The use of direct and indirect speech across psychological distance

Abstract

The current study investigated how psychological distance affects people’s preference for direct and indirect speech in a narrative task. In three experiments, participants were instructed to first watch a video and then retell what happened in the video to an imagined/anticipated listener. We manipulated social distance (Experiment 1), temporal distance (Experiment 2), and spatial distance (Experiment 3) between participants and the listener. We compared the proportions of direct speech in the narrations from psychologically proximal versus distal conditions. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that social and temporal proximity increased the rates of direct speech. Social and temporal distance, conversely, increased the rates of indirect speech. Experiment 3 did not yield a significant difference in the use of direct and indirect speech between spatially proximal and distal conditions. Taken together, our results indicate that different psychological dimensions might have discrepant effects on people’s choices between direct and indirect speech. Possible explanations for the discrepancy among different psychological distance dimensions are discussed.

Reported speech in individuals with Down syndrome: First evidence

“…At the same time, findings from the literature suggest that syntactic contexts are not chosen completely arbitrarily (cf. Li et al, 2022). Since a single utterance with speech content could also be considered a chance hit or some kind of imitation, a criterion of ≥ two utterances including reported speech was the inclusion criterion for the subsequent analyses.…”

“…In this investigation, 4‐year‐old children were better able to respond to the listeners’ prior knowledge and to linguistically indicate perspective‐shifting than 3‐year‐old participants (full analyses and data of older comparison groups in Neitzel & Penke, 2021b). Results from Li et al (2022) imply that speakers are more likely to use direct than indirect speech in conversational situations to which they feel socially connected, and that the different forms of reported speech might thus go beyond a mere variation of syntactic possibilities. Spronck and Nikitina (2019) even propose to categorise reported speech as a syntactic domain of its own.…”

Voices of Rape: cognitive networks link passive voice usage to psychological distress in online narratives

“…Instead, from the reader's perspective, the passive voice construction may influence the perception of the event described. Specifically, the passive voice creates distance between the reader and the event [12], which has the effect of eliciting a more abstract construal of the event [12,36], and can reduce the perceived veracity of the event. For example, one study found that the Macbeth effect written in the active voice is more likely to be perceived as true compared to the its passive voice counterpart.…”