Abstract
This work aims to develop some considerations on an extremely interesting topic for linguistic investigation, namely indirect speech during dialogue. In particular, we will consider ten dialogues between a therapist and schizophrenic patients, starting from a corpus of pathological speech (CIPPS – Corpus di Italiano Parlato Patologico Schizofrenico, in Dovetto and Gemelli, 2013). The focus of our investigation is on the cases of indirect speech produced both by the patient and by the therapist during the therapeutic session. In the cases of indirect speech we can observe a position on the part of the speaker in which what matters is not so much what is reported but the way, from a metalinguistic point of view, in which this is formulated. In indirect speech the message passes through the filter of the speakers so that they feel relatively free from duties of fidelity and can express, from an illocutionary point of view, their personal attitude through the mediation made possible by language devices.
As regards schizophrenic language, in our opinion the cases of indirect speech constitute a particularly interesting observatory in which both the patient and the therapist characterize themselves as linguistic and metalinguistic subjects, able to report contents and, at the same time, their attitude toward them.
In all areas of life and ideological activity, our speech is filled to overflowing with other people’s words, which are transmitted with highly varying degrees of accuracy and impartiality. The more intensive, differentiated and highly developed the social life of a speaking collective, the greater is the importance attaching, among other possible subjects of talk, to another’s word, another’s utterance, since another’s word will be the subject of passionate communication, an object of interpretation, discussion, evaluation, rebuttal, support, further development and so on (Bakhtin 1981, 337).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
According to Wittgenstein, dialogue entails the language game of asking/answering and constitutes «la cellula iniziale del co-parlare umano» (Lo Piparo 2012, 159).
- 2.
In this connection, Bice Mortara Garavelli (cf. Mortara Garavelli 2009, 1) quotes the Essays of Montaigne regarding the continuous nature of interpretation, of books being written about books. We merely comment upon one another, according to Montaigne, «There is more ado to interpret interpretations than to interpret things, and more books upon books than upon any other subject; we do nothing but comment upon one another» (Montaigne 2006, 908).
- 3.
«Here the term “language-game” is meant to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or of a form of life. Review the multiplicity of language-games in the following examples, and in others: Giving orders, and obeying them— Describing the appearance of an object, or giving its measurements— Constructing an object from a description (a drawing)— Reporting an event— Speculating about an event [italics in text]» (Wittgenstein 1958, 11).
- 4.
This is a type of activity in which the speaker “creates” – so to speak – actors and spaces for speech: the speaker interacts with one or more actors and each actor can, in turn, create another actor assigning them a new speech space within the previous space. Such speech spaces - compared by Claire Blanche-Benveniste to the mental spaces of Fauconnier (1985), that is to small conceptual packets, so to speak, which we activate for the purposes of local understanding or action - are generally introduced by reporting verbs that precede or follow the quotation (cf. Blanche-Benveniste 1991, 262–263). In this context, Raffaele Simone speaks of a communicative show, a play in which several characters appear, each assigned to a certain communicative space (cf. Simone 1990, 83).
- 5.
In this context, the German term Redewiedergabe used by Elizabeth Gülich is particularly effective: «Der Terminus “Redewiedergabe” […] soll also nicht eine bestimmte Form des “Wiedergebens” von Redebezeichnen, sondern als Oberbegriff für alle Formen von Kommunikation auf der zweiten bzw. weiteren Ebenen verwendet werden» (Gülich 1978, 54). As a technical definition for speech reproduction – in accordance with Calaresu – we shall adopt the following: «Si ha RD quando un locutore L0 inserisce sulla catena verbale in cui egli realizza un proprio atto di enunciazione E0, il prodotto di un altro atto di enunciazione E1 (o parte di esso), reale o immaginario, da ascriversi a una fonte L1, non necessariamente diversa da L0» (Calaresu 2002, 82).
- 6.
In this connection, we can speak of metarepresentations present in RS, which «consist of two components: a sentential operator (‘according to John’, ‘John believes that’) and a sentence (‘Peter likes grass’)» (Recanati 2000, 39).
