UNIT 30

DIRECT AND INDIRECT SPEECH

1. INTRODUCTION.
1.1. Aims of the unit.
1.2. Notes on bibliography.

2. A LINGUISTIC INTRODUCTION TO THE NOTION OF SPEECH ACT.

2.1. Linguistic levels involved.
2.2. On speech acts: what, how and why.
2.3. Grammatical categories involved.

3. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE NOTIONS OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT SPEECH.

3.1. On defining Speech Act.
3.2. The Speech Act Theory.
3.2.1. Austin (1962).
3.2.2. Searle (1969).
3.3. Main types of speech act: the illocutionary force.
3.4. : Direct vs. Indirect.
3.4.1. The relevance of Pragmatics.
3.4.2. Main structural differences.

4. ON DIRECT SPEECH: MAIN STRUCTURAL FEATURES.

4.1. Main types of direct speech.
4.2. Form.
4.2.1. Reporting verbs.
4.2.2. Verbal tenses.
4.2.3. Pronouns.
4.2.4. ‘Here and now’ words.
4.2.5. Semantic changes.
4.3. Function.
4.3.1. Specific structures: quote speech.
4.3.2. Word order: reporting verbs.
4.4. Main uses.

5. DIRECT SPEECH.
5.1. Main types of direct speech.
5.2. Form.
5.2.1. Reporting verbs.
5.2.2. Verbal tenses: time reference.
5.2.3. Pronouns.
5.2.4. ‘Here and now’ words.
5.2.5. Semantic changes.
5.3. Function.
5.3.1. Specific structures: reported speech.

1/27
 5.3.2. Word order: reported structures.
5.4. Main uses.

6. EDUCA TIONAL IMPLICATIONS.

7. CONCLUSION.

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY.

2/27
1. INTRODUCTION.

1.1. Aims of the unit.

Unit 30 is primarily aimed to examine the English the expression of direct and indirect speech (also
called direct and indirect discourse) in terms of their main structural features regarding form,
function and main uses in order to provide a relevant and detailed account of this issue. Therefore,
the study will be divided into seven chapters.

Thus, Chapter 2 provides a linguistic introduction to the notions of speech acts in English in terms
of form, main functions and uses. In fact, this introductory chapter aims at answering questions such
as, first, which linguistic levels are involved, what they describe, how and why; and third, which
grammar categories are involved in their description at a functional level.

In Chapter 3, we shall offer a theoretical framework for the notions of direct and indirect speech
since there are several key notions which must be clarified when reviewing this issue. So, we shall
start by (1) defining the term ‘speech act’, (2) offering an analysis of the Speech Act Theory in
which we shall include the main types of speech acts following relevant figures in this field, that is,
(a) Austin (1962) and (b) Searle (1969); then, we shall introduce (3) the main types of speech act
and therefore, the notion of illocutionary force; next, we shall analyse (4) the relevance of
pragmatics within the coinage of the terms direct vs. indirect speech; and finally, we shall approach
both types of speech in terms of its (5) main structural differences regarding form (grammatical
categories), function (syntax and semantics) and main uses (pragmatics).

Chapters 4 and 5 will offer an individual analysis of each item regarding (1) form, (2) function and
(3) main uses of each style addressing their (a) major syntactic constructions and (b) main structural
features, that is, morphology, phonology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Chapter 6 provides an
educational framework for the structural features of sentence structure within our current school
curriculum, and Chapter 7 draws on a summary of all the points involved in this study. Finally, in
Chapter 8 bibliography will be listed in alphabetical order.

3/27
1.2. Notes on bibliography.

In order to offer an insightful analysis and survey on the expression of direct and indirect speech in
English, we shall deal with the most relevant works in the field, both old and current, and in
particular, influential grammar books which have assisted for years students of English as a foreign
language in their study of grammar. For instance, Flor Aarts and Jan Aarts (University of Nijmegen,
Holland) in English Syntactic Structures (1988); and also, Sánchez Benedito, Gramática Inglesa
(1975); Greenbaum & Quirk, A Student’s Grammar of the English Language (1990). Main
approaches to notional grammar and pragmatics are taken from Searle, Speech Acts (1969), Austin,
How to Do Things With Words (1962); Bach and Harnish (1979), Linguistic Communication and
Speech Acts; and van Ek, J.A.; and J.L.M. Trim, Vantage (2001) among the most relevant authors.
The rest of bibliography is at the end of this discussion.

2. A LINGUISTIC INTRODUCTION TO THE NOTION OF SPEECH ACT.

Before examining in detail the notions of direct and indirect speech in English, it is relevant to
provide first a linguistic introduction to the grammatical elements that are involved in the notion of
speech act in order to fully understand the terms ‘direct’, ‘indirect’ and ‘speech’ separately and in
combination. In fact, this introductory chapter aims at answering questions, such as (1) which
linguistic levels are involved in this notion; (2) what it describes, how and why; and (3) which
grammar categories are involved in its description at a functional level.

2.1. Linguistic levels involved.

In order to offer a linguistic description of the notions under study, we must confine them to
particular levels of analysis so as to focus our attention on this particular aspect of language. Yet,
although there is no consensus of opinion on the number of levels to be distinguished, the usual
description of a language comprises four major components: phonology, grammar, lexicon, and
semantics, out of which we get five major levels: phonological, morphological and syntactic,

4/27
lexical, and semantic (Huddleston, 1988). However, due to the relevance of the speaker’s attitude
with respect to the use of direct vs. indirect speech, we shall include here the field of pragmatics.

First, the phonology describes the sound level, that is, the pronunciation (i.e. stress, rhythm, tone
and intonation) within the sentence structure. Secondly, since the two most basic units of grammar
are the word and the sentence, the component of grammar involves the morphological level (i.e.
tense changes) and the syntactic level (i.e. grammatical typology of sentences –statements,
questions, commands and exclamations). Third, the lexicon, or lexical level, lists vocabulary items
which are closely related to the expression of direct vs. indirect speech (i.e. here and now words:
time adverbs, adverbial expressions, prepositions, nouns, adjectives, verbs).

