Didn’t she say to you, “Oh my God! In Pafos?”: Hypothetical quotations in everyday conversation

Constantina Fotiou
Abstract

This study examines the linguistic and discursive format as well as the functions of hypothetical quotations in everyday, informal conversations amongst Greek Cypriot friends. Drawing from a dataset of 270 minutes of naturally-occurring conversations, this study documents the linguistic format of sixty-one hypothetical quotations and examines why speakers resort to formulating such quotations to begin with. To do so, Goffman’s (1981) 1981Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar work on footing and participation framework is employed along with an analysis of these quotations in interaction following the work of Goodwin (2007)Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Interactive Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar. This study shows that most instances of hypothetical quotations are formulated as direct quotations. There can be both self- and other-quotations, and the quotative can take various forms. Hypothetical quotations serve an array of discursive functions, such as showing the listener’s involvement in an interaction, creating humour, supporting one’s argument or refuting the argument of the other, in line with other studies in the literature.

Keywords:
Publication history
Table of contents

1.Introduction

Quotations are an indispensable part of oral communication: “[e]very conversation is full of transmissions and interpretations of other people’s words” (Bakhtin 1981Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. by Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar, 228). They can give a narration vividness and dramatization (Archakis and Papazachariou 2008Archakis, Argiris, and Dimitris Papazachariou 2008 “Prosodic Cues of Identity Construction: Intensity in Greek Young Women’s Conversational Narratives”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12 (5): 627–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Tannen 1986Tannen, Deborah 1986 “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narratives”. In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), make a story more believable (Mayes 1990Mayes, Patricia 1990 “Quotation in Spoken English”. International Journal Studies in Language 14 (2): 325–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), serve as evaluative devices (Labov 1972Labov, William 1972Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar), evidentials (Holt 2000Holt, Elizabeth 2000 “Reporting and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (4): 425–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Myers 1999Myers, Greg 1999 “Functions of Reported Speech in Group Discussions”. Applied Linguistics 20 (3): 376–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), and a way to provide assessment in advice-giving sequences (Park 2018Park, Innhwa 2018 “Reported Thought as (Hypothetical) Assessment”. Journal of Pragmatics 129: 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Sandlund 2014Sandlund, Erica 2014 “Prescribing Conduct: Enactments of Talk or Thought in Advice-Giving Sequences”. Discourse Studies 16 (5): 645–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). They also create interpersonal involvement (Tannen 2007 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), give access to people’s mental state (Pascual and Królak 2018Pascual, Esther, and Emilia Królak 2018 “The ‘Listen to Characters Thinking’ Novel: Fictive Interaction as Narrative Strategy in English Literary Bestsellers and their Spanish and Polish Translations”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16 (2): 399–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), are a way to co-construct stories (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), and act as an argumentative device (Golato 2012Golato, Andrea 2012 “Impersonal Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam, Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Weiss 2020Weiss, Daniel 2020 “Analogical Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 155: 101–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar).

In many cases when one reports what someone else said in a past communicative event, it is presented as a verbatim representation of what was said. However, it has been repeatedly shown that it is rarely actually verbatim. First, people remember the meaning of what was said and not its linguistic realization (Lehner 1989Lehner, Adrienne 1989 “Remembering and Representing Prose: Quoted Speech as a Data Source”. Discourse Processes 12: 105–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 121). Further, when recounting past events, the present – along with intentions, feelings and knowledge of events that might not have happened at the time of the original conversation – shapes the current context (Holt 2000Holt, Elizabeth 2000 “Reporting and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (4): 425–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Tannen 2007 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). In Pujolar’s (2001Pujolar, Joan 2001Gender, Heteroglossia and Power: A Sociolinguistic Study of Youth Culture. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 179) words: “when reporting past events, people manipulate them to fit the particular expressive intention of the present speech situation. In some cases, this adaptation can go quite far without raising issues of sincerity”. Thus, quotations are seldom sensu stricto faithful to the original quote (Clift 2007Clift, Rebecca 2007 “Getting There First: Non-narrative Reported Speech in Interaction”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 120–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar; Haberland 1986Haberland, Hartmut 1986 “Reported Speech in Danish”. In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 219–253. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Holt 2000Holt, Elizabeth 2000 “Reporting and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (4): 425–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Tannen 1986Tannen, Deborah 1986 “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narratives”. In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2007 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Studies from the field of codeswitching support this claim: speakers can go as far as to change the language of the original conversation (Fotiou 2015Fotiou, Constantina 2015 “An Empirical Study of English in Cypriot Greek Conversations and Print Media”. PhD diss. University of EssexGoogle Scholar; Pujolar 2001Pujolar, Joan 2001Gender, Heteroglossia and Power: A Sociolinguistic Study of Youth Culture. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Finally, despite the fact that traditionally the act of quoting has been defined as one in which

[a] quoter […] takes up another person’s (or their own) source text (T1) and shifts it from its original, prior context (C1) to the present context (C2) as a target text (T2), and in doing so […] draws the recipient’s attention to T2, thus disrupting ongoing discourse,(Bublitz 2015Bublitz, Wolfram 2015 “Introducing Quoting as a Ubiquitous Meta-communicative Act”. In The Pragmatics of Quoting Now and Then, ed. by Jenny Arendholz, Wolfram Bublitz, and Monika Kirner, 1–26. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 4)

there are cases in which the T1 does not exist. This is when a speaker constructs speech that was not uttered in the C1 but should have been, or when one ‘reports’ their interlocutor’s inner thoughts on a prior event (C1); in other words, what they assume their thoughts must have been on a particular occasion (see Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, Example [5]). There are also cases where neither the T1 nor the C1 exist. This is when a speaker explains what they will or should say in a future situation, for example. Because of human memory limitations, the change of context, and cases where the T1 and C1 do not exist, Tannen (2007) 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar suggests that all quotations in conversation are in reality ‘constructed dialogue’.

This study focuses on one extreme formulation of constructed dialogue: that which is purely the creation of the current speaker, i.e., the quoter.11.Following Fetzer (2020Fetzer, Anita 2020 “ ‘And I Quote’: Forms and Functions of Quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions”. Journal of Pragmatics 157: 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 90), “quoter refers to the participant who undertakes the communicative act of quoting, quoted refers to the discursive contribution(s), or to excerpts of a discursive contribution, which the quoter quotes, source refers to the original producer of the quoted excerpt, and quotative refers to the verb of communication which has scope over the quoted excerpt. Quotation is used as an umbrella term comprising the constitutive parts of the communicative act: quoter, source, quoted and quotative”. In such cases the T1 and sometimes even the C1 do not exist, and such formulations metarepresent “a hypothetical communicative act or even a whole dialogic exchange” (Fetzer and Weiss 2020Fetzer, Anita, and Daniel Weiss 2020 “Doing Things with Quotes: Introduction”. Journal of Pragmatics 157: 84–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 86). For example, they manifest when speakers explain what they will say or tell their interlocutor what they should say in a future situation or should have said on a specific past situation. Other examples include enacting characters to suggest what someone might say on a specific occasion (Holt 2007 2007 “ ‘I’m Eyeing Your Chop Up Mind’: Reporting and Enacting”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 47–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar) as well as what a non-human entity says, said or will say (Mayes 1990Mayes, Patricia 1990 “Quotation in Spoken English”. International Journal Studies in Language 14 (2): 325–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). There are also cases of ventriloquizing, i.e., when a “speaker animates another’s voice in the presence of that other” (Tannen 2007 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 22). Hence, these hypothetical quotations are a subset of what Tannen calls ‘constructed dialogue’ and differ from other cases of constructed dialogue in that the T1 and sometimes the C1 do not exist in the first place.

While any quotation that refers to a future communicative act or a hypothetical past one is hypothetical by definition, when it comes to real past communicative acts, there are cases of clearly constructed dialogue (i.e., where there is evidence that what is reported was not originally uttered in the same way) that are not considered to be hypothetical quotations here. Examples are cases of codeswitching where it is clear that the original language of the quoted is changed or cases of summarizing dialogue which represents the gist of what was said (Tannen 2007 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 115). These are not hypothetical quotations because they are not entirely novel. With hypothetical quotations, no-one has actually said what they are reported to have said to begin with. The participants of exchanges involving such quotations are made aware of that usually because the quotative is realized in irrealis mood or because the quoter produces a quotation that supposedly was produced when their interlocutor was present but the quoter was not.

