Discourse & Communication 2009 Smirnova 79 103

http://dcm.sagepub.com/Discourse & Communication

http://dcm.sagepub.com/content/3/1/79The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1750481308098765

2009 3: 79DISCOURSE & COMMUNICATIONAlla Vitaljevna Smirnova

Reported speech as an element of argumentative newspaper discourse

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Discourse & CommunicationAdditional services and information for

http://dcm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://dcm.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://dcm.sagepub.com/content/3/1/79.refs.htmlCitations:

by guest on September 2, 2011dcm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://dcm.sagepub.com/

http://dcm.sagepub.com/content/3/1/79

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://dcm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://dcm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://dcm.sagepub.com/content/3/1/79.refs.html


Smirnova: Reported speech as an element of argumentative newspaper discourse 79

Discourse & CommunicationCopyright © 2009

SAGE Publications.(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi,

Singapore and Washington DC)www.sagepublications.com

Vol 3(1): 79–10310.1177/1750481308098765

Reported speech as an element of argumentative newspaper discourse

A L L A V I T A L J E V N A S M I R N O V A I N D E P E N D E N T S C H O L A R , R U S S I A

A B S T R A C T The present article deals with reported speech as an element of argumentation in the newspaper discourse of Great Britain viewed in the unity of its syntactic and semantic characteristics and argumentative functions. Theoretically, the research is based on the dialogic understanding of quotations, the dialogue theory by Bakhtin and contemporary argumentation theory. The proposed integral approach to reported speech combining linguistics with logic and argumentation theory revealed the relations between purely linguistic (syntactic and semantic) characteristics of reported speech with its functioning in argumentative discourse of contemporary British press.

K E Y W O R D S : argumentation, discourse (argumentative/newspaper discourse), quotations, reported speech, semantic characteristics, syntactic structures

1. IntroductionNowadays a strong impact of mass media on every human being is an indisput-able issue, the language being the main tool of this influence (especially for the printed media). Mass media discourse in general and newspaper discourse as one of its varieties have two main functions: to inform and to persuade the reader. Newspaper discourses with prevailing persuasion function are aimed at regu-lation of the addressee’s behaviour and thinking and are thus argumentative by their nature. Another characteristic feature of such newspaper discourses is their multi-dimensional dialogic nature. Alongside the dialogue between the text of the article and the reader, the former is also a reflection of dialogues existing in another ‘real’ communicative space. This reflection is formally ex-pressed by inserting into the text the utterances of other people in the form of reported speech.

By reported speech we understand incorporation of another person’s words into the author’s discourse. The result of this incorporation is a (syntactic) structure with reported speech.

A R T I C L E



80 Discourse & Communication 3(1)

The aim of the present research is to reveal semantic and functional potential of reported speech as an element of argumentation in British newspaper discourse. This aim can be achieved only by means of interdisciplinary research. We propose an integrative approach to reported speech based on the assumption that all functional aspects of reported speech are determined by the overall task of persuasion.

Theoretically the research is based on the dialogue theory by Bakhtin (1981, 1984, 1986), on the dialogic (non-autonymous) approach to quotations (Buttny, 1998; Ducrot, 1984; Goffman, 1981; Perrin, 1994; Thompson, 1996) and on contemporary argumentation theory (Anscombre and Ducrot, 1983; Blair and Johnson, 1997; Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969; Toulmin, 1958; Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1984, 1992).

To accomplish the aim, we have followed the following procedure:

1. We have determined the linguistic characteristics of reported speech that enable it to function in newspaper argumentation:

• Syntactic structures used to introduce reported speech; • Semantic characteristics of these structures;

2. We have revealed the possible positions of reported speech in the argumentative structure of newspaper discourse (position of thesis and/or argument);

3. For each of these positions we have analysed peculiarities and functions of reported speech.

The empirical basis of the present research is contemporary press of Great Britain.

For the sampling purposes we used only newspapers focusing on political reporting (i.e. what is generally known as ‘quality’ newspapers or ‘broadsheets’). ‘Popular’ newspapers or tabloids were not included as such newspapers pre-ferably use means of persuasion different from argumentation. We selected three nationwide daily newspapers with the highest market share (The Times, The Financial Times, The Guardian) and one regional (Scottish) newspaper (The Herald). The print editions of four daily newspapers were analysed during a six-year period (2001–6), 12 non-consecutive issues of each newspaper every year.

Data for analysis, however, did not include all items of the newspapers. From the variety of newspaper discourses of different genres we selected those with argumentative structure (opinion articles, editorials and letters to the editor). Typically each newspaper issue contained around 20 items of argumentative nature, one of them being normally a large-size article (more than half a page), about two-thirds small-size (less than one eighth of a page) and one-third medium-size articles (between one-eighth and one half of a page).

2. Theoretical frameworkMental opposition ‘I’– ‘the others’ is one of the earliest and most important op-positions for human beings. In the 20th century it gained special acuteness in the existentialism philosophy that shifted the focus from the social approach to man to the personal one, to interpersonal interaction. The philosophic concept of ‘the other’ developed in existential philosophy influenced linguistic ideas and




caused a surge of interest to reported discourse. The problem of what belongs to oneself and what belongs to others in literary discourse was raised by Bakhtin in the mid-1930s, but was not generally acknowledged until 1960–70s when his works appeared in print. According to Bakhtin’s theories of dialogism and poly-glossia (1981, 1984, 1986), reported speech is one of the means of intertextuality creation. The study of reported speech in the framework of intertextuality theory further continued both in literary criticism (Derrida, 1978; Kristeva, 1969; Барт, 1994; Лотман, 1981) and linguistics (Bolden, 2004; Calsamiglia and Ferrero, 2003; Gordon, 2006; Guenthner, 1999; Waugh, 1995; Арнольд, 1999; Баженова, 2001; Кожина, 1986; Чернявская, 1996).

However, there is no unanimity in understanding the nature of this linguistic phenomenon. In European linguistics, reported speech was traditionally viewed as an autonymous sign, a kind of meta-representation informing about itself, but not about the world. It was a principle to ignore the contents of the quoted words as well as the relations between the reported and the reporting utterances (Authier-Revuz, 1997; Rey-Debove, 1978; Rosier, 1997).

This approach did not appear fruitful and was disproved by discursive prac-tice. Theoretically the autonymy theory was refuted by such linguists as Buttny (1998), Clark and Gerrig (1990), Ducrot (1984), Goffman (1981), Holt (2000), Perrin (1994), Roberts (2004), Thompson (1996), and others.

We fully share this second ‘non-autonymous’ approach, and our research is based on the assumption that relations between the quotation and its context are that of dialogue and evaluation. By the mere act of quotation the author shows his/her attitude to other texts and authors and tries to evoke a similar attitude in the reader. What the author thinks necessary and important to tell the audience of this initial situation predetermines the perception and further interpretation of the quotation by the reader. Even if this evaluation is not shown explicitly, it may be deduced from the linguistic properties of the structures with reported speech. Thus, the following aspects play an important role in the argumentative use of reported speech:

1. Choice of syntactic structure of reported speech;2. Semantic characteristics of structures with reported speech:

• Data about the initial context of the reported utterance; • Choice of the quoted segment of reported utterance.