Another dimension is the study of meaning, that is, semantics, or the semantic level, to which all
four of the major components are related regarding. We must not forget that a linguistic description
which ignores meaning is obviously incomplete, and in particular for our purposes, where semantics
plays a very important role in order to express what the speaker wants to say (i.e. He shouted vs. He
whispered, ‘Leave me alone’).

Similarly, from a functional approach, we must bear in mind the prominence of pragmatics in
speech acts when dealing with ‘how to say things in English’, that is, taking into account the
speaker’s attitude and the context where the sentence is uttered, where meaning and the speaker’s
attitude are essential elements in communicative exchanges (oral, written, paralinguistic).

2.2. On direct and indirect speech: what, how and why.

On defining speech, we must link their linguistic description, that is, what they represent (speech
acts) to (1) how they are represented, both grammatically (different grammatical categories: verbs,
nouns, adjectives, etc) and syntactically (the types of sentences in which they are embedded); and
(3) to their function and why they are used in the speech act, that is, to explain the speaker’s
attitude. Traditionally, these notions have been defined as speech acts (assertion, questions, orders
and requests) which take place within certain types of sentences (declaratives, interrogative,
imperative) with a particular function (convey information –true or false-; elicit information;
commands which cause others to behave in certain ways).

5/27
Since they are defined on the basis of sentence analysis, they are closely related to the domain of
text grammar (text linguistics) and discourse analysis because of their syntactic structures and the
different illocutionary acts they may represent. In general, they work with a wide range of
grammatical constructions, from the simplest ones like the word to the largest unit of grammatical
description like the sentence. Both extremes will be taken into account when embedded in larger
stretches of language such as paragraphs and texts (discourse analysis).

The notion of “speech act” is to be found within the study of acts of communication and, in
particular, within Searle’s theory of Speech Acts (1969) where he distinguishes five types:
assertives (to tell people how things are by stating); directives (to try to get people to do things by
means of commanding and requesting); expressives (to express our feelings and attitudes by
thinking, forgiving, or blaming); declaratives (to bring about changes through our utterances by
means of bringing about correspondence between the propositional content and realit y, through
baptizing, naming, appointing or sacking); and finally, commissives (to commit ourselves to some
future actions by promising and offering).

2.3. Grammar categories involved.

So far, in order to confine these the notion of speech acts to particular grammatical categories, we
open and closed classes since the structure of the sentence involve both. The open classes are verbs,
nouns, adjectives and adverbs, and are said to be unrestricted since they allow the addition of new
members to their membership, whereas the closed classes are the rest: prepositions, conjunctions,
articles (definite and indefinite), numerals, pronouns, quantifiers and interjections, which belong to
a restricted class since they do not allow the creation of new members. Yet, as we shall see, our two
main concepts shall deal with both classes since the duality direct vs. indirect speech will be
represented by a wide range of changes in the different grammatical categories (verbs, nouns,
adjectives, adverbs, etc).

6/27
3. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE NOTIONS OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT
SPEECH.

In this chapter, we shall offer a theoretical framework for the notions of direct and indirect speech
since there are several key notions which must be clarified when reviewing this issue. So, we shall
start by (1) defining the term ‘speech act’, (2) offering an analysis of the Speech Act Theory in
which we shall include the main types of speech acts following relevant figures in this field, that is,
(a) Austin (1962) and (b) Searle (1969); then, we shall introduce (3) the main types of speech act
and therefore, the notion of illocutionary force; next, we shall analyse (4) the relevance of
pragmatics within the coinage of the terms direct vs. indirect speech; and finally, we shall approach
both types of speech in terms of its (5) main structural differences regarding form (grammatical
categories), function (syntax and semantics) and main uses (pragmatics).

3.1. On defining Speech Act.

When we vocalise in order to send messages through the air to other members of our species we are
producing speech events. Hence the message sent, the content of the communication, is a form of
human action. So we shall define a speech act not as the act of speaking, but an act we perform by
speaking. For instance, if we say “I promise to give you back twenty euros”, I have made a promise
and not an apology or a wish, and that promise is created by the words that I use. This is the essence
of the speech act; uttering the words generates the action.

So, in general, speech acts are acts of communication since to communicate is to express a certain
attitude, and the type of speech act being performed corresponds to the type of attitude being
expressed. For example, a statement expresses a belief, a request expresses a desire, and an apology
expresses a regret. As an act of communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies, in
accordance with the speaker's intention, the attitude being expressed.

So, speech acts, whatever the medium of their performance, fall under the broad category of
intentional action, with which they share certain general features. An especially pertinent feature is
that when one acts intentionally, generally one has a set of nested intentions. For instance, one
might push a button with the intention not just of pushing the button but of ringing a bell. Here the
single bodily movement involved in pushing the button comprises a multiplicity of actions, each

7/27
corresponding to a different one of the nested intentions. Similarly, speech acts are not just acts of
producing certain sounds.

3.2. The Speech Act Theory.

The speech act theory was inspired by the work of the British philosopher J.L. Austin whose
postumously published lectures How to do things with words (1962) influenced a number of
students of language including the philosopher John Searle (1969), who established a speech act
theory as a major framework for the study of human communication. In contrast to the assumptions
of structuralism where langue is seen as a system, over parole concerning the speech act, speech act
theory holds that the investigation of structure always presupposes something about meanings,
language use, and extralinguistic functions.

But why should we review this theory? Because, as Austin stated, we can do many things with
words and his typology of speech acts (later reviewed by Searle) will leads us directly to the
classification of utterances in direct speech which have their respective structural changes in
indirect speech. This is the reason why this classification is so relevant in our study.

3.2.1. Austin (1962).

In How to Do Things with Words, Austin (1962) starts by enunciating a distinction between
constative and performative utterances. According to him, an utterance, which originally is a spoken
word or string of spoken words with no particular forethought or intention to communicate a
meaning, becomes constative if it describes some state of affairs whose correspondence with the
facts is either true or false. Performatives, on the other hand, do not describe or report or constate
anything as true or false. It is worth mentioning here that the attitude of the person performing the
linguistic act, his thoughts, feelings, or intentions is of great relevance at this distinction.

Furthermore, Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) conceptualized speech acts as comprising three
components. First, the locutionary act (the act of saying something) as the actual form of an
utterance. Second, the illocutionary act (what one does in saying it: direct or indirect speech) as the

8/27
communicative force of the utterance. Third, the perlocutionary act (what one does by saying it)
depicted as the communicative effect of the utterance upon the feelings, thoughts, or actions of the
audience, of the speaker, or of other persons.

In other words, a locutionary act has meaning; it produces an understandable utterance. An

illocutionary act has force; it is informed with a certain tone, attitude, feeling, motive, or intention,
and a perlocutionary act has consequence; it has an effect upon the addressee.

3.2.2. Searle (1969).

Searle summarizes Austin’s speech acts (1962) into five main categories: representatives,
directives, commissives, expressives, and declarations. In examining what people say to one
another, we shall use Searle’s classification to state the main types of direct speech in order to
analyse its main structural features:

(1) firstly, representatives (also assertives) refer to some state of affairs by means of assertions,
claims and descriptions, that is, to tell people how things are by stating;

(2) secondly, directives, which are speech acts whose intention is to get the addressee to carry
out some action by means of commands, requests, dares or entreaties;

(3) thirdly, commissives, which are speech acts that commit the speaker to some future course
of action by means of promises, threats and vows;

(4) fourthly, expressives, which are speech acts that indicate the speaker's psychological state
or mental attitude by means of greeting, congratulating, thanking or apologising in order to
express the speaker's feelings and attitudes by thinking, forgiving, or blaming;

(5) and finally, declaratives, which are speech acts that themselves bring about a state of affairs
by means of marrying, naming, blessing or arresting. For instance, they bring about changes
through our utterances by means of bringing about correspondence between the
propositional content and reality, through baptizing, naming, appointing or sacking.

9/27
3.3. Main types of speech act: the illocutionary force.

Traditional grammar recognises three main types of speech act, distinguishable in many languages
on the basis of their form: first, statements or declaratives; second, questions or interrogatives ; and
finally, commands or imperatives. For instance, respectively, ‘Her husband took out the rubbish’,
‘Did he take out the rubbish?’, ‘Take out the rubbish, John!’

Though the unmarked illocutionary force for declarative sentences is assertion, we have already
seen that they can be used with other illocutionary forces as well. Similarly, not all interrogative
sentences represent acts of questioning when uttered with falling intonation (i.e. I’m going to quit
working-Do you want to be poor all your life?) as imperatives need not express command (i.e.
Enjoy yourself in Bali/Use at your own risk).

As seen, the British philosopher Austin (1962) and the American Searle (1969) conceptualized
speech acts as comprising three components: the locutionary, the illocutionary and the
perlocutionary element. Yet, in our study we shall namely focus on the illocutionary act since it is
this type the one related to direct and indirect speech and the one from which we get the main
classification of utterances.

In a speech act, the illocutionary act informs the listeners about something (an announcement, a
wedding, farewell, promises) for the audience to understand the message. When (1962) In How to
Do Things with Words, stated that “an utterance, which originally is a spoken word or string of
spoken words with no particular forethought or intention to communicate a meaning” may be
reported either in direct or indirect speech by means of performative verbs. These verbs shall
indicate the attitude of the person performing the linguistic act (his thoughts, feelings, or intentions)
through three main types of sentences: declarative (statements), interrogative (questions) and
commands (orders).

Therefore, if we concentrate on the illocutionary acts and possible performative verbs for our
purposes, we find four major categories of communicative illocut ionary acts: constatives, directives,
commissives and acknowledgments, respectively, where each type of illocutionary act is
individuated by the type of attitude expressed (i.e. constatives: affirm, answer, claim, confirm,
deny, inform, report, state; directives: ask, beg, order, request, warn; commissives: agree, offer,
promise; and acknowledgments: apologize, congratulate, thank, accept).

10/ 27
3.4. The relevance of Pragmatics: direct vs. indirect speech.

The field of pragmatics proves relevant on the distinction direct vs. indirect speech since it is based
on the observation of how people use language to accomplish certain kinds of acts, broadly known
as ‘speech acts’. In fact, the philosopher J.L. Austin defined it as the study of “how to do things
with words ” since speech acts are distinct from physical or mental acts like drinking a cup of coffee,
thinking about holidays, etc.

Speech acts include asking for a cup of coffee, promising to book a holiday, threatening to cancel
the booking, ordering a room, and so on. However, as stated before, most of these should be called
“communicative acts”, since speech and even language are not strictly required to speaking and
writing but also to pointing to a pitcher and miming the act of drinking. Yet, most introductions to
pragmatics divide speech acts into two categories: direct and indirect, which are embedded in the
notion of “illocutionary force” and show different structural features.

3.5. Main structural differences.

The main structural differences between direct and indirect speech makes reference to syntactic,
semantic and pragmatic parametres. For many years, syntax and semantics were studied with little
regard for the ways people used grammar and meaning in communication and the use of language
was relegated to the field of pragmatics. Nowadays, the role of syntax, semantics and namely use
(pragmatics) when dealing with direct vs. indirect speech proves essential when studying a text
regarding how connections and relations are actually set up among communicative contexts.

