Speaking for Bakhtin : Two Interpretations of Reported Speech. A Response to Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018)

Show simple item record

dc.contributor University of Helsinki, Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS) en
dc.contributor.author Spronck, Stef
dc.date.accessioned 2019-10-11T13:41:01Z
dc.date.available 2019-10-11T13:41:01Z
dc.date.issued 2019
dc.identifier.citation Spronck , S 2019 , ' Speaking for Bakhtin : Two Interpretations of Reported Speech. A Response to Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018) ' , Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия Лингвистика , vol. 23 , no. 3 , pp. 603-618 . https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-3-603-618 en
dc.identifier.issn 2312-9182
dc.identifier.other PURE: 124930281
dc.identifier.other PURE UUID: e8926f95-013d-4a36-97eb-c23eb97fda0a
dc.identifier.other ORCID: /0000-0003-2891-0092/work/63005859
dc.identifier.other WOS: 000509125800001
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10138/305958
dc.description.abstract Vološinov ([1929]1973) is one of the most frequently cited works in studies on reported speech, but its interpretation varies considerably between authors. Within the linguistic anthropological tradition, its central message is often conflated with Erving Goffman’s ‘speaker roles’, and in a recent publication, Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018) marry ideas they attribute to Vološinov (1973) and Mikhail M. Bakhtin to those by the formal semanticist Donald Davidson. Responding to Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018) (and a shorter version of a similar argument in (Goddard and Wierzbicka 2019)), this paper seeks to explore the philosophical foundations of reported speech research, particularly in relation to Vološinov/Bakhtin. It suggests that reported speech research is motivated by two fundamentally distinct goals, one here labelled ‘Fregean’ and the other ‘Bakhtinian’. Questions and methods used in both of these research traditions lead to two radically different understandings of reported speech. This affects the applicability of the definition of direct/indirect speech Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018) propose. It also motivates an alternative approach to reported speech advocated by the current author and others that is criticised by Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018). The article further seeks to rehabilitate the analysis of Wierzbicka (1974), which Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018) partially reject. Whereas Wierzbicka (1974) treats direct and indirect speech as constructions of English, Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018) elevate the opposition to a universal, which belies the cultural sensitivity to semantic variation the authors display in other work. The paper concludes with a brief note about the semantic status of ‘say’ in Australian languages and states that the relevance of Vološinov ([1929]1973) is undiminished, also in the light of recent developments in language description. It remains a highly original study whose implications are yet to fully impact research on reported speech. en
dc.format.extent 16
dc.language.iso eng
dc.relation.ispartof Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия Лингвистика
dc.rights en
dc.subject 6121 Languages en
dc.title Speaking for Bakhtin : Two Interpretations of Reported Speech. A Response to Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018) en
dc.type Article
dc.description.version Peer reviewed
dc.identifier.doi https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-3-603-618
dc.type.uri info:eu-repo/semantics/other
dc.type.uri info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Files in this item

Total number of downloads: Loading...

Files Size Format View
Spro2019Bakhtin.pdf 579.3Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record