In the next section of this article we shall analyse syntactic and semantic characteristics of reported speech in our corpus of argumentative British newspaper discourses.

3. Syntax and semantics of reported speech in British argumentative newspaper discourses3.1. SYNTACTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF REPORTED SPEECH IN ARGUMENTATIVE NEWSPAPER DISCOURSE

There have been numerous attempts in linguistics to provide a universal classification of syntactic structures used to introduce reported speech, but no universal approach has so far been achieved and accepted.




On the basis of the previous typologies on the one hand and the results of our corpus analysis on the other we made our own attempt at creating a structural classification of reported speech types for argumentative newspaper discourse of Modern British English.

The proposed classification is based on the criterion of literalness defined as exact rendering of lexicon and syntax of the reported utterance as opposed to accuracy that deals with the retention of information contained therein.

Our structural classification consists of two levels. On the first level the structures used for reported speech are divided into

literal and liberal ones. Literal structures incorporate the quoted utterance as an utterance belonging to someone else and aim at a verbatim reproduction of the initial message:

(1) Salby Whittingham, a Turner scholar, said: “Serota naturally wants to buy modern art and contemporary pictures. It’s rather doubtful how their reputation will last.” (The Times, Wednesday 12 November 2003, p. 9)

Liberal structures are characterized by greater freedom of reproduction of reported words:

(2) The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) says that annual losses from ring rot have been as high as 50% in America. (The Herald, Friday 14 November 2003, p. 12)

The differentiation between these types of structures may be of some dif-ficulty, as newspaper discourse contains mainly fragments of oral discourses, and it may be problematic to determine literalness and accuracy of their rendering. We propose differentiation according to the formal criterion (presence/absence of quotation marks).

There are also combined structures uniting literal and liberal ones:

(3) John Jackson of the Scottish Development Center for Mental Health insisted the unit would not pose significant risk to the community: “There hasn’t been one single case across the UK of a patient escaping from a medium-care unit and they function very safely”. (The Herald, Friday 14 November 2003, p. 10)

At the next level of structural classification we introduce the syntactic cri-terion. All grammatical forms of literal and liberal structures will be described in more detail further on in this section.

The proposed classification of structural types of reported speech is shown in Figure 1. It is based on the analysis of argumentative newspaper discourse of modern English and thus does not include such structural types of reported speech as references, characteristic mainly for the scientific discourse, and independent quotations (like epigraphs) used in fiction.

As can be seen in Figure 1, literal structures are represented in our corpus by such grammatical forms as direct speech, indirect speech and segmented quotations.

The most widely used form among the abovementioned is direct speech:

(4) John Brennan, director of further education development at the Association of Colleges, said last night: “It’s a national imperative to improve the supply of skills at this level”. (The Guardian, Wednesday 9 July 2003, p. 5)




Frequent use of this structure can be explained by several reasons. First, the use of direct speech is the evidence of authenticity of the quoted utterance. Second, it indirectly shows respect and trust of the author to the quoted source and his/her words. Besides, it is a convenient structure for introducing lengthy quotations.

In literal indirect speech and segmented quotations words belonging to another person are embedded in the author’s speech as its constituent units. Literal indirect speech follows the pattern of indirect speech:

(5) Peter Wood, pioneer of the telephone insurance and founder of Direct Line, believes basic education is better and the workforce “happier”. (The Herald, Monday 27 May 2002, p. 17)

In segmented quotations extracts from other people’s discourses are included into the structures generally not used for reported speech. The quoted segments are fully integrated into the author’s syntax:

(6) The government is to press ahead with the launch of an “official” index of house prices this September. (The Guardian, Wednesday 9 July 2003, p. 17)

Analysis showed that in our corpus authors as a rule quote separate words or phrases, often of evaluative character, or, on the contrary, neutral words that gain evaluative semantics by being placed in the quotation marks. The general vocabulary words, constantly used in newspaper discourse, formally do not need to be put into the quotation marks. By emphasizing with the use of the quot-ation marks the foreignness of the quoted words the journalist can express a whole range of attitudes from admiration for successful wording to (much more frequent) irony. And the less the volume of the quoted segment, the more the function of the quotation shifts from ‘reliability function’ to ‘attitude function’ (Weizman, 1984; see words ‘official’, ‘happier’ in the examples cited above).

Reported speech

Literal structures Liberal structures

Direct speech

Indirect speech

Indirect speech

Topical reported speech

Segmented quotation

Direct speech

Combined structures

Complex structures

F I G U R E 1 . Classification of structures with reported speech in argumentative newspaper discourse of Modern British English




Liberal structures are represented in our corpus by such grammatical forms as indirect speech, liberal direct speech, topical reported speech and complex liberal structures.

Liberal indirect speech, unlike direct speech, renders the quoted utterance from the viewpoint of the author of the discourse rather than provides a word-for-word repetition of the initial utterance. This leads to numerous transformations of the initial discourse (deictic changes, neutralization of expressive means, etc.):

(7) But trading standards officers revealed yesterday that complaints about holiday companies had trebled compared to the year before. (The Herald, Monday 27 May 2002, p. 3)

Indirect speech renders the quoted words with the degree of exactness re-quired for argumentative goals of the author.

Liberal direct speech is built according to the pattern of direct speech, but differs from the latter formally by the absence of quotation marks. In our corpus it was represented by a small number of examples characteristic almost exclusively for leads or headlines:

(8) The Western Kingdom of Bunyoro was devastated during a five-year guerrilla uprising against the British, said Ernest Kizza, speaker of the small Bunyoro Parliament. (The Herald, Saturday 6 March 2004, p. 9)

Topical reported speech renders only the general content or macrostructure (Van Dijk, 1980) of the quoted utterance:

(9) We talked about human fallibility and human courage. (The Herald, Friday 14 November 2003, p. 18)

Complex liberal structures combine several liberal structures in one sentence (topical reported speech and indirect speech in the following example):

(10) Mr. Clement described the fall as an encouraging sign, but said it was too soon to suggest the economy has turned the corner. (The Guardian, Wednesday 9 July 2003, p. 10)

Sometimes literal and liberal structures can be united in various combin-ations forming a separate group of combined structures:

(11) Professor Andrew Calder, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Edinburgh University, says women should not worry about safety: “The operation itself is very safe”. (The Herald, Monday 27 May 2002, p. 10)

Inconvenience of these large-volume structures prevents their wide use in newspaper discourse in spite of the fact that they combine advantages of literal and liberal structures.

Syntactic structures with reported speech in British argumentative news-paper discourse and their frequency of use obtained as a result of corpus analysis are summarized in Figure 2.

