Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:03:35.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Samesaying and double-voiced discourse in Iranian EFL learners’ production of L2 reported speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2022

Mostafa Morady Moghaddam Open the ORCID record for Mostafa Morady Moghaddam [Opens in a new window]  and
Jodi Tommerdahl
Mostafa Morady Moghaddam*
Affiliation:
Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran
Jodi Tommerdahl
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Considering the paucity of research done on the reported speech of L2 speakers compared with the body of work based on native speakers, particularly in the domain of education, this study investigates ‘polyphony’ (the dialogic nature of discourse) in the indirect reports of Iranian English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners in light of Bakhtin’s concept of ‘double-voiced discourse’ (DVD) (Bakhtin, 1984; Zbikowski, 2002). The goal of the article was to characterise the types of reporting attested in L2 data in the language-learning classroom and to analyse instances of discord between speakers’ voices to better understand what gives rise to these differences in an additional language. To achieve this, we observed naturally occurring interactions between Iranian EFL learners to see how they change the original speech in their indirect reports via the use of semantic and syntactic transformations. The findings revealed traces of distorted reported speech that not only refute the monophonic nature of indirect reports among the interactants but also emphasise the representational characteristics of DVD in its different forms. Samesaying and distorted reported speech are closely examined in accord with the nature of an L2 produced in a language-learning classroom. This article contributes to interlanguage pragmatics, with a focus on sociopragmatic variations that delve into intersubjectivity in language interaction in an institutional context.