- 7.
«Isn’t everything that’s said by tellers of tales or poets a narrative of what has come to pass, what is, or what is going to be? […] Now, don’t they accomplish this with a narrative that is either simple or produced by imitation, or by both together? […] Isn’t it narrative when he gives all the speeches and also what comes between the speeches?» (Plato, Resp., 392d–393b; Engl. ed. 1991, 71).
- 8.
«But, when he gives a speech as though he were someone else, won't we say that he then likens his own style as much as possible to that of the man he has announced as the speaker? […]”Isn't likening himself to someone else, either in voice or in looks, the same as imitating the man he likens himself to? […] Then, in this case, it seems, he and the other poets use imitation in making their narrative » (Plato, Resp., 393c–d; Engl. ed. 1991, 71).
- 9.
Using a scale of greater or lesser mimetic potential, it is possible to identify different forms of speech typical of a narrated story: a) narratized, or narrated, speech is more distant and is managed by the narrator who summarises what the characters say: b) transposed speech in indirect style is more mimetic (and hence less distant) than the previous form but it conserves the presence of the narrator who can quote or summarise the characters’ words more or less arbitrarily; c) transposed speech in free indirect style is characterised by an even greater presence of mimesis because the narrator’s speech imitates that of the character, or the character expresses himself/herself through the narrator’s voice to such an extent that it is unclear whether the words being expressed come from the former or the latter; d) reported or direct speech is the most mimetic (and hence the least distant) form, in which the narrator allows the character to speak directly (cf. Marchese 1990, 164–165).
- 10.
The so-called fidelity of DS compared to the original discourse is, in fact impossible. In this context Meir Sternberg (1982) speaks of a direct discourse fallacy, highlighting the technical impossibility of transferring the paralinguistic features of the original discourse into DS. Calaresu also insists on the fallacious and deceptive nature of DS, above all because of the objective limitations of human memory, whenever memory is not supported by writing, and secondly because we normally remember what we understood about a discourse (and interpreted and reorganised for storage in long-term memory), and finally because DS is unfaithful because the main function or reason for DS is not rendered verbatim in speech, unlike in many forms of writing (cf. Calaresu 2004, 52).
- 11.
As regards the sub-condition of non-performativity, if the part preceding the RS contains a reporting verb in the first person singular of the present indicative, this verb may introduce RS only when it does not carry out a performing function because reference is made to an utterance different from the one in progress (for instance in the case I promised Maria that I would give her the book today, so I really can’t lend it to you, while in the case Don’t be angry over the book, I promise I’ll give it to you tomorrow, the verb promise acts as a performing verb, i.e. it represents the very action of making a promise and not describing or recounting it) (cf. Calaresu 2004, 114). On this point, Calaresu differs from Geoff Thompson, who also considers performative cases, such as I promise, as RS in that «speakers divide themselves as it were into two a labeller and an utterer, with the labeller presenting – i.e. reporting – the utterer’s proposition» (Thompson 1996, 508).
- 12.
The ‘traditional’ passage from DS to IS entails a change in the person and the deixis used, the correct application of the rules on consecution temporum, the omission of all expressive elements or expressively marked constructions, etc.
- 13.
On this issue, for instance, cf. Valentin N. Voloshinov, who insists on the fact that the various types of RS are not “mechanically” (i.e. as a result of transformations) correlated to one another, but each pattern expresses «some tendency in one person’s active reception of another’s speech» and also handles/interprets «the message to be reported in its own creative fashion, following the specific direction proper to that pattern alone [our italics]» (Voloshinov 1973, 128).
- 14.
In this connection, cf. also Lubomir Doležel (1964) who speaks of the polyphonic nature of narration which, in the cases of IS, becomes “subjectivity” thanks to the characters’ interventions, and Franz Lebsanft who states that the indirect style is not only the means par excellence through which «le discours peut être ramené au récit», but it is also the place «par lequel le récitpeut s’alterer profondément» by virtue of the fact that «le point de vue particulier d’un protagoniste se glisse dans le récit» (Lebsanft 1981, 54).
