article reported speech

Reported Speech – Rules, Examples

| Candace Osmond

Candace Osmond

Candace Osmond studied Advanced Writing & Editing Essentials at MHC. She’s been an International and USA TODAY Bestselling Author for over a decade. And she’s worked as an Editor for several mid-sized publications. Candace has a keen eye for content editing and a high degree of expertise in Fiction.

They say gossip is a natural part of human life. That’s why language has evolved to develop grammatical rules about the “he said” and “she said” statements. We call them reported speech.

Every time we use reported speech in English, we are talking about something said by someone else in the past. Thinking about it brings me back to high school, when reported speech was the main form of language!

Learn all about the definition, rules, and examples of reported speech as I go over everything. I also included a worksheet at the end of the article so you can test your knowledge of the topic.

What Does Reported Speech Mean?

Reported speech is a term we use when telling someone what another person said. You can do this while speaking or writing.

There are two kinds of reported speech you can use: direct speech and indirect speech. I’ll break each down for you.

A direct speech sentence mentions the exact words the other person said. For example:

• Kryz said, “These are all my necklaces.”

Indirect speech changes the original speaker’s words. For example:

• Kryz said those were all her necklaces.

When we tell someone what another individual said, we use reporting verbs like told, asked, convinced, persuaded, and said. We also change the first-person figure in the quotation into the third-person speaker.

Reported Speech Examples

We usually talk about the past every time we use reported speech. That’s because the time of speaking is already done. For example:

• Direct speech: The employer asked me, “Do you have experience with people in the corporate setting?”

Indirect speech: The employer asked me if I had experience with people in the corporate setting.

• Direct speech: “I’m working on my thesis,” I told James.

Indirect speech: I told James that I was working on my thesis.

Reported Speech Structure

A speech report has two parts: the reporting clause and the reported clause. Read the example below:

• Harry said, “You need to help me.”

The reporting clause here is William said. Meanwhile, the reported clause is the 2nd clause, which is I need your help.

What are the 4 Types of Reported Speech?

Aside from direct and indirect, reported speech can also be divided into four. The four types of reported speech are similar to the kinds of sentences: imperative, interrogative, exclamatory, and declarative.

Reported Speech Rules

The rules for reported speech can be complex. But with enough practice, you’ll be able to master them all.

Choose Whether to Use That or If

The most common conjunction in reported speech is that. You can say, “My aunt says she’s outside,” or “My aunt says that she’s outside.”

Use if when you’re reporting a yes-no question. For example:

• Direct speech: “Are you coming with us?”

Indirect speech: She asked if she was coming with them.

Verb Tense Changes

Change the reporting verb into its past form if the statement is irrelevant now. Remember that some of these words are irregular verbs, meaning they don’t follow the typical -d or -ed pattern. For example:

• Direct speech: I dislike fried chicken.

Reported speech: She said she disliked fried chicken.

Note how the main verb in the reported statement is also in the past tense verb form.

Use the simple present tense in your indirect speech if the initial words remain relevant at the time of reporting. This verb tense also works if the report is something someone would repeat. For example:

• Slater says they’re opening a restaurant soon.
• Maya says she likes dogs.

This rule proves that the choice of verb tense is not a black-and-white question. The reporter needs to analyze the context of the action.

Move the tense backward when the reporting verb is in the past tense. That means:

• Present simple becomes past simple.
• Present perfect becomes past perfect.
• Present continuous becomes past continuous.
• Past simple becomes past perfect.
• Past continuous becomes past perfect continuous.

Here are some examples:

• The singer has left the building. (present perfect)

He said that the singers had left the building. (past perfect)

• Her sister gave her new shows. (past simple)
• She said that her sister had given her new shoes. (past perfect)

If the original speaker is discussing the future, change the tense of the reporting verb into the past form. There’ll also be a change in the auxiliary verbs.

• Will or shall becomes would.
• Will be becomes would be.
• Will have been becomes would have been.
• Will have becomes would have.

For example:

• Direct speech: “I will be there in a moment.”

Indirect speech: She said that she would be there in a moment.

Do not change the verb tenses in indirect speech when the sentence has a time clause. This rule applies when the introductory verb is in the future, present, and present perfect. Here are other conditions where you must not change the tense:

• If the sentence is a fact or generally true.
• If the sentence’s verb is in the unreal past (using second or third conditional).
• If the original speaker reports something right away.
• Do not change had better, would, used to, could, might, etc.

Changes in Place and Time Reference

Changing the place and time adverb when using indirect speech is essential. For example, now becomes then and today becomes that day. Here are more transformations in adverbs of time and places.

• This – that.
• These – those.
• Now – then.
• Here – there.
• Tomorrow – the next/following day.
• Two weeks ago – two weeks before.
• Yesterday – the day before.

Here are some examples.

• Direct speech: “I am baking cookies now.”

Indirect speech: He said he was baking cookies then.

• Direct speech: “Myra went here yesterday.”

Indirect speech: She said Myra went there the day before.

• Direct speech: “I will go to the market tomorrow.”

Indirect speech: She said she would go to the market the next day.

Using Modals

If the direct speech contains a modal verb, make sure to change them accordingly.

• Will becomes would
• Can becomes could
• Shall becomes should or would.
• Direct speech: “Will you come to the ball with me?”

Indirect speech: He asked if he would come to the ball with me.

• Direct speech: “Gina can inspect the room tomorrow because she’s free.”

Indirect speech: He said Gina could inspect the room the next day because she’s free.

However, sometimes, the modal verb should does not change grammatically. For example:

• Direct speech: “He should go to the park.”

Indirect speech: She said that he should go to the park.

Imperative Sentences

To change an imperative sentence into a reported indirect sentence, use to for imperative and not to for negative sentences. Never use the word that in your indirect speech. Another rule is to remove the word please . Instead, say request or say. For example:

• “Please don’t interrupt the event,” said the host.

The host requested them not to interrupt the event.

• Jonah told her, “Be careful.”
• Jonah ordered her to be careful.

Reported Questions

When reporting a direct question, I would use verbs like inquire, wonder, ask, etc. Remember that we don’t use a question mark or exclamation mark for reports of questions. Below is an example I made of how to change question forms.

• Incorrect: He asked me where I live?

Correct: He asked me where I live.

Here’s another example. The first sentence uses direct speech in a present simple question form, while the second is the reported speech.

• Where do you live?

She asked me where I live.

Wrapping Up Reported Speech

My guide has shown you an explanation of reported statements in English. Do you have a better grasp on how to use it now?

Reported speech refers to something that someone else said. It contains a subject, reporting verb, and a reported cause.

Don’t forget my rules for using reported speech. Practice the correct verb tense, modal verbs, time expressions, and place references.

Grammarist is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. When you buy via the links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission at no cost to you.

2024 © Grammarist, a Found First Marketing company. All rights reserved.

What is Reported Speech and how to use it? with Examples

Published by

Olivia Drake

Reported speech and indirect speech are two terms that refer to the same concept, which is the act of expressing what someone else has said.

On this page:

Reported speech is different from direct speech because it does not use the speaker’s exact words. Instead, the reporting verb is used to introduce the reported speech, and the tense and pronouns are changed to reflect the shift in perspective. There are two main types of reported speech: statements and questions.

1. Reported Statements: In reported statements, the reporting verb is usually “said.” The tense in the reported speech changes from the present simple to the past simple, and any pronouns referring to the speaker or listener are changed to reflect the shift in perspective. For example, “I am going to the store,” becomes “He said that he was going to the store.”

2. Reported Questions: In reported questions, the reporting verb is usually “asked.” The tense in the reported speech changes from the present simple to the past simple, and the word order changes from a question to a statement. For example, “What time is it?” becomes “She asked what time it was.”

It’s important to note that the tense shift in reported speech depends on the context and the time of the reported speech. Here are a few more examples:

• Direct speech: “I will call you later.”Reported speech: He said that he would call me later.
• Direct speech: “Did you finish your homework?”Reported speech: She asked if I had finished my homework.
• Direct speech: “I love pizza.”Reported speech: They said that they loved pizza.

When do we use reported speech?

Reported speech is used to report what someone else has said, thought, or written. It is often used in situations where you want to relate what someone else has said without quoting them directly.

Reported speech can be used in a variety of contexts, such as in news reports, academic writing, and everyday conversation. Some common situations where reported speech is used include:

News reports:  Journalists often use reported speech to quote what someone said in an interview or press conference.

Business and professional communication:  In professional settings, reported speech can be used to summarize what was discussed in a meeting or to report feedback from a customer.

Conversational English:  In everyday conversations, reported speech is used to relate what someone else said. For example, “She told me that she was running late.”

Narration:  In written narratives or storytelling, reported speech can be used to convey what a character said or thought.

How to make reported speech?

1. Change the pronouns and adverbs of time and place: In reported speech, you need to change the pronouns, adverbs of time and place to reflect the new speaker or point of view. Here’s an example:

Direct speech: “I’m going to the store now,” she said. Reported speech: She said she was going to the store then.

In this example, the pronoun “I” is changed to “she” and the adverb “now” is changed to “then.”

2. Change the tense: In reported speech, you usually need to change the tense of the verb to reflect the change from direct to indirect speech. Here’s an example:

Direct speech: “I will meet you at the park tomorrow,” he said. Reported speech: He said he would meet me at the park the next day.

In this example, the present tense “will” is changed to the past tense “would.”

3. Change reporting verbs: In reported speech, you can use different reporting verbs such as “say,” “tell,” “ask,” or “inquire” depending on the context of the speech. Here’s an example:

Direct speech: “Did you finish your homework?” she asked. Reported speech: She asked if I had finished my homework.

In this example, the reporting verb “asked” is changed to “said” and “did” is changed to “had.”

Overall, when making reported speech, it’s important to pay attention to the verb tense and the changes in pronouns, adverbs, and reporting verbs to convey the original speaker’s message accurately.

How do I change the pronouns and adverbs in reported speech?

1. Changing Pronouns: In reported speech, the pronouns in the original statement must be changed to reflect the perspective of the new speaker. Generally, the first person pronouns (I, me, my, mine, we, us, our, ours) are changed according to the subject of the reporting verb, while the second and third person pronouns (you, your, yours, he, him, his, she, her, hers, it, its, they, them, their, theirs) are changed according to the object of the reporting verb. For example:

Direct speech: “I love chocolate.” Reported speech: She said she loved chocolate.

Direct speech: “You should study harder.” Reported speech: He advised me to study harder.

Direct speech: “She is reading a book.” Reported speech: They noticed that she was reading a book.

2. Changing Adverbs: In reported speech, the adverbs and adverbial phrases that indicate time or place may need to be changed to reflect the perspective of the new speaker. For example:

Direct speech: “I’m going to the cinema tonight.” Reported speech: She said she was going to the cinema that night.

Direct speech: “He is here.” Reported speech: She said he was there.

Note that the adverb “now” usually changes to “then” or is omitted altogether in reported speech, depending on the context.

It’s important to keep in mind that the changes made to pronouns and adverbs in reported speech depend on the context and the perspective of the new speaker. With practice, you can become more comfortable with making these changes in reported speech.

How do I change the tense in reported speech?

In reported speech, the tense of the reported verb usually changes to reflect the change from direct to indirect speech. Here are some guidelines on how to change the tense in reported speech:

Present simple in direct speech changes to past simple in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: “I like pizza.” Reported speech: She said she liked pizza.

Present continuous in direct speech changes to past continuous in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: “I am studying for my exam.” Reported speech: He said he was studying for his exam.

Present perfect in direct speech changes to past perfect in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: “I have finished my work.” Reported speech: She said she had finished her work.

Past simple in direct speech changes to past perfect in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: “I visited my grandparents last weekend.” Reported speech: She said she had visited her grandparents the previous weekend.

Will in direct speech changes to would in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: “I will help you with your project.” Reported speech: He said he would help me with my project.

Can in direct speech changes to could in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: “I can speak French.” Reported speech: She said she could speak French.

Remember that the tense changes in reported speech depend on the tense of the verb in the direct speech, and the tense you use in reported speech should match the time frame of the new speaker’s perspective. With practice, you can become more comfortable with changing the tense in reported speech.

Do I always need to use a reporting verb in reported speech?

No, you do not always need to use a reporting verb in reported speech. However, using a reporting verb can help to clarify who is speaking and add more context to the reported speech.

In some cases, the reported speech can be introduced by phrases such as “I heard that” or “It seems that” without using a reporting verb. For example:

Direct speech: “I’m going to the cinema tonight.” Reported speech with a reporting verb: She said she was going to the cinema tonight. Reported speech without a reporting verb: It seems that she’s going to the cinema tonight.

However, it’s important to note that using a reporting verb can help to make the reported speech more formal and accurate. When using reported speech in academic writing or journalism, it’s generally recommended to use a reporting verb to make the reporting more clear and credible.

Some common reporting verbs include say, tell, explain, ask, suggest, and advise. For example:

Direct speech: “I think we should invest in renewable energy.” Reported speech with a reporting verb: She suggested that they invest in renewable energy.

Overall, while using a reporting verb is not always required, it can be helpful to make the reported speech more clear and accurate

How to use reported speech to report questions and commands?

1. Reporting Questions: When reporting questions, you need to use an introductory phrase such as “asked” or “wondered” followed by the question word (if applicable), subject, and verb. You also need to change the word order to make it a statement. Here’s an example:

Direct speech: “What time is the meeting?” Reported speech: She asked what time the meeting was.

Note that the question mark is not used in reported speech.

2. Reporting Commands: When reporting commands, you need to use an introductory phrase such as “ordered” or “told” followed by the person, to + infinitive, and any additional information. Here’s an example:

Direct speech: “Clean your room!” Reported speech: She ordered me to clean my room.

Note that the exclamation mark is not used in reported speech.

In both cases, the tense of the reported verb should be changed accordingly. For example, present simple changes to past simple, and future changes to conditional. Here are some examples:

Direct speech: “Will you go to the party with me?”Reported speech: She asked if I would go to the party with her. Direct speech: “Please bring me a glass of water.”Reported speech: She requested that I bring her a glass of water.

Remember that when using reported speech to report questions and commands, the introductory phrases and verb tenses are important to convey the intended meaning accurately.

How to make questions in reported speech?

To make questions in reported speech, you need to use an introductory phrase such as “asked” or “wondered” followed by the question word (if applicable), subject, and verb. You also need to change the word order to make it a statement. Here are the steps to make questions in reported speech:

Identify the reporting verb: The first step is to identify the reporting verb in the sentence. Common reporting verbs used to report questions include “asked,” “inquired,” “wondered,” and “wanted to know.”

Change the tense and pronouns: Next, you need to change the tense and pronouns in the sentence to reflect the shift from direct to reported speech. The tense of the verb is usually shifted back one tense (e.g. from present simple to past simple) in reported speech. The pronouns should also be changed as necessary to reflect the shift in perspective from the original speaker to the reporting speaker.

Use an appropriate question word: If the original question contained a question word (e.g. who, what, where, when, why, how), you should use the same question word in the reported question. If the original question did not contain a question word, you can use “if” or “whether” to introduce the reported question.

Change the word order: In reported speech, the word order of the question changes from the inverted form to a normal statement form. The subject usually comes before the verb, unless the original question started with a question word.

Here are some examples of reported questions:

Direct speech: “Did you finish your homework?”Reported speech: He wanted to know if I had finished my homework. Direct speech: “Where are you going?”Reported speech: She wondered where I was going.

Remember that when making questions in reported speech, the introductory phrases and verb tenses are important to convey the intended meaning accurately.

Here you can find more examples of direct and indirect questions

What is the difference between reported speech an indirect speech?

In reported or indirect speech, you are retelling or reporting what someone said using your own words. The tense of the reported speech is usually shifted back one tense from the tense used in the original statement. For example, if someone said, “I am going to the store,” in reported speech you would say, “He/she said that he/she was going to the store.”

The main difference between reported speech and indirect speech is that reported speech usually refers to spoken language, while indirect speech can refer to both spoken and written language. Additionally, indirect speech is a broader term that includes reported speech as well as other ways of expressing what someone else has said, such as paraphrasing or summarizing.

Examples of direct speech to reported

• Direct speech: “I am hungry,” she said. Reported speech: She said she was hungry.
• Direct speech: “Can you pass the salt, please?” he asked. Reported speech: He asked her to pass the salt.
• Direct speech: “I will meet you at the cinema,” he said. Reported speech: He said he would meet her at the cinema.
• Direct speech: “I have been working on this project for hours,” she said. Reported speech: She said she had been working on the project for hours.
• Direct speech: “What time does the train leave?” he asked. Reported speech: He asked what time the train left.
• Direct speech: “I love playing the piano,” she said. Reported speech: She said she loved playing the piano.
• Direct speech: “I am going to the grocery store,” he said. Reported speech: He said he was going to the grocery store.
• Direct speech: “Did you finish your homework?” the teacher asked. Reported speech: The teacher asked if he had finished his homework.
• Direct speech: “I want to go to the beach,” she said. Reported speech: She said she wanted to go to the beach.
• Direct speech: “Do you need help with that?” he asked. Reported speech: He asked if she needed help with that.
• Direct speech: “I can’t come to the party,” he said. Reported speech: He said he couldn’t come to the party.
• Direct speech: “Please don’t leave me,” she said. Reported speech: She begged him not to leave her.
• Direct speech: “I have never been to London before,” he said. Reported speech: He said he had never been to London before.
• Direct speech: “Where did you put my phone?” she asked. Reported speech: She asked where she had put her phone.
• Direct speech: “I’m sorry for being late,” he said. Reported speech: He apologized for being late.
• Direct speech: “I need some help with this math problem,” she said. Reported speech: She said she needed some help with the math problem.
• Direct speech: “I am going to study abroad next year,” he said. Reported speech: He said he was going to study abroad the following year.
• Direct speech: “Can you give me a ride to the airport?” she asked. Reported speech: She asked him to give her a ride to the airport.
• Direct speech: “I don’t know how to fix this,” he said. Reported speech: He said he didn’t know how to fix it.
• Direct speech: “I hate it when it rains,” she said. Reported speech: She said she hated it when it rained.

If you've read this far, you likely found value in our content. We measure the quality of our articles in various ways, and one significant metric is the number of shares. If you appreciated this piece, please spread the word.

Leave a reply cancel reply, i’m olivia.

Welcome to my virtual classroom! Join me on a journey of language and learning, where we explore the wonders of English together. Let’s discover the joy of words and education!

Let’s connect

• [email protected]

Join the fun!

Stay updated with our latest tutorials and ideas by joining our newsletter.

Type your email…

Recent posts

Modal verbs in conditional sentences with examples, questions in future perfect continuous tense with examples, questions in future perfect tense with examples, questions in future continuous tense with examples, questions in future indefinite (simple) tense with examples, questions in past perfect continuous tense with examples, discover more from fluent english grammar.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Reported Speech: Rules, Examples, Exceptions

👉 Quiz 1 / Quiz 2

Advanced Grammar Course

What is reported speech?

“Reported speech” is when we talk about what somebody else said – for example:

• Direct Speech: “I’ve been to London three times.”
• Reported Speech: She said she’d been to London three times.

There are a lot of tricky little details to remember, but don’t worry, I’ll explain them and we’ll see lots of examples. The lesson will have three parts – we’ll start by looking at statements in reported speech, and then we’ll learn about some exceptions to the rules, and finally we’ll cover reported questions, requests, and commands.

So much of English grammar – like this topic, reported speech – can be confusing, hard to understand, and even harder to use correctly. I can help you learn grammar easily and use it confidently inside my Advanced English Grammar Course.

In this course, I will make even the most difficult parts of English grammar clear to you – and there are lots of opportunities for you to practice!

Backshift of Verb Tenses in Reported Speech

When we use reported speech, we often change the verb tense backwards in time. This can be called “backshift.”

Here are some examples in different verb tenses:

Reported Speech (Part 1) Quiz

Exceptions to Backshift in Reported Speech

Now that you know some of the reported speech rules about backshift, let’s learn some exceptions.

There are two situations in which we do NOT need to change the verb tense.

No backshift needed when the situation is still true

For example, if someone says “I have three children” (direct speech) then we would say “He said he has three children” because the situation continues to be true.

If I tell you “I live in the United States” (direct speech) then you could tell someone else “She said she lives in the United States” (that’s reported speech) because it is still true.

When the situation is still true, then we don’t need to backshift the verb.

But when the situation is NOT still true, then we DO need to backshift the verb.

Imagine your friend says, “I have a headache.”

• If you immediately go and talk to another friend, you could say, “She said she has a headache,” because the situation is still true
• If you’re talking about that conversation a month after it happened, then you would say, “She said she had a headache,” because it’s no longer true.

No backshift needed when the situation is still in the future

We also don’t need to backshift to the verb when somebody said something about the future, and the event is still in the future.

Here’s an example:

• On Monday, my friend said, “I ‘ll call you on Friday .”
• “She said she ‘ll call me on Friday”, because Friday is still in the future from now.
• It is also possible to say, “She said she ‘d (she would) call me on Friday.”
• Both of them are correct, so the backshift in this case is optional.

Let’s look at a different situation:

• On Monday, my friend said, “I ‘ll call you on Tuesday .”
• “She said she ‘d  call me on Tuesday.” I must backshift because the event is NOT still in the future.

Review: Reported Speech, Backshift, & Exceptions

Quick review:

• Normally in reported speech we backshift the verb, we put it in a verb tense that’s a little bit further in the past.
• when the situation is still true
• when the situation is still in the future

Reported Requests, Orders, and Questions

Those were the rules for reported statements, just regular sentences.