Some instances of inner speech (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) – also referred to as ‘reported thought’ (Acuña 2020Acuña, Virginia 2020 “Staging Mental Discursive Processes and Reactions: The Construction of Direct Reported Thought (DRT) in Conversational Storytelling”. Language in Society 50 (2): 235–57.Google Scholar; Haakana 2007Haakana, Markku 2007 “Reported Thought in Complaint Stories”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 150–78. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar) – defined as “the presentation of words or dialogues in ordinary conversation that were never spoken aloud before they were quoted, but which are either explicitly introduced or can be contextually deduced as reporting past thoughts or constructing future/hypothetical locutions” (Haakana 2007Haakana, Markku 2007 “Reported Thought in Complaint Stories”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 150–78. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar; Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, cited in Acuña 2020Acuña, Virginia 2020 “Staging Mental Discursive Processes and Reactions: The Construction of Direct Reported Thought (DRT) in Conversational Storytelling”. Language in Society 50 (2): 235–57.Google Scholar, 235), are also included in our definition of hypothetical quotations. These are cases when one reports past thoughts that one assumes someone else had on a previous occasion and when one reports one’s own and other people’s hypothetical future thoughts (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). However, when one reports their own thoughts on a real past communicative event, these are not considered to be hypothetical quotations because they are not entirely novel. They are instances of the broader category of constructed dialogue (Tannen 2007 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 112). To paraphrase what was noted earlier about speech, with hypothetical reported thought no-one has actually thought what they are reported to have thought to begin with in order for a quotation to be considered hypothetical.

This study examines hypothetical quotations in Cypriot Greek discourse. Such cases of constructed dialogue have been labelled in various ways: hypothetical active voicing (Simmons and LeCouteur 2011Simmons, Katie, and Amanda LeCouteur 2011 “ ‘Hypothetical Active-voicing’: Therapists ‘Modelling’ of Clients’ Future Conversations in CBT Interactions”. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3177–3192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), impossible quotes (Mayes 1990Mayes, Patricia 1990 “Quotation in Spoken English”. International Journal Studies in Language 14 (2): 325–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), hypothetical enactments (Holt 2007 2007 “ ‘I’m Eyeing Your Chop Up Mind’: Reporting and Enacting”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 47–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar), hypothetical discourse (Golato 2012Golato, Andrea 2012 “Impersonal Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam, Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), hypothetical reported speech (Koester and Handford 2018Koester, Almut, and Michael Handford 2018 “It’s Not Good Saying: ‘Well It Might Do That or It Might Not’: Hypothetical Reported Speech in Business Meetings”. Journal of Pragmatics 130: 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), future and hypothetical dialogues (Acuña 2021 2021 “The Construction of Future and Hypothetical Dialogues in Third-party Complaints as Enactments of a Subsequent Direct Complaint”. Journal of Pragmatics 181: 68–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), and quoting the unspoken or ‘fake’ quotations (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). They have been examined in a range of contexts such as therapy sessions (Simmons and LeCouteur 2011Simmons, Katie, and Amanda LeCouteur 2011 “ ‘Hypothetical Active-voicing’: Therapists ‘Modelling’ of Clients’ Future Conversations in CBT Interactions”. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3177–3192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), novels (Pascual and Królak 2018Pascual, Esther, and Emilia Królak 2018 “The ‘Listen to Characters Thinking’ Novel: Fictive Interaction as Narrative Strategy in English Literary Bestsellers and their Spanish and Polish Translations”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16 (2): 399–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), legal contexts (Pascual 2014Pascual, Esther 2014Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language and Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), workplace interactions (Koester and Handford 2018Koester, Almut, and Michael Handford 2018 “It’s Not Good Saying: ‘Well It Might Do That or It Might Not’: Hypothetical Reported Speech in Business Meetings”. Journal of Pragmatics 130: 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), political discourse (Fetzer 2020Fetzer, Anita 2020 “ ‘And I Quote’: Forms and Functions of Quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions”. Journal of Pragmatics 157: 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Weiss 2020Weiss, Daniel 2020 “Analogical Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 155: 101–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), religious texts (Sandler and Pascual 2019Sandler, Sergeiy, and Esther Pacual 2019 “In the Beginning There Was Conversation”. Pragmatics 29 (2): 250–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), everyday conversations (Acuña 2021 2021 “The Construction of Future and Hypothetical Dialogues in Third-party Complaints as Enactments of a Subsequent Direct Complaint”. Journal of Pragmatics 181: 68–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Golato 2012Golato, Andrea 2012 “Impersonal Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam, Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Goodwin 1990aGoodwin, Marjorie H. 1990aHe-said-she-said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar, 1990b 1990b “Retellings, Pretellings and Hypothetical Stories”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 24 (1–4): 263–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), and classroom interactions (Golato 2012Golato, Andrea 2012 “Impersonal Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam, Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar).

In this paper, we study these constructions and illustrate their linguistic and discursive format and functions in informal conversations. Uncovering their format and discursive functions serves to answer an intriguing question: why do speakers formulate hypothetical quotations to begin with? It is shown that similarly to what has been found in other languages, hypothetical quotations in Cypriot Greek are in their majority formulated as direct quotations and they take two discursive forms: one concerning a real past situation and another a hypothetical future situation. They are used because they serve a range of discursive functions similar to those found in other languages. Perhaps with the vividness and dramatization achieved with the use of quotations, they are an effective way to achieve various interactional goals.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reports on the materials used and methods adopted, Section 3 analyses selected extracts, and Section 4 provides a discussion and a conclusion.

2.Materials and methods

The data of this paper come from recordings of 270 minutes of naturally-occurring conversations between friends and family members. The audio recordings took place in Nicosia, Cyprus between 2008 and 2018. Four men and six women aged between seventeen and thirty-three participated in five dyadic co-present interactions. The participants were not given instructions as to the topic or place of the conversations and the author was not present in their interactions. The participants recorded themselves. The conversations took place at their homes or at cafes. Informed written consent was required for all recordings.

The language of interaction is Cypriot Greek with some occasional switching into English. The Greek Cypriot community is a diglossic setting (Fotiou and Ayiomamitou 2021Fotiou, Constantina, and Ioli Ayiomamitou 2021 ““We Are in Cyprus, We Have to Use Our Language, Don’t We?” Pupils’ and Their Parents’ Attitudes towards Two Proximal Linguistic Varieties”. Linguistics and Education 63: 100931. DOI logoGoogle Scholar): Cypriot Greek is the L variety, while the H variety is Standard Modern Greek. The latter is acquired at school, and it is one of the two official languages of Cyprus along with Standard Turkish. English does not enjoy an official status in Cyprus, but it is the most popular and important foreign language on the island not only because Cyprus used to be a British colony but also because it is a tourist destination, and its economy mainly relies on the services sector (Fotiou 2015Fotiou, Constantina 2015 “An Empirical Study of English in Cypriot Greek Conversations and Print Media”. PhD diss. University of EssexGoogle Scholar, 2022 2022 “English in Cyprus: The Now and Then of English in a Former British Colony”. English Today: 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). In many cases, Greek Cypriots use English in their everyday interactions either exclusively when talking to foreigners or in the form of insertional codeswitching when they are conversing with one another.22.For more information on this community see Fotiou (2017a 2017a “English–Greek Code-switching in Greek Cypriot Magazines and Newspapers – An Analysis of Its Textual Forms and Functions”. Journal of World Languages 4 (1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2017b 2017b “English Discourse Markers in Cypriot Greek”. In Researchers in Progress II. Languages in Contact: Languages with History. Proceedings of the 2nd UCY-LC International Forum of Young Researchers, ed. by Pedro J. Molina Muñoz, 103–116. Nicosia: Language Centre – University of Cyprus.Google Scholar, 2018 2018 “A Linguistic Analysis of Cypriot Greek–English Compound Verbs.” Lingua 215: 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2019 2019 “Debunking a Myth: The Greek Language in Cyprus Is Not Being Destroyed. A Linguistic Analysis of Cypriot Greek–English Codeswitching”. International Journal of Bilingualism 23 (6): 1358–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2020 2020 ““Θέλεις huge sample για να φκάλεις valid statistical results [You want a huge sample to generate valid statistical results]”: A Conversational Analysis of Cypriot Greek – English Codeswitching”. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, ed. by Maria Chondrogianni, Simon Courtenage, Geoffrey Horrocks, Amalia Arvaniti, and Ianthi Tsimpli. London: Westminster Computation and Linguistics Group, pp. 93–105.Google Scholar, 2022 2022 “English in Cyprus: The Now and Then of English in a Former British Colony”. English Today: 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) and Fotiou and Grohmann (2022)Fotiou, Constantina, and Kleanthes K. Grohmann 2022 “A Small Island with Big Differences? Folk Perceptions in the Context of Dialect Levelling and Koineization”. Frontiers in Communication 6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar.

A total sixty-one instances of hypothetical quotations are analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. A quantitative analysis is conducted in relation to the formatting of quotations. To uncover the discursive functions of such quotations, we use Goffman’s (1981) 1981Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar work on footing and participation framework and study these quotations in interaction. As Goffman (1981 1981Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar, 151) argues, when we shift from what we are saying to what someone else (or even our former or future self) said (or will say or should have said) we change our footing. In his participation framework, Goffman (1981) 1981Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar deconstructs the notion of speaker and argues for the existence of different roles: animator, author, and principal. The animator is the “talking machine” (Goffman 1981 1981Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar, 144), the author is “someone who has selected the sentiments that are being expressed and the words in which they are encoded” (ibid.), and the principal is “someone whose position is established by the words that are spoken” (ibid.).

According to Fetzer and Weiss (2020Fetzer, Anita, and Daniel Weiss 2020 “Doing Things with Quotes: Introduction”. Journal of Pragmatics 157: 84–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 86–87), when it comes to direct quotations the quoter assumes the footing of the animator and some form of a mediated principal of the quoted–they are a mediated principal because there is context importation–while the source is author and principal. When it comes to indirect quotation the quoter is animator as well as the mediated author and principal whilst the source is author and principal. This position is adopted here with some alternations: (a) the notion of embedding (Goffman 1981 1981Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar), (b) the distinction between real and fictitious, and (c) the idea that the quoter is usually also a mediated author when it comes to direct quotations are taken on board.

When a speaker uses a direct quotation to portray the words of another (i.e., the source), they are the animator of the quoted and a mediated principal as argued above, but also a mediated author in many cases. The latter addition accounts for the idea that due to the limitations of human memory, quoters do not always report the exact words of the source in a given conversation. While the quoter is a mediated author when it comes to direct quotations, they are not acknowledged as such since there is usually the assumption that we witness verbatim representation of the quoted. In fact, one of the reasons why quoters are not explicitly shown to be mediated authors when it comes to direct quotations is because the latter can be used by quoters to deflect responsibility of the quoted. As Goffman (1974Goffman, Erving 1974Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Lebanon: University Press of New England.Google Scholar, 512) argues, “[w]hen a speaker employs conventional brackets to warn us that what he is saying is meant to be taken in jest, or as a mere repeating of words said by someone else, then it is clear that he means to stand in a relation of reduced personal responsibility for what he is saying”.

In relation to the source, Goffman (1981 1981Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar, 149) argues that when we tell of something that someone else said, or even our former self, “[w]e can embed an entirely different speaker into our utterance”. That is why in direct quotations, the source is considered here to be an embedded author and principal. The characterization “real” is also added. The source is the one who first produced (albeit in another context) what they are reported to have said. They are the real author and the original principal since it is their position that is being established by what they are reported to have said. Indirect and mixed quotations differ in that the quoter is always a mediated author and one that is acknowledged to be as such, since it is evident that the quoted has undergone alterations. Matters become more complicated when we bring hypothetical quotations into the picture. With hypothetical quotations, the animator and the real author of what is being reported is always the same person (i.e., the quoter) while the source can be an actual, real entity or a fictitious one, human or non-human, but definitely not the real author of the quoted. The source, in other words, is an embedded, fictitious author and principal. Table 1 shows how Goffman’s participation framework is adopted in this paper.

Table 1.Goffman’s participation framework in relation to quotations
Direct Quotations Quoter: animator, mediated principal, and in many cases a mediated author – even though not acknowledged as such
Source: embedded real author and embedded original principal
Indirect Quotations Quoter: animator, mediated principal, and mediated author – acknowledged as such
Source: embedded real author and embedded original principal
Hypothetical Direct and Indirect Quotations Quoter: animator, mediated principal, and real author – acknowledged as such
Source: embedded fictitious author and principal

When one examines quotations, the deconstruction of the speaker as conducted by Goffman and adapted here can be an important analytical tool. However, it can also be problematic (Holt 2007 2007 “ ‘I’m Eyeing Your Chop Up Mind’: Reporting and Enacting”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 47–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 48–49) since this approach may require the creation of new categories in order to examine quotations in interaction (Irvine 1996Irvine, Judith Temkin 1996 “Shadow Conversations: The Indeterminacy of Participant Roles”. In Natural Histories of Discourse, ed. by Michael Silverstein, and Greg Urban, 131–159. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar, 133, cited in Holt 2007 2007 “ ‘I’m Eyeing Your Chop Up Mind’: Reporting and Enacting”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 47–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 49). Hence, Goodwin’s (2007)Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Interactive Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar work is also important, since he places an emphasis on footing not as a construction of typologies of different kinds of participants – as Goffman (1981) 1981Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar does – but by focusing on its interactive nature. Goodwin (2007Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Interactive Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 12) claims that:

participation can be analysed as a temporarily unfolding process through which separate parties demonstrate to each other their ongoing understanding of the events they are engaged in by building actions that contribute to the further progression of these same events.

In other words, there is an emphasis on the sequential organization of talk (Goodwin 2007Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Interactive Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 12–13). One does not only focus on what the speaker does but also on the actions the hearer performs. Goodwin (2007)Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Interactive Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar places an emphasis on mutual reflexivity and argues that to construct discourse the speaker alone is not enough. Rather, discourse is constructed “through the coordinated actions of different kinds of participants” (Goodwin 2007Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Interactive Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 16). Viewed in this way, “the speaker is no longer positioned as the locus of all semiotic activity and the cognitive life of the hearer, including his or her analysis of the details of emerging language structure, is recovered” (Goodwin 2007Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Interactive Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 38). Only if we study discourse in interaction can we uncover its functions (also Holt 2007 2007 “ ‘I’m Eyeing Your Chop Up Mind’: Reporting and Enacting”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 47–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar).

3.Hypothetical quotations in informal Greek Cypriot interactions

3.1The linguistic format of hypothetical quotations

Hypothetical quotations in these data take two different formats: direct and indirect quotations. Direct quotation is considered as “a verbatim representation of what has been said” (Fetzer and Weiss 2020Fetzer, Anita, and Daniel Weiss 2020 “Doing Things with Quotes: Introduction”. Journal of Pragmatics 157: 84–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 86) while indirect quotation “represents what has been said before from the quoter’s perspective […something that is] reflected in deictic and temporal shifts” (ibid.). The first example below is an instance of direct quotation while the second one is an instance of indirect quotation.

(1)

enas alːos enːa mboruse na mu pi (0.2) “ ela lefkosia na fkume

Someone else could have said, “Come to Nicosia and we’ll go out”.

(2)

epiði iθela na tis po oti prepi na to ðocimasi (0.1) alːa nomizːo eθːa to travuse

Because I wanted to tell her that she has to try it, but I don’t think she could handle it.

Direct quotations are the most frequent ones (Table 2), and this is perhaps not unexpected (see Myers 1999Myers, Greg 1999 “Functions of Reported Speech in Group Discussions”. Applied Linguistics 20 (3): 376–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Tannen 1986Tannen, Deborah 1986 “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narratives”. In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Weiss 2020Weiss, Daniel 2020 “Analogical Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 155: 101–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar).

In order to study the linguistic format of hypothetical quotations, we also examine the quotative used and whether we are dealing with self- or other-quotation (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 2.Direct and indirect quotations
Type Direct Indirect
Tokens 55 6
Percentage   90%  10%
Table 3.Self- and other-quotations
Type Self Other
Tokens 32 29
Percentage   53%   47%
Table 4.Linguistic realization of the quotative
Type lalo (say/tell) ime kapos (be like) No quotative Others
Tokens 32 8 13 8
Percentage    52.5%  13%    21.5%  13%

Regarding the source of the quotations, self- and other-quotations are equally frequent. Participants construct hypothetical discourse about themselves and on behalf of others. The most common quotative is lalo (say/tell). The choice of using no quotative comes second, followed by other quotatives such as “think” and “ask” and the “be like” construction. Because the dataset is small and the percentages are easily influenced by outliers, future studies should examine what the default quotative is in Cypriot Greek interactions and whether the “be like” construction is gaining ground (see Buchstaller and D’Arcy 2009Buchstaller, Isabelle, and Alexandra D’Arcy 2009 “Localized Globalization: A Multi-local, Multivariate Investigation of Quotative Be Like”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13 (3): 291–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). In an older study on constructed dialogue in conversations in Greece, Tannen (1986Tannen, Deborah 1986 “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narratives”. In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 321) noted that the “be like” construction has no counterpart in (Standard Modern) Greek. This study shows that in Cypriot Greek conversations this is no longer the case.

3.2The discursive forms and functions of hypothetical quotations

In this section the discursive forms and functions of hypothetical quotations in this dataset are examined. We start with quotations that function as an argumentative device (Section 3.2.1), followed by those used to make an assessment and/or show involvement in the conversation (Section 3.2.2) and those used to enact stereotypical characters (Section 3.2.3). Some of these functions overlap while all instances of hypothetical quotations exhibit vividness and dramatization. This relates to the fact that the majority of hypothetical quotations in this dataset are direct quotations.

3.2.1Acting as an argumentative device

The first extract illustrates the use of hypothetical quotations in relation to a past situation. Timotheos and Panos discuss a rejection letter Panos received for a job he applied for. Panos had to go do a series of tasks for this job application, one of which was an audition. Both participants of the conversation are professional musicians.

