Re-marked circulation vs un-marked: circulation of oral reported discourse

Abstract

This paper tries to answer why, in oral interactions, the recursive forms of direct reported speech (e.g. Peter said: “Paul said: “Y””) are scarcer than utterances where the third voice can be inferred from the con-text. It will explain this imbalance through the principle of dialogical relevance. Mark-ing explicitly the double report is especially usefull and pertinent when the addressee may doubt or contest the reliability of the reported content. Simplified forms are preferred when there is consensus amongst the participants or when the speaker aims to anticipate the addressee’s doubts by persuading or manipulating him/her.