Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (3):353-395 (2008)
|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.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Marilyn P. Frye (1964). Inscriptions and Indirect Discourse. Journal of Philosophy 61 (24):767-772.
J. G. Barense (1969). Identity in Indirect Discourse. Journal of Philosophy 66 (12):381-382.
Nicholas Asher & Alex Lascarides (2001). Indirect Speech Acts. Synthese 128 (1-2):183 - 228.
Christopher Gauker (2010). Indirect Discourse, Relativism, and Contexts That Point to Other Contexts. In François Recanati, Isidora Stojanovic & Neftali Villanueva (eds.), Context-dependence, Perspective and Relativity in Language and Thought.
Philippe Schlenker (2004). Context of Thought and Context of Utterance: A Note on Free Indirect Discourse and the Historical Present. Mind and Language 19 (3):279–304.
Keith Frankish (1996). How Should We Revise the Paratactic Theory? Analysis 56 (4):251–262.
Michael Alan Johnson (2009). Indirect Discourse: Parataxis, the Propositional Function Modification, and “That”. Aporia 19 (1):9-24.
Christopher Potts, Indirect Answers and Cooperation: On Asher and Lascarides's 'Making the Right Commitments in Dialogue'.
Emar Maier (2009). Japanese Reported Speech: Against a Direct--Indirect Distinction. In Hattori et al (ed.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. Springer.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #34,066 of 548,972 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,972 )
How can I increase my downloads?