(3)33.All names are pseudonyms. Non-English utterances are in italics as per the journal’s guidelines. Hypothetical quotations are given in bold. Free translation is provided by the author. A new turn is marked by a new line number and a long turn may cover more than one line.
1 Timotheos: ipan su ʝati?
Did they tell you why?
2 Panos: oi ʧ estila enan imeil tu kaθiʝiti (1) ʧeː perimeno na mu apandisi
No, and I sent an email to the professor (1) and I’m waiting for his response
3 Timotheos: perimene estilan su ti? arnitici apandisiː=
Wait a minute, what did they send you? A negative response
4 Panos: =estilan mu ɣramːa re olokliro ɣramːa e spiti (1.5) estilan mu piso ta xartça pu
5 tus estila vasika (.) ʧe to viteo ʧe ulːa (.) ʧe aritici aftin oti (1.5) en itan epitiçis
6 i eksetasi (2) enevriasa ðioti (.) katarçin =
They sent a letter mate, an entire letter sent to my place (1.5) they sent back the
papers and the video, everything, and a negative (response) that (1.5) the
examination was unsuccessful (2) I got upset because, to begin with
7 Timotheos: =ipan pcon epcasan? i [ti orɣano]?
Did they say who they hired? Or [what instrument (do they play)]?
8 Panos:                   [oi]       mbori na men epcasan kanena
                  [No]      They might not have hired anyone
9 Timotheos: nːe
Yes
10 Panos: mbori na men epcasan kanena ʧe tuton pistefko ???
They might not have hired anyone and this is what I believe ???
11 Timotheos: eθːa maθume ðilaði
In other words, we will never know
12 Panos: oi (.) mboro na rotiso mɲa fili mu ???
No, (but) I can ask a friend ???
13 Timotheos: θa eprepe na lalun “kseris epcasame vʝoli i epcasameːn”=
They should say “You know we hired a violinist, or we hired
14 Panos: =eprepe na lalun apla lalun en itan epitiçis
They should have, (instead) they simply say it was unsuccessful
15 Timotheos: fisika na su po ʝati en lalun ðioti an ta teleftea ðeka xroɲːa epcasan vʝoli (.) meta
16 enːa rtis esi na paraponeθis ʧe na pis “nda pcanete mono vʝoli?
I think they don’t say anything because if for the last ten years they have hired violinists, → then you’ll complain and say, “Ok so do you only hire violinists?”
17 Panos: siura
Sure
18 Timotheos: eno mbori na θelun mono vʝoʎːa
While they may indeed only want violinists
19 Panos: siura
Sure

Panos is upset because the letter stated that his audition was unsuccessful without any justification as to why this was so. Timotheos shares his friend’s frustration and shows this by using a hypothetical quotation (line 13) to construct what the people who rejected him should have said in their letter, implying some kind of moral obligation on their part. In this way, he aligns with his friend’s position and agrees that he should have been provided with more information in the rejection letter. Panos acknowledges the hypothetical quotation and agrees with its content. He shows this by repeating the quotative ‘they should have said’ (line 14) only to contrast it with what really happened: ‘(instead) they simply say it was unsuccessful’.

Yet, in lines 15–16, Timotheos provides a plausible account for why Panos did not receive further information regarding the position: these people only hire violinists and do not disclose this information in their job advertisements so as to avoid complaints. If that is the case, Timotheos believes that Panos – who is not a violinist but had to go through an audition – would find it unjust. In order to show this, he uses another hypothetical quotation to construct his friend’s reaction to such a scenario. The quotation functions as an effective argumentative device since Panos aligns with Timotheos’ position something that is shown by the fact that he repeats the word ‘sure’ twice (lines 17, 19).

The two hypothetical quotations in this extract are used so that the quoter aligns with the position of his interlocutor (line 13) and as an argumentative device to illustrate why the hiring committee may have acted the way they did. This type of action has been described as “claim backing” (Antaki and Leudar 1990Antaki, Charles, and Ivan Leudar 1990 “Claim-backing and Other Explanatory Genres in Talk”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 9: 279–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). As Koester and Handford (2018Koester, Almut, and Michael Handford 2018 “It’s Not Good Saying: ‘Well It Might Do That or It Might Not’: Hypothetical Reported Speech in Business Meetings”. Journal of Pragmatics 130: 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 70) argue, the use of direct quotations is “capable of performing two apparently opposing functions of involving […] on the one hand, and distancing/detachment […] on the other”. Involving refers to adopting the addressee’s viewpoint (Koester and Handford 2018Koester, Almut, and Michael Handford 2018 “It’s Not Good Saying: ‘Well It Might Do That or It Might Not’: Hypothetical Reported Speech in Business Meetings”. Journal of Pragmatics 130: 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 77) while distancing/detachment relates to showing the other point of view or critizing one’s interlocutor in an indirect, non-offensive way. The use of a hypothetical quotation ensures that while both parties know that the real author of the quotation is the speaker, there is also an embedded fictitious author and principal in the conversation, and this makes it easier to construct an argument and show another point of view without causing offence or damaging interpersonal relationships. As one reviewer remarked, it is also possible that the use of a hypothetical quotation to deliver and/or illustrate an opposing argument may also be a face-saving mechanism (Haugh and Bargiela-Chiappini 2009) since disagreement with one’s interlocutor is a potentially face-threatening act.

Further evidence of how hypothetical quotations can function as an argumentative device comes from Example (4). This extract shows how an exchange of a series of arguments eventually ends when a dramatic portrayal of a hypothetical future scenario and a hypothetical quotation are constructed. This time the quotation concerns a future hypothetical situation.

(4)
1 Ioanna: nːe ts en θaːː kami seks?
Yes, ts won’t he have sex?
2 (.)
3 Christos: oi en θa kami pothːe seks=
No he’ll never have sex=
4 Ioanna: = ʝati?=
=why?=
5 Christos: = ʝati eɣo en to θeoro sosto na ʝenːiθun kapca mora (.)   [ʧe=
=because I don’t think it’s right for puppies to be born (.) [and=
6 Ioanna:                                               [ʝati???
                                              [why???
7 Christos: =NA PREPI NA TA ðOSO ʧE NA MEN EVRO ute stus ðromus θa petaxtun=
=TO HAVE TO GIVE THEM AWAY AND NOT BE ABLE TO FIND (a
place for them) they’ll be thrown in the streets=
9 Ioanna: =e na pcaso eɣo ena
=eh I’ll take one
10 (.)
11 Christos: en ʝinete me pco na kami seks?
No way, whom will he have sex with?
12 (1.9)
13 Ioanna: par ton kapu ʧe na kami seks
Take him somewhere and he’ll have sex
14 (1)
15 Christos: eʃi scilitses etsi opos θelo eɣo alːa ta mora en mboro na ksero oti enːa ta
16 ðoso s ena spiti pu en θa to ɲːoθun teʎːa enoo (.) kalithːera epiði o scilos tin
17 ora pu kamni seks endʒen kati apla en i stiɣmi en one night stand that’s it en
18 [ʧe tuto esizːitisamen=
there are female dogs the way I want them but the babies; I can’t live with the
fact that I’ll give them to a home that they won’t feel completely [as their own]
I mean (.) It’s better (this way) because it’s not a big deal for a dog to have sex
it is just a one night stand that’s it, it’s not [and we talked about this=
19 Ioanna: [ndaksi kala e enːa me
[Ok fine he will not
20 Christos: =to me ti monika
=with Monica
21 Ioanna: enːa men eʃi tundin embiria stin zːoi tu as pume esi enːa tu to sterisis?
Won’t he have that life experience, let’s say, will you take that away from
him?
22 (0.7)
23 Christos: eːːː (0.7) para na ʝeniθi mɲa zːoi pu enːa vasanizmeni ʧe pu enːa peθani s
24 ena xorafi as pume ʧe pu enːa to kakometaçirizonde ʝati ti na genːiθun efta
25 mora pi çi etsi? enːa me kapos (.) “ tora ti?(.) apla ti? (0.4) na to ðoso
26 enːoo en mboro na ðoso moraːː
eh (0.7) instead of having a life (being brought to this world) that will be a
tortured life and (having a dog) die in a field, let’s say a dog that people will
abuse, why would seven puppies be born for example in such conditions?
I’ll be like (.) “ now what? (.) what? (0.4) will I give it away” I mean I
can’t give puppies away
27 (1.1)
28 Ioanna: aresci mu polːa pu sikonːi toːː=
I really like the fact that he lifts the=
29 Christos: AN ITAN KAΘAROEMA enːa tan efkolo na ta ðosis enːoo na xa ena scilːo=
=IF THEY WERE PUREBREAD it would have been easy to give them
away I mean had I had a dog=
30 Ioanna: =en polːa oreos [ʃilːos tutos ime siuri oti enːa ???
=this is a very beautiful [dog I am sure that it will???
31 Christos:             [oi en kuklos enen polːa oreos .hh nːe ksero to en ðiafono (0.7)
32 nːe ksero to alːa en (1.2) perimene pu mbeno siɣma thːivi? oi enːe?
            [No he is gorgeous he is not just very beautiful .hh yes I know I don’t disagree (0.7)
  yes I know but it’s (1.2) wait how can a change
  the channel to Sigma TV? Not like this, right?