As we can see, for introducing reported speech journalists of British papers somewhat prefer literal structures to liberal and combined ones. Selection of a specific structure depends on the author’s argumentative intentions. Literal




structures create the effect of maximum accuracy of rendering information. By using liberal structures journalists get an opportunity to highlight key points and to emphasize what they consider important in the reported utterance. But at the same time the measure of their personal responsibility increases. Combined structures are used rarely.

3.2. SEMANTICS OF REPORTED SPEECH IN ARGUMENTATIVE NEWSPAPER DISCOURSE

In contemporary press we deal not with reported speech as such, but with specially prepared reported speech. The quoted words are presented in such a way that they would most effectively influence the audience according to the author’s intentions. The context of the initial quoted utterance through which and in which this utterance gets its meaning becomes known to the reader only through the author’s description. This description is inevitably incomplete and subjective, but it determines further interpretation of the quotation by the reader. Semantics of structures with reported speech determines how the quoted words are perceived by the readers and how they influence them.

In order to determine semantic characteristics of reported speech in news-paper discourse we turned to semantic syntax, a theoretical framework founded by Fillmore (1968).

In semantic syntax the critical element of any semantic structure is the pre-dicate that determines the relations between all other elements. The predicate plays an equally important role in persuasion of the reader. It transmits infor-mation about the author’s attitude to the quoted utterance and tries to generate an identical attitude in the readers. As it has been remarked earlier (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1979; Perrin, 1994), it is impossible to solve the problem of the source of subjective information contained in the predicate introducing reported speech.

Topical reportedspeech1.6%

Liberal directspeech12.8%

Liberal indirectspeech26.8% Segmented

quotations9.0%

Literal indirectspeech7.8%

Literal directspeech36.1%

Complex liberalstructures

0.2%Combinedstructures

5.6%

Literal structures (52.8%)

Liberal structures (41.4%)Combined structures (5.8%)

F I G U R E 2 . Syntactic structures with reported speech in British argumentative newspaper discourse




We cannot unambiguously determine if the journalist has adequately chosen the predicate and correctly interpreted the illocutional force of the utterance. Thus the predicate simultaneously describes the relation to the reported speech of the speaker and of the author of the article.

For example, mental predicates combined with the actually pronounced words provide the reader with implicit information that the quoted person speaks his/her mind (emphasis is laid on the speaker’s sincerity), render his/her thoughts and feelings on the question discussed:

(12) Religious groups fear that the plans would “lend status and credibility” to same-sex partnerships. (The Times, Wednesday 12 November 2003, p. 18)

However, such predicates are not very often used in our corpus. In the majority of cases the journalist does not undertake responsibility for the sincerity of the quoted source and prefers to use predicates of speaking that present the utterance as a fact of reality:

(13) Farming leaders have warned that ring rot, which has never previously occurred in Britain, could have a “catastrophic” impact on the country’s £3.2 bn potato crop. (The Herald, Friday 14 November 2003, p. 12)

At the same time the careful selection of the predicate of speaking gives the journalist vast opportunities in the range from total abstraction from the reported utterance (predicates say, write, add, respond, etc.), to the enforcement on the reader of personal unequivocal evaluation thereof (predicates intone, bleat, pant, hint, etc.). More details on the semantic types of predicates used in structures with reported speech in the British newspaper discourse, their semantics and frequency of occurrence can be found in Смирнова (2004).

Semantics of the predicate defines the possibility of other elements, but their actual presence in discourse is determined by their importance for argumen-tative purposes.

Characteristics of the quoted source play a very important role for function-ing of reported speech in argumentation. The quoted person should be proved to possess sufficient competence to give his/her judgement as an authority. Agent and the appositive component related to it are the semantic elements responsible for ‘presenting’ the speaker to the readers. The former may be described in detail or stay almost anonymous according to the journalist’s intent.

Analysis of our corpus showed that in order to relevantly characterize the person quoted in the newspaper discourse, journalists in Great Britain use pro-fessional and personal characteristics. Professional characteristics (position, place of work, academic degree, profession, membership of a political party) are based on power as authority and prestige and portray the speaker as a person competent in the questions discussed. Professional characteristics possess a much bigger argumentative value than personal ones, and are used much more frequently. Personal characteristics (title, nationality, place of origin, age, marital status, family relations) are based on power as charisma and promote emotional perception of the speaker as a distinct personality. They are viewed as less rele-vant for a sound argumentation. In Great Britain the greatest emphasis is laid




on such professional characteristics as position (‘Vincenti Todoli, director of Tate Modern . . .’, The Guardian, Wednesday 9 July 2003, p. 9), place of work (‘The Fourth Estuary Transport Authority . . .’, The Guardian, Thursday 9 December 2004, p. 17) and academic degree (‘Tom Baldwin, professor of philosophy at the university of York . . .’, The Times, Wednesday 12 November 2003, p. 6). Such personal characteristic as title is also often used, but more as a tribute to tradition (‘Gordon, Lord of Strathblane, . . .’, The Times, Friday 20 October 2006, p. 10). More details about characteristics of the quoted source in the British press are given in Смирнова (2007).

The selection of the quoted segment of the other person’s utterance is even more important for the readers’ persuasion than the information provided in the introductory syntagm. The semantic element of the Content contains the main information that is supposed to influence the addressee.

Depending on the argumentative intentions of the author the quoted words may form an utterance of one of the three existing logical types: descriptive, evaluative and normative. The main task of descriptive utterances is to describe the past, present or future status of objective reality.

(14) However, Lambert states that this was more than countered by the rise in the price of store cattle last spring. (The Herald, Saturday 6 March 2004, p. 17)

Evaluative utterances ascribe absolute or comparative value to some phe-nomenon, event or object.

(15) The barrister Noel Whelan insists: “The basis for this ban is neither rational, nor objective.” (The Herald, Tuesday 10 July 2001, p. 14)

Normative utterances set the rules of behaviour.

(16) “We need to guarantee people employability for life,” said a Whitehall official last night. (The Guardian, Wednesday 9 July 2003, p. 5)

The choice of this or that type of the quoted utterance depends on further functions of reported speech in argumentative discourse.

Other elements are not semantically obligatory, but contain the author’s implicit comment on the quoted utterance and are used for argumentative purposes.

Information about the Beneficiant adds credibility to the quoted words: the reader tends to give more trust to the words uttered before a competent respected audience:

(17) In March 1995, Lord Gil told the Law society: “Our system of civil procedure is a contemporary relic of a vanished age which ill-serves the litigant”. (The Herald, Friday 14 November 2003, p. 19)

Additional information about the initial context of the quoted utterance (time, place and other consequences) emphasizes the topicality of the problem dis-cussed and creates the effect of accuracy of rendering the quoted words:

(18) Elizabeth Stone, head of archaeology department at Stony Brook University in New York, said in London yesterday: “I think you have got to kill some people to stop this.” (The Guardian, Wednesday 9 July 2003, p. 6)




Thus, every semantic component of a quotation in contemporary newspaper discourse plays its important role in persuasion of the target audience.