Keywords

classroom interactiondouble-voiced discourse (DVD)L2 productionpolyphonypragmaticsreported speech
Type
Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. 575 - 595
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Authier-Revuz, J. (1984). Hétérogénéités énonciatives. Languages, 73, 98–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics [edited and translated by Caryl Emerson]. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. & Holquist, M. (1981). The Dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Banfield, A. (1982). Unspeakable sentences. Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Blattner, G. & Fiori, M. (2011). Virtual social network communities: An investigation of language learners’ development of sociopragmatic awareness and multiliteracy skills. CALICO Journal, 29(1), 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, E. (2012). Pursuing meaning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. N., Crichton, J., & Moore, S. (2017). Research and practice in applied linguistics: Exploring discourse in context and in action. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Capone, A. (2010). The social practice of indirect reports. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capone, A. (2013). Consequences of the pragmatics of ‘de se’. In Capone, A. & Feit, N. (Eds.), Attitudes ‘de se’: Linguistics, epistemology and metaphysics (pp. 209–244). CSLI.Google Scholar
Capone, A. (2016). The pragmatics of indirect reports: Socio-philosophical considerations. Springer.Google Scholar
Capone, A. & Nodoushan, M. A. (2014). On indirect reports and language games: Evidence from Persian. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 8(2), 26–42.Google Scholar
Cho, J. (2017). The acquisition of different types of definite noun phrases in L2-English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21, 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1986). Direct and indirect speech (Vol. 31). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. (2003). Interpretation and understanding. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1968). On saying that. Synthese, 19, 130–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diskin, C. & Levey, S. (2019). Going global and sounding local: Quotative variation and change in L1 and L2 speakers of Irish (Dublin) English. English World-Wide, 40(1), 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Le dire et le dit. Minuit.Google Scholar
Earis, H. & Cormier, K. (2013). Point of view in British sign language and spoken English narrative discourse: the example of “The Tortoise and the Hare”. Language and Cognition, 5(4), 313–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebert, K. (1986). Reported speech in some languages of Nepal. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Reported speech: Some general issues (pp. 145–159). Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evans, N., Bergqvist, H., & San Roque, L. (2018). The grammar of engagement I: Framework and initial exemplification. Language and Cognition, 10(1), 110–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, S. (2021). The computation and suspension of presuppositions by L1-Mandarin Chinese L2-English speakers. Second Language Research, 38(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658321993873Google Scholar
Fløttum, K. (2010). EU discourse: Polyphony and unclearness. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 990–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L.. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, speech acts (vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Brill.Google Scholar
Güldemann, T. & von Roncador, M. (2002). Preface. In Güldemann, T. & von Roncador, M. (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. vii-ix). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S. (1999). Polyphony and the ‘layering of voices’ in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(5), 685–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haßler, G. (2002). Evidentiality and reported speech in Romance languages. In Güldemann, T. & von Roncador, M. (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 143–172). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatzidaki, A., Santesteban, M., & Duyck, W. (2018). Is language interference (when it occurs) a graded or an all-or-none effect? Evidence from bilingual reported speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(3), 489–504.Google Scholar
Irvine, J. T. (1996). Language and community: Introduction. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 6(2), 123–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itakura, H. (2018). Accuracy in reported speech: Evidence from masculine and feminine Japanese language. In Capone, A., Garcia-Carpintero, M., & Falzone, A. (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics in the world languages (pp. 315–332). Springer.Google Scholar
Johansson, M. & Suomela-Salmi, E. (2011). Discursive pragmatics: A platform for the pragmatic study of discourse. In Zienkowski, J., Ostman, J., & Verschueren, J. (Eds.), Discursive pragmatics (pp. 71–101). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2016). Indirect reporting in bilingual language production. In Capone, A., Kiefer, F., & Piparo, F. L. (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (vol. 5, pp. 9–30). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBlanc, R. J. (2018). Managed confrontation and the managed heart: gendered teacher talk through reported speech. Classroom Discourse, 9(2), 150–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N. (1986). Direct speech and indirect speech: A functional study. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Direct and indirect reports: Trends in linguistics, studies, and monographs (pp. 29–45). Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Liu, D. & Zhong, S. (2016). L2 vs. L1 use of synonymy: An empirical study of synonym use/acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 239–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. A. (1993). Reflexive language and the human disciplines. In Lucy, J. A. (Ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics (pp. 9–32). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macagno, F. & Walton, D. (2017). Interpreting straw man argumentation: The pragmatics of quotation and reporting. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Bublitz, W. & Norrick, N. R. (Eds.), Foundations of pragmatics (pp. 77–106). Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCullagh, M. (2017). Scare-quoting and incorporation. In Saka, P. & Johnson, M. (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp. 3–34). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Morady Moghaddam, M. (2019). The praxis of indirect reports: Cognitive, sociopragmatic, and philosophical issues. Springer.Google Scholar
Morady Moghaddam, M. & Capone, A. (2020). Metalanguage and subjectivity in indirect reports. Lingua, 236, 102784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, N. (2012). English as a lingua franca and the development of pragmatic competence. ELT Journal, 66(3), 318–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nodoushan, M. A. (2015). The secret life of slurs from the perspective of reported speech. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 9(2), 92–112.Google Scholar
Nodoushan, M. A. (2017). Lexemes, practs, and those who have yet to decide. Linguistik Online, 81, 77–93.Google Scholar
Nodoushan, M. A. (2018). Which view of indirect reports do Persian data corroborate? International Review of Pragmatics, 10, 76–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nølke, H. (2006). The semantics of polyphony (and the pragmatics of realization). Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 38(1), 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saka, P. (2017). Blah, blah, blah: quasi-quotation and unquotation. In Saka, P. & Johnson, M. (Eds.), The Semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp. 35–64). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22(3), 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stringer, S. & Tommerdahl, J. (2015). Building bridges between neuroscience, cognition and education with predictive modeling. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(2), 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N. (Ed.) (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Wurff, W. (2002). Direct, indirect and other discourse in Bengali newspapers. In Güldemann, T. & von Roncador, M. (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistics domains (pp. 121–139). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, J. (2010). The ‘triple articulation’ of language. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2932–2944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zbikowski, L. M. (2002). Conceptualizing music: Cognitive structure, theory, and analysis. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar