Russian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of Linguistics2687-00882686-8024Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)2176810.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-3-603-618ArticlesСтатьиArticlesResearch ArticleSpeaking for Bakhtin: Two Interpretations of Reported Speech A Response to Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018)Говорить устами Бахтина: две интерпретации косвенной речи (ответ К. Годдарду и А. Вежбицкой [2018])SpronckStefСпронкСтефPhD The Australian National University 2016) is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki, Finland, and previously at the University of Leuven, Belgium. After his training in Slavic and General Linguistics at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, he carried out extensive documentary fieldwork in Aboriginal Australia, working on reported speech and stance in Ungarinyin. His research focuses on typology, dialogic linguistics and reported speech/TAMEполучил степень PhD в Австралийском национальном университете (2016), научный сотрудник Хельсинского университета (Финляндия), до этого - Лёвенского универ- ситета (Бельгия). После обучения по программе славянского и общего языкознания в Амстер- дамском университете (Нидерланды) провел обширное полевое исследование языков або- ригенов Австралии, в частности косвенной речи и картины мира аборигенов Ungarinyin. Сфера научных интересов: типология, диалогическая лингвистика, чужая речь.stef.spronck@helsinki.fiUniversity of HelsinkiХельсинский университет15122019233VOL 23, NO3 (2019)ТОМ 23, №3 (2019)60361820092019Copyright ©; 2019, Spronck S.Copyright ©; 2019, Спронк С.Copyright ©; 2019, Spronck S.2019Spronck S.Спронк С.Spronck S.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/21768Vološinov ([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.Работа В. Н. Волошинова (Vološinov, 1929/1973) - один из наиболее цитируемых научных трудов, посвященных косвенной речи, однако его интерпретация разными авторами неоднозначна. В рамках лингвоантропологической традиции его основной посыл часто смешивается с «ролями говорящего» Э. Гоффмана, а в своей недавней публикации К. Годдард и А. Вежбицкая (2018) объединяют идеи, которые они приписывают В. Н. Волошинову и М. М. Бахтину, с идеями представителя формальной семантики Д. Дэвидсона. Настоящая статья - это ответ Годдарду и Вежбицкой (2018), в ней рассматриваются философские основы исследования косвенной речи, особенно по отношению к идеям Волошинова / Бахтина. Высказывается мысль о том, что изучение косвенной речи преследует две основные цели, одна из которых восходит к Фреге, а вторая - к Бахтину. Вопросы и методы, связанные с этими традициями, ведут к двум радикально различным пониманиям косвенной речи. Это влияет на применимость определения прямой / непрямой речи, предлагаемого Годдардом и Вежбицкой, а также порождает альтернативный подход, развиваемый автором данной статьи и другими учеными и критикуемый Годдардом и Вежбицкой (Там же). Цель статьи - реабилитировать анализ Вежбицкой (1974), от которого Годдард и Вежбицкая (2018) частично отказываются. Рассматривая прямую и непрямую речь как английские конструкты, они, тем не менее, поднимают это понятие до универсального уровня, что вступает в противоречие с понятием культурной сенситивности относительно семантических вариаций, о котором они пишут в других работах. Автор статьи приходит к выводу, что, в свете современных тенденций описания языка, труд Волошинова (1929/1973) не теряет свой значимости и заслуживает всяческого внимания.reported speech, dialogism, Valentin N. VološinovMikhail M. BakhtinGottlob FregeAustralian aboriginal languages (Ungarinyin)передача чужой речидиалогизмВ.Н. ВолошиновМ.М. БахтинГ. Фрегеязыки аборигенов Австралии (Ungarinyin)1.Abbott, Barbara (2011). Attitudes Toward Quotation. In Understanding Quotation, edited by Elke Brendel, Jörg Meibauer, and Markus Steinbach, 35-46. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.2.Bakhtin, Mikhail (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Edited by Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas.3.Banfield, Ann (1982). Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.4.Bertau, Marie-Cécile (2004). Reflections on Addressivity: From the Role of the Other to Developmental Aspects. In Aspects of the Dialogical Self: Extended Proceedings of a Symposium on the Second International Conference on the Dialogical Self, edited by Marie-Cécile Bertau, 87-128. Berlin: Lehmanns.5.Bota, Cristian, and Jean-Paul Bronckart (2011). Bakhtine Démasqué: Histoire d’un Menteur, d’une Escroquerie et d’un Délire Collectif. Paris: Droz.6.Burge, Tyler (2012). Referring de Re. In Having in Mind: The Philosophy of Keith Donnellan, edited by Joseph Almog and Paolo Leonardi, 107-21. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.7.Cappelen, Herman, and Ernest Lepore (2012). Quotation. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/ entries/quotation/.8.Capuano, Antonio (2012). The Ground Zero of Semantics. In Having in Mind: The Philosophy of Keith Donnellan, edited by Joseph Almog and Paolo Leonardi, 7-29. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.9.Cieśluk, Andrzej (2010). De Re/de Dicto Distinctions (Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Interpretation). Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 22 (35): 81-94.10.Cresswell, James, and Allison Hawn (2011). Drawing on Bakhtin and Goffman: Toward an Epistemology That Makes Lived Experience Visible. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 13 (1). (Date accessed: 15 February 2016).11.Davidson, Donald (1968). On Saying That. Synthese 19 (1): 130-46.12.De Brabanter, Philippe (2005). Quotations and the Intrusion of Non-Linguistic Communication into Utterances. Context, 126-39.13.De Brabanter, Philippe (2017). Why Quotation Is Not a Semantic Phenomenon, and Why It Calls for a Pragmatic Theory. In Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, edited by Ilse Depraetere and Raf Salkie, 227-54. Dordrecht etc.: Springer.14.Erdinast-Vulcan, Daphna, and Sergeiy Sandler (2015). Bakhtin and His Circle. In Theoretical Schools and Circles in the Twentieth-Century Humanities: Literary Theory, History, Philosophy, edited by Marina Grishakova and Silvi Salupere, 23-40.15.Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist, and Lila San Roque (2018). The Grammar of Engagement I: Framework and Initial Exemplification. Language and Cognition, 110-40. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/langcog.2017.21.16.Frege, Gottlob (1892). Über Sinn Und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift Für Philosophie Und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25-50.17.Frege, Gottlob (1948). Sense and Reference. The Philosophical Review 57 (3): 209-30.18.García-Carpintero, Manuel (2011). Double-Duty Quotation, Conventional Implicatures and What Is Said. In Understanding Quotation, edited by Elke Brendel, Jörg Meibauer, and Markus Steinbach, 107-38. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.19.Geurts, Bart, and Emar Maier (2005). Quotation in Context. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 17: 109-28.20.Gladkova, Anna, and Tatiana Larina (2018). Anna Wierzbicka, Words and the World. Russian Journal of Linguistics 22 (3): 499-520. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-3- 499-520.21.Goddard, Cliff (2003). Thinking Across Languages and Cultures: Six Dimensions of Variation. Cognitive Linguistics 14 (2-3): 109-40. http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cogl.2003.14.issue-2-3/cogl.2003.005/cogl.2003.005.xml.22.Goddard, Cliff, and Anna Wierzbicka (2018). Direct and Indirect Speech Revisited: Semantic Universals and Semantic Diversity. In Capone, Alessandro et al. (eds) Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 173-99. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78771-8_9.23.Goddard, Cliff, and Anna Wierzbicka (2019). Reported Speech as a Pivotal Human Phenomenon: Commentary on Spronck and Nikitina. Linguistic Typology 23 (1): 167-75. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/lingty-2019-0006.24.Goddard, and Routley (1966). Use, Mention and Quotation. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 44: 1.25.Goffman, Erving (1979). Footing. Semiotica 25 (1-2): 1-30.26.Goffman, Erving (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.27.Goodwin, Charles (2007). Interactive Footing. In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, edited by Elizabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift, 16-46. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.28.Gutzmann, Daniel, and Erik Stei (2011). Quotation Marks and Kinds of Meaning. Arguments in Favor of a Pragmatic Account. In Understanding Quotation, edited by Elke Brendel, Jörg Meibauer, and Markus Steinbach. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.29.Güldemann, Tom (2008). Quotative Indexes in African Languages: A Synchronic and Diachronic Survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.30.Holquist, Michael (2002). Dialogism. Bakhtin and His World. 2nd edition. London/New York: Routledge.31.Jacquette, Dale (2017). Referential Analysis of Quotation. In The Semantics and Pragmatics of Quotation, edited by Paul Saka and Michael Johnson, 335-55. Springer International Publishing.32.Knight, Emily (2008). Hyperpolysemy in Bunuba, a Polysynthetic Language of the Kimberley, Western Australia. In Cross-Linguistic Semantics, edited by Cliff Goddard, 205-23. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.33.Kuipers, Joel (2013). Evidence and Authority in Ethnographic and Linguistic Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 42: 399-413.34.Lähteenmäki, Mika (2001). Dialogue, Language and Meaning: Variations on Bakhtinian Themes. PhD thesis, University of Jyväskylä.35.Linell, Per (2005). The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature Origins and Transformations. London; New York: Routledge.36.Maier, Emar (2007). Mixed Quotation: Between Use and Mention. In Proceedings of Lenls 2007.37.McGregor, William B. (1994). The Grammar of Reported Speech and Thought in Gooniyandi. Australian Journal of Linguistics 14 (1): 63-92.38.McGregor, William B. (2014). The ‘Say, Do’ Verb in Nyulnyul, Warrwa, and Other Nyulnylan Languages Is Monosemic. In Events, Arguments and Aspects: Topics in the Semantics of Verbs, edited by Klaus Robering, 301-27. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.39.Quine, W.V. (1956). Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy 53 (5): 177-87. https://doi.org/10.2307/2022451.40.Recanati, François (2001). Open Quotation. Mind 110 (439): 637-87.41.Recanati, François (2008). Open Quotation Revisited. Philosophical Perspectives 22: 443-71.42.Rumsey, Alan (1982). An Intra-Sentence Grammar of Ungarinjin, North-Western Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.43.Rumsey, Alan (1990). Wording, Meaning and Linguistic Ideology. American Anthropologist 92 (2): 346-61.44.Saka, Paul (1998). Quotation and the Use-Mention Distinction. Mind 107 (425): 113-35. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/107.425.113.45.Saka, Paul (2006). The Demonstrative and Identity Theories of Quotation. The Journal of Philosophy 103 (9): 452-71.46.Sandler, Sergeiy (2013). Language and Philosophical Anthropology in the Work of Mikhail Bakhtin and the Bakhtin Circle. Rivista Italiana Di Filosofia Del Linguaggio, no. 2: 152-65. https://doi.org/10.4396/20130711.47.Sandler, Sergeiy (2016). Fictive Interaction and the Nature of Linguistic Meaning. In The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction, edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.48.Spronck, Stef (2015a). Refracting Views: How to Construct Complex Perspective in Reported Speech and Thought in Ungarinyin. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 68 (2): 165-85.49.Spronck, Stef (2015b). Reported Speech in Ungarinyin: Grammar and Social Cognition in a Language of the Kimberley Region, Western Australia. PhD thesis, The Australian National University. http://hdl.handle.net/1885/733712596.50.Spronck, Stef (2017). Defenestration: Deconstructing the Frame-in Relation in Ungarinyin. Journal of Pragmatics 114: 104-33. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.016.51.Spronck, Stef, and Tatiana Nikitina (2019). Reported Speech Forms a Dedicated Syntactic Domain. Linguistic Typology 23 (1): 119-59.52.Vandelanotte, Lieven (2009). Speech and Thought Representation in English: A Cognitive- Functional Approach. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.53.Vološinov, Valentin N. (1972). Marksizm I Filosofija Jazyka. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. (Facsimile reprint of the second edition, originally published by Priboj, Leningrad, 1930.)54.Vološinov, Valentin N. (1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Edited by Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. New York/London: Seminar Press.55.Wierzbicka, Anna (1974). The Function of Direct and Indirect Discourse. Papers in Linguistics 7 (3): 267-307.56.Wierzbicka, Anna (1996). Semantics, Primes and Universals. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.57.Wierzbicka, Anna (2006). English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.