Direct Discourse

5 Key excerpts on "Direct Discourse"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Direct Speech, Self-presentation and Communities of Practice

  • Sofia Lampropoulou(Author)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Continuum

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 1

  Speech Representation and Direct Speech

  Introduction

  The representation of other voices through discourse, generally referred to as reported speech, is a pervasive linguistic phenomenon that has been addressed by scholars in a variety of subfields of linguistics. Depending on the theoretical background, various approaches have been adopted regarding the forms and functions it embeds, either in written and/or in spoken language. Overall, it has been examined in traditional sentence grammar studies as well as in text-oriented approaches. The latter includes among others, literary narratives, media texts, academic writing and spoken language. In this chapter, I present an overview of approaches relevant to this work, including structural, stylistic and sociolinguistic studies. I address functions of direct speech, including dramatization and involvement, evaluation, argumentation and self-presentation. This study follows the line of research that views the representation of speech as contributing to self-presentation. To this extent, I discuss the benefits of delving into direct speech, thus addressing both its content and functions and considering both the local interactional and broader social context in which it is embedded.

  Terminological Issues

  Before proceeding to the theoretical considerations, it is instructive I address some terminological issues. I will present the terms that have occasionally been employed to describe the notion of ‘representing other voices’ in different fields and I will explain my decisions concerning the terminology I use for this work. In particular, the terms ‘discourse’ and ‘speech’ have often been used interchangeably. The same applies to the terms ‘report’, ‘presentation’ and ‘representation’.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Dialogue Analysis VIII: Understanding and Misunderstanding in Dialogue

  Selected Papers from the 8th IADA Conference, Göteborg 2001

  • Karin Aijmer(Author)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter

    (Publisher)

  This view is fundamentally different from that adopted by critical discourse analysts who maintain that language is only a part of discourse. Discourse has been defined by Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999: 38) as semiotic elements of social practices which includes language (written and spoken and in combination with other semiotics, for example, with music in singing), nonverbal communication (facial expression, body movements, gestures, etc.) and visual images (for instance, photographs, film). According to Fairclough (1995), discourse, and any instance of discursive practice, is simultaneously a spoken or written language text, discourse practice (i.e., text production and text interpretation), and sociocultural practice. Discourse analysis, therefore, goes beyond the description of the language text to include the interpretation of the relationship between the discursive practices and the text, and the explanation of the relationship between discursive practices and social practices. Kress (1998; cited in Fairclough 1999) argues that we should distance ourselves from the pri-macy of language in looking at the interplay between different semiotic systems, for ex-ample, in a science classroom, language figures in the discourse just as one system among others, and is no more important than others. Whether language is seen as central or peripheral to the creation of meaning, and whether interactive talk is seen as central to the understanding of how social order is per-ceived by participants determine how investigations of discourse are conducted. Linguistic discourse analysis (LDA) and CA share the common characteristic of basing their descrip-tions firmly on hard evidence in the data and making their descriptions explicit, despite the fact that the phenomena that they are elucidating are quite different.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Handbook of Discourse Analysis

  • Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton(Authors)
  • 2008(Publication Date)
  • Wiley-Blackwell

    (Publisher)

  140 Laurel J. Brinton of particular discourse functions) (cf. Jacobs and Jucker 1995: 13ff ). The former direc-tion seems to be the more common in historical discourse analysis. 3 The second approach involves an application of discourse analysis to historical linguistics. It is the study of “discourse-pragmatic factors” in language change or of the discourse motivations behind diachronic changes, whether phonological, mor-phological, syntactic, or semantic. The attention of the historical linguist is focused on discourse matters, yet the emphasis remains on language change. It should be noted that a consideration of discourse factors in certain kinds of diachronic change, such as word order change, is not recent, and an interest in discourse-driven or influenced change can now be seen as almost commonplace. Such an approach has the advantage of providing elucidation of certain changes and a fuller understanding of diachronic processes of change. It may be termed discourse-oriented historical linguistics . 4 An extension of this approach (dating back to Givón 1979a) involves the study of how an element functioning on the discourse level comes to function on the morphosyntactic or semantic level. A third approach, though less well developed than the others, is more truly inter-disciplinary, involving a synthesis of discourse and diachrony. It involves a study of the changes in discourse marking, functions, and structures over time. That is, discourse structure is treated on a par with phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic structure as something which changes and develops over time, so that one might legitimately talk of discours(al) change as well as, for example, phonological change . This approach may be termed diachronic(ally oriented) discourse analysis . The remainder of the chapter will examine these three approaches.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Literary Pragmatics (Routledge Revivals)

  • Roger D. Sell(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  Halliday (1985 : 228ff.) to mention only two works of a generally high order.)

