Dascal
    1991 “On Clues and Cues: Strategies of Text-Understanding.” Journal of Literary Semantics20: 18–30. 10.1515/jlse.1991.20.1.18
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.1991.20.1.18 [Google Scholar]
  37. Wettstein, Howard
    2016 “Speaking for Another.” InIndirect Reports and Pragmatics: Interdisciplinary Studies (vol.5), ed. byAlessandro Capone, F. Kiefer, and F. L. Piparo, 405–434. Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑21395‑8_19
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21395-8_19 [Google Scholar]
  38. Wieland, Nellie
    2010 “Context Sensitivity and Indirect Reports.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research81: 40–48. 10.1111/j.1933‑1592.2010.00360.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00360.x [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): contextual clues; indirect reports; metapragmatics; reflexivity
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