- 15.
Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson identify only one interpretative use of utterance that is acknowledged as such, and that is in the case of indirect speech in which not only an utterance but also a thought, a personal point of view is reported (cf. Sperber and Wilson 1995 2: 229).
- 16.
The cases of IS differ from those of DS in that the latter «may not involve interpretation or may involve (by comparison with indirect reports) a weaker degree of interpretation» (Capone 2016, 7). The distinction between DS and IS, however, is not «a clear-cut distinction» (Capone 2016, 54). Keith Allan, for instance, was unable to find any significant difference between DS and IS (cf. Allan 2016a and 2016b), whereas Elisabeth Holt – while acknowledging the difficulty in making a rigid distinction between DS and IS – calls for a granularity criterion. Indeed, «employing aspects of design associated with prototypical direct reportings helps to create a highly granular portrayal of the utterance. Rather than conveying just what was said, the speaker provides additional information through the inclusion of elements such as turn initials and intonation shifts that give insight into the stance and action of the reported speaker. […] IRS [indirect reported speech], in contrast, with its focus on just conveying what was said, is less granular and less multi-dimensional» (Holt 2016, 185–186).
- 17.
Cf. note 20.
- 18.
- 19.
The quotation of other people’s message – whether in the form of DS, IS or free indirect speech – is a metalinguistic operation in which «nel messaggio dell’emittente (citante) s’innesta un altro messaggio (citato), con interruzione, deviazione, complicazione delle strutture sintattiche e semantiche del primo, a seconda del tipo d’innesto» (Nencioni 1983, 32). Interesting considerations on IS as a language game in the Wittgensteinian sense can be found in Capone (2012) and in the more recent Capone (2016) in which, among other things, the social nature of IS is highlighted as a language game in that «an indirect report can have effects on deliberation or on action, in that it can present a piece of information that can be integrated into the argumentative structure of practical reasonings. Seen in this light, an indirect report can become a “form of life”» (Capone 2016, 81).
- 20.
Calaresu specifies that IS is the paraphrastic form par excellence, both in the case of so-called “expansive” paraphrasis and in shortened (or summary) paraphrasis of the original discourse (cf. Calaresu 2004, 25). Cf. also Mortara Garavelli (2009, 20) and Capone (2016) who talks of a Paraphrasis Principle proper underlying IS, in that «the that-clause embedded in the verb ‘say’ is a paraphrasis of what Y said that meets the following constraint: should Y hear what X said he (Y) had said, he would not take issue with it, but would approve of it as a fair paraphrasis of her original utterance [bold in text]» (Capone 2016, 83). Moreover, «paraphrasis may involve shortening (summing up) or even expanding the report (as clarifications, justifications, or other causal explanations)» (Capone 2016, 91).
- 21.
To express this in Goffman’s terms, IS is one of the various ways in which the notion of footing is created, i.e. the «alignment we take up to ourselves and the others present as expressed in the way we manage the production or reception of an utterance» (Goffman 1981, 128).
- 22.
The term schizophrenia (from the Greek skhizein “to split” + phrēn “mind”) emerged in the early 20th century (cf. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/schizophrenia) as a calque of the German term Schizophrenie, introduced by Bleuer in 1911 alongside that of dementia praecox.
- 23.
This term was coined by Emil Kräpelin for the 1913 edition of his Psychiatrie: ein Lehrbuch für Studirende und Aerzte, to replace the more generic verbal confusion. Kräpelin speaks of a progressive incoherence of thought, with the result that the links of thought become “looser” producing a chaotic and random overlapping of words and phrases and, thus, speech that is incoherent and incomprehensible (cf. Piro 1992, 21), demonstrating an internal and external disagreement of thought and language (cf. Piro 1992, 23 and Gemelli 2013, 91).
- 24.
Cf. the study of Valentina Cardella who, on the tendency of schizophrenics to form neologisms, word games and answers based on assonance, to interpret a discourse phylogically and so on, speaks of a self-referential use of language (cf. Cardella, 2006: 63).
- 25.