Ioanna tries to persuade her friend Christos to let his dog mate. Christos is adamant that his dog should not mate because he does not want more dogs to come to this life and suffer. Up to line 21 Ioanna is able to respond to his counterarguments. This changes when in lines 24–25 Christos constructs a scenario in which a puppy is born into a miserable life and eventually dies in a field. To make matters worse, he subsequently provides a dramatic, perhaps even hyperbolic, hypothetical future scenario according to which this is the fate of not one but seven puppies (lines 25–26).

To dramatize this extreme imaginary scenario, Christos constructs the response of his future self to such a scenario in the form of a hypothetical quotation (line 25). Ioanna is unable to respond to that, shown by the long pause in line 27 and the change of subject in line 28. In other words, when everything else failed, it was the hypothetical quotation–along with dramatic, hypothetical scenario–that contributed to Christos winning the argument. Ioanna could neither respond to such a scenario nor provide a counterargument. The quotation illustrated in a vivid and dramatic way the consequences of letting a dog mate and was an effective way to win the argument.

Another function of hypothetical quotations is to create a humorous effect as part of what Winchatz and Kozin (2008)Winchatz, Michaela R., and Alexander Kozin 2008 “Comical Hypothetical: Arguing for a Conversational Phenomenon”. Discourse Studies 10 (3): 383–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar call comical hypothetical and Golato (2012)Golato, Andrea 2012 “Impersonal Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam, Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar calls fictitious humorous stories. In such cases, speakers “invent imaginary situations that they take to the absurd” (Golato 2012Golato, Andrea 2012 “Impersonal Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam, Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 25). What initiates the joke is usually an assessment, such as the one in line 1 below. One of the functions of using absurd demonstrations to present one’s opinion or argument is that one gets to express it without being challenged by anyone. Because it is absurd, it cannot be taken seriously; “it invites laughter, not challenge” (Antaki 2003Antaki, Charles 2003 “The Uses of Absurdity”. In Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Research Interview, ed. by Harry van den Berg, Margaret Wetherell, and Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, 85–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 93). In the following exchange two friends, Ioanna and Christos, discuss the latter’s love life. Both agree that Christos has not yet found the right partner yet.

(5)
1 Ioanna: prepi na vris kati iðietero
You have to find something special
2 Christos: akrivos en mboro na tis [lalo “kseris as pume varkume na se
Exactly I can’t be saying to her: “You know I’m bored to
3 Ioanna:                      [kati ???
                     [something???
4 Christos: ðo tora ʧe na to ðeçete ma eɣo varkume na se ðo tora endʒ enːa su po
5 psemata ” (.) {ti as pume ???}
see you now” and expect her to accept this but I’m bored to see you now
I can’t lie to you”. {What ???}
6 Ioanna: apanaʝia mu {enimboro enimboro “varkume na se ðo tora” en polːa
traʝiko}
Holy Mary Mother of God {I can’t, I can’t (stand this) “I’m bored to see
you now” this is absurd}
7 Christos: {“ eh ti as pume θelo xrono ʝa ton eafto mu kopelːa mu ndaksi imaste se
8 sçesi alːa endʒe simeni ???”} (laughter)
{“eh what (can I say) I need time for myself my girl, ok we are in a
relationship but that doesn’t mean ???”} (laughter)
9 Ioanna: £??? Ores ores aman ??? θelo na su fero kati pas ti chːelːe£
£??? Sometimes when ??? I want to hit your head with something£
(Change of subject)

Ioanna’s assessment in line 1 relates to the fact that Christos had claimed earlier in the conversation to feel pressure with the idea of being in a relationship. Ioanna believes that this is because he has not found the right partner yet: someone special. Crucially, Christos agrees with her assessment in line 2 when he says “Exactly”. In order to support it, he creates an absurd future scenario in which he says to a future girlfriend of his–who is clearly not someone special–that he is bored to see her, and she accepts it (see line 2 and the beginning of line 4). He subsequently repeats the hypothetical quotation along with the reason he is so straightforward: he would rather be honest with her (lines 4–5, see text after the arrow).

Christos does not just describe how his future relationship with this girl would be; he demonstrates it (Clark and Gerrig 1990Clark, Herbert H., and Richard J. Gerrig 1990 “Quotations as Demonstrations”. Language 66 (4): 764–805. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) through an absurd future scenario with the use of the hypothetical quotation. The scenario is so absurd that it cannot be taken seriously. It sounds ludicrous, and it is laughable (Antaki 2003Antaki, Charles 2003 “The Uses of Absurdity”. In Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Research Interview, ed. by Harry van den Berg, Margaret Wetherell, and Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, 85–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar).44. Antaki (2003)Antaki, Charles 2003 “The Uses of Absurdity”. In Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Research Interview, ed. by Harry van den Berg, Margaret Wetherell, and Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, 85–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar distinguishes between extremity and absurdity. The former refers to extreme case formulations (Pomerantz 1986Pomerantz, Anita 1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims”. Human Studies 9: 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). The latter is both extreme and absurd to the point that it cannot be taken seriously. This is why the whole fictitious account invites laughter: both parties of this conversation find it funny and laugh about it. Ioanna explicitly marks the hypothetical quotation as absurd by repeating it along with the exclamation “Holy Mary Mother of God” and the phrase “this is absurd”. Now, the fact that she finds this demonstration funny does not mean that she approves of it. The fact that she says, “I can’t, I can’t (stand this)” and explicitly marks it as absurd most likely illustrates that she disagrees with how Christos would treat his future partner. Note that Christos knows that such a behaviour would be unacceptable as shown in lines 2, 4, and 5, where he says, “I can’t be saying to her: ‘You know I’m bored to see you now’ and expect her to accept this”.

So far, the analysis of this extract has illustrated how ludicrous demonstrations can be used to convey one’s opinion without that being taken seriously. As a result, what the embedded fictitious author and principal says through the hypothetical quotation where Christos adopts the footing of his future self cannot be (openly) challenged because it invites laughter.55.A reviewer disagrees with the claim that the analysis of this extract so far has shown how ludicrous demonstrations can be used to convey one’s opinion without that being taken seriously, because Christos has explicitly stated that the behaviour he describes would be unacceptable. However, the fact that he stated that his behaviour would be unacceptable does not mean that this is not how he thinks he would act if he were in a relationship with someone who was not the right person. He uses this ludicrous demonstration to illustrate how he would behave in that situation despite the fact that has stated that this is an unacceptable behaviour. However, when Christos adopts the footing of his future self again in lines 7–8 and continues with his illustration of how he would treat his future partner, Ioanna stops laughing out loud and tells him jokily that she wants to hit him. It seems that this time the extension of the footing of his future self has become separated for the frame of what he cannot say and of what he explicitly acknowledges to be unacceptable behaviour and Ioanna finds that somewhat problematic. Thus, with line 9 she manages to close this sequence and change the subject. The way the future fictitious account ends is an example of what Winchatz and Kozin (2008)Winchatz, Michaela R., and Alexander Kozin 2008 “Comical Hypothetical: Arguing for a Conversational Phenomenon”. Discourse Studies 10 (3): 383–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar call ‘sudden death’. This happens when one of the participants find something in the account troubling and interrupt it to return to the ‘real’ world (Winchatz and Kozin 2008Winchatz, Michaela R., and Alexander Kozin 2008 “Comical Hypothetical: Arguing for a Conversational Phenomenon”. Discourse Studies 10 (3): 383–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 298).

3.2.2Making an assessment and showing involvement

The following two examples involve hypothetical quotations constructed by a speaker who was absent from the original conversation. Such quotations are not uncommon (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Tannen 2007 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). They show the listener’s involvement in the interaction (Tannen 2007 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), making the quoter an active participant rather than a mere listener (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). In other words, they serve as evidence of collaborative discourse. Apart from that, Example (6) also shows how quotations can be a means through which a quoter assesses a particular situation. Below Christos describes to Ioanna his date with Monica:

(6)
1 Ioanna: prot ap ola poso ʧero eʃis na ti ðis?=
First of all, how long has it been since you last saw her?
2 Christos: =pu ta xristuʝenːa
Since Christmas
3 (0.6)
4 Ioanna: aː ndaksiːː en itan tipote ouao cenurʝo ksero ɣo a [???
Oh oːːk it wasn’t something wow, new let’s say ???
5 Christos:                                        [ixa ti ði mɲa fora ta
6 xristuʝenːa ʧe iʃe na ti [ðo pu to strato
                                       [I saw her once at Christmas
and before that I hadn’t [seen her since the army
7 Ioanna:                    [“ a exases ðeka cila, exases ðeka cila(.) en itan
8 kapos etsi as pume (0.4)
                   [“Oh you’ve lost ten kilos; you’ve lost ten kilos” it
wasn’t like that let’s say (0.4)
9 Christos: oi (1) eɣo exasa pende alːa en to ksere epiði (0.4) ts eːːː=
No (1) I’ve lost five but she wouldn’t know that because (0.4) ts eːːː
10 Ioanna: =ise vortos anyway
You are obese anyway

