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

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.

Grammar and levels of addressivity

“…The fact that Dialogism, as Sandler puts it, 'took nothing for granted' when it comes to grammar meant that it has long been disqualified in linguistics as postmodern and anti-linguistic, and Bakhtin's work is certainly not easily reconciled with many dominant views on language (cf. Stewart, 1983;Spronck, 2006Spronck, , 2019. But the three central ideas of Dialogism summarised in this quote demonstrate that it is highly relevant for understanding engagement.…”

Iconicity as Multimodal, Polysemiotic, and Plurifunctional

“…As Clark observes, ‘How speakers [and signers] make their choices is part of their broader decisions about what they are doing and why’ (1996: 186). Interest in the socially indexical and ‘beyond referential’ aspects of language and communication can be traced back to early scholars concerned with the relationship between people, language and the body politic, or the concept of ‘language as dialogue’ ( Vološinov, 1973 ; Bakhtin, 1981 ; see Linell, 2009 ; Spronck, 2019 ). The basic tenet of dialogism is that all aspects of language are referentially, contextually, and socially grounded (see Gurdin, 1994 ).…”