This is why Alfredo Civita qualifies schizophrenia as a disturbance of the ecological intelligence (cf. Civita 1993, 180).
- 26.
DIRIP stands for Discorsi Riportati in Italiano Parlato and is a corpus of just over 15,400 words collected by Calaresu between 1995 and 1996 (cf. Calaresu, 2000): it comprises 43 spoken discourses from 3 original source dialogues (Text A Forum is a recording of the TV programme Forum in which two parties in conflict appeal to a Justice of the Peace; Text B Rubbia is a short TV interview with the physicist Carlo Rubbia; Text C Idraulico is the recording of a telephone conversation between a plumber and his client) the various informants of which supply 40 different oral reports (cf. Calaresu 2004, 13).
- 27.
In psychoanalysis, in which the entire relationship is encapsulated in a dialogue between two people, «the subject, strictly speaking, is constituted through a discourse to which the mere presence of the psychoanalyst, prior to any intervention he may make, brings the dimension of dialogue» (Lacan 2006, 176). And, according to Lacan, the dialogue – in the etymological sense of λόγος “discourse” that takes place διὰ “through, by means of” – ensures that the intersubjectivity is woven and, in the analytical context in particular, it guarantees «the intersubjective continuity of the discourse in which the subject's history is constituted» (Lacan 2006, 214).
- 28.
In our investigation we have excluded the so-called epistemic verbs (believe, think, seem, etc.) as such verbs do not always result in a real utterance being made.
References
Allan, K. (2016a). Reports, Indirect Reports, and Illocutionary Point. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (eds.), Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. Interdisciplinary Studies (pp. 573–591). Cham: SpringerVerlag.
Allan, K. (2016b). The Reporting of Slurs. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. Interdisciplinary Studies (211–232). Cham: Springer Verlag.
Apothéloz, D. & Grossen, M. (1995). L’activité de reformulation comme marqueur de la construction du sens: réflexions théoriques et méthodologiques à partir de l’analyse d’entretiens thérapeutiques. Cahiers de l’ILSL, 7, 177–198.
Aristotle. Politics. Transl. by B. Jovett. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1920.
Authier, J. (1978). Les formes du discours rapporté. Remarques syntaxiques et sémantiques à partir des traitements proposes. Paris: Université de Paris VIII, DRLAV, 17, 1–87.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin- London: University of Texas Press (or. ed. Voprosy literatury i estetiki. Moskva, Izdatel’stvo «Chudožestvennaja literatura», 1975).
Bally, Ch. (19654). Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Berne: Francke Verlag; 1st ed. Paris: Librairie Ernest Leroux, 1932.
Banfield, A. (1973). Narrative Style and the Grammar of Direct and Indirect Speech. Foundations of Language, 10(1), 1–39.
Bartolomeo, C. et al. (2013). Pause vuote e delirio nella “Wahnstimmung”. In F. M. Dovetto & M. Gemelli, pp. 221–252.
Basile, G. (2012). La conquista delle parole. Per una storia naturale della denominazione. Preface by T. De Mauro. Roma: Carocci editore.
Bion, W. R. (1967). Second Thoughts (Selected Papers of Psychoanalysis). London: Heinemann.
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (1991). Le citazioni nell’orale e nello scritto. In M. Orsolini, & C. Pontecorvo (eds.), La costruzione del testo scritto nei bambini (pp. 259–273). Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
Bleuer, E. (1950). Dementia Praecoxor the Group of Schizophrenias. New York: International Universities Press (or. ed. Dementia praecox oder Gruppe der Schizophrenien. Leipzig –Wien: Deiticke, 1911).
Bruner, J. (1983). In Search of Mind. Essays in Autobiography. New York: Harper & Row.
Calaresu, E. (2000). Il discorso riportato. Una prospettiva testuale. Modena: Edizioni Il Fiorino.
Calaresu, E. (2002). Sulla nozione di “discorso riportato”: definizione e condizioni testuali. In G. L. Beccaria, & C. Marello (eds.), La parola al testo. Scritti per Bice Mortara Garavelli (pp. 75–94). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.