Ioanna wants to know the significance of the date and asks Christos how long it has been since he last saw Monica (line 1). Christos responds in line 2 that he last saw Monica at Christmas–this was a few months before this conversation took place. What follows this question-answer sequence is a gap (line 3) followed by an “oh” receipt sequence and a negative assessment of the importance of the date (line 4). The gap along with “oh” function as information receipt “by proposing a change of state of knowledge or information” (Heritage 1984Heritage, John 1984 “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement”. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar, 309) while the use of the discourse marker ‘oh’ also evaluates the information received (Schiffrin 1987Schiffrin, Deborah 1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Trester 2009Trester, Anna Marie 2009 “Discourse Marker ‘Oh’ as a Means for Realizing the Identity Potential of Constructed Dialogue in Interaction”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13 (2): 147–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) in a negative light. Ioanna expected something entirely different: she thought that Christos and Monica had not seen each other for a long time prior to their date. However, since they last met a few months prior to this conversation she does not think that them seeing each other again now is of great importance. Christos makes an effort to elevate the importance of this date (lines 5–6) by explaining that while he did see Monica at Christmas, the last time he saw her before that was a long time ago.66.Both parties of this conversation know that Christos left the army two years before this conversation took place. This means that Christos and Monica had not seen each other for a long time – with the exception of their meeting at Christmas – since they last saw each other when Christos was in the army. Despite Christos’ efforts, Ioanna is convinced of the date’s insignificance and provides further negative assessment in lines 7 and 8. The second negative assessment is again marked with “oh” and uses a hypothetical quotation to show what could have been said during that date if Christos and Monica had indeed not seen each other for a long time prior to their date. This is followed by the remark, “it wasn’t like that let’s say” in order to diminish the date’s significance. By offering a second negative assessment of the date with the aid of a hypothetical quotation, Ioanna refrains from producing a second direct assessment (the first one being the one in line 2: “Oh oːːk it wasn’t something wow, new let’s say”), since the source of the hypothetical quotation is another person: a fictitious author and principal. In other words, it creates a detachment from the quoter’s own speech, and it is not perceived as overly critical (Koester and Handford 2018Koester, Almut, and Michael Handford 2018 “It’s Not Good Saying: ‘Well It Might Do That or It Might Not’: Hypothetical Reported Speech in Business Meetings”. Journal of Pragmatics 130: 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Myers 1999Myers, Greg 1999 “Functions of Reported Speech in Group Discussions”. Applied Linguistics 20 (3): 376–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Further, because it takes the form of a quotation it is delivered in a more vivid and dramatic way (Labov 1972Labov, William 1972Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar) while the fact that the phrase “you’ve lost ten kilos” is repeated twice contributes to that.

The following extract also shows how hypothetical quotations can be used to show the quote’s involvement in the interaction. Tatiana discusses with her boyfriend, Marios, a meeting she had with Kate. Kate’s first language is English and that is why part of the dialogue is constructed in English. Now, Tatiana lives in Nicosia but commutes to Pafos every day. This is unexpected for two reasons. First, Nicosia is the capital of Cyprus and people usually commute from other places to Nicosia. Second, the distance between Nicosia and Pafos is a one hour and forty-five minute drive, which is quite long for Cypriot standards given that Cyprus is a small island.

(7)
1 Marios: ndo metaksi itan na se rotiso nambu su pe ʧini ʝa ti ðuʎːa
By the way, I meant to ask you what that woman told you about the job
2 Τatiana: parapano emilusamen ʝa pco prosopika pramata sta aŋglika enːoite
We mostly talked about personal stuff, in English of course
3 Μarios: en su ipe↑Oh my ↑God in PAFOS?
Didn’t she say to you, “Oh my God! In PAFOS?
4 Τatiana: stin arçi nːe lei mu “you gonna be travelling ksero ɣo back and forth every day?”
5 nːeleo tis (.) “e endaksi it’s because you are coming from England I guess you
6 are used to it” leo tisnːe (.) anyway (.) I was thinking of doing”
At first yes, she says to me “you gonna be travelling let’s say back and forth every day?”
“yes”, I say to her (.) “eh ok it’s because you are coming from England, I guess you
are used to it” I say to her “yes (.) anyway (.) I was thinking of doing”

The hypothetical quotation comes in line 3 when Kate’s hypothetical reaction to Tatiana’s everyday commute to Pafos is constructed by Marios. Marios’ choice to construct Kate’s reaction in English – the language of the original conversation – helps him to demonstrate it in a vivid way while the use of the exclamation “oh my God” and the use of prosodic features (rising intonation and stress) makes it more genuine (Mayes 1990Mayes, Patricia 1990 “Quotation in Spoken English”. International Journal Studies in Language 14 (2): 325–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar).

Crucially, Marios was not present at the conversation between Tatiana and Kate but assumes that this must have been Kate’s reaction to the fact that Tatiana commutes to Pafos. Constructed dialogue created by someone who is not present at the interaction the quoted material is taken from is not unusual (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Tannen 2007 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Such cases show the listener’s involvement in the story (Tannen 2007 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar), making Marios an active participant rather than a mere listener (Sams 2010Sams, Jessie 2010 “Quoting the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar).

3.2.3Enacting stereotypical characters

In the following example, Timotheos and Panos discuss the audition Panos had to do for the position he applied for and did not get. It illustrates how quotations can be used to enact a stereotypical character and provide evidence in favour of one’s negative assessment of other people. Here Germans are perceived as diplomatic while Russians are perceived as straightforward and honest people who would do a face threatening act without redressive action, i.e., “in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible” (Brown and Levinson 1987Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 69).

(8)
1 Timotheos: o kaθiʝitis enːambu su pe?
What did the professor say?
2 Panos: ʧini tin imera en mu pe tipote itan etsi lːioenːa parislali muɣrapti ɣraptos
3 [ola osa
He didn’t say anything that day, he was a bit “you’ll get” he says “a written
(reply with) everthing”
4 Timotheos: [en θa su pu en θa su pi
He won’t say, he won’t say
5 Panos: eɲːosa ton etsi lːio (.) afton ʧin din imera alːa pale ndaksi en ʝermanos endʒe
6 kseris endʒe ksero tus ʝermanus endalos embu eni i rosːi amesos itan na mu pi
7 en epies kala epies polːa kala mbravo afto ” (.) i ʝermani en en en pco
8 ðiplomates en ksero en su ksekaθarizːun en tuto parapano pu me nevriase
9 e opote (.) ndaksi afino toː
I couldn’t tell what he was thinking on that day but again he’s German, one
can’t tell, I don’t know how German people are, while a Russian would say to me
you didn’t do well, you did very well, bravo”, Germans are more
diplomatic, I don’t know, they are not straightforward. This is what really made me angry,
so OK I’ll leave it at that
10 Timotheos: o aleksei itan etsi meta tin eksetasi lali mu (imitating Russian accent)
11 “Yes yes (.) sound good sound good
Aleksei was like that after my audition, he says to me (imitating Russian
accent) “Yes yes (.) sound good sound good
12 Panos:             (laughter)
13 Timotheos: but the last part no good no good” lali aː
but the last part no good no good” he says aː
14 Panos:                    {amesos mbam} endʒ enːa su pi ts timoθee mu se
15 ʝenikes ɣramːes ??? ʝenikes ɣramːes epies kala mbravo ʧolasksero ɣo
                   {right away, bang} he wouldn’t say ts “Dear
Timotheos overall ??? overall you did well bravo” let’s say
16 Timotheos: nːe alːa kseris ti m aresci oti ʧino pu enːa su pi oti en kalo kseris siura oti en
17 kalo aresci mu tuto ðioti meta erkete ʧe kamni mu
Yes, but I like the fact that when he does praise you, you are certain that you
did well. I like that because afterwards he says to me
18 Panos: nːe en polːa ilikrinis
Yes, he is very honest

Panos focuses on the behaviour of the German professor who would not tell him how he performed in the audition (see beginning of line 2). Instead, he told him that he will get written feedback (see lines 2 and 3, “You’ll get” he says “a written (reply)”). The professor’s behaviour leads to speculation as to how Germans in general communicate. Panos is annoyed and contrasts this behaviour with what he perceives to be the typical Russian behaviour. The latter is demonstrated with a hypothetical quotation in line 7: “you didn’t do well, you did very well, bravo”. The words of this embedded fictitious author and principal are constructed in the form of two short assessments: a negative and a positive one. They are seen in a favourable light since they are contrasted with what really happened: Panos received no feedback on his performance.

Timotheos agrees with the stereotypical portrayal of Russians as straightforward people and offers an example from his experience (lines 11, 13) in the form of a quotation (not a hypothetical one). To do so, he adopts a stereotypical Russian accent, which is not uncommon when one constructs stereotypical figures (Goffman 1974Goffman, Erving 1974Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Lebanon: University Press of New England.Google Scholar, 536). Timotheos’ constructed dialogue serves to make a contrast between Russians and Germans. Panos agrees with this contrast and uses onomatopoeia to parallel the directness of the Russian professor’s words with the sound of a gunshot or an explosion (see Tannen 1986Tannen, Deborah 1986 “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narratives”. In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 327 for a discussion on sound words in Greek narratives). He then provides a hypothetical quotation that could have never been produced by the Russian professor (shown by the phrase “he wouldn’t say”) in order to further highlight the differences between the two nationalities. The hypothetical quotation (lines 14–15) involves praise and the polite form of address “Dear” (Brown and Levinson 1987Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Such use of praise is not to be expected from the Russian professor. This is perceived by Panos and Timotheos to be a positive personal attribute (lines 16–18) since what they both appreciate when they require feedback is directness and honesty (see also line 18), not necessarily praise and certainly not a diplomatic response and/or lack of immediate feedback.

This extract cannot be read separately from the previous conversation these friends had regarding the rejection letter (Example [3]). Panos is upset because neither the letter nor the professor explained why he was not hired. Enacting the stereotypical Russian behaviour with the help of his friend, which they both view favourably, is his way of criticizing the way he was treated by the German professor and legitimize his negative assessment of him. It can be seen in the context of a broader argument that he was treated unfairly. The use of hypothetical quotations to provide evidence in favour of people’s negative assessment of absent parties in a conversation is also discussed in Mohammad and Vásquez (2015)Mohammad, Abeer, and Camilla Vásquez 2015 “ ‘Rachel’s Not Here’: Constructed Dialogue in Gossip”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 19 (3): 351–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar.

4.Discussion and concluding remarks

In the context of informal friendly conversations hypothetical quotations serve an array of functions similar to those that non-hypothetical quotations serve. They show involvement in the interaction by making oneself an active listener and they are used to enact stereotypical characters. They have also been shown to be an effective argumentative device. The fact that most hypothetical quotations in this dataset are direct quotations contributes to achieving the desired conversational effects. Overall, this paper shows that (Cypriot) Greek hypothetical discourse has similar functions as in other contexts and languages and contributes to the literature on hypothetical quotations by illustrating these functions with the use of Goffman’s (1981) 1981Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar work on footing and participation framework. It also contributes to the literature by offering a comprehensive definition of hypothetical quotations which includes both reported speech and reported thoughts and is viewed as a subset of what Tannen (2007) 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar calls ‘constructed dialogue’.

As Weiss states (2020Weiss, Daniel 2020 “Analogical Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 155: 101–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 106), “the myth of verbatim reproduction vanishes automatically” when it comes to hypothetical quotations. Yet, the lack of sincerity of such quotations is not an object of talk for the participants. On the contrary, and perhaps paradoxically, such quotations work well as an argumentative device. In fact, the data of this study show that this is one of the main functions that hypothetical quotations have. As Weiss (2020)Weiss, Daniel 2020 “Analogical Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 155: 101–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar remarks, “their benefit for argumentative purposes seems less clear: they hardly enhance the credibility of the information quoted, nor the authority of its source and/or the quoter”. In other words, using hypothetical quotations as an argumentative device does not involve quoting an authority or a credible source. Nevertheless, both in spontaneous conversation (e.g., Golato 2012Golato, Andrea 2012 “Impersonal Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam, Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) and serious, high-stakes settings such as court trials (e.g., Pascual 2014Pascual, Esther 2014Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language and Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) and parliamentary discourse (Fetzer 2020Fetzer, Anita 2020 “ ‘And I Quote’: Forms and Functions of Quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions”. Journal of Pragmatics 157: 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Weiss 2020Weiss, Daniel 2020 “Analogical Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 155: 101–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) hypothetical quotations are used effectively as argumentative devices.

One of the reasons why hypothetical quotations work well as argumentative devices is because their use “stresses the detachment from the reporting speaker’s own speech” (Myers 1999Myers, Greg 1999 “Functions of Reported Speech in Group Discussions”. Applied Linguistics 20 (3): 376–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 389). Because the idea, opinion, argument put forward in a hypothetical quotation is not presented as the current speaker’s argument–since they are the quoter but not the source of the quotation–but as someone else’s (even if that person is the speaker’s future self) it is not as easy to challenge. Because it is not easy to challenge, such quotations have another overall function: a bracketing function in that they signal that an argumentative sequence is about to be terminated (see particularly Examples [3]–[5]). Further, what makes such quotations successful as argumentative devices is the fact that they are used along with other (linguistic) strategies, namely hyperbole (Example [4]), fictitious humorous stories that participants take to the absurd (Example [5]), and enactment of stereotypical characters (Example [8]).

Finally, the fact that hypothetical quotations are attested in so many diverse settings and languages suggests that this is a perhaps a universal construction along with instantiations of what Pascual and her collaborators call fictive interaction (Pacual 2014Pascual, Esther 2014Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language and Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Sandler and Pascual 2019Sandler, Sergeiy, and Esther Pacual 2019 “In the Beginning There Was Conversation”. Pragmatics 29 (2): 250–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). This contribution gives further credit to the claim that “there is a conversational basis for thought, language, and discourse” (Pascual 2014Pascual, Esther 2014Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language and Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 1). We have seen how arguments were chosen to be made, and in many cases won, through hypothetical quotations and by incorporating into the current discourse voices which, while constructed by one of the participants of the current conversation, they were attributed to other fictitious authors and principals. We have also witnessed how participants chose to show their involvement in a conversation and assess what was discussed by constructing language in the form of direct quotations that was again attributed to others not present in the current conversation (fictitious authors and principals). As such, constructed dialogue in general, hypothetical quotations in particular, and other related constructions (e.g., instantiations of fictive interaction as studied in the work of Pascual and collaborators) seem to be a universal phenomenon pervasive in many languages and a variety of discourse genres. These constructions can be argued to reflect the interactional nature of language (Pascual and Oakley 2017Pascual, Esther, and Todd Oakley 2017 “Fictive Interaction”. In Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Barbara Dancygier, 347–360. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) and support a dialogical account of language and meaning according to which interaction and dialogue are an indispensable aspect of language and meaning (Sandler 2016Sandler, Sergeiy 2016Fictive Interaction and the Nature of Linguistic Meaning. In The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction [ Human Cognitive Processing 55 ], ed. by Esther Pascual, and Sergeiy Sandler, 23–41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar).

Transcript conventions

sentence of interest to the analyst
(.) micro pause
(0.2) timed pause
(words) transcriber’s comments
ː elongated speech, a stretched sound
??? indecipherable discourse
[ point where overlapping speech occurs
{ } words uttered while laughing
£ words uttered while smiling, understood as a slight laughter that makes no noise
= latched speech
rise in intonation
CAPITALS said very loudly or even shouted
underlined rise in volume or emphasis

Acknowledgements

I thank the reviewers for their comments, suggestions, and corrections which greatly improved my work. All remaining errors are my own.

Notes

1.Following Fetzer (2020Fetzer, Anita 2020 “ ‘And I Quote’: Forms and Functions of Quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions”. Journal of Pragmatics 157: 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 90), “quoter refers to the participant who undertakes the communicative act of quoting, quoted refers to the discursive contribution(s), or to excerpts of a discursive contribution, which the quoter quotes, source refers to the original producer of the quoted excerpt, and quotative refers to the verb of communication which has scope over the quoted excerpt. Quotation is used as an umbrella term comprising the constitutive parts of the communicative act: quoter, source, quoted and quotative”.
2.For more information on this community see Fotiou (2017a 2017a “English–Greek Code-switching in Greek Cypriot Magazines and Newspapers – An Analysis of Its Textual Forms and Functions”. Journal of World Languages 4 (1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2017b 2017b “English Discourse Markers in Cypriot Greek”. In Researchers in Progress II. Languages in Contact: Languages with History. Proceedings of the 2nd UCY-LC International Forum of Young Researchers, ed. by Pedro J. Molina Muñoz, 103–116. Nicosia: Language Centre – University of Cyprus.Google Scholar, 2018 2018 “A Linguistic Analysis of Cypriot Greek–English Compound Verbs.” Lingua 215: 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2019 2019 “Debunking a Myth: The Greek Language in Cyprus Is Not Being Destroyed. A Linguistic Analysis of Cypriot Greek–English Codeswitching”. International Journal of Bilingualism 23 (6): 1358–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2020 2020 ““Θέλεις huge sample για να φκάλεις valid statistical results [You want a huge sample to generate valid statistical results]”: A Conversational Analysis of Cypriot Greek – English Codeswitching”. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, ed. by Maria Chondrogianni, Simon Courtenage, Geoffrey Horrocks, Amalia Arvaniti, and Ianthi Tsimpli. London: Westminster Computation and Linguistics Group, pp. 93–105.Google Scholar, 2022 2022 “English in Cyprus: The Now and Then of English in a Former British Colony”. English Today: 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) and Fotiou and Grohmann (2022)Fotiou, Constantina, and Kleanthes K. Grohmann 2022 “A Small Island with Big Differences? Folk Perceptions in the Context of Dialect Levelling and Koineization”. Frontiers in Communication 6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar.
3.All names are pseudonyms. Non-English utterances are in italics as per the journal’s guidelines. Hypothetical quotations are given in bold. Free translation is provided by the author. A new turn is marked by a new line number and a long turn may cover more than one line.
4. Antaki (2003)Antaki, Charles 2003 “The Uses of Absurdity”. In Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Research Interview, ed. by Harry van den Berg, Margaret Wetherell, and Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, 85–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar distinguishes between extremity and absurdity. The former refers to extreme case formulations (Pomerantz 1986Pomerantz, Anita 1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims”. Human Studies 9: 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). The latter is both extreme and absurd to the point that it cannot be taken seriously.
5.A reviewer disagrees with the claim that the analysis of this extract so far has shown how ludicrous demonstrations can be used to convey one’s opinion without that being taken seriously, because Christos has explicitly stated that the behaviour he describes would be unacceptable. However, the fact that he stated that his behaviour would be unacceptable does not mean that this is not how he thinks he would act if he were in a relationship with someone who was not the right person. He uses this ludicrous demonstration to illustrate how he would behave in that situation despite the fact that has stated that this is an unacceptable behaviour.
6.Both parties of this conversation know that Christos left the army two years before this conversation took place. This means that Christos and Monica had not seen each other for a long time – with the exception of their meeting at Christmas – since they last saw each other when Christos was in the army.

References

Acuña, Virginia
2020 “Staging Mental Discursive Processes and Reactions: The Construction of Direct Reported Thought (DRT) in Conversational Storytelling”. Language in Society 50 (2): 235–57.Google Scholar
2021 “The Construction of Future and Hypothetical Dialogues in Third-party Complaints as Enactments of a Subsequent Direct Complaint”. Journal of Pragmatics 181: 68–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles
2003 “The Uses of Absurdity”. In Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Research Interview, ed. by Harry van den Berg, Margaret Wetherell, and Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, 85–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles, and Ivan Leudar
1990 “Claim-backing and Other Explanatory Genres in Talk”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 9: 279–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archakis, Argiris, and Dimitris Papazachariou
2008 “Prosodic Cues of Identity Construction: Intensity in Greek Young Women’s Conversational Narratives”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12 (5): 627–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
1981The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. by Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram
2015 “Introducing Quoting as a Ubiquitous Meta-communicative Act”. In The Pragmatics of Quoting Now and Then, ed. by Jenny Arendholz, Wolfram Bublitz, and Monika Kirner, 1–26. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle, and Alexandra D’Arcy
2009 “Localized Globalization: A Multi-local, Multivariate Investigation of Quotative Be Like”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13 (3): 291–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Richard J. Gerrig
1990 “Quotations as Demonstrations”. Language 66 (4): 764–805. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca
2007 “Getting There First: Non-narrative Reported Speech in Interaction”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 120–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita
2020 “ ‘And I Quote’: Forms and Functions of Quotations in Prime Minister’s Questions”. Journal of Pragmatics 157: 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Daniel Weiss
2020 “Doing Things with Quotes: Introduction”. Journal of Pragmatics 157: 84–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fotiou, Constantina
2015 “An Empirical Study of English in Cypriot Greek Conversations and Print Media”. PhD diss. University of EssexGoogle Scholar
2017a “English–Greek Code-switching in Greek Cypriot Magazines and Newspapers – An Analysis of Its Textual Forms and Functions”. Journal of World Languages 4 (1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b “English Discourse Markers in Cypriot Greek”. In Researchers in Progress II. Languages in Contact: Languages with History. Proceedings of the 2nd UCY-LC International Forum of Young Researchers, ed. by Pedro J. Molina Muñoz, 103–116. Nicosia: Language Centre – University of Cyprus.Google Scholar
2018 “A Linguistic Analysis of Cypriot Greek–English Compound Verbs.” Lingua 215: 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “Debunking a Myth: The Greek Language in Cyprus Is Not Being Destroyed. A Linguistic Analysis of Cypriot Greek–English Codeswitching”. International Journal of Bilingualism 23 (6): 1358–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 ““Θέλεις huge sample για να φκάλεις valid statistical results [You want a huge sample to generate valid statistical results]”: A Conversational Analysis of Cypriot Greek – English Codeswitching”. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, ed. by Maria Chondrogianni, Simon Courtenage, Geoffrey Horrocks, Amalia Arvaniti, and Ianthi Tsimpli. London: Westminster Computation and Linguistics Group, pp. 93–105.Google Scholar
2022 “English in Cyprus: The Now and Then of English in a Former British Colony”. English Today: 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fotiou, Constantina, and Ioli Ayiomamitou
2021 ““We Are in Cyprus, We Have to Use Our Language, Don’t We?” Pupils’ and Their Parents’ Attitudes towards Two Proximal Linguistic Varieties”. Linguistics and Education 63: 100931. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fotiou, Constantina, and Kleanthes K. Grohmann
2022 “A Small Island with Big Differences? Folk Perceptions in the Context of Dialect Levelling and Koineization”. Frontiers in Communication 6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1974Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Lebanon: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
1981Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H.
1990aHe-said-she-said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
1990b “Retellings, Pretellings and Hypothetical Stories”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 24 (1–4): 263–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea
2012 “Impersonal Quotation and Hypothetical Discourse”. In Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid van Alphen, 3–36. Amsterdam, Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
2007 “Interactive Footing”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haakana, Markku
2007 “Reported Thought in Complaint Stories”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 150–78. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haberland, Hartmut
1986 “Reported Speech in Danish”. In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 219–253. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
1984 “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement”. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth
2000 “Reporting and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (4): 425–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “ ‘I’m Eyeing Your Chop Up Mind’: Reporting and Enacting”. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 47–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Irvine, Judith Temkin
1996 “Shadow Conversations: The Indeterminacy of Participant Roles”. In Natural Histories of Discourse, ed. by Michael Silverstein, and Greg Urban, 131–159. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Koester, Almut, and Michael Handford
2018 “It’s Not Good Saying: ‘Well It Might Do That or It Might Not’: Hypothetical Reported Speech in Business Meetings”. Journal of Pragmatics 130: 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1972Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lehner, Adrienne
1989 “Remembering and Representing Prose: Quoted Speech as a Data Source”. Discourse Processes 12: 105–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayes, Patricia
1990 “Quotation in Spoken English”. International Journal Studies in Language 14 (2): 325–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohammad, Abeer, and Camilla Vásquez
2015 “ ‘Rachel’s Not Here’: Constructed Dialogue in Gossip”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 19 (3): 351–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Greg
1999 “Functions of Reported Speech in Group Discussions”. Applied Linguistics 20 (3): 376–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Innhwa
2018 “Reported Thought as (Hypothetical) Assessment”. Journal of Pragmatics 129: 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, Esther, and Emilia Królak
2018 “The ‘Listen to Characters Thinking’ Novel: Fictive Interaction as Narrative Strategy in English Literary Bestsellers and their Spanish and Polish Translations”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16 (2): 399–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, Esther
2014Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language and Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, Esther, and Todd Oakley
2017 “Fictive Interaction”. In Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Barbara Dancygier, 347–360. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims”. Human Studies 9: 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pujolar, Joan
2001Gender, Heteroglossia and Power: A Sociolinguistic Study of Youth Culture. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Sergeiy
2016Fictive Interaction and the Nature of Linguistic Meaning. In The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction [ Human Cognitive Processing 55 ], ed. by Esther Pascual, and Sergeiy Sandler, 23–41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Sergeiy, and Esther Pacual
2019 “In the Beginning There Was Conversation”. Pragmatics 29 (2): 250–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandlund, Erica
2014 “Prescribing Conduct: Enactments of Talk or Thought in Advice-Giving Sequences”. Discourse Studies 16 (5): 645–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sams, Jessie
2010 “Quoting the Unspoken: An Analysis of Quotations in Spoken Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3147–3160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simmons, Katie, and Amanda LeCouteur
2011 “ ‘Hypothetical Active-voicing’: Therapists ‘Modelling’ of Clients’ Future Conversations in CBT Interactions”. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3177–3192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1986 “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narratives”. In Direct and Indirect Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trester, Anna Marie
2009 “Discourse Marker ‘Oh’ as a Means for Realizing the Identity Potential of Constructed Dialogue in Interaction”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13 (2): 147–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weiss, Daniel
2020 “Analogical Reasoning with Quotations? A Spotlight on Russian Parliamentary Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 155: 101–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winchatz, Michaela R., and Alexander Kozin
2008 “Comical Hypothetical: Arguing for a Conversational Phenomenon”. Discourse Studies 10 (3): 383–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar

Address for correspondence

Constantina Fotiou

University of Cyprus

P.O. Box 20537

CY-1678 Nicosia

Cyprus

[email protected]

Biographical notes

Constantina Fotiou is a sociolinguist and an English language teacher and trainer. She holds a PhD and an MA in Sociolinguistics from the University of Essex. She is currently a Visiting Lecturer at the Department of English Studies of the University of Cyprus. She has published her work in a number of peer-reviewed journals, such as The International Journal of Bilingualism, Frontiers in Communication, English Today, and Lingua.