ELSEVIER

Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

Multivoicedness in speech and thought representation"

The case of self-quotation in Japanese
S e n k o K. M a y n a r d
Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures, Rutgers University, Scott Hall 330,
New Brunswick, NJ 08903. USA

Received June 1993; revised version October 1994

Abstract
This paper explores the functions of self-quotation in Japanese discourse. The phenomena
under investigation include direct-style self-quotation, direct-style self-representation of
thought, as well as direct-style quotative explanation. Using the closely related concepts of
'multivoicedness', 'text population' and 'interdiscursivity', this paper argues that self-quotation allows for manipulation of multiple voices in Japanese discourse. Also discussed is the
function of certain types of self-quotation from the perspective of speech act qualification. It
is pointed out that these functions are realized through the juxtaposition of semiotic contexts.
Despite the fact that the concept of context has occupied an important place in pragmatics, the
manipulation of the contexts for creating meaning has rarely been discussed. Although this
study discusses the case of Japanese only, the potentially universal nature of multivoicedness
in (self-)quotation and of the juxtaposition of semiotic contexts in language in general is
suggested.

1. Introduction and background

Studies on speech and thought representation have primarily been concerned with
indirect and direct speech - i.e., reported speech, and what Tannen (1989) calls 'constructed dialogue'. While traditional linguistic studies have focused on the shift
between speech styles, more recent studies have revealed communicational functions
of various modes of speech. For example, Macaulay (1987) examines quoted direct
speech of southwest Scotland and proposes a variety of functions. They include indirection, embedded evaluation, mimicry, taboo expressions, authenticity, and translation. Macaulay (1987: 22) also states that self-quotation is used as "a kind of dis~2 The data for this study was collected while I was a fellow under the Japan Foundation Professional
Fellowship Program in 1992. I wish to express my gratitude to the Japan Foundation for their generous
support. I also thank Jacob Mey, the editor-in-chiefof Journal of Pragmatics, for his encouraging words
and thoughtful editorial assistance.
0378-2166/96/$15.00 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
SSDI 0378-2166(94)00097-2

208

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

tancing" whereby the speaker presents himself or herself "as an actor in a scene".
Tannen (1989) argues that 'reported speech' is a misnomer since it is not actually
'reported'. Instead what is generally meant by 'reported speech' is, in fact, spontaneous speech creatively constructed by the speaker at the time of talk. The overall
effect of constructed dialogue, Tannen points out, creates 'involvement'. Mayes'
(1990) discussion of discourse functions of direct quotations in English conversation
includes dramatization of events, presentation of evidence, backgrounding of unimportant information, clarification and error correction. Besnier (1993) examines
reported speech on Nukulaelae Atoll as he focuses on affective meaning. He writes
that Nukulaelae speakers communicate affect through the prosody, deictic adverbs,
and particular rhetorical style which occur in direct quotation.
Of the many studies on quotation available in the field of Japanese linguistics,
those relevant to the present study include the following. Kamada (1988) asserts that
the function of direct quotation is not merely to parrot the quotee's utterance, but
rather to offer dramatic effect by introducing one ba, 'place or situation of talk', into
another. The notion of a clash of 'place' matrixes is further pursued in Sunakawa's
work (1988, 1989). Sunakawa examines the functional differences between the quotative clause to and nominal clause marked by koto along with the type of co-occurring predicate verbs and concludes that they differ in terms of their usage in expressing the dual 'places'. Although the to yuu clause readily embraces the dual nature
of 'places', the koto clause is restricted to one - a representation of the event that the
quoter has objectified and conceptualized. In a similar approach, I discussed functions of to and koto-o (Maynard, 1984) in Japanese written discourse and pointed out
that to-quotation supports the shifting of point of view in the Japanese literary style.
More recently Kamada (1994) explores the sociolinguistic characteristics of the quotation and states that socially motivated markers - i.e., 'social deixis' - appear in the
created quotation, as they are adjusted to the need of the quoting situation. All of the
above-mentioned studies attempt to understand and explain quotation from pragmatic and sociolinguistic perspectives.
This study departs from previous studies on direct/indirect style of speech and
thought representation by placing primary focus on what I identify as 'direct-style
self-quotation', 'direct-style self-representation of thought' and 'self-quotative
explanation' in Japanese. I will largely follow the direction of the studies mentioned
above, but with a closer attention given to the expressiveness of the speaker's attitude toward the content and toward the speech act as it is observed in certain cases
of Japanese self-quotation.
In the course of this study, I will point out that although the quotee and the quoter
may be in physical terms the same person, they are not identical in terms of the characters represented in the discourse. Speakers assume different character roles as they
interact according to a context which the speakers themselves help create. When
assuming the voice of a character, the speakers are capable of echoing multiple
voices manipulated through, among other devices, quotation strategies. I will argue
that what motivates the speaker to self-quote is a desire to manipulate a broader
range of expressiveness in interaction. More concretely, self-quotation facilitates discourse functions such as dramatization and distancing. Self-quotation also serves to

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

209

qualify speech acts as it mitigates, parodies, and/or emphasizes the act of ' s a y i n g '
itself. It will be pointed out that these discourse functions o f self-quotation are attributed to the juxtaposing and blending of 'semiotic contexts' where multiple voices
echo.
Given that self-quotation is likely to occur when self-expression is highly encouraged, selecting data sources citing lively conversation in dramatic situations is
expected to be useful. Thus, I chose data including (1) political discourse in a Japanese Diet hearing, recorded from the former Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita's testim o n y (December 7, 1992); (2) published taidan, 'dialogue' format presentations,
taken from the 1992 issues of K o o d a n s h a ' s H o n ; ~ (3) casual conversation collected
in T o k y o ; 2 and (4) dialogue and text in girls' comic books. Data samples taken from
these authentic sources are numbered in parentheses; those created by the author are
marked by numbers in square brackets.
Traditionally, the question o f direct/indirect speech has s u m m o n e d the discussion
of narrative and/or novelistic discourse. Literary discourse presupposes a concept of
voice expressed through the author's choice of viewpoint including (1) authorial,
(2) narrative, and (3) character. The strategy o f quotation often serves the purpose of
presenting these voices. In this context, what is important is the appreciation of
' p o l y p h o n y ' or 'multivoicedness' in language. O f particular interest to us is the view
developed in Russian psycholinguistics and semiotics as presented in the works of
Vygotsky, Bakhtin, and Volo~inov in particular. 3 Unlike the tradition o f Saussurean
linguistics, which has faithfully adopted the clear-cut separation between ' l a n g u e '
and ' p a r o l e ' - i.e., ' l a n g u e ' (or sentence) as an abstract system and 'parole' (or utterance) as the actual speech act - Bakhtin (1971, 1981, 1986) insists that the reality of
language/speech does not lie in an abstract system of language, but originates in the
social event of verbal interaction. The notion that language is inseparable from society encourages the thought that language reflects multiple voices. This is because
according to this view, language originates, and is given life, only in the dialogic
relation with the voice of the 'other'. Bakhtin's (1986) words are relevant here:
"Any concrete utterance is a link in the chain of speech communication of a particular sphere. The very
boundaries of the utterance are determined by a change of speech subjects. Utterances are not indifferent to one another, and are not self-sufficient; they are aware of and mutually reflect one another. These
mutual reflections determine their character. Each utterance is filled with echoes and reverberations of
other utterances to which it is related by the communality of the sphere of speech communication. Every
utterance must be regarded primarily as a response to preceding utterances of the given sphere (...). Each