What about reported speech for questions, requests, and orders?

For reported requests, we use “asked (someone) to do something”:

• “Please make a copy of this report.” (direct speech)
• She asked me to make a copy of the report. (reported speech)

For reported orders, we use “told (someone) to do something:”

• “Go to the bank.” (direct speech)
• “He told me to go to the bank.” (reported speech)

The main verb stays in the infinitive with “to”:

• She asked me to make a copy of the report. She asked me  make  a copy of the report.
• He told me to go to the bank. He told me  go  to the bank.

For yes/no questions, we use “asked if” and “wanted to know if” in reported speech.

• “Are you coming to the party?” (direct)
• He asked if I was coming to the party. (reported)
• “Did you turn off the TV?” (direct)
• She wanted to know if I had turned off the TV.” (reported)

The main verb changes and back shifts according to the rules and exceptions we learned earlier.

Notice that we don’t use do/does/did in the reported question:

• She wanted to know did I turn off the TV.
• She wanted to know if I had turned off the TV.

For other questions that are not yes/no questions, we use asked/wanted to know (without “if”):

• “When was the company founded?” (direct)
• She asked when the company was founded.” (reported)
• “What kind of car do you drive?” (direct)
• He wanted to know what kind of car I drive. (reported)

Again, notice that we don’t use do/does/did in reported questions:

• “Where does he work?”
• She wanted to know  where does he work.
• She wanted to know where he works.

Also, in questions with the verb “to be,” the word order changes in the reported question:

• “Where were you born?” ([to be] + subject)
• He asked where I was born. (subject + [to be])
• He asked where was I born.

Reported Speech (Part 2) Quiz

Learn more about reported speech:

• Reported speech: Perfect English Grammar
• Reported speech: BJYU’s

If you want to take your English grammar to the next level, then my Advanced English Grammar Course is for you! It will help you master the details of the English language, with clear explanations of essential grammar topics, and lots of practice. I hope to see you inside!

I’ve got one last little exercise for you, and that is to write sentences using reported speech. Think about a conversation you’ve had in the past, and write about it – let’s see you put this into practice right away.

Master the details of English grammar:

You might also like...

British vs. American English Spelling

100 Superlatives: List & Examples

24 Examples of Adjective + Preposition Combinations

Hi, I’m Shayna. I create courses helping English as a Second Language learners become more fluent in just a few minutes a day – so they can speak English naturally and confidently in work and daily life.

Reported Speech: Important Grammar Rules and Examples

Reported speech is a very common aspect of the English language. You use it nearly every day, both in conversations and in writing. This reference covers key sections about reported speech, including what it is, examples, rules, and verb tense changes. You’ll also learn about modal verbs, changes in time and place, and different reporting verbs.

Reported Speech

What Is Reported Speech?

Reported speech is simply when you tell somebody what someone else said. You can do this in your writing, or in speech. Reported speech is very different from  direct speech , which is when you show what somebody said  in the exact way that they said it . In reported speech though, you do not need to quote somebody directly.

Instead, you use a reporting verb, such as ‘say’ or ‘ask’. These reporting verbs are used to report the speech to someone else. There are many different reporting verbs that can be used.

In short, reported speech is the linguistic technique that you use to tell somebody what someone else’s  direct speech  was. In reported speech though, you may need to make certain changes to the grammar to make the sentence make sense. Some examples below highlight what needs to be changed.

Reported Speech Examples

When using reported speech, you are usually talking about the past. The verbs, therefore, usually have to be in the past too.

For example :

• Direct speech:  I’ve lost my umbrella .
• Reported speech:  He said (that) he had lost his umbrella.

Another example :

• Direct speech:  She is doing her homework .
• Reported speech:  He said (that) she was doing her homework.

Table of Changes :

Reported Speech Rules

Verb tense changes in reported speech.

When the reporting verb is in the present tense, only small changes are needed.

• Direct speech:  I like dogs.
• Reported speech:  She  says  she likes dogs.

When the reporting verb is in the past tense, you need to change the tense of both the reporting verb and the main verb.

• Reported speech:  She  said  she  liked  dogs.

The tenses generally move backward as follows:

For sentences about the future, you also need to change the future verbs.

• Direct speech:  I shall leave in a moment.
• Reported speech:  She said that she would leave in a moment.

Here are the changes for future tenses:

Modal Verbs and Reported Speech

Modal verbs also change when used in reported speech.

• Direct speech:  Will I see you later?
• Reported speech:  He asked if he  would  see me later.

Some modal verbs do not need to change tense because they fit naturally.

• Direct speech:  I should go to the park.
• Reported speech:  He told me he  should  go to the park.

Here are both correct and incorrect examples of reported speech for clarity:

• Reported speech:  He told  me  he should go to the park.
• Reported speech:  He said he should go to the park.
• Incorrect reported speech:  He told he should go to the park.
• Incorrect reported speech:  He said me he should go to the park.

To correct these:

• Add ‘me’: He told  me  he should go to the park.
• Remove ‘me’ or add ‘to’: He said he should go to the park or He said  to  me he should go to the park.

Direct and Indirect Speech

Changes in time and place in reported speech.

References to  time  and  place often need to change when you use indirect speech. Here is a useful guide to these changes:

No Change in Verb Tenses in Reported Speech

In some cases,  verb tenses  do not change when you report speech indirectly. Here are the key instances:

• When the introductory verb is in the present , present perfect , or future .
• When the reported sentence deals with a  fact  or  general truth .
• When the reported sentence contains a  time clause .
• If the verb of the sentence is in the  unreal past  (the  second  or the  third conditional ).
• The  subjunctive  stays unchanged in the  subordinate clause .
• Had better ,  could ,  would ,  used to ,  should ,  might ,  ought to , and  mustn’t  remain unchanged.
• If the speaker reports  something immediately  or  soon after it was said .

Reporting Verbs in Indirect Speech

Reporting verbs are crucial in indirect speech. Here is a list categorized by their usage:

• Basic Verbs : Tell, say, ask
• Verb + that + clause : Complain, deny, explain, exclaim, remark, promise, boast, inform somebody, claim, agree, suggest
• Verb + to + infinitive : Agree, offer, refuse, demand, threaten, promise, claim
• Verb + indirect object + to + infinitive : Advise, allow, beg, command, encourage, forbid, invite, want, instruct, permit, urge, order, remind, warn
• Verb + “ing” form : Admit (to), accuse somebody of, apologize for, boast about/of, complain to somebody of, deny, insist on, suggest
• Verb + how : Explain to somebody

Reported Questions

When converting questions from direct to indirect speech, you follow rules similar to those for statements.  Verbs  used include inquire, wonder, want to know, ask.

Reported Commands and Requests

Commands and requests  in Indirect Speech are formed using the  to-infinitive  and  not to-infinitive . Common reporting verbs include order, shout, demand, warn, beg, command, tell, insist, beseech , threaten, implore, ask, propose, forbid.

Pronoun and tense changes  are needed when shifting from direct to indirect speech.

Reported Speech Video

• Latest Posts

• Active vs. Passive Voice Exercises – Active vs. Passive Voice Worksheet - December 25, 2023
• Phrase Exercises – Phrase Worksheet - December 23, 2023
• Sentence Exercises – Sentence Worksheet - December 23, 2023

• June 25, 2020

Reported Speech in English: What It is and How to Use It

Sometimes we may wish to report the words of others. In fact, this is quite a regular occurrence in any language.

There are two ways to do this: reported (indirect) speech, and direct speech.

Here’s how they work.

Direct speech

As the name would suggest, direct speech is when you directly report the words of another person.

“I’ll see you at the meeting on Wednesday,” he said.

Direct speech can always be identified in written speech through the use of speech marks (sometimes known as quotation marks). Please note that single or double marks can be used depending on the habit of the individual user.

Direct speech is the easier of the two options because it does not involve any grammatical or structural changes to the original sentence.

Reported (indirect) speech

Reported speech involves grammatical, and sometimes structural, changes.

Here is an example of the same sentence as above but this time delivered in reported speech.

“I’ll see you at the meeting on Wednesday,” he said. (direct speech)

He said (that) he would see me at the meeting today. (reported/indirect speech)

Aa can be seen, considerable changes have been made to the original sentence. First of all, the speech marks have been removed. Next, we must consider the verb tense used. Fortunately, the rules covering this are written in stone:

As can be seen from the above table, the original verb tense must be adapted accordingly. Let us look at the original examples once more:

The verb tense in the original, direct speech sentence (‘will’) has been adapted to ‘would’ as necessary. This reflects the difference in time between when the comment was originally made, and when it was reported.

This fact is made most obviously clear when the present tense is adapted to the past, as follows:

“I want to talk to you,” she said.

She said that she wanted to talk to me.

As is dictated, ‘want’ has become wanted’ because the request is now clearly in the past.

Please note that, on some occasions, adapting the present tense to the past tense may not be necessary. For example:

“I like pizza,” she said.

She said she likes/liked pizza.

Because we can assume the state to still be true, the present tense is also correct in the reported sentence. 

Other changes

Let us look once more at the original pair of sentences:

As well as the verb tense, both the subject and object have been adapted, and so has the time expression.

Of course, these amendments are all relative. Who was talking to who, and what is the time relationship between when the original sentence was communicated, and when it was reported? Always bear in mind these considerations when using reported speech.

Reported questions

Questions are a little bit different, and must be adapted in their own unique way. Generally speaking, there are two types of questions, and each must be considered separately.

• “What is your name?” he asked.
• “Do you like pizza?” she asked.

The first question is an ‘information’ question, requiring some kind of specific detail in the answer. The second question, meanwhile, is quite simply a ‘yes/no’ question, where detail is optional.

Here are the changes that must be made to each question in reported (indirect) speech

• He asked me what my name was/is.
• She asked me if I liked pizza.

In the ‘information’ question, the original sentence must be restructured so it is now no longer a question, but an affirmative statement. That is because, when reported, it is no longer a question. The verb tense should also be adapted as per the rules with all reported speech transitions.

In the ‘yes/no’ question, the sentence must also be adapted, with the word ‘if’ (or ‘whether’) replacing the auxiliary. Again, the verb tense must be changed accordingly.

Reporting verbs

In the examples in this article we have included the classic reporting verbs ‘said’ and ‘asked’. ‘Tell’ is another classic.

In truth, these verbs are incredibly uninformative. In reality, they tell us nothing about the emotion or feeling of what was communicated.

Therefore, it is better to run through the many options of reporting verbs we have at our disposal to select an option which best describes the sentiment of the words. Of course, in formal or business English you may want to stay with the neutral words of ‘say’, ‘ask’ and ‘tell’, but to be a little more descriptive, why not check out some of these options:

There are almost countless others. Give your language more color by choosing something more descriptive.

And don’t forget, the Linguix AI-powered writing assistant can provide you not only with the grammatical and structural amendments that you need to be correct in your writing, but can also be used to adapt your style so it is suitable to your audience. Get lists of synonyms to help you identify the perfect word, too. 

More from Linguix Blog

The Reported Speech

Table of contents, what is reported speech, direct speech vs reported speech.

Different types of reported speech

A. reporting statements, 1- pronouns.

3. Modal verbs

4- Place, demonstratives, and time expressions

B. Reporting Questions

C. Reporting requests/commands

D. Other transformations

Main clauses connected with and/but, punctuation rules of the reported speech, can we omit that in the reported speech, list of reporting verbs.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

StoryLearning

Learn A Language Through Stories

A Comprehensive Guide To Reported Speech In English

There are times when someone tells you something and you’ll have to report what they said to someone else.

How can you do this in English?

You’ll need to know how to use what's called reported speech in English and this is what you’ll learn in this blog post.

What Is Reported Speech In English?

Reported speech, also known as indirect speech, is a way of retelling what someone else has said without repeating their exact words. 

For example, let’s say you have a friend called Jon and one called Mary. Mary has organised a house party and has invited you and Jon. 

Jon, however, is not feeling well. He says to you, “Sorry but I cannot come to the party. I spent all day working outside under the rain and I feel ill today.” 

A few days after the party, you meet Sarah. She’s another one of your friends and she was at the party too, but she arrived late – a moment before you left. You only had time to say hello to each other. 

She asks you, “I saw you at the party but I didn’t see Jon. Where was he?”

When Sarah asks you, “Where was Jon?” you can say, 

“Jon said, ‘Sorry but I cannot come to the party. I spent all day working outside under the rain and I feel ill today’.”

However, it would be more natural to use indirect speech in this case. So you would say, “Jon said he couldn’t come to the party. He had spent all day working outside under the rain and he felt ill that day .” 

Did you notice how the sentence changes in reported speech?

Here’s what happened:

• “I” became “he”
• “Cannot” became “couldn’t”
• “Spent” became “had spent”
• “I feel ill today” became “he felt ill on that day” 

Let’s take a closer look at how we form reported speech.

How To Form Reported Speech In English

To form reported speech, you might have to make a few changes to the original sentence that was spoken (or written). 

You may have to change pronouns, verb tenses, place and time expressions and, in the case of questions, the word order.

There are certain patterns to learn for reporting promises, agreements, orders, offers, requests, advice and suggestions.

Let’s have a look at all these cases one by one.

Reported Speech In English: Changing Verb Tenses

In general, when we use reported speech, the present tenses become past tenses.  

We do this because we are often reporting someone else’s words at a different time (Jon’s words were spoken 3 days before you reported them to Sarah).

Here’s an example:

Jenny (on Saturday evening) says,  “I don't like this place. I want to go home now.”(present tenses)

Matt (on Sunday morning) talks to James and says, “Jenny said that she didn't like the place, and she wanted to go home. (past tenses)

So this is how different verb tenses change:

Simple Present → Simple Past

DIRECT: I need money.

INDIRECT: She said she needed money.

Present Progressive → Past Progressive

DIRECT: My French is improving.

INDIRECT: He said his French was improving.

Present Perfect → Past Perfect

DIRECT: This has been an amazing holiday.

INDIRECT: She told me that it had been an amazing holiday.

What if there is a past simple form of the verb in direct speech? Well, in this case, it can stay the same in reported speech or you can change it to past perfect .

Past Simple → Past Simple Or Past Perfect

DIRECT: I didn’t go to work.

INDIRECT: Mary said that she didn’t go to work / Mary said that she hadn’t gone to work 

Past Perfect Tenses Do Not Change

DIRECT: I arrived late because I had missed the bus.

INDIRECT: He said he arrived (or had arrived) late because he had missed the bus.

Modal verbs like “can,” “may,” and “will” also change in reported speech.

Will → Would

DIRECT: The exam will be difficult.

INDIRECT: They said that the exam would be difficult.

Can → Could

DIRECT: I can’t be there.

INDIRECT: He told me he couldn’t be there.

May → Might

DIRECT: We may go there another time.

INDIRECT: They said they might go there another time.

However, past modal verbs don’t change (would, must, could, should, etc.) don’t change in reported speech.

DIRECT: It would be nice if we could go to Paris.

INDIRECT: He said it would be nice if we could go to Paris.

Here are some other examples:

So, in summary, 

• am/is → were
• do/does → did
• have/has → had
• had done → had done
• will → would
• can → could
• may → might
• could → could
• would → would
• like/love/buy/see → liked/loved/bought/saw or had liked/ had loved/had bought/had seen.

You make these verb tense shifts when you report the original words at a different time from when they were spoken. However, it is often also possible to keep the original speaker’s tenses when the situation is still the same.

For example, 

1. DIRECT: I am feeling sick.

   INDIRECT: She said she is feeling sick.

2. DIRECT: We have to leave now.

   INDIRECT: They said they have to leave now.

3. DIRECT: I will call you later.

   INDIRECT: He said he will call me later.

4. DIRECT: She is not coming to the party.

   INDIRECT: He said she is not coming to the party.

5. DIRECT: They are working on a new project.

   INDIRECT: She said they are working on a new project.

What about conditional sentences? How do they change in reported speech?

Sentences with “if” and “would” are usually unchanged.

DIRECT: It would be best if we went there early.

INDIRECT: He said it would be best if they went there early.

But conditional sentences used to describe unreal situations (e.g. second conditional or third conditional sentences) can change like this:

DIRECT: If I had more money I would buy a new car.

INDIRECT: She said if she had had more money, she would have bought a new car OR She said if she had more money, she would buy a new car.

Reported Speech In English: Changing Pronouns

In reported speech, because you’re reporting someone else’s words, there’s a change of speaker so this may mean a change of pronoun.

An example:

Jenny says,  “I don't like this place. I want to go home now.”

Matt says, “Jenny said that she didn't like the place, and she wanted to go home.” 

In this example, Jenny says “I” to refer to herself but Matt, talking about what Jenny said, uses “she”.

So the sentence in reported speech becomes:

• Jenny said that she didn’t like . . . ( not Jenny said that I didn’t like . . .)

Some other examples:

1 . DIRECT: I have been studying for hours.

   INDIRECT: He said he had been studying for hours.

2. DIRECT: I don’t like that movie.

   INDIRECT: She said she didn’t like that movie.

3. DIRECT: He doesn't like coffee.

   INDIRECT: She said he doesn't like coffee.

4. DIRECT: We have a new car.

   INDIRECT: They told me they had a new car.

5. DIRECT: We are going on vacation next week.

    INDIRECT: They said they are going on vacation next week.

Reported Speech In English: Place And Time Expressions

When you’re reporting someone’s words, there is often a change of place and time.  This may mean that you will need to change or remove words that are used to refer to places and time like “here,” “this,” “now,” “today,” “next,” “last,” “yesterday,” “tomorrow,” and so on. 

Check the differences in the following sentences:

DIRECT: I'll be back next month.

INDIRECT: She said she would be back the next month , but I never saw her again.

DIRECT: Emma got her degree last Tuesday.

INDIRECT: He said Emma had got her degree the Tuesday before.

DIRECT: I had an argument with my mother-in-law yesterday .

INDIRECT: He said he’d had an argument with his mother-in-law the day before .

DIRECT: We're going to have an amazing party tomorrow.

INDIRECT: They said they were going to have an amazing party the next day.

DIRECT: Meet me here at 10 am.

INDIRECT: He told me to meet him there at 10 am.

DIRECT: This restaurant is really good.

INDIRECT: She said that the restaurant was really good.

DIRECT: I'm going to the gym now.

INDIRECT: He said he was going to the gym at that time.

DIRECT: Today is my birthday.

INDIRECT: She told me that it was her birthday that day .

DIRECT: I'm leaving for Europe next week.

INDIRECT: She said she was leaving for Europe the following week.

Reported Speech In English: Word Order In Questions

What if you have to report a question? For example, how would you report the following questions?

• Where’s Mark?
• When are you going to visit your grandmother?
• What do I need to buy for the celebration?
• Where are your best friend and his wife staying?
• Do you like coffee?
• Can you sing?
• Who’s your best friend?
• What time do you usually wake up?
• What would you do if you won the lottery?
• Do you ever read nonfiction books?

In reported questions, the subject normally comes before the verb and auxiliary “do” is not used.

So, here is what happens when you're reporting a question:

DIRECT: Where’s Mark?

INDIRECT: I asked where Mark was. 

DIRECT: When are you going to visit your grandmother?

INDIRECT: He wanted to know when I was going to visit my grandmother.

DIRECT: What do I need to buy for the celebration?

INDIRECT: She asked what she needed to buy for the celebration.

DIRECT: Where are your best friend and his wife staying?

INDIRECT: I asked where his best friend and his wife were staying.

DIRECT: Do you like coffee?

INDIRECT: I asked if she liked coffee.

DIRECT: Can you sing?

INDIRECT: She asked me if I could sing.

DIRECT: Who’s your best friend?

INDIRECT: They asked me who my best friend was. 

DIRECT: What time do you usually wake up?

INDIRECT: She asked me what time I usually wake up.

DIRECT: What would you do if you won the lottery?

INDIRECT: He asked me what I would do if I won the lottery.

DIRECT: Do you ever read nonfiction books?

INDIRECT: She asked me if I ever read nonfiction books.

You might have noticed that question marks are not used in reported questions and you don’t use “say” or “tell” either.

Promises, Agreements, Orders, Offers, Requests & Advice

When you’re reporting these, you can use the following verbs + an infinitive:

Here are some examples:

DIRECT SPEECH: I’ll always love you.

PROMISE IN INDIRECT SPEECH: She promised to love me.

DIRECT SPEECH: OK, let’s go to the pub.

INDIRECT SPEECH: He agreed to come to the pub with me.

DIRECT SPEECH: Sit down!

INDIRECT SPEECH: They told me to sit down OR they ordered me to sit down.

DIRECT SPEECH: I can go to the post office for you.

INDIRECT SPEECH: She offered to go to the post office.

DIRECT SPEECH: Could I please have the documentation by tomorrow evening?

INDIRECT SPEECH: She requested to have the documentation by the following evening.

DIRECT SPEECH: You should think twice before giving him your phone number.

INDIRECT SPEECH: She advised me to think twice before giving him my phone number.

Reported Speech In English

All right! I hope you have a much clearer idea about what reported speech is and how it’s used. 

And the good news is that both direct and indirect speech structures are commonly used in stories, so why not try the StoryLearning method ? 

You'll notice this grammatical pattern repeatedly in the context of short stories in English.

Not only will this help you acquire it naturally, but you will also have a fun learning experience by immersing yourself in an interesting and inspiring narrative.

Have a wonderful time learning through books in English !

Language Courses

• Language Blog
• Testimonials
• Meet Our Team
• StoryLearning Reviews
• Media & Press

Which language are you learning?