For instance, note a sentence like ‘ “Her parents visited her yesterday”, they said’. Syntactically, the
direct speech sentence is quoted by inverted commas whereas the indirect speech sentence has no
markers and is introduced by ‘that’. Semantically, we use direct speech to report what someone has
said by quoting the words called ‘verbatim’ whereas indirect speech is used to report what someone
has said in one’s own words (i.e. They said that her parents had paid a short visit to her the day
before). Finally, in terms of use we shall say that indirect speech is much more usual than direct
speech, but why? The reason is given by the speaker’s attitude and intention which shall use

11/ 27
different grammatical and syntactic features when talking in first person singular and when
reporting a fact.

Regarding the main syntactic structural differences between direct and indirect speech it should be
borne in mind that in terms of their complexity, sentences can be divided into three types: simple,
complex and compound. For our purposes this analysis will deal with the main types of sentence
structures based on their grammatical form (syntactic constructions) and their function in
communication (the illocutionary force) that is, from their syntactic structures and their association
with one particular function in speech acts (direct vs. indirect).

4. ON DIRECT SPEECH: MAIN STRUCTURAL FEATURES.

On reviewing direct speech, that is, when we repeat the original speaker’s exact words (i.e. He said,
‘I have lost my car keys’), we shall start by analysing its main structural features so as to relate
them to indirect speech. So, we shall review (1) main types of direct speech, (2) form on reviewing
(a) reporting verbs, (b) verbal tenses, (c) pronouns, (d) ‘here and now’ words, and finally, (e)
semantic changes in certain items; (3) function in terms of syntax and semantics on reviewing (a)
main syntactic structures: quote speech and (b) word order of reporting verbs; and (4) main uses of
direct speech in order to differenciate them from their respective indirect speech acts.

4.1. Main types of direct speech.

There are three basic types of direct speech acts, and they correspond to three special syntactic
types that seem to occur in most of the world’s languages. Concernin g the sentence grammatical
form, the classification comprises four types: declarative sentences, interrogative sentences,
imperative sentences and exclamatory sentences whereas the classification concerning their
function in communication shows that declarative sentences are chiefly used to make statements,
interrogative sentences to ask questions, imperative sentences to give commands and exclamatory
sentences to make exclamations, depending on the way speakers express their attitude through
phonological, syntactic and semantic cues.

12/ 27
Within this classification, we shall establish a close connection with the changes that occur in
indirect speech (sometimes called reported speech) when reporting a piece of information. So, we
shall base our analysis of direct and indirect speech within three main different communicative
functions: (1) stating, by using declarative sentences (positive and negative); (2) requesting, by
asking questions fo two types (a) Wh-questions and (b) yes-no questions; (3) ordering, by giving
commands in the imperative form (positive and negative); and finally, (4) exclaming, by uttering
exclamations in order to express emphasis. But let analyse the main structural features of these
communicative functions in direct speech since they will give us the basis to build up indirect
speech.

4.2. Form.

Within this section, we shall approach the form of direct speech (morphology and phonology)
regarding the grammatical categories involved in the main changes which take place when reporting
in indirect speech, that is, reporting verbs, verbal tenses, pronouns, ‘here and now’ words and
certain items that involve internal semantic changes (come vs. go, bring vs. take).

4.2.1. Reporting verbs.

Thus when dealing with reporting verbs, we have to bring back again the contributions of Austin
(1962), who called them ‘performative verbs’. Austin stated that an utterance was a spoken word or
string of spoken words with no particular forethought or intention to communicate a meaning but
that could be reported either in direct or indirect speech by means of performative verbs. These
verbs show the attitude of the person performing the linguistic act (his thoughts, feelings, or
intentions) through three main types of sentences: declarative (statements), interrogative
(questions), commands (orders) and exclamative (exclamations).

Therefore, if we concentrate on the illocutionary acts and possible performative verbs for our
purposes, we find three main types respectively: constatives (say, affirm, answer, claim, confirm,
deny, inform, report, state) in which we shall include exclamative verbs (exclaim, shout), directives
(ask, wonder (if), enquire/inquire, want to know), and finally, commissives (beg, order, command,
request, warn). We must not forget other verbs wich are followed by prepositions and which namely

13/ 27
express acknowledgments (apologize, congratulate, thank, accept) as in ‘Thank you for coming
tonight, Jane’, said Tom (vs. ‘Tom thanked Jane for visiting him that night’).

4.2.2. Verbal tenses: time reference.

Verbal tenses in direct speech will undergo some changes which are termed ‘backshift’, and the
resulting relationship of verb forms in the reporting and reported clauses is known as the sequence
of tenses. We may illustrate all types of tense: present (simple vs. continuous) and past (simple vs.
continuous), and also any type of time reference: future (simple, continuous, perfect), conditional,
modal verbs and so on.

Note that in direct speech, the reporting verb may not coincide with the one quoted, for instance, in
a sentence like “What time have you arrived?”, I asked- the former sentence is introduced by
present perfect and the latter by simple past.

4.2.3. Pronouns.

This grammatical category is namely drawn from personal, object and possessive pronouns
respectively (i.e. I asked Paul, “Do you like her?”-“No, I don’t. It’s all yours, David”); and also
from demonstrative and possessive adjectives respectively (i.e. “This is my watch”, I warned him).
Note that all of them shall undergo certain changes in indirect speech since speaker and hearer and
their respective possessive, personal and object references are not the same any more.

4.2.4. ‘Here and now’ words.

This type of words corresponds respectively to place adverbs (here, there) or adverbial expressions
of place (at this point, in the same place, under that tree) and time adverbs (yesterday, tomorrow) or

14/ 27
adverbial expressions of time (some minutes ago, next week, in two hours). Note that individually,
they usually belong to the grammatical category of nouns (tomorrow, yesterday), adjectives (next,
last), or prepositional phrases (two minutes ago, in two hours).

4.2.5. Semantic changes.

In direct speech we shall also find certain items (come vs. go, bring vs. take) that undergo relevant
semantic changes from an internal perspective, namely situational and directional. Thus in a
sentence like “Will you come to my party tonight?”, I asked Peter’, there will be internal semantic
changes when reported later. Note that the invitation is one-way directional (Will you come...?) and
will be reported in the other direction by the person invited to that party (He asked me if I would go
to his party).

4.3. Function.

Within function, we shall approach the main syntactic structures of given utterances in direct
speech, that is, quote structures and the word order of reporting verbs, together with their semantics
in order to establish further differences with indirect speech.

4.3.1. Specific structures: quote speech.

The two most outstanding features of direct speech are, first, that the actual words a person says are
quoted, that is, are reported between inverted commas and secondly, that the introductory reporting
clause is preceded by a comma (i.e. “What are you doing?”, he asked me). Alternatively, it is
possible to remove either or both of these features in what we know as ‘free direct speech’.

This type is considered to be a free form whereby the characters apparently speak to us without the
narrator as an intermediary (i.e. He said I’ll come back soon). It is namely used in narrative style in
order to speed up the action so as to get the feeling of fast continuity (used by writers such as
Dickens, Hemingway, James Joyce). Note that here it is not used the illocutionary force but
locutionary types since there are no quotation marks and the speech is direct.

15/ 27
4.3.2. Word order: reporting verbs.

In order to examine word order in the placing of reporting verbs, we must establish first the
difference between the two main clauses involved in direct speech. Thus in a sentence like “I won’t
do it again”, he promised – we distinguish the reporting clause, which contains the reporting verb
(he promised) and the quote itself (“I won’t do it again”), which represents the exact words
someone has said. Note that the reporting clause may be placed in different positions with respect to
the quote: at the end, in the middle, at the beginning).

(1) The usual syntactic structure to quote is at the end on reporting what someone said as
statements, questions, orders, suggestions and exclamations. As we have seen, after the quote there
is no inversion of subject and verb when the subject is a pronoun. Yet, we may find inversion
subject-verb (i.e. “I am ready”, replied John) in novels and short stories with verbs such as ‘ask,
exclaim, suggest, reply, cry, reflect, suppose, whisper’ among others.

(2) We may also find the reporting verb in the middle of the quote in particular cases, for instance,
(a) after a noun group (“Your son” I shouted, “has broken my window car”); (b) after a vocative
(“Paula”, he said, “don’t play with my sunglasses”); (c) after an adverbial clause (“Maybe” she
thought, “he finds me too boring”); and (d) after a clause if the quote contains more than one clause
(“I was watching TV” she said “when that man phoned me”. This type is namely used in literary
writing where reporting expressions often interrupt the normal flow of the sentences quoted.

(3) Another usual position is at the beginning, that is, in front of the quote (i.e. She replied, “I will
do it right now”), except for verbs such as ‘wonder, agree, disagree, command, promise’, which are
hardly ever used in this case

4.4. Main uses.

As stated above, we namely use direct speech to quote literally what someone said regarding
thoughts, feelings, intentions, orders, suggestions or whatever. In addition, we use direct speech in
literary style and, in particular, in narrative style to give speed to the action. Yet, in everyday life we
do not use it very often since it is quite difficult to remember word by word so as to quote it literally
although there are people who are able to do it.

16/ 27
5. ON INDIRECT SPEECH: MAIN FEATURES.

In this chapter, we shall review the other way of reporting what people have said, that is, indirect
speech, which is namely achieved by using our own version of the words rather than the words
actually used. We shall focus on the main changes, and therefore differences, taking place in the
process direct-indirect speech. So, we shall review (1) main types of indirect speech, and the main
changes in (2) form, on reviewing (a) reporting verbs, (b) verbal tenses, (c) pronouns, (d) ‘here and
now’ words, and finally, (e) semantic changes in certain items; (3) function, in terms of syntax and
semantics in (a) the main syntactic structures: reported speech and (b) word order of reporting
verbs; and (4) main uses of indirect speech.

5.1. Main types of indirect speech.

Similarly to direct speech types, we classify indirect speech acts into three basic types, which
correspond to three special syntactic types: declarative sentences, interrogative sentences, and
imperative sentences and exclamatory sentences (these two are included within the same type)
whereas the classification concerning their function in communication shows that declarative
sentences are chiefly used to make statements, interrogative sentences to ask questions, imperative
sentences to give commands and exclamatory sentences to make exclamations, depending on the
speakers’ attitude through phonological, syntactic and semantic cues.

Within this classification, we shall establish three main different communicative functions: (1)
stating, by using declarative sentences (positive and negative); (2) requesting, by asking questions
fo two types (a) Wh-questions and (b) yes-no questions; and finally, (3) ordering, by giving
commands in the imperative form (positive and negative). But let analyse the main structural
features of these communicative functions in reported speech and its main changes.

5.2. Form.

The form of indirect speech addresses the main changes which take place backwards when
reporting from direct to indirect speech within reporting verbs, verbal tenses, pronouns, ‘here and
now’ words and certain items that involve internal semantic changes (come vs. go, bring vs. take).

17/ 27
5.2.1. Reporting verbs.

The reporting verbs within indirect speech are drawn from the already mentioned types of
sentences: declarative (statements), interrogative (questions) and commands (orders) in order to
show the attitude of the person performing the linguistic act (his thoughts, feelings, or intentions).
Therefore, we shall namely introduce statements by means of constative verbs, such as ‘say, affirm,
answer, claim, confirm, deny, inform, report, state’; questions by means of directive verbs, such as
‘ask, wonder (if), enquire/inquire, want to know’; and commands by means of commissive verbs,
such as ‘beg, order, command, request, warn’.

Special attention must be paid on those verbs which are followed by prepositions and which namely
express acknowledgments (apologize, congratulate, thank, accept) as in ‘Thank you for coming
tonight, Jane’, said Tom (vs. ‘Tom thanked Jane for visiting him that night’).

5.2.2. Verbal tenses: time reference.

We may establish a typology of changes from direct to indirect speech within all types of verbal
tenses, from the expression of tense (present and past) to any type of time reference (future,
conditional, modal verbs). When the report structure is used, it usually refers to something said in
the past, so the reporting verb and the verb in the reported clause are therefore in a past tense.

Yet, there are some exceptions where the reporting verb may appear in present tense (i.e. “An apple
a day keeps the doctor away”, she says), usually when idiomatic expressions or proverbs are
involved. Note that backshift is also optional when the time reference of the original utterance is
valid at the time of the reporting (i.e. The teacher told them that the earth moves around the sun).
Moreover, the reporting verb may be in the present tense for communications in recent past time
(i.e. She says she was too busy to join us yesterday) and for reports attributed to famous works or
authors which have present validity (i.e. The Bible says that greed is a sin). Finally, verbs of
cognition may also be used in the present tense (i.e. I know they don’t care at all).

But let us analyse the main changes within verbal tenses (simple, perfect, progressive). In the list
below we shall present the direct speech form first and then the corresponding one in indirect
speech.

18/ 27
 • From Simple Present to Simple Past (i.e. He said, “I am worried” vs. He said he
was worried).
• From Present Continuous to Past Continuous (i.e. He said, “I am singing because I
feel happy” vs. He said he was singing because he felt happy).
• From Simple Past to Past Perfect (i.e. He said , “I didn’t understand a word” vs. He
said he hadn’t understood a word).
• From Present Perfect to Past Perfect (i.e. “I have phoned Jane”, he said vs. He said
he had phoned Jane).
• From Past Perfect to Past Perfect (i.e. “I had seen her walking”, he said vs. He said
he had seen her walking).
• From Past Continuous to Past Continuous (i.e. He said, “I wasn’t doing anything
wrong” vs. He said he wasn’t doing anything wrong).
• From Present Perfect Continuous to Past Perfect Continuous (i.e. He said, ‘I’ve
been wait ing for two hours’ vs. He said he had been waiting for two hours).
• From Future (will) to Conditional Simple (would) (i.e. He said, ‘I will be there in
two minutes’ vs. He said he would be there in two minutes).
• From Future Continuous to Conditional Continuous (i.e. She said, ‘I will be using
your car while you are away’ vs. She said she would be using my car while I was
away).
• But note, from Conditional to Conditional (i.e. I said, ‘I would like to see him’ vs. I
said I would like to see him).
• Moreover, note the time reference change on modal verbs, for instance: from ‘can’
to ‘could’ (i.e. He said, ‘I can do it alone’ vs. He said he could do it alone); from
‘may’ to ‘might’ (i.e. He said, ‘It may be a boy’ vs. He said it might be a boy); from
‘must’ to ‘had to’ (i.e. The doctor said, ‘You must take this pill everyday’ vs. The
doctor said I had to take that pill everday); and special uses like from ‘need’ to ‘had
to’ (i.e. He said, ‘You need to go soon’ vs. He said I had to go soon).

5.2.3. Pronouns.

Pronouns and possessive adjectives usually change from first or second to third person except when
the speaker is reporting his own words (i.e. I said, ‘I like my new house’ vs. I said that I liked my
new house). Also, pronoun changes may affect the verb (i.e. He says, ‘I know her’ vs. He says he
knows her). Moreover, the demonstrative adjectives ‘this’ and ‘that’ and their plural forms ‘these’

19/ 27
and ‘those’ undergo certain changes just to indicate a backward personal or object reference (i.e.
He said, ‘I like this T-shirt’ vs. He said he liked that T-shirt).

5.2.4. ‘Here and now’ words.

Drawn from direct speech, this type of words corresponds respectively to place adverbs (here, there)
or adverbial expressions of place (at this point, in the same place, under that tree) and time adverbs
(yesterday, tomorrow) or adverbial expressions of time (some minutes ago, next week, in two
hours). Note that individually, they usually belong to the grammatical category of nouns (tomorrow,
yesterday), adjectives (next, last), or prepositional phrases (two minutes ago, in two hours).

In indirect speech, adverbs and adverbial phrases of time change backwards using the adjective ‘the
previous’ and forward using ‘the next/the following + a noun’. Hence the main changes are as
follows: from ‘today’ to ‘that day’; from ‘yesterday’ to ‘the day before/the previous day’; from ‘the
day before yesterday’ to ‘two days before’; from ‘tomorrow’ to ‘the next day/the following day’;
from ‘the day after tomorrow’ to ‘in two days’ time’; from ‘next week/year/etc’ to ‘the following
week/year/etc’; from ‘last week/year/etc’ to ‘the previous week/year/etc’; from ‘a year ago’ to ‘a
year before/the previous year’; from ‘now’ to ‘then, at that moment’; and so on.

Note, however, that if the speech is made and reported on the same day these time changes are not
necessary (i.e. At breakfast this morning he said, ‘I’ll be working’ vs. At breakfast this morning he
said that he would be working). With respect to the place adverbs the main change happens from
‘here’ to ‘there’ when it is clear what place is meant (i.e. On the phone he said, ‘I’ll come back here
very soon’vs. He said he would come back there very soon).

5.2.5. Semantic changes.

There are certain reported clauses that may undergo semantic changes when reported in indirect
speech. Thus a sentence like ‘You took the money!’ might be reported ‘He accused me of taking the
money’. So, from different contexts we may include the following reporting verbs: admit, apologize
for, deny, insist on + gerund (i.e. “No way. I’ll pay”, said John vs. John insisted on paying) or verbs
such as: agree, refuse, offer, promise, threaten + infinitive structure (i.e. “I’ll pay”, he said to her vs.
He offered to help her).

20/ 27
We may also find semantic differences between such verbs as ‘say’ and ‘tell’. For instance, indirect
statements are normally introduced by ‘say’ + object (i.e. He said he’d just heard the news). Yet, we
use ‘tell ...+ how/about’ (i.e. He told us how he had passed the exam) although this verb is
frequently used to introduce commands (i.e. He told me to stop playing). Moreover, there are other
types of verbs such as ‘murmur, mutter, shout, stammer, whisper’ which indicate the voice or the
tone of voice in which the speaker pronounces his statement.