To sum up, we can say that both form (syntactic structure) and contents (semantic characteristics) of reported speech are important for the readers’ per-suasion and determine the role of reported speech in argumentative discourse.

Having determined the linguistic parameters of structures with reported speech, we can now turn to the question of how reported speech functions in newspaper argumentation.

4. Reported speech in argumentative discourseArgumentative discourses follow certain patterns, or structures, consisting of the following elements:

1. Thesis, or claim – the statement, validity/acceptability of which is being proved; standpoint advanced by the writer.

2. Arguments, or reasons, – statements by means of which validity of the thesis is proved.

In the present article the types of theses and arguments are determined according to the definitions generally accepted in rhetoric (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1992; Ивин, 2000). However, success of argumentation in discourse depends not only on the type of thesis and arguments, but also on their interrelations. That is why one of the central problems in research concerning the analysis of argumentative discourse is determination of the structure of argumentation, the way in which the arguments that are advanced are related to each other and jointly support the thesis.

Argumentation supporting a standpoint may have a more or less complex structure. In the simplest case one argument can suffice. But in most cases thesis is supported by a number of arguments characterized by complex interrelations. In our research we used the classification of structural relations between ele-ments of argumentation proposed by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992). Apart from simple argumentative structures containing one thesis and one argument, they distinguish several types of complex structures: ‘coordinative’ argumentation (with a combined line of defence), ‘multiple’ argumentation (with separate lines of defence) and ‘subordinative’ argumentation (with a continued line of defence).1

Analysing argumentative newspaper discourse we modelled the relations between elements for each argumentative unit. By argumentative unit we understand a structure containing one thesis and arguments supporting or refuting it. As to the main subject of interest of the present article – reported speech – research revealed that in newspaper discourse it can occupy both of the possible argumentative positions – position of the thesis and that of an argu-ment. Approximately in one third of the reviewed argumentative units reported speech was in the position of the thesis. More characteristic, however, is the use




of reported speech in the position of an argument. Reported speech in each of these positions will be reviewed further on in this section of the article.

4.1. REPORTED SPEECH AS THE THESIS OF NEWSPAPER ARGUMENTATION

4.1.1. Logic types of theses represented by reported speech in newspaper discourseWhen reported speech is used as the thesis of newspaper argumentation, the statement that is to be proved is contained in the quoted words, which, as it has been mentioned in section 3.2., can be utterances of three logic types: normative, evaluative and descriptive. Semantics of the quoted words determines further argumentation.

Analysis showed that the majority of the quoted utterances used as the theses of newspaper argumentation set the norms of behaviour (normative type). This fact looks quite natural as human reasoning is generally motivated by the necessity to decide what to do (May, 1991; Mullen and Roth, 1991; Weddle, 1991). That is why the majority of newspaper argumentations deal with accept-ability, expediency and necessity of this or that action, for example:

(19) There should be no radical overhaul of global trade rules that would let countries impose trade restrictions based on their social or environmental values, European Union trade commission decided in Brussels yesterday.

Pascal Lamy, European Union trade commissioner,told a conference in Brussels that giving countries an“untrammeled right to adopt any measure theypleased, however unfair, unreasonable or unrelated toany agreed international framework” would lead to“blinkered, selfish protectionism.”

He pointed out that the present rulesof the World Trade Organizationalready gave countries muchflexibility to defend their values.

( , 6 March/7 March 2004, p. 7)The Financial Times

In example (19) the thesis of argumentation is a normative utterance pro-claiming undesirability of introducing new global trade rules. It is important to note here that the passage cited above may at first sight look like an informative, rather than an argumentative, one. However, the main goal of the writer is not to keep the reader informed of the decision of the European Committee and of the arguments justifying it, but to make the audience share a certain attitude. The whole article published in the ‘Comment’/‘Opinion’ sections of a newspaper is aimed at persuading/convincing the reader, and the passages that at first sight appear informative, really are argumentative, as they serve the overall argu-mentative goal of the author. In contemporary British newspapers explicit argumentation is rare. The thesis (standpoint) and arguments may not be marked as such and even be ‘disguised’ as informative. Thus, in example (19) the author may deliberately want the passage to look informative. Though the standpoint and the arguments are put into the mouths of other persons, still we consider that the act of argumentation takes place there and the author of the article may still be held committed to it. Maybe in this and similar cases it is possible to speak of the complex act, combining arguing and informing.




A sufficiently large group of the quoted utterances used as the thesis of news-paper argumentation are of evaluative type. Absolute or comparative value is attributed to this or that phenomenon, event or object:

(20) Senior coalition officials accuse the Iraqi body of being an ineffective government.

In this example the thesis is an absolute evaluative utterance ascribing to the Iraqi government the evaluation ‘ineffective’. The use of predicate ‘accuse’ revealing author’s understanding of the nature of the quoted speech act may shift the reader’s attention to the speech act itself rather than the contents of the quoted words. However, in line with dialogic understanding of quotations, the main argumentative focus in the thesis lies in the quoted utterance proper, but not in the fact that it was said by somebody. Thus, in example (20) what is being further proved is that the Iraqi government is ineffective (it has failed to prevent attacks on US troops, to convene a constitutional conference to prepare for elections, to develop as an effective administration and to sell itself to the Iraqi people via media), but not that the coalition officials accuse it. The use of predicate presenting the words of the quoted sources as the speech act of accus-ation is indeed an indicator of the author’s attitude and can serve as a marker that the journalist himself/herself fully shares the viewpoint and is going to argue for it.

It is important to note that both of the above described types of theses (normative and evaluative) require dialectic rather than formally logic type of reasoning and thus determine the further type of argumentation.

Propositions describing past, present or future status of reality (descriptive type) are seldom used as the thesis of newspaper argumentation:

(21) Now, he says there is a realistic chance Mr. Howard could oust Tony Blair.

As the example cited above, the majority of descriptive theses in the form of reported speech speak about the future and thus go beyond formal logic.

Thus, in contemporary British press journalists use reported speech as the thesis of argumentation to introduce normative and evaluative utterances as




well as judgements about the future. Prescription of certain actions as well as making evaluations and especially forecasts are ungrateful and risky things to do, and the use of reported speech allows imposing responsibility for them on another person.

4.1.2. Functions of reported speech as the thesis of newspaper argumentationAs the thesis of argumentation, reported speech performs the following functions: function of additional support of the thesis at the very stage of its proclamation, function of the shift of responsibility, aesthetic function and indication of the authorship of the article.

Function of additional support of the thesis at the very stage of its proclam-ation is the most important one. Here thesis partially gains characteristics of an argument. As soon as the thesis is proclaimed it is immediately supported by the authority of a person who said it.