What is your current level in [language]?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level]   [language] tips…

Where shall I send them?

We will protect your data in accordance with our data policy.

Download this article as a FREE PDF ?

What is your current level in Latin?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Latin tips…

Where shall I send the tips and your PDF?

What is your current level in Norwegian?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Norwegian tips…

Download Your Free StoryLearning® Kit!

Discover the world famous story-based method that 1,023,037 people have used to learn a language quickly…, not interested.

What can we do  better ? If I could make something to help you right now, w hat would it be?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level]  [language] tips…

What is your current level in Swedish?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Swedish tips…

What is your current level in Danish?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Danish tips…

What can we do better? If I could make something to help you right now, w hat would it be?

What is your current level in [language] ?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] [language] tips, PLUS your free StoryLearning Kit…

Download this article as a FREE PDF?

Great! Where shall I send my best online teaching tips and your PDF?

Download this article as a FREE PDF ? 

What is your current level in Arabic?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Arabic tips…

FREE StoryLearning Kit!

Join my email newsletter and get FREE access to your StoryLearning Kit — discover how to learn languages through the power of story!

Download a FREE Story in Japanese!

Enter your email address below to get a  FREE short story in Japanese and start learning Japanese quickly and naturally with my StoryLearning® method!

What is your current level in Japanese?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Japanese StoryLearning® Pack …

Where shall I send your download link?

Download Your  FREE   Natural Japanese Grammar Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Natural Japanese Grammar Pack and learn to internalise Japanese grammar quickly and naturally through stories.

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Natural Japanese Grammar Pack …

What is your current level in Portuguese?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Natural Portuguese Grammar Pack …

What is your current level in German?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Natural German Grammar Pack …

Train as an Online Language Teacher and Earn from Home

The next cohort of my Certificate of Online Language Teaching will open soon. Join the waiting list, and we’ll notify you as soon as enrolment is open!

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Portuguese tips…

What is your current level in Turkish?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Turkish tips…

What is your current level in French?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the French Vocab Power Pack …

What is your current level in Italian?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Italian Vocab Power Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the German Vocab Power Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Japanese Vocab Power Pack …

Download Your  FREE Japanese Vocab Power Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Japanese Vocab Power Pack and learn essential Japanese words and phrases quickly and naturally. (ALL levels!)

Download Your  FREE German Vocab Power Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my German Vocab Power Pack and learn essential German words and phrases quickly and naturally. (ALL levels!)

Download Your  FREE Italian Vocab Power Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Italian Vocab Power Pack and learn essential Italian words and phrases quickly and naturally. (ALL levels!)

Download Your  FREE French Vocab Power Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my French Vocab Power Pack and learn essential French words and phrases quickly and naturally. (ALL levels!)

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Portuguese StoryLearning® Pack …

What is your current level in Russian?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Natural Russian Grammar Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Russian StoryLearning® Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Italian StoryLearning® Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Natural Italian Grammar Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the French StoryLearning® Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Natural French Grammar Pack …

What is your current level in Spanish?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Spanish Vocab Power Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Natural Spanish Grammar Pack …

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the Spanish StoryLearning® Pack …

Where  shall I send them?

What is your current level in Korean?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Korean tips…

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Russian tips…

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Japanese tips…

What is your current level in Chinese?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Chinese tips…

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Spanish tips…

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Italian tips…

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] French tips…

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] German tips…

Download Your  FREE   Natural Portuguese Grammar Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Natural Portuguese Grammar Pack and learn to internalise Portuguese grammar quickly and naturally through stories.

Download Your  FREE   Natural Russian Grammar Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Natural Russian Grammar Pack and learn to internalise Russian grammar quickly and naturally through stories.

Download Your  FREE   Natural German Grammar Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Natural German Grammar Pack and learn to internalise German grammar quickly and naturally through stories.

Download Your  FREE   Natural French Grammar Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Natural French Grammar Pack and learn to internalise French grammar quickly and naturally through stories.

Download Your  FREE   Natural Italian Grammar Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Natural Italian Grammar Pack and learn to internalise Italian grammar quickly and naturally through stories.

Download a FREE Story in Portuguese!

Enter your email address below to get a  FREE short story in Brazilian Portuguese and start learning Portuguese quickly and naturally with my StoryLearning® method!

Download a FREE Story in Russian!

Enter your email address below to get a  FREE short story in Russian and start learning Russian quickly and naturally with my StoryLearning® method!

Download a FREE Story in German!

Enter your email address below to get a  FREE short story in German and start learning German quickly and naturally with my StoryLearning® method!

Perfect! You’ve now got access to the German StoryLearning® Pack …

Download a FREE Story in Italian!

Enter your email address below to get a  FREE short story in Italian and start learning Italian quickly and naturally with my StoryLearning® method!

Download a FREE Story in French!

Enter your email address below to get a  FREE short story in French and start learning French quickly and naturally with my StoryLearning® method!

Download a FREE Story in Spanish!

Enter your email address below to get a  FREE short story in Spanish and start learning Spanish quickly and naturally with my StoryLearning® method!

FREE Download:

The rules of language learning.

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Rules of Language Learning and discover 25 “rules” to learn a new language quickly and naturally through stories.

Download Your  FREE Spanish Vocab Power Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Spanish Vocab Power Pack and learn essential Spanish words and phrases quickly and naturally. (ALL levels!)

Download Your  FREE   Natural Spanish Grammar Pack

Enter your email address below to get free access to my Natural Spanish Grammar Pack and learn to internalise Spanish grammar quickly and naturally through stories.

Free Step-By-Step Guide:

How to generate a full-time income from home with your English… even with ZERO previous teaching experience.

What is your current level in Thai?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Thai tips…

What is your current level in Cantonese?

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] Cantonese tips…

Steal My Method?

I’ve written some simple emails explaining the techniques I’ve used to learn 8 languages…

I want to be skipped!

I’m the lead capture, man!

Join 84,574 other language learners getting StoryLearning tips by email…

“After I started to use your ideas, I learn better, for longer, with more passion. Thanks for the life-change!” – Dallas Nesbit

Perfect! You’ve now got access to my most effective [level] [language] tips…

Find The Perfect Language Course For You!

Looking for world-class training material to help you make a breakthrough in your language learning?

Click ‘start now’ and complete this short survey to find the perfect course for you!

Do you like the idea of learning through story?

Do you want…?

Reported Speech

Perfect english grammar.

Reported Statements

Here's how it works:

We use a 'reporting verb' like 'say' or 'tell'. ( Click here for more about using 'say' and 'tell' .) If this verb is in the present tense, it's easy. We just put 'she says' and then the sentence:

• Direct speech: I like ice cream.
• Reported speech: She says (that) she likes ice cream.

We don't need to change the tense, though probably we do need to change the 'person' from 'I' to 'she', for example. We also may need to change words like 'my' and 'your'. (As I'm sure you know, often, we can choose if we want to use 'that' or not in English. I've put it in brackets () to show that it's optional. It's exactly the same if you use 'that' or if you don't use 'that'.)

But , if the reporting verb is in the past tense, then usually we change the tenses in the reported speech:

• Reported speech: She said (that) she liked ice cream.

* doesn't change.

• Direct speech: The sky is blue.
• Reported speech: She said (that) the sky is/was blue.

Click here for a mixed tense exercise about practise reported statements. Click here for a list of all the reported speech exercises.

Reported Questions

So now you have no problem with making reported speech from positive and negative sentences. But how about questions?

• Direct speech: Where do you live?
• Reported speech: She asked me where I lived.
• Direct speech: Where is Julie?
• Reported speech: She asked me where Julie was.

• Direct speech: Do you like chocolate?
• Reported speech: She asked me if I liked chocolate.

Click here to practise reported 'wh' questions. Click here to practise reported 'yes / no' questions. Reported Requests

There's more! What if someone asks you to do something (in a polite way)? For example:

• Direct speech: Close the window, please
• Or: Could you close the window please?
• Or: Would you mind closing the window please?
• Reported speech: She asked me to close the window.

• Direct speech: Please don't be late.
• Reported speech: She asked us not to be late.

Reported Orders

• Direct speech: Sit down!
• Reported speech: She told me to sit down.

• Click here for an exercise to practise reported requests and orders.

• Click here for an exercise about using 'say' and 'tell'.
• Click here for a list of all the reported speech exercises.

Hello! I'm Seonaid! I'm here to help you understand grammar and speak correct, fluent English.

Read more about our learning method

Search Eslbase

How to use reported speech.

Learn about Reported Speech in English grammar. Clear and simple explanation of meaning and use, with examples.

Forming reported speech

• Direct speech: “I’m not playing football.” Reported later: “He said that he wasn’t playing football.”
• Direct speech: Jane: “I don’t like living here.” (Jane is referring to herself) Reported speech: Jane said (that) she didn’t like living here. (The pronoun she refers to Jane )
• Direct speech: “I like this car.” Reported speech: He said (that) he liked that car.
• Direct speech: “I went to Tokyo last week .” Reported speech: She said (that) she’d been to Tokyo the week before .

We use reported speech to tell someone what another person said:

Jim says to you:

“I don’t feel well.” “I can’t drive.” “My parents have gone on holiday.” “I’m going out now so you will have to wait until I get back.” “I’ll help you.”

Later, you tell your friend what Jim said:

Jim said (that) he didn’t feel well. He said (that) he couldn’t drive. He said (that) his parents had gone on holiday. He said (that) he was going out now so I would have to wait until he got back. He said that he would help me .

Additional points

• Direct speech: “My car is bigger than yours.”
• Reported speech: He said his car is/was bigger than mine.
• Direct speech: “The earthquake happened at half past seven.”
• Reported speech: The radio said that the earthquake  happened at half past seven.
• Direct speech: “I should go to the dentist.”
• Reported speech: He said that he should go to the dentist.

Pronunciation

See the phonemic chart for IPA symbols used below.

If we use that  in reported speech, we pronounce the weak form.

• I said that he’d do it: /ðət/

Related grammar points

Reported Questions Reporting Verbs Say and Tell

Got a teaching idea to share?

Share your activity or lesson plan with your fellow teachers. You'll be helping our community and contributing to a hub of valuable resources for teachers everywhere.

Keith Taylor

Keith is the co-founder of Eslbase and School of TEFL . He's been a teacher and teacher trainer for over 20 years, in Indonesia, Australia, Morocco, Spain, Italy, Poland, France and now in the UK.

Grammar for English Teachers

Learn everything you need to feel confident with grammar as a teacher Online course - Save £30 this summer

16 comments

I give the students comic strips from the funny pages, and they have to summarize the direct speech. There are always lots of questions, and that makes especially good practice.

I ask students to tell their partner three secrets. Then, this student tells other students in the class (a good way to explain the word: gossip!). This activity helps students practice reporting but in a fun way!

I ask students to think of a fun sentence. I put them all in a line and the student at the end whispers their sentence to the one beside them, this student then reports the sentence to the following student, and so on. The last student says the sentence aloud and we see if they did it correctly… it is like the “telefono descompuesto” in Spanish.

I put students in groups of three. Two in the group are a couple quarrelling, but who will not speak to each other. The middle man/woman receives information from one and uses reported speech to relay the message(s).

I showed some slides about a fire at a petrol station and the group had to make up a conversation between two witnesses to the fire. We then wrote it as a newspaper report.

I show them some debate shows on the Internet after advising them to make notes of the main points. Then I ask them to report what different participants opined. SBS insight has nice discussions to be used for this purpose.

If you have the resources, you can play a short listening/video about an important event, news, etc. Students then have to report to the teacher what they heard.

I have students make 10 questions they would ask their favourite actor or actress. Then, they use these questions to interview another partner who pretends to be that famous person. He or she will answer those questions the same way the famous person would. Students end up reporting their answers to the teacher. In that way, they can practice reported speech in an interesting form.

I did a “Find someone who…” mingling activity with my students and then divided the group into two teams. I asked a member from the first team to report one of the replies to a question they had asked. If their reply was correctly put into reported speech, they got a point for their team. I repeated the process until I had covered all the responses from the activity. The team with the most points won the game and was rewarded with cream eggs!

Cut a dialogue into four parts. Paste it on four walls. Students work in pairs. One of them is the messenger and the other one is a receiver. The messenger runs to the walls and remembers the sentences, comes back and narrates the same to the receiver.

I prepare cards with several questions in different tenses, such as:

“What were you doing yesterday at 6?” “How long have you been studying English?” “Will you do your homework for tomorrow?”

I put my students in pairs and ask them to interview each other using the questions on the cards. Once they’ve got their answers, they change partners and share everything they’ve learnt about the previous student.

I tell students to think about what happened to them before they came to class. For example, “what did your mom, dad, husband, wife say to them? They write down the direct speech and then the reported speech.

I ask one of my students to introduce him/herself (name, age, hobbies)… and ask other students to take notes. When they are finished, I ask “What did he say?”

Hello, I’m not a teacher, I’m an ESL class student. So, I’m here to ask you guys a question about wich is still making me to be confused. I asked my teacher, ”if you say, ”I am a teacher”, should I make it a reported speech as ” she said she was a teacher?”. she answered that I needed to say ,” she said she is a teacher”. One more thing: I found a sentence in worksheet written , ”He told his birthday is next week”. Is it correct? I thought it had to be ” he told his birhday would be next week” So, is this modern English rule? Is that a difference? Can you pleeease, explain and help me to make sure to correct this hesitation.

Thanks for your questions.

1. “She said she was a teacher” and “She said she is a teacher” are both correct. Often we don’t change the tense if the fact that we are reporting is still true. So, if it is still true that she is a teacher, then she can report it with “She said she is a teacher” (see Additional point number 1 above).

2. “He told his birthday is next week”. First of all, if you use “told” then you must add a direct object, like this: “He told me his birthday is next week”.

Now, let’s look at the different ways we can use reported speech for this. If the person says “My birthday is next week” then we can report it like this: – He told me his birthday was next week – He told me his birthday is next week (it’s still true so we don’t need to change the tense)

If the person says “My birthday will be next week” then we can report it like this: – He told me his birthday would be next week.

I hope that helps!

This is what I wanted to know. Thanks a lot!

Leave your comment (Cancel Reply)

We use cookies and similar technologies to improve your experience. Agreeing to this helps us process data like your browsing habits and unique IDs, making our site work better for you. If you choose not to, some features won't work as smoothly.

• English Grammar
• Reported Speech

Reported Speech - Definition, Rules and Usage with Examples

Reported speech or indirect speech is the form of speech used to convey what was said by someone at some point of time. This article will help you with all that you need to know about reported speech, its meaning, definition, how and when to use them along with examples. Furthermore, try out the practice questions given to check how far you have understood the topic.

Table of Contents

Definition of reported speech, rules to be followed when using reported speech, table 1 – change of pronouns, table 2 – change of adverbs of place and adverbs of time, table 3 – change of tense, table 4 – change of modal verbs, tips to practise reported speech, examples of reported speech, check your understanding of reported speech, frequently asked questions on reported speech in english, what is reported speech.

Reported speech is the form in which one can convey a message said by oneself or someone else, mostly in the past. It can also be said to be the third person view of what someone has said. In this form of speech, you need not use quotation marks as you are not quoting the exact words spoken by the speaker, but just conveying the message.

Now, take a look at the following dictionary definitions for a clearer idea of what it is.

Reported speech, according to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, is defined as “a report of what somebody has said that does not use their exact words.” The Collins Dictionary defines reported speech as “speech which tells you what someone said, but does not use the person’s actual words.” According to the Cambridge Dictionary, reported speech is defined as “the act of reporting something that was said, but not using exactly the same words.” The Macmillan Dictionary defines reported speech as “the words that you use to report what someone else has said.”

Reported speech is a little different from direct speech . As it has been discussed already, reported speech is used to tell what someone said and does not use the exact words of the speaker. Take a look at the following rules so that you can make use of reported speech effectively.

• The first thing you have to keep in mind is that you need not use any quotation marks as you are not using the exact words of the speaker.
• You can use the following formula to construct a sentence in the reported speech.

• You can use verbs like said, asked, requested, ordered, complained, exclaimed, screamed, told, etc. If you are just reporting a declarative sentence , you can use verbs like told, said, etc. followed by ‘that’ and end the sentence with a full stop . When you are reporting interrogative sentences, you can use the verbs – enquired, inquired, asked, etc. and remove the question mark . In case you are reporting imperative sentences , you can use verbs like requested, commanded, pleaded, ordered, etc. If you are reporting exclamatory sentences , you can use the verb exclaimed and remove the exclamation mark . Remember that the structure of the sentences also changes accordingly.
• Furthermore, keep in mind that the sentence structure , tense , pronouns , modal verbs , some specific adverbs of place and adverbs of time change when a sentence is transformed into indirect/reported speech.

Transforming Direct Speech into Reported Speech

As discussed earlier, when transforming a sentence from direct speech into reported speech, you will have to change the pronouns, tense and adverbs of time and place used by the speaker. Let us look at the following tables to see how they work.

Here are some tips you can follow to become a pro in using reported speech.

• Select a play, a drama or a short story with dialogues and try transforming the sentences in direct speech into reported speech.
• Write about an incident or speak about a day in your life using reported speech.
• Develop a story by following prompts or on your own using reported speech.

Given below are a few examples to show you how reported speech can be written. Check them out.

• Santana said that she would be auditioning for the lead role in Funny Girl.
• Blaine requested us to help him with the algebraic equations.
• Karishma asked me if I knew where her car keys were.
• The judges announced that the Warblers were the winners of the annual acapella competition.
• Binsha assured that she would reach Bangalore by 8 p.m.
• Kumar said that he had gone to the doctor the previous day.
• Lakshmi asked Teena if she would accompany her to the railway station.
• Jibin told me that he would help me out after lunch.
• The police ordered everyone to leave from the bus stop immediately.
• Rahul said that he was drawing a caricature.

Transform the following sentences into reported speech by making the necessary changes.

1. Rachel said, “I have an interview tomorrow.”

2. Mahesh said, “What is he doing?”

3. Sherly said, “My daughter is playing the lead role in the skit.”

4. Dinesh said, “It is a wonderful movie!”

5. Suresh said, “My son is getting married next month.”

6. Preetha said, “Can you please help me with the invitations?”

7. Anna said, “I look forward to meeting you.”

8. The teacher said, “Make sure you complete the homework before tomorrow.”

9. Sylvester said, “I am not going to cry anymore.”

10. Jade said, “My sister is moving to Los Angeles.”

Now, find out if you have answered all of them correctly.

1. Rachel said that she had an interview the next day.

2. Mahesh asked what he was doing.

3. Sherly said that her daughter was playing the lead role in the skit.

4. Dinesh exclaimed that it was a wonderful movie.

5. Suresh said that his son was getting married the following month.

6. Preetha asked if I could help her with the invitations.

7. Anna said that she looked forward to meeting me.

8. The teacher told us to make sure we completed the homework before the next day.

9. Sylvester said that he was not going to cry anymore.

10. Jade said that his sister was moving to Los Angeles.

What is reported speech?

What is the definition of reported speech.

Reported speech, according to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, is defined as “a report of what somebody has said that does not use their exact words.” The Collins Dictionary defines reported speech as “speech which tells you what someone said, but does not use the person’s actual words.” According to the Cambridge Dictionary, reported speech is defined as “the act of reporting something that was said, but not using exactly the same words.” The Macmillan Dictionary defines reported speech as “the words that you use to report what someone else has said.”

What is the formula of reported speech?

You can use the following formula to construct a sentence in the reported speech. Subject said that (report whatever the speaker said)

Give some examples of reported speech.

Given below are a few examples to show you how reported speech can be written.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

In a manner of speaking: how reported speech may have shaped grammar.

• University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

We present a first, broad-scale typology of extended reported speech, examples of lexicalised or grammaticalised reported speech constructions without a regular quotation meaning. These typically include meanings that are conceptually close to reported speech, such as think or want , but also interpretations that do not appear to have an obvious conceptual relation with talking, such as cause or begin to . Reported speech may therefore reflect both concepts of communication and inner worlds, and meanings reminiscent of ‘core grammar’, such as evidentiality, modality, aspect (relational) tense and clause linking. We contextualise our findings in the literature on fictive interaction and perspective and suggest that extended reported speech may lend insight into a fundamental aspect of grammar: the evolution of verbal categories. Based on the striking similarity between the meanings of extended reported speech and grammatical categories, we hypothesise that the phenomenon represents a plausible linguistic context in which grammar evolved.

1 Introduction: Fictive Interaction, Reported Speech and Grammar

The act of speaking is so fundamental to the human experience and our perception of other people that we routinely cast our interaction with the world as a dialogue ( Bakhtin, 1981 ). We may represent intentions of others, even those attributed to non-humans, as ‘speaking to us’, as in (1a) or (1b). In these sentences a perception or, e.g., the expression of the face of an animal is described as a speech event.

In a series of seminal accounts ( Pascual, 2002 ; Pascual, 2007 and, especially, Pascual, 2014 ) characterises expressions as in (1) as ‘fictive interaction’, defined as the use of ‘conversation as a frame to structure mental, discursive, and linguistic processes’ ( Pascual, 2014 , 9). While this analysis is explicitly embedded in a cognitive linguistic account that sees conversation as a cognitive Gestalt that humans may use in order to make sense of the world, its empirical foundation is strong. Not only are examples of fictive interaction as in (1) common cross-linguistically ( Pascual and Sandler, 2016a ; McGregor, 2019 ), they affect a heterogeneous set of sentence types and linguistic structures ( Pascual and Sandler, 2016b ).

While in many Standard Average European languages fictive interaction appears to be a metaphor-driven type of creative language use (apart from possibly more idiomatic expressions like to ‘speak to oneself’), a much more conventionalised form of fictive interaction occurs in many languages around the world, cf. (2).

Like in (1), (2) presents a ‘speech event’ that does not involve actual communication. The literal translation of (2) clearly demonstrates this: the water incites its own boiling, as if it was speaking. Crucially, however, this is not what (2) means . As the idiomatic gloss in (2) illustrates, the interpretation of this sentence is an inceptive meaning, i.e. ‘to be about to do p ’. Rather than saying “let me boil”, as the lexicogrammatical elements in (2) suggest, the only plausible contextual meaning of the sentence is ‘The water was about to boil’.

Whereas it is intuitively obvious to the reader that the interpretation of the ‘fictive’ example of direct speech in (1b) is metaphorical and is interpreted through a process of inference, the structural, semantic and pragmatic status of examples like (2) are much less clear. This is problematic, because this is not an isolated or anecdotal example. Examples that, judging by their lexico-grammatical components would seem to carry a meaning of direct speech (x said: “ p ”), may receive widely varying interpretations in the languages of the world. These interpretations include meanings that seem to have little in common with speech events, or the perspective-shifting function associated with reported speech.

In a first cross-linguistic typology of the phenomenon, specifically focusing on direct speech-like structures as in (2), Pascual (2014, 90) distinguishes meanings as varied as (1) mental states, (2) emotional and attitudinal states, (3) desires, (4) intentions, (5) attempts, (6) states of affairs 1 , (7) causation, (8) reason, (9) purpose and (10) future tense. We may group these meanings into the four classes in (3).

Despite the extensive list of meanings Pascual’s pioneering study uncovers, it raises several important questions. First of all: what is the status of the meanings in (3)? In order to answer this question we will need to understand, firstly, if the list in (3) is exhaustive with respect to the range of meanings attested in similar examples so far, secondly, if these meanings are random or show recurrent patterns in the languages of the world and, thirdly, what mechanisms give rise to the meanings as in (3)? These are questions the current article aims to address.

This objective immediately faces a methodological challenge: both in (1b) and (2), the lexico-grammatical make-up of the examples suggests a ‘literal’ direct speech interpretation, but the actual meaning in context varies, as well as the way in which this meaning arises pragmatically. As we will see below, the semantically based notion of ‘direct speech’ does not neatly apply to all relevant instances. This suggests that in order to examine the variation of the meanings involved, we need to start with a definition of a class of relevant examples based on their lexico-grammatical properties. For the sake of cross-linguistic comparison, this set of lexico-grammatical properties cannot be too restrictive, since it needs to be applicable to languages of distinct structural types. We cannot make a priori assumptions about the language-specific variation that might exist between these structures. On the other hand, it needs to capture a class of phenomena that are cross-linguistically comparable and can be identified based on the definition, so it cannot be too inclusive either ( Haspelmath, 2010 ). We will return to the wider context of fictive interaction at the end of this article, but in order to maximally avoid the presumption of metaphoricity implicit in this label we will refer to the typological examples examined in this article as ‘extended reported speech’. The identification of relevant reported speech examples will be based on the definition in (4a). Extended reported speech will be defined as in (4b).

We begin in Section 2 with an extensive illustration of the definitions, or ‘comparative concepts’ ( Haspelmath, 2010 ), in (4a) and (4b), showing how they can be applied across languages and what type of examples they unveil. These illustrations may also clarify some of the specific formulations in the definitions above, so we will address further motivations for the comparative concepts in (4a) and (4b) in Section 2. The section begins with a brief contextualisation of the typological and descriptive literature on which we will draw (Section 2.1), before exemplifying some of the main attested types of extended reported speech in Section 2.2. These observations both support and expand the initial classification in (3), and Section 2.3 presents an updated list of extended reported speech meanings.

As we will show, two meanings that seem particularly well documented so far in extended reported speech constructions are those with an intention reading (i.e. a ‘want’ meaning) and those with a complementiser meaning. These are two types we will explore in more detail in Section 3, based on a cross-linguistic sample of 100 genetically diverse languages. These are the first results of a sample study aiming to develop a broad-scale typology of extended reported speech. The sample and methodology of the study are introduced in Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 presents and illustrates the results. The observations and initial analyses from Sections 2 and 3 are summarised and integrated in Section 3.3.

With this empirical foundation in place, in Section 4 we suggest some implications of our observations for the understanding of the semantics of reported speech, perspective constructions, particularly the subtypes of reported speech and, speculatively, the evolution of grammar. In Section 4.1 we relate the extensions of reported speech to the semantics of reported speech constructions and identify three pathways towards extended reported speech, specifically, recasting, rescaling and semantic bleaching. The implications of extended reported speech for our understanding of the diachrony of perspective expressions in language and theories of classifications of direct and indirect speech are explored in Section 4.2. We outline our main motivation behind this project in Section 4.3, where we claim that the observations about extended reported speech demonstrate so many similarities with the meaning of common grammatical categories that the phenomenon holds fundamental implications for the evolution of grammar.

Finally, Section 5 presents a brief conclusion.

2 Studies on Extended Reported Speech: A Survey

2.1 background.

Extended reported speech has been relatively well documented in the descriptive and typological literature. One of the earliest in-depth studies of the phenomenon appears to be Larson (1978) , who discusses reported speech in the South-American language Aguaruna, demonstrating that it can be used to express meanings far beyond speech representation, cf. (5).

Following the definitions in (4), the examples in (5) illustrate extended reported speech since they both contain Report and Matrix units that, as the glosses illustrate, can be interpreted as representing reported utterances and clauses of saying, respectively (cf. 4a). Yet, as the idiomatic glosses (i.e., the third line of the examples) illustrate, the contextual interpretation of these examples does not involve a speech event (cf. 4b). This is how we will apply the definitions throughout this study: the comparative concept of a reported speech construction (4a) is evaluated against the morphemic gloss (i.e., the second lines of the examples), that of extended reported speech (4b) against the idiomatic gloss (i.e., the third lines of the examples).

In order to increase readability, we will also add a fourth line to each example, as in (5). This line is a mock English gloss that represents what the example could be expected to mean based on its lexico-grammatical content, i.e. it is a prose interpretation of the morphemic glosses 2 . Crucially, however, the Mock English gloss should not be taken to indicate the actual meaning of the full example; it is a presentational device in order to make the morphemic gloss more accessible 3 . In order to highlight this interpretative status, the fourth line also appears in a different font, below the translation given in the source. Elements placed between curly brackets in the Mock English glosses (as in 5a) are not part of the extended reported speech construction.

Apart from in Aguaruna, extended reported speech has been attested in languages across South America ( van der Voort, 2002 ; Everett, 2008 ; Birchall, 2018 ). Several studies have described it as a regional phenomenon, occurring in languages in the Tibetan area ( Saxena, 1988 ), in Africa ( Güldemann, 2008 ), among Sinitic languages ( Chappell, 2012 ) and across Siberia ( Matić and Pakendorf, 2013 ). Furthermore, numerous studies of extended reported speech in Australia ( Rumsey, 1990 ; McGregor, 2014 , cf.), Austronesia and Papunesia ( Deibler, 1971 ; Reesink, 1993 ; Klamer, 2000 , cf.) and Central Asia Baranova (cf. 2015) have established it as a common phenomenon in languages of these areas as well. Figure 1 shows the location the languages cited in this section, illustrating that descriptions of extended reported speech are not restricted to any particular geographical area or language family 4 .

FIGURE 1 . Map of locations of languages cited in this section.

Given how widespread the phenomenon of extended reported speech appears to be across the languages of the world, it is not surprising that it can carry many diverse meanings. What calls for an explanation, however, is the observation that these meanings, while wide-ranging, seem far from random. Figure 2 summarises the most frequently occurring meanings described in the studies on extended reported speech that we will survey in this section.

FIGURE 2 . Common functions in descriptions of extended reported speech (based on the studies listed in Appendix Table A1).

The labels in Figure 2 , which we will refer to as ‘functions’ or ‘interpretations’, represent a short, standardised summary of the meaning description given in each of the sources. The descriptions and classifications for the individual languages are listed in Appendix Table A1. Following this standardised list, (5a) carries a WANT function and (5b) a NAME function. Throughout this section we will introduce and illustrate each of the functions in Figure 2 , as well as a few less commonly described ones.

In order to provide an initial grouping into separate types, we will distinguish between examples of extended reported speech that, although conventionalised, are still clearly identifiable as reported speech constructions (Section 2.2.1) and those that show more signs of grammaticalisation (Section 2.2.2). Since we will focus on the functions of these examples and languages may show varying degrees of grammaticalisation in their forms of extended reported speech, these groupings are not entirely clear-cut, nor mutually exclusive, but they allow us to most clearly connect with existing descriptions in the literature.

2.2 Examples of Extended Reported Speech

2.2.1 lexicalised and conventionalised examples.

Perhaps the most common type of extended reported speech is examples with a ‘think’ interpretation. On a trivial level, this use of reported speech may seem familiar to Standard Average European expressions like ‘I would say p ’, which signals ‘I think p ’, and, naturally, saying p implies thinking p . However, the extended reported speech version of this interpretation arises in languages in which the distinction between reported speech and reported thought is principally underspecified, cf. (6).

In (6), the verb that constitutes the Matrix unit, while glossed as ‘say’, could equally mean ‘say’ or ‘think’. Hsieh (2012) , 467 writes about this example: ‘when no obvious addressee can be found in the clause, this may pose some difficulties in deciding whether the term in question denotes an act of speaking or an act of thinking. The correct interpretation depends heavily on pragmatic inferences’. In the languages for which reported thought has been described as a function of extended reported speech, the absence of an explicit reported addressee appears to be a common prompt for a thought interpretation (also cf. Spronck, 2015 , 1–2). Particularly in languages in which the verb used in the Matrix unit does not indicate a strict lexical distinction between ‘say’, ‘think’ and, e.g., a generic action, as is the case in several Australian ( Rumsey, 1990 ; McGregor, 2014 ) and South American languages ( van der Voort, 2002 ), reported speech and reported thought are often virtually indistinguishable. This is also the case for many of the examples in the African languages Güldemann (2008) describes under the label of ‘quotative indexes’. These are Matrix units, often consisting of a single morpheme, that typically (diachronically) derive from a lexeme meaning ‘say’, but that, synchronically, have a much broader meaning 5 .

As Hsieh (2012) suggests, the interpretation process involved in extended reported speech with a THINK function is often one based on inference, but there is a crucial difference with SAE examples like ‘to say to oneself’: the THINK examples often do not strictly codify the distinction between reported speech and reported thought: the example in (6) strictly expresses neither reported speech or thought; it can equally express both. No language has been reported to have a dedicated reported thought construction extending to a speech meaning. That is, for all languages, the speech interpretation appears to be the most common and versatile. However, the lexico-grammatical structure does not unambiguously specify this. Hence, the inferential interpretation narrows its meaning to THINK, rather than metaphorically extends it from a specific speech interpretation to a thought interpretation. The absence of a (clear) second referent indicating a person spoken to in such cases, suggests an undirected monologue, which leads to the interpretation that the subject referent of the Matrix unit is thinking the content of the Report unit, rather than saying it.

THINK-type extended reported speech appears common in the literature and some authors even assume that it underlies other subsequent meaning extensions illustrated below. For example, Reesink (1993) suggests that all extended reported speech could be seen as a form of ‘inner speech’, a term first coined by Vygotsky (1987) , to reflect the idea that verbalised (but non-spoken) thought is like speaking in one’s mind. While this connection highlights the universal human cognitive principles behind the phenomenon, the metaphorical extension from SAY to THINK in, e.g., Standard Average European languages should not be confused with extended reported speech as intended here. For languages that do display the phenomenon as defined in (4) and exemplified in this section, THINK could be seen as the first stage crossing the Rubicon from ‘regular’ reported speech to extended reported speech.

A type slightly further removed from this stage is formed by the ‘intention’ interpretation of extended reported speech, which often can be translated with a lexeme meaning WANT. An example of this type is shown in (7) and in (5a) above.

The way in which the Warrwa and Aguaruna strategies in (5a) and (7) are interpreted may rely on a similar inferential process as described for THINK: both examples are semantically underspecified. In the absence of an explicit reported addressee, like with THINK, (5a) and (7) suggest a monologic or internal process. Furthermore, in both instances the Report unit describes a future event with a first person subject, which seems appropriate for an intentional interpretation. Note again, however, that as with all examples of extended reported speech, the meanings of (5a) and (7) are those of the idiomatic glosses: even though we may be able to understand some of the compositional elements that give rise to the ‘want’ interpretation, these constructions are either the only, or a common way to express WANT complement constructions in the respective languages. (For similar observations about the grammatical status of ‘intentional’ reported speech constructions, see Rumsey (1990) , Everett (2008) and Konnerth (2020) , among others.) We return to this type in more detail in Section 3.2.

A final type of extended reported speech in which the apparent reported speaker is engaged in a mental rather than a speech activity is a broad class of attitudinal meanings that several authors discuss. Two relevant examples occur in (8).

Example (8a) could be interpreted as an example of reported thought, but Reesink (1993) suggests that while the sentence attributes the thought that the current speaker had descended towards the river to the subject of qamb ‘they say’ in (8a), the example primarily conveys that this thought was mistaken, not that it was held (or uttered). In this survey, we will not explore this type beyond these observations, but attitudinal meanings are more commonly described in the literature on extended reported speech and the irrealis interpretation reported for Sinitic ( Chappell, 2012 ) may be related to this as well.

The attitudinal meaning is perhaps even more explicit in (8b), since the idiomatic translation does not even include a cognitive or utterance verb. This meaning seems related to the interpretation of ‘warning’, which van der Voort (2002) lists for Kwaza and ‘deontic modality’, which Güldemann (2008) describes for his African sample.

We will return to the more general principles behind the interpretation of each of the types of extended reported speech introduced in this section, but a common element in these examples appears to be that they all cast the reported speaker in a different role: as a thinker, as someone who holds an intention as described in the Report, or as a referent with specific attitudinal qualities.

Such cognitive activity appears to be completely absent in the next subtype, constituted by aspectual/temporal examples of extended reported speech as in (2) above. Two further examples of this type are shown in (9).

Both examples in (9), like (2), have non-human subject referents in the Matrix unit, so it is clear that they do not involve actual speakers, but, more importantly, the Report unit describes an inceptive event that does seem to reflect any other perspective than that of the current speaker uttering these sentences. The converb constructions in (9a) occur in regular reported speech constructions and allow for a direct speech translation ( Baranova, 2015 , 64), but the example is not a statement about the mental state of the horse. Similarly, in (9b) the communicative relevance of the example is not some dramatic re-enactment of visions of time; it is about the inceptive or inchoative aspectual status of the content of the Report unit 6 .

Once more, it should be stressed that the inchoative interpretation in these examples is not a poetic invention by the speakers of these sentences. Rather, the examples represent a common way to express aspectual meanings in these languages. Birchall (2018) describes similar examples for languages of the Chapacuran family as expressions of incipient action or future tense. Güldemann (2008) also demonstrates the future tense meaning for other African languages and van der Voort (2002) reports it for Kwaza (see Appendix Table A1).

Another example in which the Report unit does clearly not signal an utterance or mental state is the NAME type, as in (10).

The term junba jandu jirri ‘the dance designer’ in (10) does not refer to a specific speech act, but is a general description of the oblique referent, which can be translated into English with the lexical verb ‘call’ or ‘name’. Among the examples of extended reported speech illustrated here, this type is slightly different in the sense that the ‘name Report’ is commonly assumed to be spoken, but the status of the Report does not correspond to an utterance, which qualifies this as an extended meaning. Among the literature surveyed for this section, similar examples are attested in Ainu ( Bugaeva, 2008 ) and in African ( Güldemann, 2008 ), Tibeto-Burman ( Saxena, 1988 ) and Siberian languages ( Matić and Pakendorf, 2013 ).

A final type that we would like to introduce in this section is extended reported speech used for the purpose of information structuring, specifically topic marking, as in (11).

In examples like (11) the Report unit describes information that, presumably, has already been raised in the conversation and is subsequently commented on. Interestingly, information structuring examples of extended reported speech are described as signalling both that the content of the Report unit is a ‘topic’ and that the content is ‘highlighted’, which would rather suggest a focus function. Matić and Pakendorf (2013) also attest reported speech with a topic interpretation in their Siberian sample, and, more generally, discourse functions are attested in Aguaruna and African languages, as indicated in Appendix Table A1.

Güldemann (2008) , 510 and Reesink (1993) , 223 furthermore report that extended reported speech may have a ‘listing’ interpretation (e.g., ‘say x , say y , say z ’), which could be seen as an instance in which the Reports are presented as a series of discourse topics.

2.2.2 Grammaticalised Extended Reported Speech

The interpretations of extended reported speech described in the previous section mostly corresponded to common reported speech constructions in the respective languages. They also shared the feature that the Matrix unit often corresponded to a lexical (matrix) verb in English, that is, ‘think’, ‘want’ or ‘call’, although the translations were more diverse for the attitudinal, aspectual/temporal and information structuring types of extended reported speech. All authors cited specifically introduce these examples because they represent common, conventional ways to express the meanings described and, hence, they involve a degree of constructionalisation. However, in most cases, the elements involved in the constructions do not appear to have developed into grammatical formatives.

This is different for the types that we will discuss in this section, for which a more straightforward argument can be made that the constructions have conventionalised to a degree that, at least in some languages, they have fully grammaticalised. A useful starting point for classifying these types is the overview in Kuteva et al. (2019) , who list no fewer than eleven morphological categories into which the lexeme SAY may grammaticalise 7 . These meanings/categories are shown in (12).

Since the classification developed by Kuteva et al. (2019) constitutes a ‘lexicon of grammaticalisation’, and grammaticalisation is defined as a diachronic process in which a lexeme becomes a grammatical element, presenting the types in (12) as deriving from SAY is a useful shorthand. Note, however, that as with the examples of extended reported speech presented before, the types of extended reported speech illustrated in this section commonly include a recognisable Matrix and Report unit. What characterises these types, though, is that, more frequently than in the previous examples, these units are integrated into other morphosyntactic structures. For this reason, ‘grammaticalised’ extended reported speech is often slightly distinct from other reported speech in the respective languages. The examples introduced here, therefore, often carry slightly more structural cues than those presented in the previous sections as to their ‘extended’ interpretation.

Taking the list in (12) as a guide, we will briefly illustrate the various types below. The CAUSE function (12a), exemplified in (13), appears to be particularly common.

As the Mock English translations in (13) illustrate, each of these examples can still be interpreted as reported speech, so in this sense the function is less clearly grammaticalised than some of the other ones discussed below. However, the examples in (13) all involve an interpretation of (indirect) causation that partially requires a structural re-analysis of the reported speech construction involved: in (13b) and (13c) the entity who is coerced into performing the act described in the ‘Report’ is introduced as an oblique object in the Matrix unit. This involves a change in semantic roles: in both examples the subject of the Matrix becomes the ‘causer’ argument and in (13b) the indirect object, i.e. the ‘addressee’ is interpreted as a causee, as is the oblique object, i.e. the ‘object talked about’, in (13c). In (13a), the causal interpretation appears to arise slightly differently because of the presence of a morpheme glossed as causative in combination with the reported speech construction. In this example, the causee is left implicit.

These three examples already show that even though extended meanings in reported speech may be similar across languages, it should not necessarily be assumed that these meanings arise through exactly the same (diachronic) pathways.

Some typical examples of the complementiser function of reported speech (12b) are shown in (14).

Judging by the Mock English translations of (14a) and (14b), these contain a redundant verb of saying that serves the main function of connecting a main clause describing some cognitive activity with a complement clause specifying this cognitive activity. Both the complementiser (12b) and the more general subordinator use (12j) of reported speech constructions are introduced more fully in Section 3.2.3, but the examples in (14) already reveal two important qualities of this subtype of extended reported speech. On the one hand, it is less obvious that these examples involve a Matrix and Report, since the ‘complementiser’ interpretation only emerges in the context of another bi-clausal structure. Therefore, two equally plausible analyses present themselves: either the Matrix and Report units fully overlap with these two clauses (e.g., the clause between square brackets in (14a) both derives from a Report and is a complement clause of the preceding clause T’ahir-ri-j han b-ič-ib ‘it seemed to Tahir’) or the verb SAY grammaticalises as a complementiser without bringing its associated Matrix and Report structure. We will briefly discuss this problem in Section 3.2.3, but refer to each of the examples cited here as extended reported speech. Second, even though we refer to the function in (14) as a complementiser, both examples represent cognitive actions, which raises the question of to what extent the ‘SAY complementiser’ interpretation can be generalised beyond predicates expressing meanings closely related to speech and thought. Matić and Pakendorf (2013) , in particular, do show a variation of complement types with which a SAY-derived complementiser may occur: in some languages such an element may only combine with speech or cognition complements, in others it extends further, e.g. to verbs of perception and (eventually) any complement/subordinate clause. The examples of reported speech ‘conjunctions’, listed in Appendix Table A1, may fall on various parts of this spectrum, and we will discuss these varying degrees of grammaticalisation in Section 3.2.3 as well.

Another clause linking function, that seems related to the attitudinal senses illustrated in (8), is the conditional function (12c), as in example (15).

A generalisation that could be made over this subtype is that in (8) and (15) the ‘Report unit’ indicates a hypothetical or otherwise qualified event or action. As we will discuss in Section 4, this meaning can be derived quite simply from the full meaning of a reported speech construction, which, as we will argue, is also the case for the following three functions on the list: discourse markers (12d), as Chappell (2012) illustrates (and which might also include the ‘listing function’ referred to above) and the evidentials ‘quotative’ (12e) and reported (12f). The distinction between these evidential categories is variously defined in the literature: Aikhenvald (2004) suggests that quotative evidentials introduce a specific source referent (i.e. the reported speaker is explicitly mentioned), whereas reported/repor(ta)tive evidentials, otherwise labelled ‘hearsay’ or ‘reported evidence’, do not. However for Boye (2012) the relevant distinction lies in the semantic status of the Report unit: a reportative embeds a proposition, while a quotative embeds a speech act (also cf. Wiemer, 2018 ). Kuteva et al. (2019, 381) note the close diachronic relation between the two evidential categories.

The next function Kuteva et al. (2019) list is that of purpose (12g), cf. (16).

The purpose interpretation appears on the one hand related to the WANT or intention interpretation as illustrated in Section 2.2.1, but the translation ‘in order to’ also reflects a more grammatical interpretation, which involves elements that may be used to introduce additional syntactic constituents. Like in the ‘complementiser’ examples, the Matrix unit in (16) occurs in subordination (the additive marker marks the Matrix as a converb Ershova, 2012 , 76) 8 .

Example (16) is notable for another reason: the striking indexical features of the embedded first person pronoun, which refers to the current speaker, and not to the subject of the matrix clause. Such indexical patterns are in part a typical genetic property of languages like Besleney Kabardian, but also hold implications for the relation between common categories of reported speech, such as direct and indirect speech in relation to extended reported speech. Unlike the impression sometimes given in the literature 9 , extended reported speech is not restricted to typical direct speech structures (as can also be seen from logophoric examples as in (2) and apparently indirect constructions, such as 15 and 16). For further discussion, see Section 4.2.

Purpose interpretations are common among the languages listed in Appendix Table A1, but an interesting further extension occurs in Tibeto-Burman ( Saxena, 1988 ); the interpretation ‘to do intentionally, deliberately’, i.e., on purpose . Cf. (17).

The ‘on purpose’ meaning of (17) clearly constitutes a slightly separate type from the more common ‘purpose’ interpretation which Kuteva et al. (2019) distinguish, but like many of the other more grammaticalised examples of extended reported speech it too involves a subordinating structure, specifically a Matrix consisting of a participle predicate.

In addition to ‘evidential quotative’, Kuteva et al. (2019) also list a separate category of ‘quotative’, which refers to what Güldemann (2008) calls a ‘quotative index’: a Report unit that consists of a single morphological element that (often) diachronically derives from a lexical verb SAY. Although such Report units may develop extended meanings, they do not necessarily count as examples of extended reported speech under our definition in (4b).

We discuss the subordinator function (12j) together with complementation (12b) in Section 3.2.3 and we have illustrated the information structuring subtype of ‘topic’ (12k) in 11 above, which leaves only one final class from Kuteva et al.’s list; that of similative (12i), as illustrated in (18).

Comparison/similarity meanings are attested rather widely in the literature (cf. Güldemann, 2008 ; Matić and Pakendorf, 2013 ) and, like attitudinal meanings, can be derived from a common semantic component of reported speech constructions, as we argue in Section 4.1. Note that, as in many of the examples of grammaticalised extended reported speech in this section (but not the causative subtype), the Matrix predicate puli ‘to say’ in (18) appears in a non-finite form.

2.3 Interpretations of Extended Reported Speech: An Inventory

Despite the wide variety of interpretations illustrated above, what stands out in the literature is how regular the meaning extensions in reported speech appear to be across unrelated languages. None of the subtypes illustrated in the previous sections appears only once in the literature summarised in Appendix Table A1 and the very few additional functions that are attested can be related to more regularly described ones. For example, Saxena (1988) distinguishes ‘expletive’ and onomatopoeic functions in Tibeto-Burman, which indeed do not constitute typical Reported units, but may be categorised as a form of speech and/or sound emission.

One possible further subtype is mentioned by multiple sources but not included in Kuteva et al.’s (2019) list of grammaticalised functions. This is the category of ‘auxiliary’ and/or ‘light verb’, which Güldemann (2008) and Matić and Pakendorf (2013) find in their African and Siberian samples, respectively. This type reflects the observation that the verb SAY (or, more accurately, a predicate diachronically related to the meaning SAY) can bleach semantically over the course of grammaticalisation to the extent that it no longer has any distinguishable lexical meaning. As such, it often combines with types illustrated above, like the aspectual interpretations in (9) or the causative ones in (13). In such examples, the (historical) verb SAY does not contribute any lexical meaning to the construction, but merely connects elements in the sentence, or hosts cross-referential or temporal affixes, like a light verb (cf. Matić and Pakendorf, 2013 , 385).

With respect to our present analysis, two aspects of this observation are relevant: on the one hand, first, it constitutes a rather different level of generalisation to the one adopted for most of the examples introduced above, that is, it focuses on the predicate SAY, rather than a full reported speech construction and, second, cross-linguistically, the development from speech verb into light verb can be seen to occur in the opposite direction in some languages. Particularly, for a number of Australian languages it has been observed that instead of having a specialised speech predicate, reported speech constructions in languages such as Ngarinyin ( Rumsey, 1990 ) and languages of the Nyulnyulan family ( McGregor, 2014 ) contain a generic action verb, often glossed as ‘do’ (cf. example 10). In the grammatical context of a reported speech construction this predicate assumes the lexical meaning ‘say’.

While assuming that the interpretations illustrated in the preceding sections arise out of grammaticalised (or re-lexicalised) uses of the lexeme SAY is a possible analysis for some languages, it is less appropriate for others. It is also variably applicable to the subtypes of extended reported speech so far introduced. For example, the complementising/linking function may be inviting focus on the word unit of SAY itself, but it equally involves a link between two clauses, not unlike the Matrix and Report units already involved in a reported speech construction. If our analysis of meaning extension starts from a lexeme SAY, it is problematic to argue that the verbs used in (extended) reported speech may either entirely lose their speech interpretation, or that non-speech verbs can be recruited as matrix verbs in reported speech. This is not the case if we take reported speech constructions, i.e. Matrix and Report units with or without a lexical speech verb as the (diachronic) source for the extensions reported here.

This analysis also provides a consistent solution for the possible problem van der Voort (2002) diagnoses, that meaning extensions of the type illustrated in the preceding sections occur regardless of the lexico-grammatical status of the Matrix. Even affixes or particles like quotatives, or highly abstract constructions like the reported speech construction formed by the declarative marker in Kwaza (13a), may give rise to such interpretations as ‘want’ or ‘cause to do’. This creates the theoretical problem that under the SAY grammaticalisation analysis we would have a lexical meaning emerging from a grammatical construction (i.e., degrammaticalisation) 10 . Furthermore, simply focusing on the lexeme SAY removes from sight the similarities with meaning extensions arising from other types of Matrix units.

Before exploring the consequences of this integrated approach to extended reported speech further, let us take stock. The observations in Section 2 expand the initial inventory of extended functions of reported speech based on Pascual (2014) in (3) to the set of functions in (19). Although the distinction between lexical and ‘grammatical’ functions is not clear-cut, we may further divide these functions into a more lexical group summarised in (19a) and a group that bears a resemblance with morphosyntactic categories, or functional elements in the sentence, listed in (19b).

Before placing the functions in (19) in a broader context in Section 4, we will first try to delve slightly deeper into the distribution and origin of some of these functions, by presenting a typological study of two specific subtypes of extended reported speech in Section 3. As we will show, there are many difficulties inherent in studying extended reported speech as a typological topic, but in order to contextualise the observations above it will be useful to gain an impression of how widespread the phenomenon is in the languages of the world. In order to develop an understanding of how extended meanings arise out of the structural features of reported speech constructions, we will also present brief case studies of two such meanings, that is, the WANT and complementiser/linker subtypes, which can be identified relatively reliably in descriptive grammars.

3 A Sample Study

3.1 methodology and distributions.

In this section we present the first results of a broad typological study on extended reported speech based on a cross-linguistic, genetically balanced sample of 100 languages. We study the distribution of the phenomenon, aiming to show that it is not restricted to certain areas or language groups but can be found around the world (Section 3.2.1) and present case studies of extended reported speech with a WANT interpretation (discussed in Section 3.2.2) and with a complementising/clause linking function (see Section 3.2.3). The purpose of these case studies is to examine structural similarities between examples of extended reported speech with comparable interpretations in unrelated languages, which should lend insight into how these interpretations arise. The two subtypes chosen are particularly useful for such an exploratory analysis, since we will be able to draw on some clear hypotheses for such structural features based on previous literature, which we will be able to test on the basis of our sample.

Before presenting these results, however, we introduce our sample and sampling procedure in Section 3.1.1 and briefly reflect on our methodology and its possibilities and limitations in Section 3.1.2.

3.1.1 Sample

Linguistic typology is a branch of linguistics that seeks to classify and understand the range of variation found in the world’s estimated 7,000 languages. It does so by conducting sample studies of features that are explicitly pre-defined on the basis of semantic and/or abstract formal properties ( Haspelmath, 2010 ), mostly using descriptive grammars, i.e., maximally comprehensive descriptions of individual languages organised in a way that allows for cross-linguistic comparison.

The selection of languages in a typological sample, Rijkhoff et al. (1993) suggest, qualifies these samples as one of two kinds: probability and variety samples. Probability samples are intended as a maximally representative selection of the world’s languages, aimed at answering statistical questions about the frequency with which a feature occurs. To this end, larger language families are better represented in probability samples than smaller language families and the primary focus is on diffused categories 11 . Variety samples, on the other hand, aim to capture a maximum amount of genealogically and topographically distinct languages. To this end, larger language families are not prioritised over smaller ones in the sample, which means that typologically ‘rare’ languages are included in the same ratio as more familiar ones. A variety sample allows us to address the qualitative question whether a linguistic feature is restricted to a particular area or language group and within what range the observed values fall.

For our purposes of demonstrating that extended reported speech (as defined in 1) occurs globally and to understand the variability of the phenomenon, our case study involves a variety sample, constructed following the method proposed by Miestamo et al. (2016) . This method is based on the distribution of languages across six macro-areas and according to a classification in genera, defined by Dryer (1989) as a set of closely related languages with a common time-depth of no more than 3,500 to 4,000 years. Such a classification is inherently subject to ongoing academic debate, with occasional reclassification of individual genera as new diachronic evidence emerges, but for our sample we follow the list of genera distinguished in Dryer and Haspelmath (2013) . The notion of genus also allows us to take into account the diachronic influence of language contact in areas where genetically diverse languages have long been in close proximity, which could indicate patterns of borrowing.

In constructing our sample, we have randomly selected 100 genera, following the areal distributions proposed by Miestamo et al. (2016) , but have favoured languages with larger descriptive grammars over languages with fewer available resources in order to maximise the chance of finding relevant descriptions of extended reported speech. The full sample of languages, including the respective genera and sources used is described in Appendix Table B1.

3.1.2 Methodological Limitations: What This Study Can and Cannot Tell Us

A typological study as attempted in this section faces the obvious challenge that negative evidence does not demonstrate non-existence and positive evidence is not necessarily exhaustive. Put differently, if a descriptive grammar does not present examples of extended reported speech in accordance with our definition this cannot be taken as evidence that the phenomenon is absent in the respective language and if a descriptive grammar does include examples of extended reported speech, these do necessarily illustrate the full range of functions that the phenomenon can have. Unlike the specialised studies surveyed in Section 2, the descriptive grammars examined here do not aim to provide a full and detailed account of extended reported speech and may be based on corpora that lack the phenomenon, even though it exists in the language concerned. For each of the languages in our sample, we fully rely on the judgements by the author of the grammar, who, no matter how thorough and comprehensive the description, inevitably presents a ‘doculect’ ( Cysouw and Good, 2013 ), a language-as-described based on a limited amount of contexts of use and selected, glossed and analysed by an author. Therefore, distributions may under-represent occurrences of extended reported speech if the corpora on which a description is based did not include them, even though extended reported speech does occur in the language. On the other hand, accounts of extended reported speech may be relatively over-represented in languages that belong to an area in which extended reported speech posited is as an areal feature (e.g., Cohen et al., 2002 ) so that it is on the radar of the respective grammar writer.

Despite these limitations, using the definition of extended reported speech in (1) we should be able to identify relevant examples in the sample. We should not expect the phenomenon to be limited to any specific area and to only involve a specific number of meanings. We would also not expect the phenomenon to be limited to certain structural types of reported speech, or involve any particular grammatical features. However any patterns we do find will lend further insight into the nature of extended reported speech.

In this section we only explore a few such patterns with respect to two subtypes of extended reported speech, but for a fuller analysis of the sample see Casartelli (fc). We begin with a more general question: where can examples of the phenomenon be found?

3.2 Results

3.2.1 distribution.

The map in Figure 1 , based on the specific studies surveyed in Section 2, suggested that extended reported speech is not an isolated phenomenon only attested in some parts of the world, but occurs independent of language families or contact areas. The 100-language sample affirms this impression, indicating that we find relevant examples on all major continents.

Figure 3 shows the distribution of such examples: for the locations of languages indicated in orange we find evidence for the occurrence of extended reported speech in accordance with our definition in (1), for the ones indicated in blue the respective descriptive grammars do not include such examples 12 . As discussed, these observations cannot be taken as definite proof that extended reported speech is absent from the respective language, just that in the most comprehensive description of this language it has not been raised as an example or theme.

FIGURE 3 . Extended meanings of reported speech in a 100-language sample.

Figure 3 does not specify the types of meaning extensions found in the sample. For a fuller analysis the reader is referred to Casartelli (fc). However, the distribution confirms the wide spread of extended reported speech across areas and language families, with about half of the languages in the sample displaying the phenomenon (see Appendix Table B1 for a list of included languages).

The discontinuities in the distributions in Figure 3 are somewhat more instructive than the continuous groups of blue or orange dots, since our main goal is to demonstrate the occurrence of extended reported speech independent from geographical regions. Nevertheless, two areas slightly stand out: the sample does not include instances of extended reported speech in the languages of Western Europe, whereas in South-East Asia sources quite commonly describe it. Although such patterns should be interpreted with care given the considerations discussed above, they highlight the distinction between our more restricted notion of extended reported speech, as opposed to the common phenomenon of the creative, metaphorical use of conversation to express non-speech meanings in fictive interaction ( Pascual, 2014 ). While the latter forms of use are common in (spoken) Standard Average European languages, extended reported speech is not 13 . This is particularly clear in the case of Catalan, which figures prominently in the literature on fictive interaction with examples such as (3).

Example (3) counts as fictive interaction since the addressee of this utterance is not actually expected to tell anything about the person ‘who would do something like that’, but it is not an example of extended reported speech within the definition provided in (1). This is not to say that such examples definitely do not exist in Catalan or any of the other SAE languages in our sample 14 : as indicated in Section 3.1.2, it simply means that using the selection criteria we have set for our study we have not identified such examples in the descriptive grammars.

Although the more general cognitive principles that Pascual (2014) describes are likely to be relevant for both synchronically metaphorical uses of fictive interaction and lexicalised and grammaticalised forms of extended reported speech, our approach visualises the latter phenomenon and shows that it can be demonstrated to occur relatively frequently around the world.

In this section and Section 3.2.3 we will illustrate two different subtypes of extended reported speech in our sample: examples with an intention/WANT interpretation and those with a complementiser interpretation. Our aim with these case studies is to examine an aspect of the phenomenon that has so far received little attention, but that has important implications for our understanding of extended reported speech in relation to perspective expressions more widely and other types of reported speech in particular. This concerns the (diachronic) structural means through which the relevant meaning extensions arise.

Our reason for focusing on these two subtypes, the ‘lexicalised’ interpretation WANT and the ‘grammaticalised’ complementiser subtype, is that for these two classes of examples the literature presents sufficient evidence to form hypotheses about cross-linguistic regularities in their structural composition 15 . The WANT interpretation of extended reported speech has variously been described as an ‘intentional’ (cf. Everett, 2008 ; Konnerth, 2020 ) or ‘desiderative’ (cf. McGregor, 2007 ) construction but its cross-linguistic structural realisation appears to be rather consistent: as first described by Rumsey (1982) for Ngarinyin, it often includes an embedded first person and a non-present/non-actual tense in the Report. The schematic representation in (21), adapted from Spronck (2015, 100), illustrates these features.

Throughout this section we introduce various schematic representations of extended reported speech as in (21). Here and below, the order of the Matrix and Report elements is non-iconic: the representation in (21) may reflect a structure in which the Matrix either follows or precedes the Report. The order of the morphemes and lexeme SAY is variable as well. What is relevant, in this instance, are the person and number features of the subject and the future tense in the Report. Examples closely resembling the representation in (21) indeed occur relatively frequently in the sample in extended reported speech with a WANT interpretation, as illustrated in (22).

In addition to singular first person subjects in the Report, all examples in (22) are combined with a non-present tense or non-realis mood. Future tense occurs in several examples below (cf. 24b and 24c), but in these examples we find hortative or optative mood (22a, 22b, 22d), or imperfective aspect (22c). On the basis of these observations we may conclude that the future tense in the Report is slightly too specific: although it occurs in the sample, the common feature between all tenses and moods in the Reports of extended reported speech illustrated so far appears to be that they place the event described in the Report in some time other than the here-and-now. We will label this observation IRRealis, as in (23).

In addition to first person singular, we also find other person and number values in the Reports of WANT extended reported speech, such as non-singular forms. In the Yeri example in (24a), both the subject of the Matrix and Report are first person plural. In (24b) the Matrix subject is coreferential with a first person dual in the Report. In contrast, (24a) has a third person subject in the Report and also in the Matrix. In accordance with (23), the tense/mood values in the Report units in (24) are all non-present/non-realis.

These examples indicate that rather than taking the specific person and number values first person singular as a typical feature of WANT extended reported speech, a better generalisation is to highlight what it signals: a first person subject in the Report necessarily indicates co-referentiality with the subject of the Matrix. In addition to first person singular marking in the Report, co-referentiality may also be indicated by having the same person/number values in both the Report and Matrix units, viz. first person plural in (24a) and in (24b) (also combined with same subject marking in the Matrix) and co-referential third person plural marking in (24c).

In accordance with these observations, we may update the schematic representation of WANT extended reported speech as in (25), in which the coreferential relations between the subject S in the Report and in the Matrix are indicated by the subscript index i.

The remaining examples of WANT interpretations in the sample show minor variations on the pattern illustrated above. Kambera in example (26a) has a first person subject in the report, but no apparent tense/mood marking on the auxiliary verb ‘try’ (but note the ME based on the author’s alternative translation with ‘let’s’). A similar observation can be made for the Paiute example in (26b), which has a generic tense (TNS) form. This form is due, however, to a morphosyntactic restriction in the language, which disallows the combination of any other tense forms with applicative marking ( Thornes, 2003 , 398).

Even though both examples in (26) could be seen as slight variations of the representation in (25), it appears to capture most of the examples of the WANT subtype of extended reported speech in the sample, and the previous literature (again, note that the word order in (25) is non-iconic).

This leads us to three preliminary conclusions: first, the relative similarity of WANT extended reported speech across unrelated languages and areas is unlikely to be coincidental. This suggests a more fundamental common factor underlying these examples. Second, the similarities between the occurrences of extended reported speech are not only semantic, the examples in this section also appear to share a structural basis. This observation is not new, for example Reesink (1993) , 223 notes that all examples of extended reported speech in Usan involve a same subject marker, indicating co-referentiality between the subject of the Report and that of the Matrix clause, whereas ‘regular’ reported speech in the language does not require this. While we would not predict that all extended reported speech across languages can be qualified in terms of a restricted set of formal features, the relative frequency and correspondence of structures involved in extended reported speech deserves more attention than it has received in the literature so far. Third, and perhaps most significantly, the features as represented in (25) cross-cut common subtypes of reported speech, such as the binary opposition between direct and indirect speech. This has implications for our understanding of the boundaries between perspective constructions and non-perspectival constructions, as we argue in Section 4.

3.2.3 Complementiser/Clause Linking

Examples of extended reported speech displaying a complementiser/clause linking function are slightly less numerous in our cross-linguistic sample, but nonetheless occur five times across five language families and two linguistic macroareas 19 .

Typical examples of this strategy are shown in (27), where in Gumer the construction ‘consists of a quoted sentence concluded by a converbal form of bar [‘say’] followed by the matrix verb’ ( Völlmin, 2017 , 168) and in Stieng, spoken in Cambodia and Vietnam, the clause linking function is expressed with a conjunctive form of the speech verb.

In both of the languages in (27), the complementising use of speech verbs is restricted to the semantic domains of speech and cognition ( Völlmin, 2017 , 168; Bon, 2014 , 487): in (27a) it precedes a form of od - ‘tell’, in (27b) of gǝt ‘know’.

A variation on the subordinated forms in (27) is shown in Darai (28), where the complementising speech verb receives a sequential marker.

Alternatively, SAY-derived ‘complementisers’ may also remain uninflected, as in (29).

The Fongbe example (29a) has three occurrences of ɖɔ ‘say’, the latter two of which act as a linking element between the main and complement clauses, and to which we therefore refer as a complementiser. A similar structure is attested in (29b).

The examples above share several features that we might represent schematically as in (30): all include two clausal units linked by a non-finite form of SAY. As in the representation in (25), the order of the elements in this representation varies depending on the respective language.

The variable ‘SAY:non-finite’ may either constitute a non-inflecting form or a subordinate form of SAY in the examples given here, which seem mostly representative for the type of examples commonly presented for the complementiser type of extended reported speech adduced in the literature (cf. Klamer, 2000 ; Heine and Kuteva, 2002 ; Güldemann, 2008 ; Matić and Pakendorf, 2013 ; Kuteva et al., 2019 ). The examples all contain a clause on each side of the SAY verb, which is consistent with Matrix and Report units. However, they also contain an additional main verb, providing lexical meaning to the sentence/respective clause. For this reason, the units represented in (30) have received the more abstract label ‘clause’, although they could mostly be interpreted as (originating from) Matrix and Report units as well.

We would like to address three observations about the examples of the ‘complementiser’ subtype illustrated in this section and in Section 2.2.2. A first observation that stands out, particularly given the broad grammatical label ‘complementiser’ that we have given to this subclass, is the very small lexical range of main verbs with which it appears to combine: the lexical matrix verbs used in the examples above are either speech verbs as well (27a, 28 and 29a), or cognition verbs: more specifically, verbs of knowing (27a and 29b). In Section 2.2.2, examples (14a) and (14b) also involved cognition verbs, viz. ‘think’ and ‘search’, respectively. Consequently, calling the SAY:non-finite form in (30) a ‘complementiser’, ‘linker’ or ‘subordinator’ is perhaps slightly deceptive: in many languages, the application of this form is limited to only a small class of complement-taking verbs, closely related to the semantic domain of speech and thought.

This impression is affirmed by the complement types Heine and Kuteva (2002) , 261–265/ Kuteva et al. (2019) , 375–379 and Matić and Pakendorf (2013) , 372–375 illustrate, which mainly involve main clauses of speech, thought and knowing, as well as perception and fear. However, the gradual dissemination of the structure represented in (30) with various types of main verbs is instructive. On the one hand, it illustrates a common process in grammaticalisation, in which the shift from a lexical to a grammatical element is not a matter of all-or-nothing, but spreads from one or a few lexical combinations and constructions to ever more lexical contexts ( De Smet, 2012 ). It also neatly suggests a path through which structures as in (30) become established, from occurring with more speech-like Matrix/main clauses, to increasingly less speech-related ones.

This suggest that qualifying the status of SAY:non-finite in (30) in strict categorial terms, i.e. as either a lexical element or a complementiser/‘linking element’, may not always be possible, because this status varies between occurrences. The types of non-finite forms found in the examples above reflect this as well: dependent inflections as in (27) may signal varying degrees of conventionalisation.

Studying the behaviour of complementiser uses of SAY in Austronesian languages, Klamer (2000) presents a similar conclusion about the syntactic status of these elements and proposes that the interpretation falls out from the defective inflection patterns of SAY:non-finite forms which (30) displays. Specifically, the ‘SAY complementiser’ in languages that have it, commonly shows no or non-matching person features to co-index arguments in the main clause, and this ‘bleached’ argument structure coerces a ‘bleached’ semantic interpretation. Klamer’s analysis is consistent with our findings and leads us to a second observation about complementiser extended reported speech: although the details differ, the WANT and complementiser subtypes of extended reported speech both have consistent structural features, as we have schematically represented in (25) and (30) that correlate with their respective interpretation. In both instances, these involve, among other features, the use or lack of certain person referential features and/or tense and mood forms 21 .

A third observation we would like to address here goes back to the complement types found in (30), which, in the sample, divide into speech complements and knowledge complements. The exact syntactic status of these complement types requires closer investigation for each individual language and would be weighed differently by various syntactic models, so we will refrain from detailed generalisations about the syntactic structures involved. However, there is widespread agreement among both formal and functional approaches to syntax that the scope properties of speech complements and knowledge complements (i.e., a clausal structure that expresses what-is-said as opposed to a clausal structure that expresses what-is-known) are distinct ( Hooper and Thompson, 1973 ; Boye, 2012 ; Gentens, 2020 ). Specifically, the syntactic integration of knowledge complements is assumed to be ‘tighter’ than that of speech complements, which has direct consequences for their interpretation: the content of the former is asserted by the speaker, whereas that of the latter is not, cf. (31) 22 .

As (31) illustrates, both orders of complement taking predicates are possible, but in (31a) the interpretation of the unit between square brackets is an illocution, some utterance attributed to Alex, which the current speaker does not state as fact. In (32b), the complement clause marked by the square brackets is asserted by the speaker: the suggestion that the second person referent actually made the statement about the batteries is an integral part of the speaker’s message. This effect cannot simply be attributed to the difference between the verbal predicates ‘say’ and ‘know’ (see Gentens, 2020 ). It relates to more general observations about scope relations in language in which elements to illocutionary meaning have a wider scope and are less tightly integrated in clauses than, e.g., elements that relate to epistemic meanings, which, in turn, have a wider scope than, e.g., temporal elements, cf. (32).

As has been observed by both functionalist and formalist grammarians (cf. Dik, 1997a ; Dik, 1997b ; Cinque, 1999 ), adverbs targeting various parts of a sentence can be used to diagnose boundaries and scope relations between them. In (32a), the adverb ‘quickly’ (a temporal adverb) only has scope over the activity ‘read the instructions’, ‘probably’ (an epistemic adverb) over ‘did not read the instructions quickly’ and ‘frankly’ (an illocutionary adverb) the entire sentence. Re-ordering the adverbs in (32a) with the effect that, e.g., temporal and epistemic adverbs have scope over an illocutionary adverb results in an unintelligible sentence (32b).

Readers will weigh observations like those about the English sentences in (31) and (32) differently and, depending on other assumptions about the nature of language, explanations vary. However, the idea that sentence units have distinct scope properties that correlate with their meaning and can be classified into units that are more and less deeply syntactically embedded, is both pervasive and robust ( Hengeveld, 1989 ; Boye, 2012 ; Cinque, 2013 ).

With respect to the distinction between the complements found with the complementiser subtype of extended reported speech, we suggest that they seem to either constitute illocutions or propositions, which suggests varying degrees of syntactic integration (as in 31).

3.3 Summary

In Section 3 we reported on the first results of a sample study into extended reported speech. All observations introduced here will be discussed further in Casartelli (fc), but the initial analysis revealed several properties of extended reported speech that provide further insight into the phenomenon.

We found that both of the subtypes examined that they display considerable structural similarities within each respective type. We also identified three more general processes in the grammaticalisation and conventionalisation of these subtypes, which we would like to summarise as in (33).

In the next section we will relate the three processes described in (33) to properties of extended reported speech more widely.

4 Discussion: Reported Speech and the Evolution of Grammar

In this section we place the empirical observations from the preceding sections in a broader perspective and suggest some implications for our understanding of reported speech as a linguistic structure and its relation to grammatical and lexical meaning. First, in Section 4.1, we return to the three processes summarised in (33) and examine their role in the grammaticalisation of extended reported speech. Particularly, we relate these processes to the meaning of reported speech as a source construction for all the various meanings and structures observed in the preceding sections. In Section 4.2 we briefly contemplate the variety of structures involved in extended reported speech and compare these to standard, commonly recognised subtypes of reported speech, particularly direct and indirect speech constructions and quotative/reportative evidentiality. We suggest that the observation that extended reported speech cross-cuts such classical categorisations of reported speech indicates that there is more continuity within the domain of reported speech than is sometimes assumed. Finally, in Section 4.3 we return to the research programme of fictive interaction and propose an interpretation of extended reported speech that not only places metaphors of communication centrally in the way in which humans think and speak about the world, but that acknowledges meta-linguistic reflection and reported speech as shaping forces in the emergence and evolution of grammatical categories. This is, admittedly, a speculative story, but for us it is also a significant motivation for the importance of understanding the nature and variation of extended reported speech.

4.1 Back to the Source (Construction): Recasting, Rescaling and Semantic Bleaching in Extended Reported Speech

The analysis that (at least some of) the meanings attested in extended reported speech fall out from a diachronic process of semantic bleaching suggests that it should be possible to relate them to meaning components in the original source construction. Spronck and Nikitina (2019) propose three such meaning components for reported speech, as summarised in (4.1):

Despite the great variety of forms of reported speech in the languages of the world, the definition in (34) suggests that a reported speech construction should at least indicate three meanings: first, it should signal, as per (34a), that the Report unit is ‘demonstrated’ or ‘depicted’ rather than stated ( Clark and Gerrig, 1990 ; Davidson, 2015 ; Clark, 2016 ). This property sets R apart from immediately surrounding clauses. As per (34b), reported speech also introduces an opposition between a perception event and the current speech event, which is the definition of an evidential meaning Jakobson (1957) coins. Third, as per (34c), reported speech explicitly or implicitly allows for (inferences about) the attitude of the current speaker towards the content of the attributed utterance (cf. ‘distancing’ in terms of Güldemann, 2008 ) 23 .

If the definition in (34) is on the right track, the process of ‘semantic bleaching’ in extended reported speech should draw on one or more of these meaning components. That is, over the course of grammaticalisation some of these semantic features become irrelevant or develop a broader interpretation.

For each of the extended meanings illustrated in Section 2 we may indeed hypothesise that this is the case: ‘demonstratedness’ may serve as a source meaning for (grammatical) functions relating to prominence (cf. discourse functions), comparativity (cf. similative) and unithood (cf. complement clause marking). Interestingly, these meanings are very close to the kinds of meaning extensions of fictive interaction which Jarque (2016) , 175–181 finds in sign languages 24 . Under our approach to evidentiality this semantic component of reported speech could extend to other functions that introduce a contrast between two events, such as temporal meanings (cf. Zeman, 2019 ), as well as evidential extensions themselves. The modal meaning of reported speech may further account for the multitude of attitudinal meaning extensions.

Table 1 summarises the hypotheses briefly stated above. Specifically, for the meanings listed in (19) the table suggests to which meaning components (or combinations thereof) they may be related; the Evid(ential) meaning (34b), Mod(al)meaning (34c) or Dem(onstrated) status (34a). For meaning extensions for which the respective component appears to have been completely backgrounded, the label is struck out in Table 1 . If an Evidential, Modal or Demonstrated meaning could be interpreted as having served as input for the specific meaning extension, that is it may explain part of the extended meaning but does not fully correspond to the extended meaning itself (as in the hypotheses posited in the preceding paragraph), it has been italicised and underlined. We will not discuss these possible grammaticalisation paths in further detail; our main aim in proposing them is to suggest that despite that great variety of subtypes of extended reported speech, they may be given explanations based on a limited number of variables: the semantics of reported speech constructions and a combination of three processes, viz. semantic bleaching, recasting and rescaling.

TABLE 1 . Suggested processes of semantic bleaching, rescaling and recasting in extended reported speech. The table lists for each of the subtypes of extended reported speech, which of the three semantic components of reported speech, viz. evid(entiality), mod(ality) and dem(onstratedness), are bleached, indicated by being struck out or extended, in which case the relevant semantic component is underlined and italicised . For rescaling ‘R >’ indicates the type of semantic unit into which the Report is reanalysed (the precise labels ‘name’, ‘event’ etc. are indicative and should be more narrowly defined in future research). The roles indicated after ‘recasting’ suggest the semantic interpretation of the referent who is marked as the reported speaker in the extended reported speech construction.

The processes of recasting and rescaling were introduced in (33) and roughly correspond to those types of extended reported speech in which the reported speaker appears to have acquired a non-locutionary role, for example that of a ‘thinker’ or ‘intention holder’, and those in which the Report is not interpreted as a reported utterance. These two processes obviously mutually imply each other, but could still be seen as distinct diachronic pathways. Table 1 suggests the relevance of these processes for each of the subtypes of extended reported speech.

A full analysis of the structural diachronic changes and dynamic variation in the sample languages lies beyond the scope of this article (but see Casartelli, 2019 ), but Table 1 suggests that rescaling takes several forms: the Report unit is typically an illocutionary unit, but may be reinterpreted as a clausal unit of various kinds (in the case of, e.g., ‘highlighting’ and ‘topic’). In, for example, modal extended reported speech, R is interpreted as a proposition 25 , and even a smaller scope unit for, for example, the aspectual subtype, which we have labelled ‘event’ in Table 1 . In addition, the subject of the Matrix unit, typically the reported speaker, may be recast as, for example, a thinker, an intention holder, or ‘aspectual viewpoint taker’, often in combination with a rescaled R.

With this brief semantic discussion we have aimed to show that rather than constituting a scattered range of unrelated meanings, the functions attested in extended reported speech can be captured using a rather restricted set of variables that are directly related to the semantics of reported speech.

4.2 Extended Reported Speech and the Study of Perspective

As indicated in our case studies in Section 3 and as suggested by several observations in Section 2, meaning extensions in reported speech often seem restricted to specific structural contexts. For example, Reesink (1993) notes with respect to Usan extended reported speech:

‘It is clear that all seven [extended] “functions” exhibit only one form of the verb ‘to say’, the medial [Same Subject] form […] I would suggest, then, that Usan has only two functions for qamb ‘to say’. The first is the general function to refer to the act of speaking or telling. This allows all possible forms of the verb paradigm. The second function is what we could call a grammaticalized one, which allows only the medial Same Subject form qamb . This one covers all instances that refer to “inner speech”’ ( Reesink, 1993 , 223).

The relative flexibility of the ‘regular’ reported speech construction compared to reported speech structures with extended meanings in Usan is mirrored by multiple accounts. Also, decreased variation in the choice of indexical values of pronouns may covary with the extended meanings of reported speech more generally. This is the case in the example of Sanzi reported thought in (14a), which shows conflicting referential values (in itself a more common property in Caucasian languages). In (14a), while the bound pronouns in the Report have a third person referent, the free pronouns have a first person value, yet both index the same referent, viz. the person uttering the example at the current speech moment ( Forker, 2019 ). In Sanzi this appears to be a strategy to identify specific referents both in reported speech and extended interpretations, but in the Daghestanian language Tabasaran such referential conflicts between bound pronouns and pronominal clitics appear to be restricted to reported speech, and not allowed in (otherwise similar) forms of reported thought ( Yaroshevich, 2020 ).

As Nikitina (2020) discovers, logophoric pronouns, which typically signal coreferentiality between a referent of the Matrix (often the subject) and the subject of the Report, are also required for extended meanings such as the inchoative interpretation in Wan (2). As we found in Section 3.2.2, the observation by Rumsey (1990) that the WANT interpretation of reported speech in Ngarinyin is restricted to Reports with first person subjects, a finding replicated in other Australian languages ( McGregor, 2007 , 2014 ) and elsewhere (cf. Everett, 2008 , 389), also occurred in our cross-linguistic sample.

Chappell (2012) , 81 explicitly proposes the following constructional frames in Sinitic which correspond to specific subtypes of extended reported speech:

The construction frames in (35) are distinguished by word order (i.e., the position of SAY) and the specific combination of elements. An interesting example of such a combination is the conditional embedding ‘if SAY’ in (35e), which results in an irrealis reading.

It remains to be seen to what extent the subtypes of extended reported speech correlate with consistent, cross-linguistically recurring structural features. What these observations do suggest, however, is that in the languages surveyed in this paper, a number of structural elements, like those summarised in (36), can be recruited to signal a range of extended meanings.

These strategies are by no means a complete list of possible structural prompts for meaning extensions (e.g., prosodic distinctions are likely to occur more widely as well; also cf. Spronck, 2016 ), but they hold an important implication: each of the properties in (36) is associated with other aspects of the classification of reported speech constructions. For example, the indexical properties of reported speech are commonly associated with the opposition between direct speech and indirect speech (as in 37 and 38, respectively). The integration of the Matrix and Report units corresponds to a distinction between having two syntactically separate (or loosely connected) clauses as in direct speech, two more integrated clauses, as in the complementation structure of (English) indirect speech and, e.g., even further structurally integrated expressions of Matrix units, as in adverbial (or morphological) expressions of reportative evidentiality (as in 39). Finally, we have also observed that over the course of grammaticalisation, Matrix clauses may become less clearly marked, a distinction commonly associated with the opposition between types of reported speech with a clearly indicated source and types in which this in not the case, as in free indirect speech (as in 40), where only the Report unit is explicitly expressed.

Extended reported speech intersects the four types of reported speech illustrated in (37–40), but also defies this classification, with some examples not clearly belonging to any of these four classes. For the study of perspective this has the implication that in extended reported speech we see non-perspective expressions emerge, both semantically ( Gentens et al., 2019 , 159) and structurally, out of perspectival constructions. Reported speech typically signals that the content of the Report is grounded in a perspective other than that of the current speaker at the speech moment. For most examples of extended reported speech the perspective associated with the Matrix and the Report is the same for both unit, however, that is, that of the current speaker. Where the construction involved is still structurally clearly identifiable as reported speech it constitutes a form-function mismatch in which the typical meaning of this construction would indicate a change in perspective, but its interpretation is ‘perspective persistent’ in terms of Gentens et al. (2019) and Spronck et al. (2020) . The loss of perspective meaning may also be iconically signalled in the linguistic structure through the various marking variations found in extended reported speech 26 .

The examples illustrated in this study appear to suggest that extended reported speech often also operates in the categorial twilight area between direct speech and non-direct speech. Even though most authors in our survey in Section 2 consider reported speech expressions other than direct speech marked or even exceptional in the respective language, very few of the examples of extended reported speech cited are common direct speech structures. Pascual (2014) , 49 makes a similar observation about her data sample: ‘On the one hand, the cases discussed in this section share all the formal characteristics of direct speech. On the other hand, their possible appearance after complementizer ‘that’, their multifunctionality, and their type rather than token interpretation constitute features traditionally associated with indirect speech’. We would add that also structurally , extended reported speech often displays ‘indirect-like’ features.

4.3 A Speculative Story: Reported Speech as the Origin of Grammar

After having noted that extended reported speech constitutes a wide range of subtypes, that are nevertheless quite regular and can be related to a common semantic origin and (more impressionistically) share certain structural features, we would like to return to the research programme that we started out with at the beginning of this paper: the study of fictive interaction. The implication that extended reported speech has for this research programme is admittedly speculative, but to us it also seems to be the most exciting one: in extended reported speech a connection appears to emerge between the representation of other people’s utterances and grammar. This allows us to propose a fundamental hypothesis about how these grammatical meanings may ultimately have arisen in the evolution of language.

Pascual (2014) convincingly demonstrates that metaphors of conversation are a frequent strategy for speakers to explain complex concepts and may affect language at any grammatical level. Furthermore, our ability to reason, according to Mercier and Sperber (2017) , arose out of a discursive need to evaluate the effectiveness of our arguments in conversation. In human evolution, this ability must have been predated by the capacity for being able to recognise the world view and knowledge of others as different from our own, popularly referred to as ‘theory of mind’ ( Tomasello, 2014 ). Like most evolved capacities, this is not a uniquely human trait ( de Waal, 2016 ), but it is a necessary step for the use of symbolic communication ( Dor, 2017 ).

Built on these cognitive foundations, the assumption that language started out as situation-specific calls, developing into non-situation specific symbolic conventions for communication of ever increasing complexity (cf. Dor, 2015 , ch. 8) seems relatively uncontroversial. But this scenario also assigns a central role to linguistic reflexivity in language evolution: it requires speakers to reflect on the form and meaning of what-is-said, the ability to ‘turn language on itself’ ( Lucy, 1993 ). The type of linguistic structures specifically dedicated to this task are reported speech. If linguistic reflexivity, that is, thinking and talking about language, is at the heart of the complexification of grammar, reported speech is at the heart of language evolution, which would at once explain its universality in the languages of the world and its relation to grammatical categories, as indicated by the range of functions summarised in Section 2.

We do not wish to suggest that any of the languages cited in this paper represent an evolutionary early stage of grammatical development. Given the importance of metaphors of conversation in language ( Pascual, 2014 ), grammaticalisation and semantic extension of reported speech structures may be cyclical or run parallel to other diachronic developments. We also do not suggest that in deep history all markers of, e.g., aspect or causation must have emerged out of reported speech. Rather, we would propose that the semantic components of reported speech provide a model for the lexical and grammatical meanings listed in (19). Once the communicative utility of this meaning is adopted by the speech community, it may have been marked through a special form of a reported speech construction, or a newly emerged form dedicated to this specific meaning. In this scenario, reported speech constructions may either have acted as a formal source for grammatical categories associated with the functions in (19) or a semantic model.

In order to test this hypothesis we need to further examine the semantic commonalities between reported speech and the respective grammatical categories involved in the extensions, as well as the semantic oppositions that exist between extended reported speech and morphological categories in the languages that both have, e.g., tense meanings based on reported speech forms and a separate morphological tense form.

Nonetheless, the regularity of the large range of semantic extensions of reported speech, as well as their apparent similarity to the meanings of some of the most basic grammatical categories in the languages of the world, is unlikely to be coincidental. Although the evolutionary story sketched here is inevitably speculative, we believe that it is also a plausible story about the development of grammatical complexity and constitution of grammatical categories. Above all, it motivates the importance of gaining a deeper understanding of the diversity of structures and meanings associated with extended reported speech and their relation to perspective expressions and grammar more generally.

5 Conclusion

In this article we have aimed to develop a typological approach to extended reported speech, highlighting both the wide-ranging forms and functions of the phenomenon and its apparent regularity. Ultimately, this leads us to suggest that extended reported speech constitutes a fertile birth environment for core grammatical meanings: the list of subtypes summarised in (19) includes lexical extensions alongside some of the most common verbal categories found in the languages of the world: evidentiality, modality, aspect/tense, valency change, among others.

Much work remains to be done in order to gain a fuller picture of both the semantic patterns found in extended reported speech around the world, and of the structural patterns employed to express these meanings. These typological questions should be answered in dialogue with theoretical discussions about how quotation shifts perspective and what the semantic status is of the content of a Report; as well as what aspects of reported speech are conventional and which are pragmatic.

This may ultimately lead us to an understanding of why grammar is the way it is.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author Contributions

Both authors discussed the content and structure of the article. DC constructed the typological sample, produced the map and collected the examples cited in Section 4. SS designed the study and wrote the article.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments, to Sonja Zeman for exceptional editorial support and comments, to Angela Terrill for comments and copy-editing, as well as to the participants of our bi-weekly online data workshop on reported speech (October 2020 - June 2021), particularly (in alphabetical order), Anna Bugaeva, Sonja Gipper, Guillaume Guitang, Izabela Jordanoska, Tatiana Nikitina, Rebecca Paterson, Lacina Salué, Elena Skribnik, Adam Tallman and Denys Teptiuk for comments on an earlier draft of this paper and stimulating discussion. We thank the University of Helsinki for financial support through the project ‘Language emerging from human sociality: the case of speech representation.’

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2021.624486/full#supplementary-material

1 Pascual (2014) uses this label to describe interpretations relating to the internal organisation of an event (particularly inchoative meanings; see Section 2.2.2). This class roughly corresponds to the function we will describe as ‘aspect’ below.

2 Since the segmentation and labelling in the morphemic gloss (i.e., the second line in all examples) reflect careful analytical choices on the part of the individual authors cited, most glosses in the examples introduced here have been preserved from the original source reference. Where these include abbreviations that do not follow the standard of the Leipzig Glossing Rules ( Bickel et al., 2008 ) these are listed in the glossary at the end of this article. The only exception to this practice has been glosses that conflict with those in the Leipzig Glossing Rules, as in (13a), which uses ‘S’ for ‘singular’, whereas it indicates an intransitive subject in Bickel et al. (2008) . This example also contains the gloss ‘DEC’ for ‘declarative’, which is minimally distinct from the standardised gloss ‘DECL’. In such cases we have revised the glosses in accordance with the Leipzig Glossing Rules and have explicitly indicated this in the reference by adding ‘gloss updated’.

3 We will avoid the misleading term ‘literal meaning’ to refer to this line, since it suggests that the meaning indicated in the translation line (i.e., the third lines of the examples) is a metaphorical interpretation of the Mock English translation, which we do not assume to be the case for these examples.

4 The larger dots on the map represent areal studies, which include multiple languages near the indicated location.

5 Both the observation that the main element in the Matrix unit can have a broader lexical meaning than ‘say’ and does not even need to be a fully inflecting verb, as is the case for many of Güldemann’s ‘quotative indexes’ motivate the inclusive formulation in our comparative concept in 1 that ‘M minimally consists of or contains an element that can be translated as ‘say’ ’.

6 The observation that the Matrix unit in (9b) is subordinated under the conditional/temporal adverb ké ‘if’ is potentially relevant for the interpretation of this example, but not a requirement, as demonstrated by (2). We will explore potential connections between morphosyntactic structure and interpretation in Section 4.

7 This makes the lexeme SAY the most productive source for grammaticalised elements in Kuteva et al.’s lexicon, with only the entry ‘locative’ listing more functions.

8 The Matrix verb in (16) contains the incorporated noun ‘mouth’, which could suggest that the intention is actually spoken, but this construction is also used for the expression of thought (cf. Ershova, 2012 , 78), so it does not seem a necessary interpretation for this example.

9 For example, Pascual (2014) , 83 presents her pioneering study as a ‘cross-linguistic study of direct speech for non-quotation’ (emphasis added), despite citing examples that do not represent direct speech in the chapter and allowing for a more inclusive description of the phenomenon elsewhere.

10 Depending on an author’s theoretical stance, this situation may or may not jeopardise their account, but in any case it complicates it if one has to unify the observation that a similar meaning extension arises from two different sources (a lexical and a non-lexical one), which is an additional step not required for the analysis that the Matrix unit is the relevant source element.

11 An increased awareness of the importance of language contact and Sprachbund phenomena in the spread of linguistic features casts doubt on the assumption that genealogical affiliation can be taken as a primary selection criterion in probability samples, but this issue should not concern us here.

12 Like the map in Figures 1 , 3 , was produced using the R-package lingtypology ( Moroz, 2017 ).

13 It is likely that European sign languages show more evidence of extended reported speech, given other observations about grammaticalised forms of fictive interaction found by, e.g., Jarque and Pascual (2015) and Jarque (2016) . Unfortunately, our sample only includes oral languages but the increasing availability of descriptive grammars will hopefully allow us to discuss examples from sign languages in future work.

14 And this English sentence is, in fact, an indication that fictive interaction is a much broader phenomenon than extended reported speech.

15 See Casartelli (fc) for more detailed analyses and accounts of other subtypes of extended reported speech.

16 For the remaining examples in this section we list the macro-area in the sample, rather than countries in which the respective language is spoken.

17 Like in other Worrorran languages ( Rumsey, 1990 ) and Nyulnyulan languages ( McGregor, 2014 ), the Matrix predicate yi-in Worrorra can both be translated as ‘say’, ‘think’ or ‘do’. Clendon (2014) opts for the gloss ‘do’, but the description in the grammar demonstrates that ‘say’ is one of the available translations, qualifying this example as extended reported speech in accordance with our definition in (4b).

18 This alternative translation is provided in the original source.

19 Again, note that no conclusions can be drawn about the absolute or relative occurrence of this subtype of extended reported speech on the basis of these frequencies, since the sources in the sample do not necessarily provide a fully comprehensive overview of the phenomenon in the respective language.

20 Original translation: ‘Le cerf court, il sait qu’il y a une falaise, il s’arr’te et me fait tomber’.

21 For similar observations regarding the Biblical Hebrew complementiser lemor and further analysis in the context of fictive interaction, see Sandler and Pascual (2019) .

22 We thank a reviewer for emphasising the relevance of assertion for the interpretation of extended reported speech and apply it in our notion of ‘rescaling’ below.

23 This property explains why elements that in other grammatical contexts do not carry any specific attitudinal properties, such as pronouns or tenses, can gain modal meanings in the context of reported speech (cf. Zemp, 2020 ).

24 While Jarque (2016) discusses ‘fictive questions’, not extended reported speech, the grammaticalised meanings of fictive questions correspond quite closely to the ones we attribute to the ‘demonstrated’ status of reported speech. We thank a reviewer for pointing out this connection.

25 Following Boye (2012) , 204 we also classify the difference between quotative and reportative evidentiality in terms of the type of embedded unit: a locution vs a proposition, respectively.

26 Note that this phenomenon complements a reverse diachronic direction that elements within reported speech can display with respect to perspectival interpretations: word classes and categories that do not necessarily signal perspective meanings may gain such a meaning in the context of reported speech. A particularly prominent example of such a development is formed by pronouns, which may develop evidential meanings (cf. Zemp, 2020 ) or take on referential meanings specific to the reported speech context (cf. Nikitina, 2012 ).

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality . Oxford etc: Oxford University Press .

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin . Austin: University of Texas. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist .

Baranova, V. (2015). Grammaticalization Paths of the Verb Gi - ‘say’ in Kalmyk. Mongolica Pragensia . Linguistics, Ethnolinguistics, Religion Cult. 8 (2), 57–76.

Google Scholar

Bickel, B., Comrie, B., and Haspelmath, M. (2008). The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for Interlinear Morpheme-By-Morpheme Glosses. Most recent version available at: https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php .

Birchall, J. (2018). Historical Change in Reported Speech Constructions in the Chapacuran Family. Jhl 8 (1), 7–30. doi:10.1075/jhl.00003.bir

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bon, N. (2014). Une grammaire de la langue stieng, langue en danger du Cambodge et du Vietnam . Ph. D. thesis. Université Lumière Lyon 2.

Boye, K. (2012). Epistemic Meaning: A Crosslinguistic and Functional-Cognitive Study . Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton .

Bugaeva, A. (2008). Reported Discourse and Logophoricity in Southern Hokkaido Dialects of Ainu. Gengo Kenkyu 133, 31–75.

Casartelli, D. (2019). Beyond Speech Reporting: A Crosslinguistic Analysis of Non-locutionary Meanings in Reported Speech . Ph. D. thesis, Helsinki: University of Helsinki In preparation.

Chappell, H. (2012). “ Say in Sinitic: From Verba Dicendi to Attitudinal Discourse Markers,” in Grammaticalization and (Inter-)subjectification . Editors J. van der Auwera, and J. Nuyts (Wetteren: Universa Press ), 81–110.

Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective . Oxford etc: Oxford University Press .

Cinque, G. (2013). Cognition, Universal Grammar, and Typological Generalizations. Lingua 130, 50–65. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007

Clark, H. H. (2016). Depicting as a Method of Communication. Psychol. Rev. 123 (3), 324–347. doi:10.1037/rev0000026

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Clark, H. H., and Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as Demonstrations. Language 66, 764–805. doi:10.2307/414729

Clendon, M. (2014). Worrorra: A Language of the north-west Kimberley Coast . Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press .

Coate, H. H. J. (1966). The Rai and the Third Eye North-west Australian Beliefs. Oceania 37 (2), 93–123. doi:10.1002/j.1834-4461.1966.tb01790.x

Cohen, D., Simeone-Senelle, M.-C., and Vanhove, M. (2002). “11. The Grammaticalization of ‘say' and ‘Do',” in Reported Discourse. A Meeting Ground for Different Linguisitc Domains . Editors T. Güldeman, and M. von Rocador (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins ), 227–251. doi:10.1075/tsl.52.17coh

Cysouw, M., and Good, J. (2013). Languoid, Doculect, and Glossonym: Formalizing the Notion ‘language’. Lang. Documentation Conservation 7, 331–360.

Davidson, K. (2015). Quotation, Demonstration, and Iconicity. Linguist Philos. 38, 477–520. doi:10.1007/s10988-015-9180-1

De Smet, H. (2012). The Course of Actualization. Language 88 (3), 601–633. doi:10.1353/lan.2012.0056

de Waal, F. (2016). Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? New York/London: W. W. Norton .

Deibler, E. (1971). Uses of the Verb ‘to Say’ in Gahuku. Kivung 4 (2), 101–110.

Dhakal, D. N. (2012). Darai Grammar, Volume 489 of Languages of the World/Materials : München: Lincom .

Dik, S. C. (1997a). The Theory of Functional Grammar: Part 1 the Structure of the Clause . Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton .

Dik, S. C. (1997b). The Theory of Functional Grammar: Part 2 Complex and Derived Constructions . Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton .

Dor, D. (2015). The Instruction of Imagination: Language as a Social Communication Technology . Oxford etc: Oxford University Press .

Dor, D. (2017). The Role of the Lie in the Evolution of Human Language. Lang. Sci. 63, 44–59. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2017.01.001

Dryer, M. S. (1989). Large Linguistic Areas and Language Sampling. Stud. Lang. 13 (2), 257–292. doi:10.1075/sl.13.2.03dry

Dryer, M. S., and Haspelmath, M. (2013). in The World Atlas of Language Structures Online (Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology ).

Ershova, K. (2012). Reported Speech and Reportative Grammaticalization in Besleney Kabardian. In Proceedings of the Second Central European Conference in Linguistics for Postgraduate Students , 71–87.

Everett, D. L. (2008). “Wari' Intentional State Constructions,” in Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface . Editor R. D. Van Valin Jr. (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins ), 381–409. doi:10.1075/slcs.105.27eve

Forker, D. (2019). Reported Speech Constructions in Sanzhi Dargwa and Their Extension to Other Areas of Grammar. Sprachwissenschaft 44 (2).

Gentens, C., Sansiñena, M. S., Spronck, S., and Van linden, A. (2019). Irregular Perspective Shifts and Perspective Persistence, Discourse-Oriented and Theoretical Approaches. Prag. 29 (2), 155–169. Special issue on perspective-indexing constructions: discourse and theory. doi:10.1075/prag.18050.gen

Gentens, C. (2020). The Factive-Reported Distinction in English . New York: De Gruyter .

Güldemann, T. (2008). Quotative Indexes in African Languages: A Synchronic and Diachronic Survey . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter .

Heine, B., and Kuteva, T. (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization . Cambridge etc: Cambridge University Press .

Hengeveld, K. (1989). Layers and Operators in Functional Grammar. J. Ling. 25 (1), 127–157. doi:10.1017/s0022226700012123

Hooper, J. B., and Thompson, S. A. (1973). On the Applicability of Root Transformations. Linguistic Inq. 4 (4), 465–497.

Hsieh, F. (2012). On the Grammaticalization of the Kavalan SAY Verb Zin. Oceanic Linguistics 51 (2), 464–489. doi:10.1353/ol.2012.0025

Jakobson, R. (1957). Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb . Cambridge, MA: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures Harvard University .

J. A. Lucy (1993). in Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics (Cambridge etc: Cambridge University Press ).

Jarque, M. J., and Pascual, E. (2015). Conversational Structures Marking Evidential Values in Catalan Sign Language. eHumanista/IVITRA 8, 421–445.

Jarque Moyano, M. J. (2016). “What About? Fictive Question-Answer Pairs for Non-Information-Seeking Functions Across Signed Languages,” in The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction . Editors Pascual, and Sandler. (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins ), 171–192. doi:10.1075/hcp.55.09jar

Klamer, M. (1998). A Grammar of Kambera . Berlin, New York: Berlin: Mouton Grammar LibraryMouton de Gruyter .

Klamer, M. (2000). How Report Verbs Become Quote Markers and Complementisers. Lingua 110, 69–98. doi:10.1016/s0024-3841(99)00032-7

Konnerth, L. (2020). Recycling through Perspective Persistence in Monsang (Trans-himalayan). Fol 27 (1), 55–77. doi:10.1075/fol.20002.kon

Kuteva, T., Heine, B., Hong, B., Long, H., Narrog, H., and Rhee, S. (2019). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization . Cambridge University Press .

Larson, M. L. (1978). The Functions of Reported Speech in Discourse . Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics .

Lefebvre, C., and Brousseau, A.-M. (2002). A Grammar of Fongbe of Mouton Grammar Library . Berlin, New York: Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter .

Loughnane, R. (2009). A Grammar of Oksapmin . Ph. D. thesis, Melbourne: University of Melbourne .

Martin Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories in Crosslinguistic Studies. Language 86 (3), 663–687. doi:10.1353/lan.2010.0021

Matić, D., and Pakendorf, B. (2013). Non-canonical SAY in Siberia. Stud. Lang. 37 (2), 356–412.

McGregor, W. B. (2007). “2. A Desiderative Complement Construction in Warrwa,” in Language Description, History and Development . Editors J. Siegel, J. Lynch, and D. Eades (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins ), 27–40. doi:10.1075/cll.30.08mcg

McGregor, W. B. (2019). Reported Speech as a Dedicated Grammatical Domain - and Why Defenestration Should Not Be Thrown Out the Window. Linguistic Typology 23 (1), 207–219. doi:10.1515/lingty-2019-0010

McGregor, W. B. (2014). “The ‘Say, Do' Verb in Nyulnyul, Warrwa, and Other Nyulnyulan Languages Is Monosemic,” in Events, Arguments and Aspects: Topics in the Semantics of Verbs . Editor K. Robering (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins ), 301–328. doi:10.1075/slcs.152.08gre

Mercier, H., and Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .

Miestamo, M., Bakker, D., and Arppe, A. (2016). Sampling for Variety. Linguistic Typology 20 (2). doi:10.1515/lingty-2016-0006

Moroz, G. (2017). Lingtypology: Linguistic Typology and Mapping .

Nikitina, T. (2020). Logophoricity and Shifts of Perspective. Fol. 27 (1), 78–99. doi:10.1075/fol.20001.nik

Nikitina, T. (2012). Personal Deixis and Reported Discourse: Towards a Typology of Person Alignment. Linguistic Typology 16 (2), 233–263.

Pascual, E. (2007). “Fictive Interaction Blends in Everyday Life and Courtroom Settings,” in Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction . Editors T. Oakley, and A. Hougaard (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins ), 79–107.

Pascual, E. (2014). Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language, and Discourse . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins .

Pascual, E. (2002). Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts . Utrecht: LOT .

Pascual, E., and Sandler, S. (2016a). In The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins ).

Pascual, E., and Sandler, S. (2016b). “Fictive Interaction and the Conversation Frame,” in The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction . Editors E. Pascual, and S. Sandler (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins ), 3–22. doi:10.1075/hcp.55.01pas

Pawley, A., and Bulmer, R. (2011). Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies . Canberra: Australian National University . A Dictionary of Kalam With Ethnographic Notes , Volume 630 of Pacific Linguistics.

Pennington, R. (2018). A Grammar of Ma Manda: A Papuan Language of Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea, Volume 18 of Outstanding Grammars from Australia . München: LINCOM .

Reesink, G. P. (1993). ‘Inner Speech’ in Papuan Languages. Lang. Linguistics Melanesia 24, 217–225.

Rijkhoff, J., Bakker, D., Hengeveld, K., and Kahrel, P. (1993). A Method of Language Sampling. Sl 17 (1), 169–203. doi:10.1075/sl.17.1.07rij

Rumsey, A. (1982). An Intra-Sentence Grammar of Ungarinjin , North-Western Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics 92 (2), 157–166. doi:10.1525/aa.1990.92.2.02a00060

CrossRef Full Text

Rumsey, A. (1990). Wording, Meaning, and Linguistic Ideology. Am. Anthropologist 92 (2), 346–361. doi:10.1525/aa.1990.92.2.02a00060

Sandler, S., and Pascual, E. (2019). In the Beginning There Was Conversation: Fictive Direct Speech in the Hebrew Bible. Prag. 29 (2), 250–276. doi:10.1075/prag.18047.san

Saxena, A. (1988). On Syntactic Convergence: The Case of the Verb ‘say' in Tibeto-Burman. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 375–388. doi:10.3765/bls.v14i0.1781

Spronck, S. (2015). Reported Speech in Ungarinyin: Grammar and Social Cognition in a Language of the Kimberley Region . Western Australia: Ph. D. thesis The Australian National University .

Spronck, S. (2016). “Evidential Fictive Interaction (In Ungarinyin and Russian),” in The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction . Editors E. Pascual, and S. Sandler (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins ), 255–275. doi:10.1075/hcp.55.13spr

Spronck, S., and Nikitina, T. (2019). Reported Speech Forms a Dedicated Syntactic Domain. Linguistic Typology 23 (1), 119–159. doi:10.1515/lingty-2019-0005

Spronck, S., Van linden, A., Gentens, C., and Sansiñena, M. S. (2020). Perspective Persistence and Irregular Perspective Shift. Fol. 27 (1), 1–6. doi:10.1075/fol.20005.spr

Thornes, T. J. (2003). A Northern Paiute Grammar and Texts . EugeneAnn Arbor: Ph. D. thesis University of Oregon .

Tomasello, M. (2014). A Natural History of Human Thinking . Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press .

van der Voort, H. (2002). “The Quotative Construction in Kwaza and its (De-) Grammaticalisation,” in Current Studies on South American Languages Indigenous Languages of Latin America . Editors M. Crevels, S. van de Kerke, S. Meira, and H. van der Voort, 307–328.

Völlmin, S. (2017). Towards a Grammar of Gumer: Phonology and Morphology of a Western Gurage Variety . Ph. D. thesis, Zürich: University of Zürich .

Vydrina, A. (2017). A Corpus-Based Description of Kakabe, a Western Mande Language: Prosody in Grammar . Paris: Ph. D. thesis INALCO .

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and Speech. The Collected Works of Lev Vygotsky . New York, NY: Plenum Press .

Wiemer, B. (2018). Catching the Elusive: Lexical Evidentiality Markers in Slavic Languages (A Questionnaire Study and its Background) . Berlin: Peter Lang .

Wilson, J. (2017). A Grammar of Yeri: A Torricelli Language of Papua New Guinea . Ph. D. thesis, Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo .

Yaroshevich, S. (2020). Is Thinking like Saying ? the Case of Tabasaran. Paper read at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea in the workshop ‘The grammar of thinking: Comparing reported thought andreported speech across languages’.

Zeman, S. (2019). The Emergence of Viewpoints in Multiple Perspective Constructions. Prag. 29 (2), 226–249. doi:10.1075/prag.18051.zem

Zemp, M. (2020). Evidentials and Their Pivot in Tibetic and Neighboring Himalayan Languages. Fol . 27 (1), 29–54. doi:10.1075/fol.20003.zem

{} elements in the ME gloss that are not part of the extended reported speech construction

add additive (Besleney Kabardian)

af agent focus (Kavalan)

Anaph anaphoric pronoun

art article (Kakabe)

cm conjugation marker (Warrwa)

conjv conjunctive (Stieng)

cvb.mod modal converb or converb of manner (Kalmyk)

dir directional (Besleney Kabardian, Mandarin)

fp far past (Usan)

Hor/hort hortative (Darai, Kalam)

imperf imperfective converb (Sanzhi)

If immediate future (Oksapmin)

ip instrumental prefix (Northern Paiute)

lf locative focus (Kavalan)

log logophoric pronoun

‘m’ verbal ‘-m’ suffix (Gumer) ( Völlmin, 2017 , 152)

mm middle marker (reflexive, reciprocal, passive, middle; Northern Paiute)

min minimal number (Warrwa)

mir mirative (Darai)

nf non-finite (Newari)

Nfut non-future

nonvis.ev nonvisual evidential (Ainu)

npc non-past conjunct (Newari)

obl oblique stem marker (Sanzhi)

Part particle (Darai)

pd past disjunct (Newari)

pn personal name (Ma Manda)

pot potential mood

Pret preterite (Sanzhi)

prior priorite (Kalam)

prt particle (Wan, Mandarin)

recg recognitional (Oksapmin)

red reduplication (Usan)

seq sequential (Darai)

ss same subject (Usan)

uf uncertain future (Usan)

w-class second (‘Wu-’) neuter gender class (Ngarinyin)

Keywords: reported speech, quotation, perspective, TAME, fictive interaction, evolution of language, linguistic typology

Citation: Spronck S and Casartelli D (2021) In a Manner of Speaking: How Reported Speech May Have Shaped Grammar. Front. Commun. 6:624486. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2021.624486

Received: 31 October 2020; Accepted: 12 July 2021; Published: 07 September 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Spronck and Casartelli. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Stef Spronck, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Reported speech

Reported speech is how we represent the speech of other people or what we ourselves say. There are two main types of reported speech: direct speech and indirect speech.