Taidan is a two-person conversation ffmnat in which participants engage in intellectual talk-think.

Transcribed taidan is a frequently observed method of idea sharing/presentation in Japanese magazines
and scholarly journals.
2 The data used as casual conversation in this study consist of twenty videotaped dyadic conversations
taped in Tokyo in May, 1985. Detailed information regarding the procedure of data collection is available in Maynard (1989).
3 Some researchers have maintained that Bakhtin also writes under other names such as Medvedev or
Volo~inov. The evidence for this is, however, far from conclusive. See Morson and Emerson (1990:
1lO--115).

210

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

utterance refutes, affirms, supplements, and relies on the others, presupposes them to be known, and
somehow takes them into account." (1986: 91; original emphasis)
From a cognitive/psycholinguistic point of view as well, language can be seen as
reflecting multiple voices of society. According to Vygotsky (1962), the cognitive
development of a child is accomplished through a process of internalization of language - the result of which is 'inner speech'. Language is first used by the child for
the purpose of socialization with other individuals; only later it becomes internalized. In fact, all the higher psychological stages an individual attains directly reflect
the social processes in which that individual participated at an earlier stage of his or
her development, particularly through the use of language. The following words
from Vygotsky support this view.
~... the very mechanism underlying higher mental functions is a copy from social interaction; all higher
mental functions are internalized social relationships. These higher mental functions are the basis of the
individual's social structure. Their composition, genetic structure, and means of action - in a word, their
whole nature - is social. Even when we turn to mental processes, their nature remains quasi-social.
In their own private sphere, human beings retain the functions of social interaction." (Wertsch, 1981:
164 )

I take the position that language is essentially social, that is, interactional and dialogic, and that language cannot help but reflect multiple voices. After all, one cannot
claim total or sole ownership of even a single word. The meaning of a word is
shaped and is interpreted dialogically with the person one addresses, as well as with
the society that endorses its very existence.
In a deeper sense every utterance is polyphonic as expressed in Bakhtin's words
quoted earlier. Or, as Wertsch (1991: 13) aptly puts it, "human communicative and
psychological processes are characterized by a dialogicality of voices" and they
always represent 'multivoicedness'. Although muitivoicedness is expected to resonate throughout language, direct/indirect speech and thought representation,
through various devices of quotation, offer unique instances where the many 'voices'
of discourse converge. In other words, unlike other language devices, quotation
overtly marks different voices in discourse. In terms of actual use of language, quoting someone's words, involves, by definition, the voice of another, which results in
a double-voiced discourse. It is reasonable to assume, then, that analyzing the strategies of quotation with the concept of multivoicedness as a guide offers a direct
means for discovering the motivation for their use.
Closely associated with Bakhtinian multivoicedness is the concept of 'tissue of
voices' introduced by Talbot (1992). Talbot uses the term 'voices' to represent the
voices of the 'text population' - a construct which consists of (1) interactants, (2)
characters, and (3) subject positions. Interactants are people addressing one another;
they include the writer, the reader, and the characters created in the text. Characters
are people whose words or thoughts are represented in a text and "these words or
thoughts may be embedded in a text by being quoted, reported or simply presupposed" (Talbot, 1992: 177). Subject positions are positions represented by the conventional kinds of voice associated with the person's position. For example, the edi-

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

211

torial voice in a girls' magazine could assume multiple roles including that of an
advertiser, facilitator, or the voice of a friend. Talbot's characterization of the 'text
population' offers a tangible means for attributing different voices to different populations engaged in text.
The study of quotation to date has in general concentrated on other-quotation,
while excluding the phenomenon of self-quotation. Obviously, self-quotation does
not involve the voice of the other in the traditional sense. Some readers may find my
focus on self-quotation contradictory and may argue that self-quotation presents a
poor example for studying the issue of multivoicedness. I claim the contrary; the
nature of multivoicedness is amply observed (as I will explore in the course of this
paper) in self-quotation. Precisely because of being seemingly unexpected as a place
for the phenomenon of many voices to appear, self-quotation may reveal the nature
of multivoicedness in its most crystallized form. This paper will demonstrate that
multivoicedness, though based on analysis of literary discourse, has broader implications and that everyday utterances are microcosms of literary discourse. In fact, the
essential character of literary discourse, including the manipulation of multiple
voices, is inscribed in miniature within a single self-quoting utterance in ordinary
discourse.

2. Multivoicedness and self-quotation/self-representation of thought

In this section, I explore the functions, first, of self-quotation and, second, of selfrepresentation of thought in Japanese. To facilitate the discussion, let us use the
structure [[X] to yuu/omou] (where yuu and omou refer to 'say' and 'think' respectively) for representing various forms of self-quotation and self-representation of
thought. Following Sternberg (1982), I refer to [X] as the 'inset' and the to yuu/omou
portion as the 'frame'. Let us start our discussion of self-quotation by examining
data (1) taken from Takeshita's testimony.4
(1) Sonohoka no koto nitsuite wa/watashi wa ano/nai
to
other
LK things about T I
T uhh BE-NEG QT
omotteorimasu ga/ ano/sakihodo/oyakusokushimashita yooni/choosashiro
think
but uhh earlier
promised
as
investigate
to/ yuu koto nitsuite wa/sunaoni/ soo shimasu to/ koo
kotaeteoru
QT say fact about T honestly so do
QT this way answer
wake degozaimasu.
fact BE

4 Note the following abbreviations: BE (various forms of the verb 'be'), COM (command form), IP
(interactional particle), LK (linking particle), NEG (negative morpheme), NOM (nominalization), O
(object marker), Q (question marker), QT (quotative marker), S (subject marker), T (theme marker). In
the conversational data, listener response is provided in parentheses; listener response that occurs immediately following the previous turn is expressed by a connecting latch mark. Simultaneous utterances are
marked by a large square bracket connecting their starting points.

212

S.K. Maynard/Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

'Regarding other things, I do think there is none, but as I stated earlier, about the
fact that you demand that I investigate the matter, I am answering - I will honestly do so.'
In (1) [X] refers to [regarding other things, I do think there is none, but as I stated
earlier, about the fact that you demand that I investigate the matter, I will honestly
do so] which is framed by the quotative marker to and the verb of 'saying', i.e.,
kotaeteoru 'I am answering'. Note that [X] is accompanied with the verb shimasu,
the formal form of suru 'do', which is not expected normally to occur in indirect
quotation. Why is the direct style self-quotation used here? And more specifically,
why does Takeshita find it necessary to overtly frame his answer with kotaeteoru 'I
am answering' ? In terms of conversational sequencing, the question-answer relation
forms an 'adjacency pair' (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973). Since (1), the second pairpart, occurs in the sequence where the response normally appears - i.e., satisfying
'conditional relevance' (Schegloff, 1968: 1083) - (1) is perceived as an answering
response unless otherwise noted. In addition to this fundamental sequential protocol,
one realizes that the formal structure of the Diet hearing conditions us to take
Takeshita's words as his answer. After all, Takeshita had been summoned to give
testimony by answering the questions raised by the Diet members. Given all this, is
it necessary for Takeshita to overtly characterize his speech act as an 'answer'?
One approach to answering this question centers around a view of language as
operating on at least two different levels. The self-quotation in (1) serves to present
two distinct voices on two separate discourse levels: Takeshita's direct voice in [X]
reciting an answer, and Takeshita's voice framing [X] as a proper and formal reply
to the query, i.e., official testimony offered in the Diet hearing. One observes two
different levels of speech acts here, as the discourse maintains a double focus performed by two different characters and enacted in two distinct situational contexts.
The image of this double-voicedness, however, does not reside on the speaker's side
alone. The double-voice addresses two different images of the listener; first, the
listener as recipient of the content of the answer, and second, the listener as recipient of an overtly labeled speech act. Thus, the multivoicedness observed here
involves not only the kind attributed solely to the speaker, but that which is connected to the listener as well.
The communication taking place here is dialogic in two different ways. First, it is
dialogic since it takes place between two pairs of different types of speaker/listener;
and second, it is dialogic in that the speaker creates a dialogic relationship between
an inset and a frame within an utterance. Although in physical terms only one person
stands behind the statement of (1), one can say that there exists a character who
utters [X] and a speaker who frames and controls the character's voice.
The double-voicedness depicted here begs the question of what effect the voice
manipulation brings to discourse. Perhaps we can approach this question from two
different perspectives: (1) in terms of the framing strategy, and (2) in terms of the
rationale for presenting the inset in direct style. In addressing the first perspective, I
again draw some clues from Bakhtin (1971).

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

213

"The most typical and extensive variety of representedor objectified word usage is the direct speech of
characters. Such speech has its own immediatereferentialobject, yet it does not occupy a position on the
same plane with the direct speech of the author; instead, it stands at a certain remove from the author's
speech, as if in perspective. It is meant not only to be understood in terms of its own referential object,
but, by virtue of its character-definingcapacity, or its typicality,or its colorfulness,it also appears as the
object of another (the author's) intention." (1971: 177)
Although the direct discourse of [X] is physically traceable to the speaker, it is different from the voice of the speaker as a quoter. The quoted [X] 'appears as the object
of another intention'. By the token that it is quoted, [X] is one step further from the
immediate discourse of the speaker. Ultimately, quoting [X] has an objectifying and
distancing effect, as suggested by Bakhtin's statement quoted above. The same characterization (of distancing) was discussed by Macaulay (1987) as reviewed earlier.
In order to address the second perspective, i.e., the rationale for presenting the
inset in direct style, let us examine another example taken from Takeshita's testimony.
(2.1) Kore wa Ikeda-sensei mo/ kokkai no koto wa yoku
this T Mr. Ikeda
also Diet
LK things T well
gozonjidearu to [- (?) omoimasu./
know
QT ~
think

(.9)

'Uh, this, as you know Mr. Ikeda, I am sure that you, too, know a lot about
the Diet.'
(2.2) Iya/ ano ima made/Takahashi Eiichi F sensei no kankei
well uhh now until Takahashi Eiichi [ Mr.
LK relation
(Aa LAUGH)
mo yoku/ zonjiteorimasu shi/ ] ohisashiburidesu to
also well know
and [ long time no see QT
[. (Maitta naa LAUGH)
(You got me.)
iitai
kimochi degozaimasu ga./
want to say feelings BE
but
'Well, until now I have also known about your relationship with Mr. Eiichi
Takahashi, and I want to exchange greetings with you by saying, "It's been a
long time," but [I shouldn't].'
(2.3) Sensei soko n
toko wa desu ne/ ] kotogoto sayooni
Mr.
there NOM place T BE IP [ t h i n g s
such as
(Haa)
(Yeah.)
Aoki-kun o watakushi ga shinraishiteotta wake degozaimasu kara/
Mr. Aoki O I
S trusted
fact BE
since
sono yooni gorikai-o-itadakitai
mono da to omoimasu.
that way want to be understood thing BE QT think
'Please, about that point, it is because I trusted Mr. Aoki all the more; I hope
you would understand it as I stated.'

214

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

Ikeda: Hai/ ee/ maa/ sore/ maa/ sore sore datta

yes uh well that well that that BE
kamoshire I masen
might
(LAUGH)
ga anoo/ [ tsuikyuushimasen./ l
but uhh
pursue-NEG
(LAUGH)
(LAUGH)
'Yes, uh, well, that, well, that might have been the case, but, well, I will not go
on asking about this any more.'
In (2.2) Takeshita adds that he wanted to offer a friendly greeting such as ohisashiburi desu 'It's been a long time'. Although Takeshita overtly states that (given the
serious situation of the Diet hearing) he cannot offer such a friendly greeting, it in
fact has the effect of actually delivering this greeting. The formulaic greeting of
ohisashiburi desu carries a distinct flavor of actual talk addressed to Ikeda. It is animated with phonological features (such as tone of voice and speed) typical in actual
greeting; Takeshita addresses Ikeda not as an official questioner but as a colleague.
Here one can identify two different 'subject positions', i.e., that of speaker-as-witness and that of speaker-as-friendly-colleague. This sort of direct quotation - though
camouflaged - allows the speaker to animate his or her talk, when directly addressing the hearer, without diverting from the larger framework of the interaction-inprogress. In a sense one can breach the rules of appropriate speech behavior provided such unexpected behavior is placed within a rule-satisfying frame.
The effects of direct-style self-quotation observed in (1) and (2) are, first, facilitation of the presentation of multiple voices that transmit information on different levels of discourse, second, a more vivid dramatization of the speaker's voice, and
third, distancing - a device for separating the speaker from the quoting situation. The
potential for combining dramatic voices, which also creates distancing, gives selfquotation its flexibility and usefulness.
Let us now examine examples of direct-oriented thought representation to determine if similar observations can be made. Data (3) is taken from a taidan dialogue.
(3) (Miura and Hagio discuss the history of the girls' comic genre)
Miura: Shoojo manga no shinka
wa hontooni hayai na to
girls
comics LK development T really
fast IP QT
omoimasu ne.
think
IP
'I think - the advances (made) in girls' comics are really fast.'
(Koodansha, 1992, September: 41)
In (3) we find inset [X] framed by a verb representing thought, omoimasu 'think'.
Here again, although the voice of the quotee and the voice of the quoter are attributable to a single individual, the inset [X] is performed on an interactional level different from that of the frame. Note that similarly to (1), the inset carries features nor-

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

215

mally expected in direct discourse, such as the particle na. This adds a distinct,
casual flavor to the discourse. N a is the style such a speaker is expected to use in
monologues or in relaxed conversation among intimates. Thus, through the use of na
(often accompanied with expressive tone of voice), the speaker suddenly switches
matrixes and (figuratively) lets his hair down; his 'voice' sounds free from imposed
language codes and social restrictions.
Miura adheres to the formal ending of the main predicate o m o i m a s u 'think' in the
frame itself, and yet within his self-quotation he is free to 'talk' in a more casual
friendly style. As we observed in the case of (2), the mixture of speech styles can be
attributed to two separate 'subject positions' the speaker plays on: the persona who
reveals his private thoughts to a close friend, and the persona who conforms to the
role assigned to a taidan 'dialogue' participant. In self-representation of thought,
then, we witness a phenomenon similar to self-quotation, namely, presentation and
manipulation of multivoicedness.
The casual tone created by casual speech style embedded in direct-style selfrepresentation encourages a more casual interpersonal relationship between speakers. Here, language functions in part to alter the social reality, rather than merely
responding to it. Presenting part of the discourse as direct voice sometimes makes it
possible to provide information otherwise unavailable. For example, some interactional particles carry information about the speaker's gender which helps communicate femininity or masculinity. Direct discourse also reveals the speaker's inner
speech in a monologue, an insight unavailable if quoted indirectly. This presents the
listener with the opportunity to actually listen in on the private (and therefore more
revealing) conversation of the speaker; thereby direct discourse encourages a sense
of closeness and intimacy.
I should warn the reader that the terms 'closeness' and 'intimacy' I am using here
do not necessarily mean closeness/intimacy based on mutual adoration. It is perfectly
possible, for example, for someone., to use direct-style self-quotation in a conflict or
argument situation as shown below.
[4] Mattaku hito
o bakanisuruna
yo tte yuu n
da.
really
person O make-fun-of-NEG IP QT say NOM BE
'I say (to you) - really, don't make fun of me.'
Expressing one's feelings directly as in [4] produces the effect that the listener has a
closer and more intimate access to the direct feelings of the speaker. The intimacy
pointed out here also includes a feeling of 'solidarity' discussed in Brown and
Gilman (1972).
If direct discourse does not occur in an inset and the thought is expressed in indirect discourse, it suffers from what Volo~inov (1973: 130) refers to as "a certain
depersonalization of the reported speech", since indirect discourse is "manifested by
the fact that all the emotive-affective features of speech, in so far as they are
expressed not in the content but in the form of a message, do not pass intact into
indirect discourse" (1973: 128). The metamessage of the self-quotation which
makes it possible to insert direct discourse without breaching the social context is to

216

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

evoke, in part, these "emotional affective features of speech" through multiple

voices.
The incorporation of direct discourse in self-quotation can also be thought of as a
mixture of genres. Fairclough (1992), in his discussion of media discourse, refers to
the blending of the voice from one source document into the media's (editorial)
voice. He calls this blending of voices 'interdiscursivity', emphasizing the nature of
discourse as being "constituted through a particular articulation of discourse types"
and through "particular processes of translation between them" (1992:113). Selfquotation borrows from and exploits this convention, creating discourse as if it were
blending into a text of another type. For example, as evidenced by the use of interpersonal particles such as n a in (3), the inset is part of the casual conversational
genre, while the frame represents the more formal t a i d a n style. One can also sense
in (3) the mixture of private versus public language styles. The speaker's thought
adopts a private language mode activated in the personal domain, whereas the frame
portrays a public language style expected in the social institutional domain of the
t a i d a n dialogue.
In sum, then, the two primary functions of direct-style self-quotation and self-representation of thought are: (1) multivoicedness expressed by interactants and characters who are attributable in physical terms to a single individual, and (2) multivoicedness seeking to achieve dramatization/animation, which encourages a sense of
closeness while creating a distancing effect.

3. Seif-quotative explanation and multivoicedness

So far, I have discussed to y u u and to o m o u of self-quotation as predicates as they
appear in conjugated forms such as to k o t a e t e o r u in (1) and to iitai in (2). I would
like to broaden the scope a bit further here and include a discussion of the directstyle self-quotative explanation. By 'quotative explanation' I mean the clause-noun
combination of [clause + to y u u + noun] where the clause provides explanatory
information regarding the noun. In (5), taken from Takeshita's discourse, the quotee
and the quoter of the clause express different voices; yet both are attributable to a
single individual, and the clause exhibits features of direct discourse. Thus in (5) we
find a case of the direct-style self-quotative explanation.
(5) ... sukoshi sakini narisugiru naa to yuu kenen ga atta n
desu./
a bit
late
become
IP QT say concern S there was NOM BE
'There was this concern - the visit might be delayed too much.'
Close inspection of this sentence reveals the directness of the utterance expressed in
the quoted clause. Note that n a r i - s u g i r u is in casual/abrupt form and is followed by
the interactional particle n a a - representing the kind of utterance one might use in
monologue or when addressed informally to someone close. As I pointed out earlier
(Maynard, 1992, 1993), in Japanese there is another choice when constructing the
clause-noun combination as shown in [6].

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

217

[6] ... sukoshi sakini narisugiru kenen ga atta

n
desu.
a bit
late
become
concern S there was NOM BE
In [6] the interactional particle naa no longer marks the utterance and to yuu is
absent.
In Maynard (1992, 1993), based on the to yuu clause-noun combination observed
in data taken from contemporary Japanese literary text, I propose that the difference
in pragmatic effect of optional to yuu as observed in (5) and [6] lies in the relative
degree of foregrounding effect - in (5), the content of the quoted clause is foregrounded, whereas in [6] the head noun kenen 'concern' is foregrounded. Additionally, I propose that this difference of optional to yuu in the clause-noun combination
originates in that to yuu connects direct discourse and functions to bridge two distinct narrative modes, 'saying' and 'describing'. By marking the clause as content
attributable to the interactant's or character's 'saying' (or 'thinking'), to yuu facilitates the creation and manipulation of multiple voices.
Although the observation made in Maynard (1992, 1993) is based on the literary
text alone, I believe a similar operation is at work in other genres (including those
that I examine in this study). The self-quotative explanation observed in (5) is a case
in point. Takeshita marks the content of the quoted clause by to yuu and expresses
the self's voice directly in self-quotative explanation. He further frames it with
another predicate, through which process Takeshita echoes two voices within a sentence. Takeshita's choice of direct-style quotative explanation here makes the discourse more realistic, direct, immediate, and therefore more accessible. Again, as in
the case of self-quotation, the quotative explanation adds a feeling of closeness,
bringing the speaker into more intimate contact with the discourse than in the case of
nominal modification.
Sometimes the level of directness expressed in the self-quotative explanation
clause gives the impression of real-life conversation. Such a structure realizes a
heightened presentation of a realistic, direct, and immediately accessible image. For
example, observe the following sample taken from our casual conversational data.

(7) (A and B discuss practicing the Japanese art of archery)

A: Sorede kono saki doko ni ittara ii
no tte yuu no
mo
so
this ahead where to go
good IP QT say NOM also
wakan-nakute
ne/
understand-NEG IP
'We didn't even know - (the fact regarding) "Where should we go from
here?" '
(casual conversation)
Speaker A uses direct self-quotation (delivered in an as-if-conversing tone). In this
conversation segment, A reports to B the difficulties faced when attending an
archery practice where she could hardly find the target. When A models the question
in a voice as if she were there again at the practice, she enhances the dramatic vividness. It is as if A were a character in a play. By participating in the imagined reen-

218

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

acted scene, A attempts to recreate the event for B (a similar point was made by
Macaulay (1987) regarding the English self-quotation). Of course, A may never have
actually voiced this question at the time she was practicing archery. Whether or not
A's question is reproduced verbatim is not really important. What is important here
is that by employing the strategy of direct-style self-quotative explanation, speaker A
incorporates multiple voices in a single utterance, combining a dramatic effect
through her animated quotee's voice.

4. Self-quotation/self-representation of thought and speech act qualification

In addition to voice manipulation described above, self-quotation and self-representation of thought also function on the metalinguistic level. Specifically, they
achieve this through a technique called 'qualification' (in the sense of what Lakoff
[1980] refers to as speech act qualification). Citing English hedges (such as I think),
Lakoff notes that performatives may be qualified by the user. One example is as mitigation. I use this term in a broad sense; among speech act qualification, I include
not only mitigation of speech acts but also indication of emphasis or strengthening
of the illocutionary force. I maintain that the cases of self-quotation which function
primarily as speech act qualification are special cases - or cases with extended applic a t i o n - of the self-quotation phenomenon discussed so far. That is to say, the speech
act qualification is achieved through the incorporation of multiple voices - metalinguistic voices, in particular.
The speech act qualification of the self-quotation occurs most prominently when
the verbs referring to 'saying' and 'thinking' are attributable to the speaker at the
moment of speech, i.e., 'I' say (or think) something in the present (or, non-past)
tense. Thus, before discussing the kind of speech act qualification performed by selfquotation and self-representation of thought, let us turn to some distributional characteristics of these specific cases.
4.1. Distributional constraints

Let us examine (8), taken from Takeshita's testimony, and compare its ending
with that presented in [9].
(8) ... choosa
o meizuru to yuu yoona/ shinkyoo
ni nakatta/ to
investigation O order
QT say such as state of mind as BE-NEG QT
yuu koto dake wa/kore wa jijitsu da kara
mooshiagenakyanaran to
say fact only T this T truth BE because must say
QT
omoimasu.
think
'... the very fact that I did not feel like ordering the investigation, this very (fact),
because it is the truth, I think I must tell (you).'
[9] ... mooshiagenakyanaran to omoimashita.
must say
QT thought
'| thought that I had to tell you ...'

S.K. Maynard / Journal o f Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

219

At least two readings are possible for (8). The first reading is that [X] is the content
of one's thoughts and the verb o m o u 'think' describes the action/state of the speaker,
i.e., he or she 'thinks'. This is based on the referential meaning of the verb o m o u
'think'. The second reading interprets [X] as information that the speaker presents
but delivers within an interactional strategy (such as mitigation and/or hedging) utilizing the verb o m o u 'think'. Note that in [9], which uses o m o i m a s h i t a (the past
tense of o m o u 'think'), only the referential-semantic interpretation is possible. In
other words, the interpretation represented by the second reading - the one with
pragmatically conventionalized meanings - is not possible when o m o u 'think'
appears in the past tense.
The difference observed between the two readings of o m o u 'think' becomes
clearer when we negate (8), as in [10].
[lO] ... mooshiagenakyanaran to wa omoimasen.
must say
QT T think-NEG
'I don't think that I must tell (you) ...'
The negation can be interpreted only as a negation of the first reading of (8) and not
as the negation of the second interpretation.
A similar argument can be made for the verbs of 'saying'. In other words, for the
self-quotation and self-representation of thought to be interpreted as speech act qualifier, certain distributional constraints must be met. In both self-quotation and selfrepresentation of thought, the verbs of 'saying' and 'thinking' - y u u and o m o u must occur in the first-person, singular, present affirmative form. Only when this
distributional constraint is met, is it possible for the expression to carry conventionalized, rather than a referential meaning. (This, however, does not mean that all quotations with y u u and o m o u that meet the above-mentioned constraints are cases of
speech act qualification.)
4.2. S p e e c h a c t q u a l i f i c a t i o n

