Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The puzzle of free indirect discourse

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on the familiar puzzle of free indirect discourse (FID). FID shares some properties with standard indirect discourse and with direct discourse, but there is currently no known theory that can accommodate such a hybrid. Based on the observation that FID has ‘de se’ pronouns, I argue that it is a kind of an attitude report.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abusch D. (1997) Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 1–50 doi:10.1023/A:1005331423820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altshuler, D. (2004). A simultaneous perception of things: SOT in Russian. Snippets 8.

  • Altshuler, D. (to appear). Narrative effects in Russian indirect reports and what they reveal about the meaning of the past tense. Proceedings of SALT 18.

  • Anand, P. (2006). De de se. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT.

  • Anand, P., & Nevins, A. (2004). Shifty operators in changing contexts. Proceedings of SALT XIV.

  • Banfield A. (1982) Unspeakable sentences. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik J. (2008) Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. Linguistic Review 25: 203–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borer, H. (1981). Heybetim leSoniyim Sel ha-maba ha-meSulav (Linguistic aspects of the combined discourse). ha-Sifrut, 30–31, 35–57.

  • Castañeda H.-N. (1966) “He”: A study in the logic of self-consciousness. Ratio 7: 130–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia G. (1989) Anaphora and attitudes de se. In: Bartsch R., van Benthem J., van Emde Boas P. (eds) Semantics and contextual expression. Foris, Dordrecht, pp 1–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements (1979) The logophoric pronun in Ewe: It’s role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10: 141–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. (1979). The interpretation of pronouns. In F. Heny & H. Schnelle (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (vol. 10, pp. 61–92).

  • Cresswell M., von Stechow A. (1982) belief generalized. Linguistics andPhilosophy 5: 503–535 doi:10.1007/BF00355585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doron, E. (1990). Point of view. CSLI/Stanford, Report No. CSLI-90-143.

  • Doron, E. (1991). Point of view as a factor of content. In S. Moore & A. Wyner (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 1 (pp. 51–64). Cornell University.

  • Dowty D. (1982) Tense, time adverbs and compositional semantic theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 23–55 doi:10.1007/BF00390692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enç M. (1987) Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633–657

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1992). Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. University of Tuebingen, SfS Report 07-93.

  • Heim, I. (1994). Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. In H. Kamp (Ed.), Ellipsis, tense and questions, (pp. 143–170). DYANA deliverable R2.2.B, University of Amsterdam.

  • Heim, I. (2005). Features on bound pronouns. Ms., MIT.

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jespersen, O. (1931). A modern English grammar on historical principles, Part IV, syntax, third volume, time and tense. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitatsbuchhandlung.

  • Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993) From discourse to logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp H., Rohrer C. (1983) Tense in texts. In: Bäuerle R., Schwarze C., Stechow A. (eds) Meaning, use and interpretation of language. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 250–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D. (1977) Demonstratives. In Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D. (1979) On the logic of demonstratives. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 81–98 doi:10.1007/BF00258420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. Proceedings of SALT, VIII, CLC. Publications, Cornell University.

  • Kratzer, A. (to appear). Making a pronoun. Linguistic Inquiry.

  • Lewis D. (1979) Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88: 513–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogihara T. (1996) Tense, attitudes and scope. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee B. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70(18): 601–609 doi:10.2307/2025024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Percus, O., & Sauerland, U.(2003). On the LFs of attitude reports. In M. Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7, pp. 228–242. Universität Konstanz.

  • Potts, C. (2007). The dimensions of quotation. In C. Barker & P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp. 405–431). Oxford University Press.

  • Quine W.V.O. (1956) Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy 53: 177–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T. (1991). Self-representation. manuscript.

  • Schlenker, P. (1999). Propositional attitudes and indexicality. PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Schlenker P. (2003) A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120 doi:10.1023/A:1022225203544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker P. (2004) Context of thought and context of utterance (a note on Free Indirect Discourse and the Historical Present). Mind & Language 19: 279–304 doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2004.00259.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, P. (2005). Comments on Sharvit’s “Embedded Pronouns”. Handout of talk presented at Syntax and Semantics with Attitude, April 2005, USC.

  • Schlenker, P. (to appear). Indexicality and Logophoricity. In K. von Heusinger, P. Portner, & C. Maienborn (Eds.), Handbook of semantics.

  • Sharvit Y. (2003a) Tense and identity in copular constructions.NaturalLanguageSemantics 11: 363–393 doi:10.1023/A:1025528225951

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharvit Y. (2003b) Embedded tense and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 669–681 doi:10.1162/ling.2003.34.4.669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharvit, Y. (2004). Free indirect discourse and de re pronouns. In R. Young (Ed.), Proceedings of semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14 (pp. 305–322). CLC Publications, Cornell University.

  • von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, GLSA Publications.

  • von Stechow, A. (1995). On the proper treatment of tense. Proceedings of SALT 6.

  • von Stechow, A. (2003). Feature deletion under semantic binding: Tense, person, and mood under verbal quantifiers. Text of the NELS33 talk.

  • Zimmermann, E. (1991). Kontextabhängigkeit. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: ein internationals Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

    Yael Sharvit

Authors
  1. Yael Sharvit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yael Sharvit.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sharvit, Y. The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguist and Philos 31, 353–395 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9039-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9039-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation