Reported speech as a dedicated grammatical domain – and why defenestration should not be thrown out the window

McGregor, William B.

doi:10.1515/lingty-2019-0010

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To investigate such cases crosslinguistically, they propose to use the term “extended reported speech,” to avoid conflation with the more creative usage types seen in English and similar languages. As a promising research field, fictive interaction can connect cognitive linguistics with existing typological research into speech and thought representation (e.g., Buchstaller & van Alphen, 2012; Güldemann, 2008; Güldemann & von Roncador, 2002; McGregor, 1994, 2008, 2019, 2021; Spronck & Nikitina, 2019).…”

Section: Basic Conceptual Notionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructions of speech and thought representation

Vandelanotte

2022

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Basic Conceptual Notionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructions of speech and thought representation

Vandelanotte

2022

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While this analysis is explicitly embedded in a cognitive linguistic account that sees conversation as a cognitive Gestalt that humans may use in order to make sense of the world, its empirical foundation is strong. Not only are examples of fictive interaction as in (1) common cross-linguistically (Pascual and Sandler, 2016a;McGregor, 2019), they affect a heterogeneous set of sentence types and linguistic structures (Pascual and Sandler, 2016b).…”

Section: Introduction: Fictive Interaction Reported Speech and Grammarmentioning

confidence: 99%

In a Manner of Speaking: How Reported Speech May Have Shaped Grammar

Spronck

Casartelli

2021

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a first, broad-scale typology of extended reported speech, examples of lexicalised or grammaticalised reported speech constructions without a regular quotation meaning. These typically include meanings that are conceptually close to reported speech, such as think or want, but also interpretations that do not appear to have an obvious conceptual relation with talking, such as cause or begin to. Reported speech may therefore reflect both concepts of communication and inner worlds, and meanings reminiscent of ‘core grammar’, such as evidentiality, modality, aspect (relational) tense and clause linking. We contextualise our findings in the literature on fictive interaction and perspective and suggest that extended reported speech may lend insight into a fundamental aspect of grammar: the evolution of verbal categories. Based on the striking similarity between the meanings of extended reported speech and grammatical categories, we hypothesise that the phenomenon represents a plausible linguistic context in which grammar evolved.

show abstract

Thought complements in Australian languages

McGregor

2021

Language Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reported speech as a dedicated grammatical domain – and why defenestration should not be thrown out the window

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

Constructions of speech and thought representation

Constructions of speech and thought representation

In a Manner of Speaking: How Reported Speech May Have Shaped Grammar

Thought complements in Australian languages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About