Cover not available
Part of
Linguistic Foundations of Narration in Spoken and Sign Languages
Edited by Annika Hübl and Markus Steinbach
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 247] 2018
► pp. 207–222

Reporting vs. pretending. Degrees of identification in role play and reported speech

| University of Oslo
In both role play and reported speech, the actual speaker purports to present the speech of someone else. I analyse and compare the different perspectives that are involved in role play utterances and direct and indirect speech reports. I argue for a conceptual distinction between role play utterances and speech reports and discuss three criteria to distinguish them: (a) metalinguistic marking, (b) communicative intention, and (c) embodiment. Based on this analysis, I propose a hierarchy of identification with the other person, in which role play exhibits the highest degree of identification and indirect speech the lowest.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Perspective
    • 2.1Two notions of perspective
    • 2.2Perspectives in role play
    • 2.3Perspectives in direct and indirect speech
  • 3.Differences between role play utterances and speech reports
    • 3.1Metalinguistic marking
    • 3.2Communicative intention
    • 3.3Embodiment
  • 4.Hierarchy of identification
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.247.09kod
References (48)
References
Andresen, H. 2005. Role play and language development in the preschool years. Culture & Psychology 11(4): 387–414.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Banfield, A. 1973. Narrative style and the grammar of direct and indirect speech. Foundations of Language 10(1): 1–39.Google Scholar
Bateson, G. 1973. A theory of play and fantasy. In Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution and Epistemology, G. Bateson (ed.), 150–172. London: Granada.Google Scholar
Bortolussi, M. & Dixon, P. 2003. Psychonarratology. Foundations for the Empirical Study of Literary Response. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bühler, K. 1999(1934). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Mit einem Geleitwort von Friedrich Kainz. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Gerrig, R. J. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66(4): 764–805.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F. 1985. Direct and indirect speech: General problems and problems of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 41–63.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986. Reported speech: Some general issues. In Direct and Indirect Speech, F. Coulmas (ed.), 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. 1998. Coherent voicing. On prosody in conversational reported speech. Interaction and Linguistic Structures 1: 1–28.Google Scholar
De Villiers, J. G. & Pyers, J. E. 2002. Complements to cognition: A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false-belief-understanding. Cognitive Development 17: 1037–1060.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eerland, A., Engelen, J. A. A. & Zwaan, R. A. 2013. The influence of direct and indirect speech on mental representations. PLOS ONE 8(6): 1–9.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ely, R. & McCabe, A. 1993. Remembered voices. Journal of Child Language 20(3): 671–696.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, C. 2002. Nicht-direktes Referat im Deutschen. Typologie und Abgrenzungsprobleme. In Modus, Modalverben, Modalpartikeln, C. Fabricius-Hansen, O. Leirbukt & O. Letnes (eds), 7–29. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, H. 1984. The coordination of meaning in the creation of a shared make-believe reality. In Symbolic Play. The Development of Social Understanding, I. Bretherton (ed.), 73–100. Orlando FL: Academic Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, P. L.. 2000. The Work of the Imagination. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Herrmann, A. & Steinbach, M. 2012. Quotation in sign languages. A visible context shift. In, Quotatives. Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 15], I. Buchstaller & I. Van Alphen (eds) 203–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, M. 1993. The boundaries of reported speech in narrative discourse: Some developmental aspects. In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, J. A. Lucy (ed.), 63–90. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, L. 2003. Evidentiality in Turkic. In Studies in Evidentiality [Typological Studies in Language 54], A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds), 273–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klewitz, G. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. 1999. Quote-unquote? The role of prosody in the contextualization of reported speech sequences. Interaction and Linguistic Structures 12: 1–34.Google Scholar
Köder, F. 2013. How children acquire reported speech in German and Dutch: A corpus study. In „Perspektiven“ Diskussionsforum Linguistik in Bayern/Bavarian Working Papers in Linguistics 2, B. Sonnenhauser, C. Trautmann & P. Noel (eds), 15–28. Munich: LMU.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.. 1970. Linguistics and natural logic. Synthese 22(2): 151–271.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, H. & Tomasello, M. 2003. The role of language in the development of false belief understanding: A training study. Child Development 74(4): 1130–1144.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES Project. Tools for Analyzing Talk. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Marbach, E. S. & Yawkey, T. D. 1980. The effect of imaginative play actions on language development in five-year-old children. Psychology in the Schools 17: 257–263.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. & Gruendel, J. 1986. Children’s scripts. In Event Knowledge. Structure and Function in Development, K. Nelson (ed.), 21–46. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nielsen, M. & Dissanayake, C. 2000. An investigation of pretend play, mental state terms and false belief understanding: In search of a metarepresentational link. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 18(4): 609–624.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noice, H. & Noice, T. 2001. Learning dialogue with and without movement. Memory & Cognition 29(6): 820–827.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nordqvist, Å. 2001a. Speech about Speech. A Developmental Study on Form and Function of Direct and Indirect Speech. Göteborg: Kompendiet.Google Scholar
. 2001b. The use of direct and indirect speech by 1½- to 4-year-olds. Psychology of Language and Communication 5(1): 57–66.Google Scholar
Pellegrini, A. D. & Galda, L. 1982. The effects of thematic-fantasy play training on the development of children’s story comprehension. American Educational Research Journal 19(3): 443–452.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Percus, O. & Sauerland, U. 2003. Pronoun movement in dream reports. In Proceedings of NELS 33, M. Kadowaki & S. Kawahara (eds), 265–284. Amherst MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Plank, F. 1986. Über den Personenwechsel und den anderer deiktischer Kategorien in der wiedergegebenen Rede. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 14(3): 294–308.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. 2000. Oratio obliqua, oratio recta. An essay on metarepresentation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, J. & Redeker, G. 1996. Perspective and the representation of speech and thought in narrative discourse. In Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (eds), 291–317. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K.. 1996. Role voicing, gender, and age in preschool play discourse. Discourse Processes 22(3): 289–307.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Scott, C. L., Harris, R. J. & Rothe, A. R. 2001. Embodied cognition through improvisation improves memory for a dramatic monologue. Discourse Processes 31(3): 293–305.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D.. 2007. Talking Voices. Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, M.. 1999. Imaginary Companions and the Children who Create Them. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. & Carlson, S. M. 1997. The relation between individual differences in fantasy and theory of mind. Child Development 68(3): 436–455.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wade, E. & Clark, H. H. 1993. Reproduction and demonstration in quotations. Journal of Memory and Language 32(6): 805–819.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.. 1974. The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Papers in Linguistics 7: 267–307.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D.. 2000. Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In Metarepresentations. A Multidisciplinary Perspective, D. Sperber (ed.), 411–448. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wolf, D. P., Rygh, J. & Altshuler, J. 1984. Agency and experience: Actions and states in play narratives. In Symbolic Play. The Development of Social Understanding, I. Bretherton (ed.), 195–217. Orlando FL: Academic Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yao, B., Belin, P. & Scheepers, C. 2011. Silent reading of direct versus indirect speech activates voice-selective areas in the auditory cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23(10): 3146–3152.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Brain “talks over” boring quotes: Top-down activation of voice-selective areas while listening to monotonous direct speech quotations. NeuroImage 60(3): 1832–1842.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yao, B. & Scheepers, C. 2011. Contextual modulation of reading rate for direct versus indirect speech quotations. Cognition 121(3): 447–453.DOI logoGoogle Scholar