Now we are ready to examine cases of self-quotation that function primarily as

speech act qualifiers. In the following, I propose different types of speech act qualification in Japanese self-quotation, including (1) mitigation (speaker's selection of
words and the weakening of the impact), (2) parody, and (3) emphasis. Let me begin
with two different cases of mitigation. (11), representative of the first type, is taken
from a girls' comic b o o k )
(11)

(Kairi is surprised that Aira could communicate with bears when the two of
them played with the bears in the forest)

5 Typicallyno comma or period appears in the dialogue of girls' comic books; sentential division is
introduced by the present author based on syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic cues. A slash ( / ) is
inserted where there is a line change in the original comic; the content of a speech balloon is marked by
< >, while text appearing elsewhere appears without. # indicates the border of a frame.

220

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

(11.1) Kairi: #<O oi/ omae/ kuma no kotoba/ wakaru

no
ka?/>
oh
you
bear LK language understand NOM Q
'Oh, you, can you understand the language of bears?'
(11.2) Aira: <Wakaru
tte yuu ka/datte kikoe/-ru n
da mon/>
understand QT say Q but hear
NOM BE because
'I'm not sure if I should say I understand, I can just hear it.'
(Ikeno, 1992: 11)
In (11.2), Aira comments on her selection of words - whether or not she should
appropriately use the phrase wakaru 'understand'. She mitigates her own statement
by expressing doubt toward her act of speaking and therefore weakens the illocutionary force her expression holds.
Although speech act qualification is often realized by the use of yuu, the verb
omou can also be used to mitigate one's words. Let us return to our data set (2) and
focus on (2.3) where we find gorikai-o-itadakitai mono da to omoimasu '(Lit. I
think) I hope you would understand it'. Why frame the phrase with o m o i m a s u when
it is possible to avoid quotation completely and use the expression gorikai-o-itadakitai mono degozaimasu '(I) hope you would understand it'?
The verb omou 'think' frames IX] as the content of one's thought. When using
gorikai-o-itadakitai mono da to omoimasu '(Lit. I think) I hope you would understand
it', the message is packaged as if representing one's personal inner thought, rather than
a straightforward statement directly addressed to the listener, as in the case of the
expression gorikai-o-itadakitai mono degozaimasu. Obviously in (2), Takeshita's testimony is addressed 'to' the listener, but this addressing is achieved only in a somewhat
roundabout and indirect way. The strategy of framing one's expression by omou
'think' creates the impression that the speaker is not too brash, tactless, or domineering. Rather, omou softens the force of the assertion and creates for the speaker the kind
of personality that is likely to be, given the specific situation, favored and readily
accepted by the listener. The same argument can be made for the case cited in (8).
Let us inspect the second type of speech act qualification, that is, parodying one's
own words. (12) is taken from our conversational data.
(12) (A encourages B to speak louder)
A: Moo sukoshi koe o ookikushitara./
more a bit
voice O make louder
'Why don't you speak a bit louder?
B: Yappashi./ ]
as expected
'That's what I thought.'
(A: k Un)
(Yeah.)
Anoo to
ka
itte./LAUGH/
uhh
QT
Q
say
so
'Uhh ... (I should say) (LAUGH) So.'
(casual conversation)

Dakara./

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

221

Here B follows A's advice and articulates 'Uhh' in a louder voice, but immediately
after this performance, he self-reflectively says to ka itte which has the effect of
objectifying his own action. B parodies his own performance by choosing the
expression - to ka itte '(Lit. saying something like) I should say' - a phrase that suggests self-mockery in the frame itself. The act (of uttering 'Uhh') resembles the volume-checking an announcer or a performer may engage in when testing the microphone before a performance. B is perhaps self-conscious and/or embarrassed and
thus chooses a strategy to counter the awkwardness. By overtly referring to his own
act of saying by using the verb of ~saying' with a parodical tone, B virtually nullifies
the effectiveness of his own speech act. Put another way, through parody B, the
speaker, has the license to ridicule or to minimize the speech act of B, the character.
Let us observe another example in which a similar parodic speech act qualification
seems to be in operation.
(13) (B comments on the
B: Uun/daigaku
uhh university
hirokunaku cha/
must be large
(A:

geographical features of the university)

tte yappari kono kurai
QT after all this much
] LAUGH ne to ka itte./q
[
IP QT Q say
LAUGH)
A:
Un)
(Yeah.)
'Well, universities should after all be as large as this, (LAUGH), you know,
(Lit. saying something like) just kidding.'
(casual conversation)

B catches herself complimenting the facilities of the university she and A are visiting. Implicit in this utterance is the comparison of this university with the university
to which they both belong. Knowing that their conversation is being recorded, B perhaps feels it necessary to reduce the impact of her own comment through self-parody. By adding to ka itte '(Lit. saying something like)' in (13) which in this context
means something similar to the English qualifier 'Just kidding', B minimizes the
effect of her words. B parodies her own act, again with the effect of weakening it.
Another similar example occurs in a girls' comic book, as given in (14).
(14) (Hoshina and Sari are beginning to fall in love)
Hoshina:#<Kedo/ omeeno/ me de/ wakaru>#
but
your
eyes with understand
'But I understand you by (looking into) your eyes.'
Sari: #Kaa#
(Embarrassed)
'Ohh ... (embarrassed)'
Hoshina: #<Naan chatte/ na> ...#
such say
IP
'Umm, just kidding.'
(Makino, 1992: 80)

222

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

Hoshina qualifies his own speech by adding naan chatte na, a colloquial blunt male
version of nante itteshimatte ne '(Lit.) I ended up saying so; I shouldn't be saying
this' which results in mitigating parody. Here again the speaker catches himself
expressing his feeling of love; he feels embarrassed and vulnerable. Perhaps to avoid
being taken too seriously and to circumvent possible rejection, he mocks his own
speech act by using self-quotation. In this way he retains the possibility of backing
out from his confession of love without losing face. It seems, then, that an overt reference to the speech act of saying offers potential for the discourse to be interpreted
in complex, often ironical ways. 6
So far we have observed cases of mitigation and parody of speech act qualification. The third type is the case of emphasis as shown in (15).
(15)
(15.1)