Calaresu, E. (2004). Testuali parole. La dimensione pragmatica e testuale del discorso riportato. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Calogero, G. (1947). Estetica, semantica, istorica. Torino: Einaudi.
Capone, A. (2012). Indirect Reports as Language Games. Pragmatics and Cognition, 20(3), 593–613.
Capone, A. (2016). The Pragmatics of Indirect Reports. Socio-philosophical Considerations. Cham: Springer Verlag.
Cardella, V. (2006). Le parole come cose. Una lettura freudiana della schizofrenia. FIERI. Annali del Dipartimento di Filosofia Storia e Critica dei Saperi, IV, 59–70.
Chaika, E. (1974). A Linguistic Looks at “Schizophrenic” Language. Brain and Language, 1, 257–276.
Chiari, I. (2013). Linguaggio e terapia. Percorsi di comprensione. In F. M. Dovetto & M. Gemelli, pp. 159–186.
Civita, A. (1993). Saggio sul cervello e la mente. Milano: Guerini e Associati.
Dascal, M. et al. (1996). Games in Language. In M. Dascal, D. Gerhardus, & K. Lorenz (eds.), Sprachphilosophie (Vol. II, pp. 1371–1392). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Davidson, D. (1968–1969). On Saying That. Synthese, 19, 130–146.
De Mauro, T. (19953), Minisemantica dei linguaggi non verbali e delle lingue. Roma-Bari: Laterza; 1st ed. 1982.
De Mauro, T. (2002). Prima lezione sul linguaggio. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Doležel, L. (1964). Vers la stylistique structurale. Travaux de Linguistique de Prague, 1, 257–266.
Dovetto F. M., & Gemelli M. (2013). Il parlar matto. Schizofrenia tra fenomenologia e linguistica. Il corpus CIPPS. Rome:Aracne; 1st edition 2012.
Edelman, G. M. (1989). The Remembered Present. New York: Basic Books.
Famiani, I. (2001). La psicopatologia del linguaggio: storia e stato dell’arte. In A. Pennisi & R. Cavalieri (eds.), Patologie del linguaggio e scienze cognitive (pp. 195–243). Bologna: il Mulino.
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental Spaces. Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press.
Freud, S. (1937). Constructions in Analysis. In Complete Works, ed. by I. Smith, pdf volume, 2011 (or. ed. Gesammelte Werke, 18 voll. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag Gmbh, 1940–1968).
Fromkin, V. A. (1975). A Linguist Look at “A Linguistic Look at Schizophrenic Language”. Brain and Language, 2, 498–503.
Fuchs, C. (1982). La paraphrase. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Gemelli, M. (2013). Anafora nella schizofrenia. Note preliminari all’identificazione di uno “splitting referenziale”. In F. M. Dovetto & M. Gemelli, pp. 85–122.
Genette, G. (1980). Narrative Discourse. An Essay in Method. Transl. by J. E. Lewin. Ithaca – New Yorl: Cornell University Press (or. ed. Figures III. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1972).
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gülich, E. (1978). Redewiedergabe im Französischen Beschreibungsmöglichkeiten im Rahmen einer Sprechakttheorie. In R. Meyer-Hermann (ed.), Sprechen – Handeln – Interaktion. Ergebnisse aus Bielefelder Forschungsprojekten zu Texttheorie, Sprechakttheorie und Konversationsanalyse (pp. 49–101). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Holt, E. (2016). Indirect Reported Speech in Interaction. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (eds.), Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. Interdisciplinary Studies (pp. 167–187). Cham: Springer Verlag.
Irigaray, L. (2002). To Speak is Never Neutral. New York: Routledge (or. ed. Parler n’est jamais neuter. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1975).
Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen &Unwin LTD.
Lacan, J. (2006). Écrits. The First Complete Edition in English. Transl. by. B. Fink & R. Grigg. New York –London: W. W. Norton & Co. (or. ed. Écrits. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1966).
Lebsanft, F. (1981). Adverbes de temps, style indirect et «point de vue» dans la Queste del Saint Graal. Travaux de Linguistique et de Littérature, XIX, 53–61.
Lecointre, S., & Le Galliot, J. (1973). Le je(u) de l’énonciation. Langages, 31, 64–79.
Leoni, F. (2013). La parola come allucinogeno. Note sulla fenomenologia sartriana del linguaggio. In F. M. Dovetto & M. Gemelli, pp. 45–84.
Lo Piparo, F. (2012). Sul gioco linguistico ovvero perché co-parliamo. In F. M. Dovetto et al. (eds.), Traguardi e prospettive nelle scienze del linguaggio. Riflessioni con Federico Albano Leoni (pp. 151–160). Roma: Aracne.
Lorenzetti, L. (2010). Verba dicendi. In R. Simone (ed.), Enciclopedia dell’Italiano (pp. 1559–1561). Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.
Lorenzini, R., & Sassaroli S. (1992). Cattivi pensieri. I disturbi del pensiero schizofrenico, paranoico, ossessivo. Roma: Carocci
Mandelli, M. (2010). Discorso indiretto. In R. Simone (ed.), Enciclopedia dell’Italiano (pp. 379–381). Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.
Marchese, A. (1990). L’officina del racconto. Semiotica della narratività. Milano: Mondadori; 1st ed. 1983.
McHale, B. (1978). Free Indirect Discourse. A Survey of Recent Accounts. PTL. A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature, 3, 249–278.
Montaigne, M. de (2006). The Essays of Montaigne. Complete. Transl. by Ch. Cotton, eBook in www.gutenberg.net (or. ed. Essais (éd. par A. Tournon). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale Éditions, 1997–1998).
Montanari, F. (2013). GI - Vocabolario della lingua greca. Torino: Loescher.
Mortara Garavelli, B. (1995). Il discorso riportato. In L. Renzi et al., Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. III (pp. 426–468). Bologna: il Mulino.
Mortara Garavelli, B. (2009). La parola d’altri. Prove di analisi del discorso riportato. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso; 1st ed. Sellerio 1985.
Nencioni, G. (1976). Parlato-parlato, parlato-scritto, parlato-recitato. Strumenti critici, 10, 1–56; poi in Id., Di scritto e di parlato. Discorsi linguistici (126–179). Bologna: Zanichelli, 1983.
Pastore, C. (2013). Tre modi dell’esperire schizofrenico, Mondo congelato, Mondo frammentato, Mondo delirato. In F. Dovetto & M. Gemelli, pp. 19–43.
Pennisi, A. (1998). Psicopatologia del linguaggio. Storia, analisi, filosofie della mente. Roma: Carocci editore.
Piro, S. (1967). Il linguaggio schizofrenico. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Piro, S. (1992). Parole di follia. Storie di personaggi e linguaggi alla ricerca del significato e del senso. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Plato, The Republic of Plato. Transl. by A. Bloom. New York: Basic Books, 1991; 1st ed. 1968.
Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta. An Essay on Metarepresentation. Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press.
Simone, R. (1990). Fondamenti di linguistica. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (19952). Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Cambridge (Mass.): Blackwell Publishers; 1st ed. 1986.
Sternberg, M. (1982). Point of View and the Indirections of Direct Speech. Language and Style, 15, 67–117.
Thompson, G. (1996). Voices in the Text: Discourse Perspectives on Language Reports. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 501–530.
Vegetti Finzi, S. (1986). Storia della psicoanalisi. Autori opere teorie 1895–1990. Milano: Mondadori.
Voloshinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York: Seminar Press.
Wieland, N. (2013). Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. In A. Capone et al. (eds.), Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy (pp. 389–411). Cham: Springer Verlag.
Wilson, D. (2000). Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication. In D. Sperber (ed.), Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective (pp. 127–162). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell (or. ed. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1953).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Basile, G. (2019). Indirect speech in dialogues with schizophrenics. Analysis of the dialogues of the CIPPS corpus. In: Capone, A., García-Carpintero, M., Falzone, A. (eds) Indirect Reports and Pragmatics in the World Languages. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78771-8_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78771-8_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78770-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78771-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)