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.
The syntactic and semantic properties of Free Indirect Discourse
Fiorin G
2015-01-01
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.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