5.3. Function.

Within function, we shall approach the main syntactic structures of given utterances in direct
speech, that is, reporting verbs and the word order of reported structures, together with their
semantics in order to establish further differences with indirect speech.

5.3.1. Specific structures: reported speech.

The two most outstanding features of indirect speech are, first, that the words a person says are
reported, that is, the speaker conveys a report of what has been said in his own words . Then, alike
direct speech, words are not reported between inverted commas and secondly, that there is no
comma after the introductory verb (i.e. “What are you doing?”, he asked me vs. He asked me what I
was doing).

As stated above, the main reporting verbs within indirect speech are ‘say, affirm, answer, claim,
confirm, deny, inform, report, state’ for statements; ‘ask, wonder (if), enquire/inquire, want to
know’ for questions; and ‘beg, order, command, request, warn’ for commands. Exclamation verbs
are included within the statement type.

5.3.2. Word order: reported structures.

In order to examine word order in reported structures, we shall revise again the main discourse
types mentioned above which may be converted into indirect speech. So, indirect statements will be

21/ 27
introduced by a subordinate that-clause; indirect questions by a subordinate wh-clause or if-clause;
indirect exclamation by a subordinate wh-clause; and finally, the indirect directive (or commands)
will be introduced by a subordinate that-clause or to-infinitive clause (without subject).

(1) First, when statements are built up syntactically, they follow the structure: reporting verb +
optional ‘that’ + a subordinate clause (i.e. John said, ‘I don’t like meat’ vs. John said (that)
he didn’t like meat). It must be borne in mind that any of the reporting verbs are valid in the
place of ‘said’ (i.e. claimed, stated, affirmed).
(2) Secondly, when we turn direct questions into indirect speech, there are necessary changes
in tenses, pronouns and possessive adjectives, and also adverbs of time and place (as in
statements). The interrogative form of the verb changes to the affirmative form and the
question mark (?) is therefore omitted in indirect questions.

Within the first type (a subordinate wh-clause), if the introductory verb is ‘say’, it must be
changed to a verb of inquiry (ask, inquire/enquire, wonder, want to know) as in “He said,
‘Where is the shop?’ vs. He asked where the shop was’. Yet, they are usually placed at the
end of the sentence. On the other hand, in the indirect clause ‘ask’ can be followed by the
person addressed (indirect object) as in ‘He asked me where the shop was’ and as we may
observe, the question word with which the direct question begins is repeated in the indirect
question (i.e. ‘How are you?’, he said vs. He asked me how I was).

When there is no question word, we are dealing with if-clauses in the indirect questions,
and then ‘if’ or ‘whether’ (less usual) must be used (i.e. ‘Is anyone there?’ he asked vs. He
asked if anyone was there).’Whether’ can emphasize that a choice has to be made (i.e. ‘Do
you want to bo by air or sea? He asked vs. He asked whether I wanted to go by air or sea).
‘Whether + infinitive’ is possible after ‘wonder, want to know’ (i.e. Should I wait for you?
He wondered vs. He wondered whether to wait for me or go on).

(3) With respect to indirect commands (requests and advice are included here), they are usually
epxressed by the sequence: verb of command/request/advice + object + infinitive (i.e. He
said, ‘Lie down, Tobby’ vs. He told Tobby to lie down). The following verbs can be used:
advise, ask, beg, command, encourage, forbid, invite, order, remind, request, tell, urge and
warn. Note that ‘say’ is not included in this list since it is related to statements.

22/ 27
 Negative commands, requests, etc are usually reported by ‘not + infinitive’ (i.e. He said,
‘Don’t lie down, Tobby’ vs. He told Tobby not to lie down). Most verbs mentioned above
require object + infinitive and must be followed directly by the person addressed without
preposition (i.e. He said, ‘Go away!’ vs. He told me to go away).

Other ways of expressing indirect commands are expressed by the sequences: ‘say/tell +
subject + be + infinitive’ (i.e. He said/told me that his wife was pregnant) and ‘say/tell +
(that) + subject + should’ (i.e. He said/told me that if it was too late I shouldn’t walk home
alone).

(4) With respect to exclamations, we shall say that they usually become statements in indirect
speech and that the exclamation mark disappears (i.e. He said, ‘What a wonderful day!’ vs.
He exclaimed that it was a wonderful day/He told us how wonderful the day was). Other
types of exclamation such as ‘Good! Marvellous! Splendid! Heavens!’ have to be
paraphrased when reported indirectly (i.e. ‘Good!’ he exclaimed vs. He gave an
exclamatio n of pleasure)

5.4. Main uses.

As stated above, we namely use indirect speech to give the exact meaning of a remark or a speech,
without necessarily using the speaker’s exact words (i.e He said that he had no money at all). Yet,
in everyday life we use it ve ry often since it is quite difficult to remember the exact words a person
said some time ago (and sometimes even recently!). Moreover, we often use it to express the
speakers’ feelings, thoughts and attitudes, for instance, when swearing as in ‘Damn!, he said’, we
can report it by just saying ‘He swore’; ‘Liar!’ he said, by saying ‘He called me a liar’ and so on.

There is a variety of indirect speech called ‘free indirect speech’ which is used extensively to report
speech or (particularly in fiction) the stream of thought. “It is basically a form of indirect speech but
(a) the reporting clause is omitted (except when retained as a parenthetical clause, as in direct
speech), and (b) the potentialities of direct-speech sentence structure are retained (for example,
direct questions and exclamations, vocatives, tag questions, and interjections). It is therefore the
backshift of the verb, together with equivalent shifts in personal pronouns, demostratives, and time

23/ 27
and place references, that signals the fact that the words are being reported, rather than being in
direct speech” (Quirk et al. , 1990).

6. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS.

This study has looked at the expression of direct and indirect speech within lexical semantics,
morphology and syntax in order to establish a relative similarity between the two languages that
Spanish-speaking students would find it useful for learning English if these connections were
brought to their attention, especially when different changes take place in time reference, pronouns,
here and now words and so on.

It has been suggested that a methodology grounded in part in the application of explicit linguistic
knowledge enhances the second language learning process. In the Spanish curriculum (B.O.E.
2002), the expression of direct and indirect speech is envisaged from earlier stages of ESO in terms
of stating what other people say up to higher stages of Bachillerato, towards more complex
constructions, such as those of commands (i.e. He told me to leave the room).

The expression of indirect speech has been considered an important element of language teaching
because of its high-frequency in speech. We must not forget that the expression of these items is
mainly drawn from both closed class categories, such as verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and nouns, and
open class categories such as prepositions which have a high frequency of use when reporting facts.

Hence, the importance of how to handle these expressions cannot be understated since you cannot
communicate without it. Current communicative methods foster the ‘teaching’ of this kind of
specific linguistic information to help students recognize new L2 words. Learners cannot do it all on
their own. Language learners, even 2nd year Bachillerato students, do not automatically recognize
similiarities which seem obvious to teachers; learners need to have these associations brought to
their attention.

So far, we have attempted in this discussion to provide a broad account of the expression of direct
and indirect speech in order to set it up within the linguistic theory and a theoretical framework so
as to establish their main syntactic structures to be analysed individually. We hope students are able

24/ 27
to understand the relevance of handling correctly these two ways of reporting in everyday life
communication.

7. CONCLUSION.

How language represents the world has long been, and still is, a major concern of philosophers of
language. It is worth noting that although direct and indirect speech are fairly universal ways of
reporting facts, thoughts, feelings and many more attitudes, they have separate syntactic
constructions that distinguish them, for instance, an utterance like “Where are you? he asked” may
be identified as a direct reporting fact within the type wh-questions.

Moreover, almost any speech act is really the performance of several acts at once, distinguished by
different aspects of the speaker's intention: there is the act of saying something, what one does in
saying it, such as requesting or promising, and how one is trying to affect one's audience. Making a
statement may be the paradigmatic use of language, but there are all sorts of other things we can do
with words (whisper, say, shout, apologize).

We can make requests, ask questions, give orders, make promises, give thanks, offer apologies,
expressing emphasis and disagreeing. In general, speech acts are acts of communication. To
communicate is to express a certain attitude, and the type of reporting act being performed
corresponds to the type of attitude being expressed (statement, questio n, command, exclamation).
For example, a statement expresses a belief, a request expresses a desire, and a command expresses
an order.

Throughout this unit we have shown the correlation between direct and indirect speech.
Communicative success is achieved if the speaker chooses his words in such a way that the hearer
will, under the circumstances of utterance, recognize his communicative intention (inform, require,
order). So, for example, if you spill some beer on someone and say 'Oops' in the right way, your
utterance will be taken as an apology for what you did and reported indirectly with other words
(paraphrased) as in ‘He apologized for spilling the beer on him’.

So far, in this study we have attempted to take a fairly broad view of the expression of direct and
indirect speech since we are also assuming that there is an intrinsic connexion between its learning
and successful communication. Yet, we have provided a descriptive account of Unit 30, untitled

25/ 27
“Direct and Indirect Speech ” whose main aim was to introduce the student to the different ways of
expressing these acts of speech. In doing so, the study has provided first a linguistic framework for
these two items and then a theoretical framework to clarify some key terminology on the issue.

In fact, these two ways of reporting are speech acts which are a central element in communicative
competence and in the acquisition of a second language since students must be able to express their
thoughts, opinions and emotions in their everyday life in many different situations, directly or
indirectly. As stated before, the teaching of these expressions comprises four major components in
our educational curriculum: phonology, grammar, lexicon, and semantics, out of which we get five
major levels: phonological, morphological and syntactic, lexical, and semantic plus that of
pragmatics, which offers us the social context in which we must use them.

Therefore, it is a fact that students must be able to handle the four levels in communicative
competence in order to be effectively and highly communicative in the classroom and in real life
situations. Our two current expressions prove highly frequent in our everyday speech, and
consequently, we must encourage our students to have a good managing of them.

26/ 27
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY.

- Aarts, F., and J. Aarts. 1988. English Syntactic Structures. Functions & Categories in Sentence Analysis.
Prentice Hall Europe.
- Bach, K. (1994) 'Conversational impliciture', Mind & Language 9: 124-62. (Identifies the middle ground
between explic it utterances and Gricean implicatures.)
- Bach, K. and R. M. Harnish (1979), Linguistic Commuication and Speech Acts , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press

- B.O.E. RD Nº 112/2002, de 13 de septiembre por el que se establece el currículo de la Educación

Secundaria Obligatoria/Bachillerato en la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia.

- Bolton, D. And N. Goodey. 1997. Grammar Practice in Context. Richmond Publishing.

- Council of Europe (1998) Modern Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. A Common European
Framework of reference.

- Eastwood, J. 1999. Oxford Practice in Grammar. Oxford University Press.

- Greenbaum, S. and R. Quirk. 1990. A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Longman Group UK
Limited.

- Greenbaum, S. 2000. The Oxford Reference Grammar. Edited by Edmund Weiner. Oxford University Press.

- Quirk, R & S. Greenbaum. 1973. A University Grammar of English. Longman.

- Sánchez Benedito, F. 1975. Gramática Inglesa . Editorial Alhambra.

- Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press.

- Thomson, A.J. and A.V. Martinet. 1986. A Practical English Grammar. Oxford University Press.

- van Ek, J.A., and J.L.M. Trim, 2001. Vantage. Council of Europe. Cambridge University Press.

27/ 27