Reporting Discourse, Tense, and Cognition (review)

In this impressive book, Tomoko I. Sakita argues for a dynamic and interdisciplinary analysis of reporting discourse. In this text, an updated version of the author’s doctoral dissertation completed at Kyoto University in 1998, S aims ‘to provide systematic accounts of reporting discourse behaviors in naturally spoken English’ (227). Indeed, S’s presentation makes some contributions to clarifying some previous misunderstandings concerning reporting discourse.

This book contains eight chapters. In Ch. 1 (1–18), the introduction, S begins with a call for understanding reporting discourse in relation to narrative. S then discusses discourse perspectives on reporting discourse before presenting an overview of the rest of the chapters. I agree with S when she points out that ‘Traditional linguistics has mostly been based on the analysis of unnatural language, and has put aside empirically available details of talk’ (12). Ch. 2 (19–42) reviews relevant literature in tense-alternation theories and identifies existing problems. In Ch. 3 (43–80), the author presents cognitive backgrounds of ‘dialogue-introducer tense-switching in conversational narratives’ (78). By means of the cognitive recollection model, the key factors of which are proximity, psychological involvement, and self-identity, S shows that the narrator’s self-identity has some influence on the narrator’s choice of tense form. In Ch. 4, ‘Tense and attitudinal contrast’ (81–118), S argues for dialogue-introducer tenses as attitudinal markers, pointing out that utterances introduced with the past tense signal a stronger attitude than utterances introduced with the present tense.

In Ch. 5, ‘Consciousness flow, discourse acts, and tense’ (119–58), the dialogue-introducer tenses are explored as conscious stream markers. Utilizing the consciousness stream model, S demonstrates that such forms as ‘I says’, ‘he say’, ‘I saying’, and ‘he saying’, previously regarded as ungrammatical, actually ‘work toward making a narrative a coherent whole with a natural consciousness flow’ (229). In Ch. 6, ‘Tense in indirect reporting discourse’ (159–82), the author challenges traditional standard treatments of tense in indirect reporting discourse, pointing out that ‘the reported clause is not subordinated to the reporting clause as has long been assumed’ (160). For the author, a pragmatic and discourse-oriented approach to the subject matter in question reveals that the reporter’s point of view determines the tenses of reported verbs. In this chapter, the author also discusses the absolute tense as a preferred device for contextual clarity and for discourse coherence. Ch. 7, ‘Reporting discourse style and function’ (183–226), focuses on structural factors affecting the choice of reporting style. Here, S also deals with some interactional functions of reporting discourse, with a concluding discussion of how function and style are linked to each other. In Ch. 8 (227–34), S sums up the major arguments made in previous chapters and suggests issues for future research. The book ends with notes to each chapter, transcription conventions, references, and author and subject indices.

Well-researched and clearly presented, this book represents a step forward in our understanding of direct and indirect reporting discourse, showing that tense-alternation in reporting discourse is not only a topic of syntax but also one of pragmatics, cognition, and consciousness, and that an interdisciplinary approach to reporting discourse should be adopted. The book’s dynamic analysis of reporting discourse also contributes to our understanding of how we human beings perceive and interpret the world and (re)construct our social identity and self-identity.