(22) In Liverpool last week, Tony Blair himself said: “We need to renew ourselves for times to come”. (The Guardian, Wednesday 9 July 2003, p. 22)

As soon as we see such a thesis, even before any support is given, we already tend to believe it or at least take it less critically, especially if the quoted person is an authority to us (as Tony Blair is, or at least was at the time the article was pub-lished, to the majority of British citizens). At the same time the use of ‘himself ’, obviously redundant for informative purposes, serves as a linguistic indicator showing that the author is himself/herself committed to a viewpoint.

We called the next important function of reported speech the thesis of argu-mentation ‘function of the shift of responsibility’. By this we mean that the author of the article uses reported speech to introduce antithesis that will be refuted further on in his/her article.

(23) “History will forgive us,” bleats Mr. Blair. (The Herald, Monday 21 July 2003, p. 13)

The same person as in (22) is quoted, but the attitude to his words is quite dif-ferent. The selection of the word ‘bleats’ clearly indicates the author’s intentions and serves as an argumentative marker of a standpoint. This function of reported speech is characteristic of the articles full of sharp criticism and denunciation.

The two functions discussed above can be figured out in newspaper argu-mentation using reported speech as its thesis most often. There are, however, two minor functions: aesthetic function and indication of the authorship of the article.

Sometimes an attractive utterance of some person helps to capture the readers’ attention, makes them read the article, influences them:

(24) Britain should protect its citizens “against injustice and wrong”. (The Guardian, Wednesday 9 July 2003, p. 22)

The quotation in this example clearly belongs to the bookish elevated style and in this respect stands apart from the argumentation that follows. At the same time the use of segmented quotation shows that the journalist is ready to be held personally responsible for the advanced standpoint.




Sometimes reported speech as the thesis of argumentation simply introduces the author of the article.

(25) The former teacher has taken a vital role in the president’s re-election campaign, writes James Harding. (The Financial Times, 6 March/7 March 2004, p. 11)

It looks as if the thesis is introduced by the newspaper editorial board, and the task to prove it is delegated to a certain journalist.

Thus reported speech as the thesis of argumentation can both add weight to the proposed claim and withdraw responsibility for the claim from the author of the article, and is a convenient means of argumentative persuasion.

4.2. REPORTED SPEECH AS AN ARGUMENT OF NEWSPAPER ARGUMENTATION

4.2.1. Logic types of arguments represented by reported speechAny structure with reported speech consists of two parts: the author’s words and the quoted words of another person. We have set up a hypothesis that in the position of an argument reported speech functions as a two-faced unit, a unity of two types of arguments. The first is represented by the author’s words and in-evitably is an argument to authority. The second argument is represented by the quoted words of the authority and is an argument of another type.

Corpus analysis confirmed this hypothesis and showed that reported speech as an argument in argumentative discourse of contemporary British press can be either a pure argument to authority or a combination of an argument to au-thority with an argument of another type.

In general, appeal to authority in press is not devoid of reason and can be justified by the fact that the possibilities of every individual person are limited, and in many complex issues we can only rely on the experts’ opinion. When reported speech is a pure argument to authority it is a reference to the opinion of a person known as an expert in the questions discussed. In this case, the words of the authority are a semantic repetition of the thesis:

(26) Rules aimed at preventing money laundering are not enough. Blezzard, at National Criminal Intelligence Service, stressed that regulation was not enough. (The Herald, Monday 28 January 2002, p. 19)

Cases of pure appeal to authority are not numerous in argumentative newspaper discourse of Great Britain. Western European culture is based on the concept of multiple paradigms (Morawski, 1970). People rely on authority not because something is said by an expert, but because it is well grounded. That is why in the dominating majority of cases reported speech functions as a com-bination of an argument to authority and an argument of another type.

Most widely used is the combination of argument to authority and logic proof (arguments of formal or informal logic). Of all the argumentative patterns of formal logic, newspaper discourse as represented by the reviewed material uses only four: induction, analogy, Modus ponens and Modus tollens.

In the following example appeal to authority is combined with proof by analogy:




(27) A 20-storey tower block should be built 50 meters from the entrance of the Tate Modern.

Vincenti Todoli, director of Tate Modern: “It is like putting a sky-scraper next to the Eiffel Tower, or the Coliseum in Rome.”

(The Guardian, Wednesday 9 July 2003, p. 9)

The example cited above is taken from an opinion article devoted to the dis-cussion of the proposed plan to build a multistoried building near Tate Modern. The issue is rather controversial, and the journalist cannot ignore the existence of two opposite viewpoints. So this is an example of an article with extended argu-mentation containing arguments both for and against the proclaimed thesis (see also example (29)). The journalist seemingly refrains from enforcing his view-point upon the reader and lets him/her take the final decision independently having considered argumentation presented in the article. However, as in all argumentative articles, his actual goal is to shift the public opinion in a certain direction, to form a certain attitude to the discussed issue. The persuasion is not straightforward and is supposed to influence the reader indirectly (see also comment to (29)). In (27) the quoted argument refutes the thesis of the writer. On the basis of implicit premises that it is not allowable to built multistoried buildings near the objects or art and history (it is supposed that the readers of the newspaper share these initial premises) the director of Tate Modern makes a classic proof by analogy. Direct speech of the authority is used in the position of an argument, the predicate is omitted to focus the reader’s attention on the argument contained in the quoted words.

In general, arguments of formal logic are used in newspaper discourse much more rarely than arguments of informal logic. This confirms the need to go beyond formal logic when dealing with argumentation in real discourse (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969; Toulmin, 1958; Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1984, 1992). Arguing on everyday issues in real life we use arguments based on relations existing in reality between the phenomena that are often ruled out by formal logic as incorrect. Thus, formal logic prescribes strict differentiation of facts and evaluations. But it is natural for us to evaluate phenomena or events based on facts, because we know from experience that certain facts deserve cer-tain evaluations. Informal argumentation deducing values from facts is often used in newspaper discourse:

(28) Jackson, despite all, is still to be regarded as one of the most extraordinary performers of all times.




In this example, evaluation of Michael Jackson is proved by the facts of his contribution into pop culture. All facts are given on behalf of a person competent in the sphere discussed (‘Simon Frith, professor of pop at Stirling University’) in the form of direct speech.

Combination of argument to authority with teleological proof takes the second place in the frequency of use among the cases when reported speech includes two types of arguments. Teleological proof justifies certain actions by the positive value of the aims achieved by these actions (the end justifies the means). This argumentative pattern is used mainly for normative theses.

For example, this type of proof is used in the article cited above devoted to the problem of construction of a new multistoried building near Tate Modern. In spite of his attempts to look unbiased the journalist actually sees himself as a protagonist of the proposed plan. In order to form a positive attitude to the con-struction the writer recurs to teleological proof:

(29) A 20-storey tower block should be built 50 meters from the entrance of the Tate Modern.