  Nor is poetics, which has investigated the field longest (starting from Plato) and on the whole best, an exception to the rule. Gérard Genette, for example, opposes the pure mimesis of directness, with its ‘literal fidelity’ and ‘documentary autonomy’, to the diegesis of indirectness: ‘It is, so to speak, acknowledged in advance that the narrator is not satisfied with transposing the words into subordinate clauses, but that he condenses them, integrates them into his own speech, and thus expresses them in his own style’ (Genette 1980 : 172).

  Despite the impressive ancestry and coalition behind it, however, this article of faith is nothing but a scholar’s myth, an ivory tower delusion. It has no leg to stand on either in logic or in culture or in reality, and what is more, nor in direct or inDirect Discourse. With regard to directness, I have traced the fallacy and suggested a counter-theory in a series of essays (Sternberg 1977 , 1978 , 1982a , 1982b ). To put the thing in a nutshell, the direct form cannot reproduce even where it (or we) would, because a number of original objects and aspects are unreproducible: from the context of utterance through the turns of thought to the intonation of speech. Nor would it be reasonable to expect the reproduction of objects that do not, may not, or will not exist, as in modalized direct quotation: prospective (‘I will tell him: “…”’), imperative (‘Tell him: “…”’), hypothetical (‘If I tell/told/had told him: “…”’), etc. Again, discourse provides an entire set of anti-reproductive licenses and conventions, such as translational mimesis, whereby Midianites (for example) speak pure Biblical Hebrew, or interpretative paraphrase within quotes, or even intersemiotic transfer from non-verbal to verbal expression (‘His eyes said: “Thanks”’). And life makes its own laws and loopholes, notably the faults of memory. Under such pressures from all quarters, there is no way to maintain the bond between direct quotation and literal representation. Positively speaking, it turns out that: (1) the direct form is potentially the best reproducer within a system not much concerned with reproduction per se

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Direct and Indirect Speech

  • Florian Coulmas(Author)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  Mansen and Mansen (1976) noted that quotes and dialogue fill the content of the peak of Guajiro 8 narrative. Waltz (1976) observed that direct speech is often used at the peak of Guanano 9 narrative. Borman (1977) stated that quotes, including onomatopoetic quotes, and dialogue lend vividness to the peak episodes of Cofan 10 narrative. Witte (1977) pointed out that quotes and dialogue occur most prominently at the peak of Andoke 11 narrative and that they contribute to the vividness at the narrative peak. The observations cited above corroborate Wierzbicka's theatrical feature of direct speech. Since direct speech requires the reporter-speaker to act out the role of the reported speaker, it is a natural vehicle for vivid and dramatic presentation. Thus, direct quote is the most common mode of expression at the peak of oral narrative in many languages. Direct and indirect speech 41 4.3. Speaker 's involvement Chafe (1982) pointed out that direct quotes express the reporter-spea-ker's involvement in the events s/he is reporting. Schwartz (personal communication) has noted that when his children become very involved in the events they are recounting, they use direct quotes exclusively, often with go as the verb of saying. A natural consequence of involvement in the event one is reporting is to act out the event. That is precisely what direct speech is: the reporter-speaker acting out the role of the reported speaker. 5. Evidentials and direct/indirect speech Evidentials specify the nature of the source of information in speech: Is it hearsay or the speaker's own previous experience? Is it imagination or conjecture? The function of evidentials is to enable the speaker and hearer to gauge the authenticity of a statement. Thus, direct quote and indirect quote are forms of evidentiality.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book