(15.2)

(15.3)

(15.4)

(15.5)

(Teacher gives a pop quiz to students, one of whom is Nonohara, the heroine
of the comic)
Teacher: # < N o n o h a r a ! ! >
Nonohara
'Ms. Nonohara! '
Nonomura: Giku#
(surprised)
'Oops.'
Teacher: #< Misenasai ! !>
show it
'Show it to m e ! '
< I m a Kobayashi ga/ tsukue no ueni/oiteitta/
now Kobayashi S desk LK on
left
kamikire
o>#
piece of paper O
'The piece of paper that Mr. Kobayashi left on your desk just now.'
Nonohara: # < A ...> < A n o ...>#
ah
uhh
'Uhh ... Well ...'
Teacher: #<Misenasai to/ itteiru n
da!!>#
show
QT say
NOM BE
' I ' m telling you, "show it to m e ! " '
(Mizusawa, 1992: 49)

The direct-style self quotation used by the teacher in (15.5) qualifies his own prior
speech but now with strong emphasis. Note that in (15), not only the fact that mise-

6 It is also interesting to note that the interactions presented in (12) and (13) are accompanied by laughter. The self-quoting persons in both (12) and (13) laugh at themselves - perhaps due to embarrassment
and/or self-amusement. In (13), laughing is expressed by the facial expression of Hoshina in two consecutive frames, one smiling with eyes and the other laughing with his mouth open. This serves as further evidence that self-quotation for speech act qualification is used at awkward moments in conversation for the purpose of 'lightening up' the atmosphere.

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

223

nasai 'show it to me' is repeated in the inset but also the expression appearing in the

frame itself and exclamation marks as well as other visual cues in the comic all
enhance the emphatic effect of the teacher's words.
As we have observed in the three different types of speech act qualification, various interpretations of speech act qualification - including some that were not discussed in this paper - are likely to emerge, depending on the context. At this point
two questions may be raised. First is the question of why overt referencing to the act
of speech produces varying interpretations. The second is how one identifies which
type of speech act qualification is conveyed by self-quotation. A partial answer to
the first question is suggested by Lakoff (1980). Discussing 'intensive', one of her
speech act qualification strategies, and how it differs from the implicit non-intensive
statement, she states the following.
"If I must explicitly state that x is so, that is [because I have] grounds to suspect that x is not so, or that
I am not sure that it is so .... anything that requires explicit statement is ipsofacto open to doubt, and the
more strongly that explicit statement must be made, the more uncertain its claimant.'" (1980: 45; words
in [ ] added for greater clarity, SM)

The emphatic self-quotation we observed in (15) is a case in point.

A full answer to the question at hand may lie in the acknowledgment of the general tendency observed in the use of language. As Lakoff herself does, I include the
following thought under the Gricean (1975) maxims of implicature. Ironically,
implicit in the expression of a statement is the denial (or at least the doubt) of that
statement. That is to say, by virtue of something needing to be stated, that something
cannot merely be assumed to be the case (because it must be stated). When a speaker
makes an explicit statement of 'saying' by referring to his or her own action, it is
reasonable to assume that some need for qualification (such as perhaps, discomfort,
embarrassment, need for clarification or emphasis) exists. In other words, the need
for labeling one's own action arises as a result of the speaker's need to comment on
the validity or the effectiveness of the action itself. The metalinguistic voice of the
speech-act-qualifying self-quotation expresses this double-voiced complexity of
human communication. One not only conveys information through linguistic expression, but also evaluates one's speaking and displays one's attitude toward it.
As for the second question of how one interprets a specific type of speech act qualification, I suggest that the interpretation depends on the kind of meaning and illocutionary force attached to or suggested by the expression of 'saying' or 'thinking'
in the frame. When one self-quotes, the frame provides contextualization cues for the
interpretation of the inset. For example, when one doubts the selection of words, that
doubt is expressed, as shown in (11.2) by the use of the metalinguistic phrase yuu
accompanied by the question marker ka. When one parodies one's own speech act,
the expression takes the gerundive form itte for the purpose of marking the parodic
nature of the frame, as shown in (12), (13) and (14). In the case of emphasis, the repetitious nature of self-quotation is enhanced by itteiru n da 'I'm telling you' as in
(15.5). Beyond these linguistic features, phonological as well as other accompanying
non-verbal signs all provide the context in which the inset is interpreted.

224

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

In sum, putting one's own action of speaking into the frame of 'saying' and
placing it in a different context is a strategy that reflects a heightened awareness of
the act of speaking itself, one of whose interpretations may lead to a mitigating, parodic, or emphatic interpretation. Self-quotation, by directing attention to the act of
saying itself, offers a place for the speaker to qualify one's speech act in a variety of
ways. One of the reasons why so many quotative to are observed in Japanese spoken
discourse may be precisely this. By referring to the speech act, which encourages
objectification, the speaker can express his or her evaluation toward his or her own
speech behavior. Using direct-style quotation, presenting the inset as if it represents
someone else's voice, and thus introducing interdiscursivity, are useful ways of
achieving this.

5. Afterthoughts - Multivoicedness and juxtaposition of semiotic contexts

In this paper, some cases of self-quotation in Japanese were investigated from the
perspective of multivoicedness, 'text population', and interdiscursivity. But where
does this lead? As I have already suggested, the effect resulting from the manipulation of self's multiple voices we have observed so far can be thought of as resulting
from the shifting of multiple contexts. In fact, the speaker's switching to self-quotation and then back to the here-and-now interaction-in-progress within a single sentence brings an effect that interweaves images of different contexts. As we have seen
in the examples, the animated voice portrayed in the inset helps dramatize the discourse by placing it in one context; and yet the frame follows the expected tone and
the style of interaction-in-progress which activates another context.
Although the idea of context has played a major role in pragmatics in general, the
possibility that speakers purposefully create, juxtapose and blend contexts has been
discussed little, if at all. What direct-style self-quotation achieves in communication
seems to be precisely this. By opening the door for a choice among different voices
in different styles - once within an inset, and a second time within the frame, and
through possibly combining and repeating these processes - language becomes more
than just something that is defined by, and limited to, its proper context; more interestingly even, it becomes a tool for the creation and manipulation of contexts,
thereby creating new meanings. Given that speakers exploit this 'contextual blending', this kind of speaker-created semantically motivated context may be called a
'semiotic context'. Earlier in section 1, I reviewed the concept of dual places. There,
'places' were largely attributed to two separate events associated with two different
individuals (i.e., the quoter and the quoted). The semiotic context I am referring to
in reference to self-quotation does not so much reflect the 'places' of the relevant
events, but rather it is created and manipulated by the single speaker primarily for
creating attitudinal meaning. Note also that 'semiotic context' includes the notion of
a metalinguistic context, while the traditional notion of context does not. Quoting is
a metalinguistic device that reflexively refers to one's own action. An understanding
of the relation between the linguistic and metalinguistic aspects of communication, I
believe, will ultimately shed light on how we understand the speaker as a conveyer

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

225

of information and simultaneously as a commentator who remarks on his or her very

act of conveying information.
Traditionally in the study of language, the concept of context has been treated as
a primarily (socio)linguistic environment in which the (inter)action occurs. Hymes'
(1972) classic components of the context of communication - participants, setting,
ends, key, instrumentalities, norms and genre - reveal that the main focus of context
was centered within the communication environment. The image of context emerging in this study, as stated above, differs considerably from this traditional concept.
I find that the strategies for manipulating semiotic contexts fall into an important
pragmatic category of language and as such deserve more attention from scholars in
future studies.
The actual process by which one achieves the creation of context seems to be
somewhat indirect. Only through the tone and style expressed in the inset can the
speaker and listener evoke a context in which such speech occurs. One imagines the
context where such an interaction is normally expected to occur, and as a result a
new interpersonal relationship (which presumably is associated with a certain context) is created and vicariously experienced. It is this use of self-quotation, I believe,
that makes it possible to extend one's self-expression far beyond mere referential
meaning.
I must warn the reader that this study is not meant to be exhaustive or complete.
This paper accounts only for select cases of self-quotation in Japanese; other cases
must await future study. Obviously, many questions remain unanswered. For example, how much of the mechanism of self-quotation discussed in this paper is to be
considered universal to human language in general? The reflexivity of language, i.e.,
self-referencing one's own speech and incorporating it in one's own discourse may
be expected to be fairly universal. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to
answer the question of in what ways, and how frequently, such reflexive behavior is
observed in other languages, it is my hope that what is revealed in this study will add
to our understanding of how Japanese self-quotation operates. And I hope that my
study will serve as a starting point for a further uncovering of the inner workings of
(self-)quotation as it operates in many other languages.
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail M., 1971. Discourse typology in prose. In: L. Mateika and K. Pomorska, eds., Readings in Russian poetics, 176-196. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M., 1981. The dialogic imagination, ed. by M. Holquist and trans, by C. Emerson and
M. Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M., 1986. Speech genres and other late essays, ed. by C. Emerson and M. Holquist,
trans, by V.W. McGee. Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press.
Besnier, Niko, 1993. Reported speech and affect on Nukulaelae Atoll. In: J.H. Hill and J.T. Irvine, eds.,
Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse, 161-181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman, 1972. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: J. Fishman, ed.,
Readings in the sociology of language, 252-275. The Hague: Mouton.
Fairclough, Norman, 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Grice, Paul H., 1975. Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, eds., Syntax and semantics,
Vol. 3: Speech acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.

226

S.K. Maynard / Journal of Pragmatics 25 (1996) 207-226

Hymes, Dell, 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In: J. Gumperz and D. Hymes,
eds., Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 35-71. New York: Holt.
Kamada, Osamu, 1988. Nihongo no dentatsu hyoogen (Reportive expressions in Japanese). Nihongogaku 7, September: 59-72.
Kamada, Osamu, 1994. Dentatsu to mohoo to soozoo: In'yoo ni okeru soosharu daikushisu no araware
(Reporting, imitating and creation: The expression of social deixis in quotation). Manuscript.
Lakoff, Robin, 1980. How to look as if you aren't doing anything with words: Speech act qualification.
In: U. Eco et al., Versus 2, 29-47. Milan: Bompiani.
Macaulay, Ronald K.S., 1987. Polyphonic monologues: Quoted direct speech in oral narratives. IPrA
Papers in Pragmatics 1(2): 1-34.
Maynard, Senko K., 1984. Functions of to and koto-o in speech and thought representation in Japanese
written discourse. Lingua 64: 1-24.
Maynard, Senko K., 1989. Japanese conversation: Self-contextualization through structure and interactional management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Maynard, Senko K., 1992. Where textual voices proliferate: The to yuu clause-noun combination in
Japanese. Poetics 21: 169-189.
Maynard, Senko K., 1993. Discourse modality: Subjectivity, emotion and voice in the Japanese language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mayes, Patricia, 1990. Quotation in spoken English. Studies in Language 14(2): 325-363.
Morson, Gary S. and Caryl Emerson, 1990. Mikhail Bakhtin: The creation of a prosaics. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel, 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70:
1075-1095.
Schegloff, Emanuel and Harvey Sacks, 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8: 289-327.
Sternberg, Meir, 1982. Proteus in quotation-land: Mimesis and the forms of reported discourse. Poetics
Today 3: 107-156.
Sunakawa, Yuriko, 1988. In'yoobun ni okeru ba no nijuusei nitsuite (On the duality of 'place' in quotation). Nihongogaku 7, September: 14-29.
Sunakawa, Yuriko, 1989. In'yoo to wahoo (Quotation and reportive speech). In: Y. Kitahara, ed., Kooza
nihongo to nihongo kyooiku, Vol. 4: 355-387. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Talbot, Mary, 1992. The construction of gender in a teenage magazine. In: N. Fairclough, ed., Critical
language awareness, 174-199. London and New York: Longman.
Tannen, Deborah, 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vologinov, V.N., 1973 [1929]. Marxism and the philosophy of language, trans, by L. Matejka and I.R.
Titunik. New York: Seminar Press.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1962 [1934 ]. Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wertsch, James V., ed. and trans., 1981. The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY:
Sharpe.
Wertsch, James V., 1991. Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

Data references
Ikeno, Koi, 1992. Tokimeki tunaito (Heart-thrilling night). Tokyo: Shuueisha.
Koodansha, 1992. Hon (Book). Tokyo: Koodansha.
Makino, Michiko, 1992. Sora yori mo setsunaku (More sentimental than the sky). Tokyo: Koodansha.
Mizusawa, Megumi, 1992. Hime-chan no ribon (Little Hime's hair ribbon). Vol. 5. Tokyo: Shuueisha.