Here the proposed action is justified by its ends, and these ends are important to the readers as they potentially affect them personally (affordable homes, development of the area, environmental improvements). All these benefits are promised by important people whose words are quoted in the article, and their authority serves as a guarantee that these ends will be actually achieved. If we compare examples (27) and (29) we shall clearly see the author’s preferences. Only one argument is given against, and two arguments for the advanced standpoint. Moreover, the arguments for the construction are supported by authority of the quoted sources holding higher positions in the social hierarchy than the source presenting the argument against. The arguments contained in the quoted words of the sources are also supposed to have different respective impact on the readers. While the teleological proof of the expediency of construction refers to the goals within the sphere of personal interests of the readers, the argument against is based on abstract analogy.

The next group of combined arguments in the form of reported speech includes as its second component arguments appealing to different emotions of the readers. The following example contains arguments combining appeal to authority with appeal to financial interests of the readers:




(30) The SNP yesterday unveiled plans to replace the council tax with a new system of local income tax . . . The implementation of this system will have the most unpleasant consequences for the majority of population.

The aim of the author of this article is to form the negative attitude of the readership to the proposed introduction of a new tax system. To achieve his/her argumentative goal the journalist cites the words of prominent politicians clearly stating that if the new tax system is introduced people will have to pay more.

The next group of arguments is built according to the pattern ‘argument to authority and appeal to public opinion’. In this case, there is a multistage sequence of appeals: the journalist appeals to some authority that in his/her turn also appeals to the authority of law, to traditions and morals, to the opinion of the majority, to fashion, taste or common sense:

(31) We have a parliamentary system that is unfair.

Challenged in front of the liaison committee yesterday, Tony Blair dismissed the complaint on the grounds that “we have a constitutional settlement and part of that settlement is we don’t have two classes of members”. (The Guardian, Wednesday 9 July 2003, p. 23)

In this case, the journalist puts forward a certain thesis, and then refutes it pre-senting arguments against it and thus proving his real viewpoint that is opposite to the one initially proclaimed. Thus, to support his/her standpoint concerning the quality of the existing parliamentary system the journalist appeals to the authority of Tony Blair (apparently well known as an authority on political issues to all the readers), and Tony Blair in his turn appeals to the authority of Con-stitution. Such a method of proof by contradiction is recommended by the rules of rhetoric in cases when it is supposed that the audience strongly adheres to a viewpoint, and if the opposite viewpoint is proclaimed from the very beginning would reject any further argumentation, however sound the latter may be.

Appeal to public opinion is based on the sentiment of belonging to a specific group, on conformism. As identification of oneself with a group is not a priority in individualistic Western European society, such arguments are not often used in newspaper discourse.

The last group of arguments includes as the second component empirical proof (reference to statistical data). According to Kara-Murza, this argument is




efficient because numbers tend to ‘stick in human mind’ (Кара-Мурза, 2001: 98). However, this type of proof can be used only in such cases (not numerous in British newspaper discourse) when thesis is a descriptive utterance:

(32) David Wood, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland deputy director, said: “There is a heightened awareness of money laundering among members and an increase in the skepticism with which they view clients’ business”.

According to the Law Society of Scotland, its members made 64 disclosures of sus-pected money laundering in 2000. (The Herald, Monday 28 January 2002, p. 19)

As early as at the stage of proclaiming the thesis the writer supports his optimistic standpoint on the existing status of struggle with money-laundering by the authority of the quoted source (‘David Wood, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland depute director . . .’). Further on, at the stage of advancing arguments, another reference to authority is made (‘According to the Law Society of Scotland’), as well as reference to statistical data on disclosures of money-laundering. Taken together, that constitutes a sound proof of the advanced thesis.

Detailed information about types and subtypes of arguments introduced by reported speech can be found in Третьякова and Смирнова (2005).

Patterns of combination of arguments within structures with reported speech are summarized in Table 1.

So, in British newspaper discourse reported speech in the position of an argument can represent two types of patterns: a pure argument to authority or a combination of an argument to authority with an argument of another type. Due to European mentality, the first pattern is not very convincing to the reader and is not often used. The second pattern allows the journalist to effectively influ-ence the readers and is characteristic of newspaper discourse.

4.2.2 Functions of reported speech in the position of an argument in newspaper discourseReported speech in the position of an argument fulfils first of all the function of conviction and persuasion. At the same time convincing and persuading as ap-pealing to reason and emotions of the audience, respectively, seem in this case

TA B L E 1 . Patterns of combination of arguments within structures with reported speech

Patterns of combinations of arguments % of structures with reported speech

in the position of an argument

Argument to authority 13.5%Argument to authority & logic proof 39.5%Argument to authority & teleological proof 28.7%Argument to authority & appeal to emotions 12.8%Argument to authority & appeal to public opinion 4.5%Argument to authority & empirical proof 1.0%




inseparable: a good argument convinces and persuades at the same time. Beside these main functions, analysis of our corpus revealed additional functions of reported speech in the position of an argument: function of concealing logical fallacies and function of refutation. These two functions are auxiliary and are not present in all cases.

As any structure with reported speech consists of the author’s words and the quoted words of another person, a question naturally arises as to what is the relative contribution of each of these parts in the overall impact on the reader. We have set up a hypothesis that the reader is primarily influenced by the contents of the quoted utterance. Reference to authority can only increase the overall effect. To confirm this hypothesis we have conducted an experiment with the aim to determine the convictive force of each component of these two-faced units.2 By convictive force we understand the capacity of an argument to execute the perlocutionary effect of the argumentation act – to change the conscious attitude of the addressee to the problem in question by means of persuasion (Stern, 1991).

Our experiment showed that though the readers mainly become convinced by an argument contained in the quoted words, a reference to authority adds the convincing power to these arguments (on average 1.25 times).

As an example let us look at an argument that in the course of the experi-ment showed the greatest difference between its convincing power with and without reference to authority:

(33) Tom Baldwin, deputy HFEA Chairman and professor of philosophy at the Univer-sity of York, said that they were worried about the potential psychological damage to a child born by such techniques. “What if the child is born of the ‘wrong’ sex because no technique is 100% reliable?” he asked “There is anxiety about what kind of future that child would have, given that those parents have invested money and time in trying to have the child of the other sex.” (The Times, Wednesday, 12 November 2003, p. 6)

Making reference to authority the author of the article first of all proves the right of the quoted source to express his opinion as an expert. For this purpose, the journalist mentions the high position Mr Baldwin holds in a relevant organ-ization (‘deputy HFEA (Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority) Chairman’). Besides, the right of the quoted person to make his judgements on moral and ethical issues is substantiated by his academic degree and another pos-ition he holds in a reputable institution (‘professor of philosophy at the University of York’). The use of neutral predicates say and ask also allows the journalist to focus the readers’ attention on characteristics of the authority. Reported speech is represented in the form of literal direct speech that is supposed to render the initial utterance word for word. The use of this structure not only creates authenticity effect, but allows the author to use for argumentative purposes the rhetorically effective wording of the reported utterance (rhetorical question that activates the readers’ attention). All this taken together doubled the convictive force of the quoted utterance.