Direct speech repeats the exact words the person used, or how we remember their words:

Barbara said, “I didn’t realise it was midnight.”

In indirect speech, the original speaker’s words are changed.

Barbara said she hadn’t realised it was midnight .

In this example, I becomes she and the verb tense reflects the fact that time has passed since the words were spoken: didn’t realise becomes hadn’t realised .

Indirect speech focuses more on the content of what someone said rather than their exact words:

“I’m sorry,” said Mark. (direct)

Mark apologised . (indirect: report of a speech act)

In a similar way, we can report what people wrote or thought:

‘I will love you forever,’ he wrote, and then posted the note through Alice’s door. (direct report of what someone wrote)

He wrote that he would love her forever , and then posted the note through Alice’s door. (indirect report of what someone wrote)

I need a new direction in life , she thought. (direct report of someone’s thoughts)

She thought that she needed a new direction in life . (indirect report of someone’s thoughts)

Reported speech: direct speech

Reported speech: indirect speech

Reported speech: reporting and reported clauses

Speech reports consist of two parts: the reporting clause and the reported clause. The reporting clause includes a verb such as say, tell, ask, reply, shout , usually in the past simple, and the reported clause includes what the original speaker said.

Reported speech: punctuation

Direct speech.

In direct speech we usually put a comma between the reporting clause and the reported clause. The words of the original speaker are enclosed in inverted commas, either single (‘…’) or double (“…”). If the reported clause comes first, we put the comma inside the inverted commas:

“ I couldn’t sleep last night, ” he said.

Rita said, ‘ I don’t need you any more. ’

If the direct speech is a question or exclamation, we use a question mark or exclamation mark, not a comma:

‘Is there a reason for this ? ’ she asked.

“I hate you ! ” he shouted.

We sometimes use a colon (:) between the reporting clause and the reported clause when the reporting clause is first:

The officer replied: ‘It is not possible to see the General. He’s busy.’

Punctuation

Indirect speech

In indirect speech it is more common for the reporting clause to come first. When the reporting clause is first, we don’t put a comma between the reporting clause and the reported clause. When the reporting clause comes after the reported clause, we use a comma to separate the two parts:

She told me they had left her without any money.

Not: She told me, they had left her without any money .

Nobody had gone in or out during the previous hour, he informed us.

We don’t use question marks or exclamation marks in indirect reports of questions and exclamations:

He asked me why I was so upset.

Not: He asked me why I was so upset?

Reported speech: reporting verbs

Say and tell.

We can use say and tell to report statements in direct speech, but say is more common. We don’t always mention the person being spoken to with say , but if we do mention them, we use a prepositional phrase with to ( to me, to Lorna ):

‘I’ll give you a ring tomorrow,’ she said .

‘Try to stay calm,’ she said to us in a low voice.

Not: ‘Try to stay calm,’ she said us in a low voice .

With tell , we always mention the person being spoken to; we use an indirect object (underlined):

‘Enjoy yourselves,’ he told them .

Not: ‘Enjoy yourselves,’ he told .

In indirect speech, say and tell are both common as reporting verbs. We don’t use an indirect object with say , but we always use an indirect object (underlined) with tell :

He said he was moving to New Zealand.

Not: He said me he was moving to New Zealand .

He told me he was moving to New Zealand.

Not: He told he was moving to New Zealand .

We use say , but not tell , to report questions:

‘Are you going now?’ she said .

Not: ‘Are you going now?’ she told me .

We use say , not tell , to report greetings, congratulations and other wishes:

‘Happy birthday!’ she said .

Not: Happy birthday!’ she told me .

Everyone said good luck to me as I went into the interview.

Not: Everyone told me good luck …

Say or tell ?

Other reporting verbs

The reporting verbs in this list are more common in indirect reports, in both speaking and writing:

Simon admitted that he had forgotten to email Andrea.

Louis always maintains that there is royal blood in his family.

The builder pointed out that the roof was in very poor condition.

Most of the verbs in the list are used in direct speech reports in written texts such as novels and newspaper reports. In ordinary conversation, we don’t use them in direct speech. The reporting clause usually comes second, but can sometimes come first:

‘Who is that person?’ she asked .

‘It was my fault,’ he confessed .

‘There is no cause for alarm,’ the Minister insisted .

Verb patterns: verb + that -clause

Word of the Day

leave no stone unturned

to do everything you can to achieve a good result, especially when looking for something

A finger in every pie: phrases with the word ‘finger’

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists

To add ${headword} to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add ${headword} to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Your browser is not supported

Sorry but it looks as if your browser is out of date. To get the best experience using our site we recommend that you upgrade or switch browsers.

Find a solution

• Skip to main content
• Skip to navigation
• Macmillan English
• Onestopenglish
• Digital Shop

• Back to parent navigation item
• Sample material
• Amazing World of Animals
• Amazing World of Food
• Arts and Crafts
• Mathematics
• Transport and Communication
• Teaching Tools
• Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship
• Support for Teaching Children
• Vocabulary & Phonics
• Spelling Bee Games
• Phonics & Sounds
• The Alphabet
• Onestop Phonics: The Alphabet
• Alphabet Booklet
• Interactive Flashcards
• Warmers & Fillers
• Young Learner Games
• Stories and Poems
• Fillers & Pastimes
• Fun Fillers
• Ready for School!
• Topics & Themes
• Young Learner Topics
• Young Learner Festivals
• Festival Worksheets
• Art and Architecture
• Business and Tourism
• Geography and the Environment
• Information Technology
• Science and Nature
• Topic-based Listening Lessons
• Cambridge English
• Cambridge English: Preliminary (PET)
• Cambridge English: First (FCE)
• Cambridge English: Proficiency (CPE)
• Cambridge English: Advanced (CAE)
• General English
• News Lessons
• Topics and Themes
• Beyond (BrE)
• Beyond: Arts and Media
• Beyond: Knowledge
• Go Beyond (AmE)
• Go Beyond: Arts & Media
• Go Beyond: Knowledge
• Impressions
• Macmillan Readers
• A Time to Travel
• Life & School
• Skills for Problem Solving
• Digital Skills for Teens
• Support for Teaching Teenagers
• Games Teaching Materials
• Business and ESP
• Business Lesson Plans
• Business Skills Bank
• Business Top Trumps
• Elementary Business Lessons
• HR Management
• Let's Talk Business
• Business News Lessons
• ESP Lesson Plans
• Career Readiness
• Professional Communication Skills
• Cambridge English: Business (BEC)
• Everyday Life
• Celebrations
• Live from...
• Live from London
• Discussion Cards
• Writing Lesson Plans
• Life Skills
• Support for Teaching Adults
• Vocabulary Lesson Plans
• Language for...
• Vocabulary Teaching Materials
• Macmillan Dictionary Blog
• Vocabulary Infographics
• Kahoot! Quizzes
• Blog Articles
• Professional Development
• Lesson Share
• Methodology: Projects and Activities
• Methodology: Tips for Teachers
• Methodology: The World of ELT
• Advancing Learning
• Online Teaching
• More from navigation items

Verbs and tenses

• 1 Verbs and tenses
• 2 Lesson Share: Reported speech 1 – article
• 3 Past perfect aspect – article
• 4 Past perfect aspect – tips and activities
• 5 Present perfect aspect – article
• 6 Present perfect aspect – tips and activities
• 7 Reported speech – tips and activities
• 8 Reported speech 2 – article
• 9 The passive in English – article
• 10 The passive in English – tips and activities
• 11 Modal verbs 1 – article
• 12 Modal verbs 1 – tips and activities
• 13 Modal verbs 2 – article
• 14 Modal verbs 2 – tips and activities

Reported speech 2 – article

By Kerry G. Maxwell and Lindsay Clandfield

• No comments

An article by Kerry Maxwell and Lindsay Clandfield on approaches to teaching reported speech.

Introduction

Whenever we use reported speech, we have to take into account how circumstances have changed since the speaker originally spoke the words. For instance, we may now be reporting what was said from the point of view of a different time or place, or the person reporting the speech may be different to the original speaker. This will affect the choice of pronouns or adverbials of time and place in reporting/reported clauses.

Referring to people

If we were making an arrangement to meet a friend, we might say something like:

If we then later report what we have said to another friend, we might say something like:

Notice how you in the original statement becomes her in the reported clause. If somebody else was reporting what we said to another friend, they might say:

Here, I has become she in the reporting clause, and you has become her in the reported clause. If we do not meet our first friend in the park as planned, and she speaks to us about this later in the day, she might say:

Here, I has become you in the reporting clause, and you has become me in the reported clause.

The examples illustrate that pronouns always change according to the point of view of the person using the reported speech. The same is true of possessive pronouns. For instance, a question such as:

Could be reported with any one of the following, depending on the point of view of the speaker or listener, e.g.

• She asked if I was her sister.
• He asked if she was his sister.
• She asked if you were my sister.
• I asked if she was her sister.

Referring to places

Sometimes words which relate to place or position need to be changed in a reported clause. For instance, if someone were to say to us:

then if we were at home we might report this as:

In the reported clause your place has been changed to here .

If someone is in a restaurant and says:

This statement might be reported by someone else who is not in the restaurant as:

In this case, here has been changed to there in the reported clause.

Referring to time

Adverbials of time such as  today, yesterday, tomorrow,  etc. often need to be changed in reported speech. For instance, someone might say to you:

If you were reporting this to someone else the day after, you might say:

In this case, tomorrow afternoon has changed to this afternoon in the reported clause.

If someone says:

And we were reporting this to someone else a few days after it was said, then we might say:

Here, yesterday has changed to the previous day in the reported clause.

Here are some time adverbials and examples of what they often change to in reported speech. Note that the choice of time adverbial always depends on the particular situation that surrounds the reported speech.

• yesterday  the previous day/the day before/on Saturday, etc.
• today  yesterday/that day/on Saturday, etc.
• tomorrow  the next day/the following day/on Saturday, etc.
• this week  that week/last week
• next year  the year after/the following year/in 2006, etc.
• last month  the month before/the previous month/in April, etc. 

Negatives in reporting

If we want to report what someone did not say or think, then the verb in the reporting clause must be made negative, e.g.

If we want to report something that was said but which was in the negative when the speaker originally used it, then the verb in the reported clause must be negative, e.g.

However, with the common reporting verb think , in order to report a sentence which was negative when the speaker originally used it, the reporting verb is usually made negative, rather than the verb in the reported clause, e.g.

(More natural than He thought it wasn’t a good idea .) Other common reporting verbs that behave in this way include believe, expect , and feel , e.g.

Passives in reporting

Reporting verbs such as tell and inform often occur in passive report structures. When they are used in the passive, the hearer of the original statement becomes the subject of the sentence in reported speech, e.g.

Passive reporting verbs are often used when it is not important to identify the speaker of the original sentence, focusing on the hearer only, e.g.

In a similar way, reporting verbs such as say and believe are sometimes used in the passive in order to avoid specifying whose opinion or statement is being reported. This is a more formal use, with it as the subject and a that-clause, e.g.

These structures are often used to express an opinion which is generally held. An alternative passive structure with a to-infinitive is therefore sometimes used to make the subject of the reported clause become the main topic of the sentence, e.g.

Reporting orders and requests

If someone says something which orders or requests someone to do something, this can be reported with verbs such as tell and ask , followed by an object and a to-infinitive, e.g.

Other verbs that occur in this pattern include order, command, forbid, instruct, beg and urge , e.g.

Some of these reporting verbs are often used in the passive, with the original hearer (the object of the reporting clause in the examples above) becoming the subject of the reporting clause, e.g.

When reporting a direct order, it is also possible to use verbs such as must or have to in the reported clause, e.g.

The reporting verb ask can be used with or without an object before the to-infinitive clause, but note the difference in meaning, e.g.

He asked him to leave early. = He wanted someone else to leave early

The reporting verb demand is always followed directly by a to-infinitive, e.g.

It can also occur with a that-clause, e.g.

Use of the that-clause in such contexts is much more formal. It implies a suggestion about something that the hearer needs to do or that would be desirable for them to do. Often, the modal should is left out, i.e.

This use of the base form of a verb ( tell ) without a modal ( should ), is often referred to as the subjunctive.

Reporting suggestions

If someone makes a suggestion about what they or someone else could do, this can be reported with verbs such as advise, propose, recommend and suggest , followed by an -ing clause, e.g.

'It would be useful to read the last chapter.' = The teacher recommended reading the last chapter. These verbs can also be followed by that-clause, e.g.

In more formal contexts, a subjunctive form is sometimes used, e.g.

The verb advise can alternatively be followed by an object plus to-infinitive clause, e.g.

Reporting offers and intentions

The reporting verb promise can be followed either directly by a to-infinitive, or by a that-clause, to report what someone offered or intended to do, e.g.

Note that with a that-clause, the person who does the promising and the person referred to in the reported clause may be different, e.g.

The verbs offer and volunteer are always followed directly by a to-infinitive clause, e.g.

The verbs intend and want can be used to report what someone planned or wanted to do. They are also always followed directly by a to-infinitive clause, e.g.

• British English
• Reference Material
• Reported speech

Lesson Share: Reported speech 1 – article

Past perfect aspect – article

Past perfect aspect – tips and activities

Present perfect aspect – article, present perfect aspect – tips and activities.

Reported speech – tips and activities

The passive in english – article, the passive in english – tips and activities, modal verbs 1 – article, modal verbs 1 – tips and activities, modal verbs 2 – article, modal verbs 2 – tips and activities, related articles.

Articles, tips and activities on teaching adjectives, from our panel of expert authors.

Tips and ideas from Kerry Maxwell and Lindsay Clandfield on teaching reported speech.

No comments yet

Only registered users can comment on this article., more from support for teaching grammar.

Nouns and phrases

Our experts provide a compendium of tips and ideas for teaching nouns, prepositions and relative clauses in English.

Tips and ideas from Kerry Maxwell and Lindsay Clandfield on teaching the passive in English.

An article by Kerry Maxwell and Lindsay Clandfield on approaches to teaching the passive in English.

Join onestopenglish today

With more than 700,000 registered users in over 100 countries around the world, Onestopenglish is the number one resource site for English language teachers, providing access to thousands of resources, including lesson plans, worksheets, audio, video and flashcards.

• Connect with us on Facebook
• Connect with us on Twitter
• Connect with us on Youtube

Onestopenglish is a teacher resource site, part of Macmillan Education, one of the world’s leading publishers of English language teaching materials.

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie policy
• Manage cookies

©Macmillan Education Limited 2023. Company number: 1755588 VAT number: 199440621

Site powered by Webvision Cloud

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election results
• Google trends
• AP & Elections
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Argentina’s President Milei presents 2025 budget, vowing austerity and setting up a showdown

Argentina’s President Javier Milei sings the national anthem as he addresses Congress to present the 2025 budget in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)

A demonstrator holds a banner that reads in Spanish “The 2025 budget, starving us to death” as Argentina’s President Javier Milei presents next year’s budget in Congress in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)

Argentina’s Economy Minister Luis Caputo, second from left, greets Argentina’s President Javier Milei upon as he arrives at Congress to present the 2025 budget in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)

Argentina’s President Javier Milei addresses Congress as he presents the 2025 budget in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)

Police detain a protestor during a demonstration against President Javier Milei’s veto of a pension raise in front of Congress in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2024. (AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd)

Victoria Villarruel, Argentina’s vice president, arrives to President Javier Milei’s presentation of the 2025 budget in Congress in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)

Police guard Congress during protests against President Javier Milei’s veto of a pension raise in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2024. (AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd)

Argentina’s President Javier Milei arrives at Congress to present the 2025 budget in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)

Argentina’s President Javier Milei greets his sister Karina Milei as he arrives at Congress to present the 2025 budget in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)

Argentina’s President Javier Milei greets his sister Karina Milei as he arrives to Congress to present the 2025 budget in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)

A woman scolds the police during protests against President Javier Milei’s veto of a pension raise in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2024. (AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)

Argentine President Javier Milei’s parents, Norberto Milei and Alicia Lujan Lucich, attend his presentation of the 2025 budget in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)

• Copy Link copied

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Libertarian President Javier Milei of Argentina presented the 2025 budget to Congress late Sunday, outlining policy priorities that reflected his key pledge to kill the country’s chronic fiscal deficit and signaled a new phase of confrontation with lawmakers.

In an unprecedented move, Milei personally pitched the budget to Congress instead of his economy minister, lambasting Argentina’s history of macroeconomic mismanagement and promising to veto anything that compromised his tough slog of tight fiscal policy.

The president’s budget proposal followed a week of political clashes in the legislature — where Milei controls less than 15% of the seats — over spending increases that the administration warns would derail its IMF-backed “zero deficit” budget. Opposition parties have sought to raise salaries and pensions with inflation to help hard-hit Argentines cope with harsh austerity.

“The cornerstone of this budget is the first truth of macroeconomics, a truth that for many years has been neglected in Argentina: that of zero deficit,” Milei told lawmakers, facing rows of empty seats as most of the hard-line opposition Peronist bloc, Unión por la Patria, skipped his address. “Managing means cleaning up the balance sheet, deactivating the debt bomb that we inherited.”

Milei’s supporters interrupted his speech — packed with his usual libertarian talking points — with whoops and cheers.

It will fall to the opposition-dominated Congress, which controls the government’s purse strings, to approve the final budget. Milei’s political isolation makes matters fraught, setting up weeks of negotiations with rivals who insist on concessions.

But Milei vowed that nothing would stop him from pressing on with austerity.

“The budget is a declaration of principles,” said Argentine economist Agustín Almada. “Even if there is no compromise from the opposition, Milei will continue pursuing this fiscal contraction.”

If the stroke of a veto pen failed to prevent powerful lawmakers from spending, Milei promised to find other ways to cut down the state.

“We will only discuss the increase in spending when it comes along with an explanation of what we’ll cut to compensate for it,” Milei said.

Over Milei’s past nine months in office, dramatic cuts to public spending — which he says are necessary to restore market confidence in a country ravaged by one of the world’s highest annual inflation rates — have racked up a fiscal surplus (0.4% of gross domestic product), something unseen in nearly two decades.

The austerity has also caused deep economic pain in Argentina , with nearly 60% of Argentines now living in poverty, up from 44% in December 2023, according to the Catholic University. Milei has balanced the budget by slashing financial transfers to provinces, removing energy and transport subsidies and holding wages and pensions steady despite inflation.

The fight over pensions reached a head last week, when Milei and his allies defeated a bill that would have boosted social security spending in Argentina, compromising the administration’s fiscal discipline.

The bill had swept through both houses of Congress last month but opposition parties ultimately failed to obtain the two-thirds majority needed to override the president’s veto after government lobbying eroded support for the measure.

At the news of the bill’s rejection Wednesday, outraged retirees — who have lost roughly half of their purchasing power due to inflation — poured into the streets of downtown Buenos Aires, where they faced off with riot police spraying tear gas and water cannons.

Milei warned that his fiscal shock therapy was not going to be easy. But his administration is betting that the worst has passed. Although Argentina’s annual inflation hovers around 237%, Milei has retained popular support by working to keep a lid on monthly inflation , which has dropped to 4% since its peak of 26% last December when he took office.

In an optimistic statement about the budget Sunday, the Finance Ministry said it expected Milei’s proposal to result in an annual inflation rate of just 18% by the end of 2025 and yield a 5% economic growth rate. Argentina’s economy contracted by more than 3% in the first half of 2024.

But much of Milei’s future depends on Congress. The government’s pension law victory over congressional opponents proved short-lived, as lawmakers in the lower house also passed a bill increasing spending on public universities .

Milei has vowed to veto the bill.

Milei suffered another blow when lawmakers rejected his plan to raise spending on the intelligence services by more than $100 million. Despite all the belt-tightening, Milei has committed to increasing defense spending from 0.5% of GDP to 2.1%, raising the hackles of some lawmakers amid his cuts to health and education.

Although Milei has repeatedly compromised to get his legislation through Congress , he took a strident tone in Sunday’s speech, describing lawmakers who disagree with him as “miserable rats who bet against the country.”

Some analysts warned that Milei’s exercise in political messaging spelled trouble.

“The image of a half-empty chamber of deputies during the president’s speech is an indication that it will not be easy for the government to pass this budget,” said Marcelo J. García, Director for the Americas at the New York-based geopolitical risk consultancy Horizon Engage. “Again, Milei seems to be prioritizing confrontation over compromise.”