1932

Abstract

Free indirect discourse has traditionally been described as a form of reported speech or thought. It seems to be a mixture of both direct discourse (in allowing exclamatives, interrogatives, etc.) and indirect discourse (in following sequences of tenses and pronouns). It has been the object of more interest from literary theorists than from linguists, though Banfield (1982) offered what is still the best syntactic description of the phenomenon, and contemporary semantic accounts have brought new insights into it. Schlenker (2004) made decisive progress in proposing an account of two contexts and indexical shifting. Maier (2015) proposes an alternative quotational analyses, which Eckardt (2015) rejects, going back to Schlenker's model, suitably amended to answer Maier's criticism. We present these theories, criticize them, and propose an extension of the Schlenker–Eckardt model.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040722
2016-01-14
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/2/1/annurev-linguistics-011415-040722.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040722&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. de Balzac H. 2014. Collected Works of Honoré de Balzac East Sussex, UK: Delphi. Kindle, ed.. [Google Scholar]
  2. Banfield A. 1982. Unspeakable Sentences Boston/London: Routledge & Kegan Paul [Google Scholar]
  3. Barwise J, Perry J. 1983. Situation Semantics Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  4. Benveniste E. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale Paris: Gallimard 2 [Google Scholar]
  5. Butor M. 1957. La Modification Paris: French Eur. Publ. Kindle, ed.. [Google Scholar]
  6. Donnellan KS. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philos. Rev. 75:281–304 [Google Scholar]
  7. Doron E. 1991. Point of view as a factor of content. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 1) SK Moore, AZ Wyner 151–64 http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/issue/view/285 [Google Scholar]
  8. Eckardt R. 2015. The Semantics of Free Indirect Discourse: How Texts Allow Us to Mind-Read and Eavesdrop Leiden, Neth: Brill [Google Scholar]
  9. Flaubert G. 2013. Complete Works of Gustave Flaubert East Sussex, UK: Delphi. Kindle, ed.. [Google Scholar]
  10. James H. 2011. Works of Henry James East Sussex, UK: Delphi. Kindle, ed.. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lawrence DH. 1971 (1920). Women in Love London: Heinemann [Google Scholar]
  12. Maier E. 2015. Quotation and unquotation in Free Indirect Discourse. Mind Lang. 31:345–73 [Google Scholar]
  13. Miller H. 2007 (1949). Sexus: The Rosy Crucifixion I New York: Grove. Kindle, ed.. [Google Scholar]
  14. Modiano P. 2005. Accident nocturne Paris: Gallimard. eBooks, ed.. [Google Scholar]
  15. Schlenker P. 2004. Context of thought and context of utterance: a note on free indirect discourse and the historical present. Mind Lang. 19:279–304 [Google Scholar]
  16. Sharvit Y. 2008. The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguist. Philos. 31:353–95 [Google Scholar]
  17. Stendhal 2011. Œuvres complètes Saint Julien en Genevois, France: Arvensa. Kindle, ed.. [Google Scholar]
  18. The Onion 2011. Kim Jong-Un privately doubting he's crazy enough to run North Korea. The Onion, Dec. 11. http://www.theonion.com/article/kim-jong-un-privately-doubting-hes-crazy-enough-to-18374
  19. Vuillaume M. 1990. Grammaire temporelle des récits Paris: Minuit [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040722
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error