Another function of reported speech in the position of an argument is to permit the journalist to conceal his/her deliberate fallacies in argumentation from




the reader. Impressed by the authority of the person whose words are quoted the reader takes the argumentation less critically. By a logical fallacy we understand violation of rules, laws and patterns of logic (Freeman, 1991; Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1984, 1992). Violation of communication maxims, moral codes and journalistic ethics are not included herein.

In the reviewed material reported speech was not infrequently used to introduce fallacious arguments. For example, journalists proclaim one thesis and actually prove another – such fallacy in logics got the name ignoratio elenchi:

(34) Commercial cultivation of genetically modified maize is to be approved.

The initially proclaimed discussion of pros and cons of commercial cultiv-ation of genetically modified maize turns into the argument about reliability of the results of farm-scale evaluations of the effects of GM crops. The reader be-comes involved in the emotionally coloured exchange of arguments between reputable organizations (the environmental audit committee, The Department for Environment, The Royal Society, the National Academy of Science). Using reported speech in the position of the argument the journalist prevents the reader from noticing the fact that the thesis has been changed.

More details about the use of reported speech with the aim to conceal dif-ferent types of fallacies can be found in Смирнова (2005).

Besides, reported speech in the position of an argument can be used for the purpose of refutation: the words of the opponent are quoted to reveal weak points in his/her argumentation and to put forward counter-arguments:

(35) In his spirited rejoinder, Michael Palmer makes the absurd statement that “as a general rule, those who are clever, innovative and hard-working become more wealthy than those who are not”.

A massive amount of wealth is simply inherited, and so it has nothing at all to do with being “clever, innovative and hard-working”.

Take figures for the US: the richest 1% inherit about one-third of the inherited wealth, the next 9% inherit another third, whereas the remaining 90% inherit wealth averaging $40,000. (The Herald, Saturday 6 March 2004, p. 12)




In this argumentation the author first quotes the words of his antagonist when introducing the thesis (or, actually, antithesis) of his argumentation. Then in his argument, which is further supported by quoting exact figures, he uses again the section of the initial quotation that seems to him most unacceptable. He turns the antagonist’s proper words containing his evaluation of the rich against him.

5. ConclusionThe conducted research yielded the following results:

1. Reported speech is an important element of contemporary argumentative newspaper discourse of Great Britain.

2. The integral approach to linguistic phenomena proposed in this article com-bines linguistics with logic and argumentation theory. This approach allowed us to see the relations between purely linguistic (syntactic and semantic) characteristics of reported speech with its functioning in argumentative discourse of British press.

3. Reported speech in argumentative newspaper discourse is presented to the reader in such a way that it would influence the addressee most efficiently according to argumentative intentions of the author. Linguistic character-istics of reported speech (syntax and semantics) are subordinated to this general aim.

4. The choice of syntactic structure of reported speech depends on the argu-mentative position of the author. A classification of syntactic structures used for reported speech in newspaper discourse of Modern British English based on literalness criterion has been proposed. Literal structures are less risky in the way of responsibility of the author for the content of the quoted words. Liberal structures are more ‘obedient’ to the author and let him/her enforce upon the reader the required attitude to the reported utterance. Combined structures uniting literal and liberal ones are used more rarely due to their large volume.

5. In the way of semantics, all elements of structures with reported speech play their role in the overall impact on the reader. Thus, the predicates replace direct author’s comment and serve as a clue for further interpretation of the quotation. The agent and the appositive element provide characteristics of the quoted person and justify his/her right to make judgements on the issues discussed as an authority. The selection of the quoted segment of utterance and its logic type are also important for influencing the readers.

6. Reported speech can be both a thesis and an argument of newspaper argu-mentation. The use of reported speech as an argument is more common.

7. As a thesis of argumentation reported speech introduces mainly normative and evaluative utterances or descriptive utterances about future events. All these types of utterances in the position of thesis call for dialectic rather than formally logic reasoning. As the thesis of argumentation, reported speech performs the following functions: function of additional support of the thesis




at the very stage of its proclamation, function of the shift of responsibility, aesthetic function and indication of the authorship of the article.

8. Reported speech in the position of an argument in British newspaper discourse can be either a pure argument to authority or a combination of an argu-ment to authority with an argument of another type. Worship of authority is not characteristic of European culture, and pure appeal to authority is not very convincing to the reader and is not often used. Reference to authority is usually combined with other arguments: logic proof, teleological proof, appeal to emotions, appeal to public opinion and empirical proof. The con-ducted experiment showed that the reader is primarily influenced by the contents of the quoted utterance. However, reference to authority is an effec-tive argumentative strategy that can considerably increase the overall effect. Reported speech in the position of an argument fulfils first of all the func-tion of conviction and persuasion and two additional functions: function of concealing logical fallacies and function of refutation.

N O T E S

1. Notation conventions:

– relations of support between the thesis and an argument or between two arguments.

– relations of refutation between thesis and argument or between two arguments.

* – reconstructed implicit elements of argumentation. – coordinative relations between arguments.

2. For the experiment native-speakers were divided into two groups. Each group was given a text of the article ‘Ban on Parents Using Science to Select Child’s Sex’ taken from The Times (Wednesday 12 November 2003, p. 6) devoted to the question of how ethical it is to select the sex of your future baby by means of modern medical tech-niques. To support the claim that this is unacceptable the author puts forward eight arguments in the form of reported speech. In the texts presented to the first group, structures with reported speech were left as they were in the newspaper, and in the text presented to the second group the appeal to authority was withdrawn – the text contained only the quoted words themselves. Respondents were asked to react to these arguments and characterize their reaction using a scale from ‘strongly agree’ (5) to ‘strongly disagree’ (1). It is already common knowledge that reaction to argumentation largely depends on the initial opinion of the recipients on the question discussed, their demands, experience, knowledge, background, philosophy, etc. They tend to accept more readily the arguments that coincide with their initial opinion and vice versa. Taking this into consideration before presenting the arguments we asked the par-ticipants of our experiment to express their initial opinion on the problem in question (in favour/more in favour/indifferent/more against/against). At the stage of results analysis we introduced coefficients that were supposed to minimize the effect of the reader’s prejudice on his/her evaluation of arguments. If opinions of the reader and the journalist coincide, the latter tends to give higher evaluation to the arguments. That is why for these cases we used coefficients <1. In the reverse case arguments are not so readily accepted by the reader, and we used coefficients >1. Finally, average convictive force of each argument for both groups of respondents was calculated.




R E F E R E N C E S

Anscombre, J.-C. and Ducrot, O. (1983) L’argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Mardaga.Authier-Revuz, J. (1997) ‘Modalisation autonymique et discours autre’, Modèles

linguistiques 35(XVIII) fas.1: 33–51.Bakhtin, M.M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Bakhtin, M.M. (1984) Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota Press.Bakhtin, M.M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Blair, J.A. and Johnson, R.H. (1997) ‘Argumentation as Dialectical’, Argumentation 1(1):

41–56.Bolden, G. (2004) ‘The Quote and Beyond: Defining Boundaries of Reported Speech in

Conversational Russian’, Journal of Pragmatics 36(6): 1071–118.Buttny, R. (1998) ‘Putting Prior Talk into Context: Reported Speech and the Reporting

Context’, Research on Language and Social Interaction 31(1): 45–58.Calsamiglia, H. and Ferrero, C.L. (2003) ‘Role and Position of Scientific Voices: Reported

Speech in the Media’, Discourse Studies 5(2): 147–73.Clark, H.H. and Gerrig, R.J. (1990) ‘Quotations as Demonstrations’, Language 66(4):

764–805.Derrida, J. (1978) Writing and Difference. London: Routledge.Ducrot, O. (1984) Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Fillmore, C.J. (1968) ‘The Case for Case’, in E. Bach, C.J. Fillmore, R.T. Harms, P. Kiparsky

and J.D. Maccawley (eds) Universals in Linguistic Theory, pp. 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Freeman, J.B. (1991) Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Gordon, C. (2006) ‘Reshaping Prior Text, Reshaping Identities’, Text & Talk 26(4–5):

545–71.Guenthner, S. (1999) ‘Polyphony and the “Layering of Voices” in Reported Dialogues:

An Analysis of the Use of Prosodic Devices in Everyday Reported Speech’, Journal of Pragmatics 31(5): 685–708.

Holt, E. (2000) ‘Reporting and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech’, Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(4): 425–54.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1979) De la semantique lexicale a la semantique de l’enonciation. Lille: Université de Lille.

Kristeva, J. (1969) ‘Le mot, le dialogue et le roman’, in Séméiotikè, Recherches pour une sémanalyse, pp. 82–112. Paris: Seuil.

May, J.D. (1991) ‘Practical Arguments’, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, vol. 1, pp. 259–66. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Morawski, S. (1970) ‘The Basic Function of Quotation’, in Sign. Language. Culture, pp. 690–705. The Hague: Mouton.

Mullen, J.D. and Roth, B.M. (1991) ‘Decision Theoretic Models of Practical Reasoning’, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, vol. 1, pp. 271–80. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise On Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: Indiana University Press.

Perrin, L. (1994) ‘Mots ou enonces mentionnes dans le discours’, Cahiers de linguistique française 15: 217–48.

Rey-Debove, J. (1978) Le metalangage. Paris: Le Robert.




Roberts, K.G. (2004) ‘Liminality, Authority, and Value: Reported Speech in Epideictic Rhetoric’, Communication Theory 14(3): 264–84.

Rosier, L. (1997) ‘Le discours rapporte entre binarite et continuum?’, Modèles linguistiques 35(XVIII), fas. 1: 7–16.

Stern, K. (1991) ‘Argument and Convictive Force’, in Proceedings of the Second Inter-national Conference on Argumentation, vol. 1, pp. 117–22. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Thompson, G. (1996) ‘Voices in the Text: Discourse Perspectives on Language Reports’, Applied Linguistics 17(4): 501–3.

Toulmin, S.E. (1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Van Dijk, T.A. (1980) Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in

Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Van Eemeren, F.H. and Grootendorst, R. (1984) Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions.

Dordrecht: Foris.Van Eemeren, F.H. and Grootendorst, R. (1992) Argumentation, Communication, and

Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Waugh, L.R. (1995). ‘Reported Speech in Journalistic Discourse: The Relation of Function

and Text’, Text 15(1): 129–73.Weddle, P. (1991) ‘Resurrecting the Practical Argument’, in Proceedings of the Second Inter-

national Conference on Argumentation, vol. 1, pp. 267–70. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Weizman, E. (1984) ‘Some Register Characteristics of Journalistic Language: Are they

Universals?’, Applied Linguistics 5(1): 39–50.Арнольд, И.В. (1999) Семантика. Стилистика. Интертекстуальность. СПб: изд-во

СПбГУ.Баженова, Е.А. (2001) Научный текст в аспекте политекстуальности. Пермь: изд-во

Пермского гос. ун-та.Барт, Р. (1994) Избранные работы: Семиотика. Поэтика. М: Прогресс.Ивин, А.А. (2000) Теория аргументации. М.: Гардарики.Кара-Мурза, С.Г. (2001) Манипуляция сознанием. М: изд-во ЭКСМО пресс.Кожина, М.Н. (1986) О диалогичности письменной научной речи. Пермь: изд-во

Пермского гос. ун-та.Лотман, Ю.М. (1981) ‘Текст в тексте’, Труды по знаковым системам ХIV. Вып. 567,

3–18. Тарту: изд-во Тартуского гос. ун-та.Смирнова, А.В. (2004) ‘Семантические типы предикатов в конструкциях с чужой

речью в газетном дискурсе’, Теория и практика описания языковых единиц. 216–25. Нижний Новгород: НГЛУ им. Н. А. Добролюбова.

Смирнова, А.В. (2005) ‘Чужая речь как средство маскировки некорректной аргументации в газетном дискурсе’, Риторика в свете современной лингвистики, 93–5. Смоленск: СГПУ.

Смирнова, А.В. (2007) ‘Способы характеризации цитируемых источников в британской и российской прессе. О риторически обусловленных различиях газетно-публицистических стилей английского и русского языков’, Стилистика текста, 35–8. Вып. 2 – Нижний Новгород: НГЛУ им. Н.А. Добролюбова.

Третьякова, Т.П., Смирнова, А.В. (2005) ‘Аргумент, выраженный чужой речью, в британском газетном дискурсе’, Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Сер. 9. Филология. Востоковедение. Журналистика. Вып. 4.

Чернявская, В.Е. (1996) Интертекстуальность как текстообразующая категория вторичного текста в научной коммуникации. Ульяновск.




A L L A V I TA L J E V N A S M I R N O VA , born in Samara, Russia, was educated at gymnasium No. 11 and Samara State University, Philological Faculty, English Department. In 2002 she graduated with honours and the same year entered St Petersburg State University, Philological Faculty, Chair of English Philology and Translation for postgraduate studies in linguistics. In 2006 she obtained the degree of the candidate of philological sciences (equivalent to PhD in linguistics). Since then she has worked as an independent scholar and translator for Rosneft Oil Company. A D D R E S S : ul. Novo-Sadovaya, 42–721, Samara 443110, Russia. [email: [email protected]]



Discourse & Communication 2009 Smirnova 79 103

Documents

Transcript of Discourse & Communication 2009 Smirnova 79 103