Free Indirect Speech Puns

Hi,

It seems to me that there are two kinds of free indirect speech, and I think I have come across both but I have failed to find a discussion about the differences, which one is more prevalent, and the possible pros and cons of each. I will use a very simple example:

> (1.a) John looked through the window. It is a perfect day to go to the beach.

> (1.b) John looked through the window. It was a perfect day to go to the beach.

In the first case, the narrator is literally reading the character's thoughts. In the second case, he is literally moving the dependent clause up as a stand-alone sentence. The funny thing is that I have seen free indirect speech interchangeably described both ways, which would lead to these different forms.

I have a modest but non-negligible experience reading but I have only recently started thinking consciously about the types of narration, so I cannot in retrospect remember how often I have seen one or the other form. My intuition is that I have found both but form 1.b is more common.

However, there are cases where in my view the balance seems to shift.

> (2.a) John looked thought about what his father had taught him. A penny saved is a penny earned.

> (2.b) John looked thought about what his father had taught him. A penny saved was a penny earned.

Because the past speech is an aphorism that still holds true in the narrator's present, 2.b seems more valid.

But I suspect that this is not black and white and there is a continuum of cases.

Aphorisms are not necessarily eternal, some may depend on conditions that change. At the same time, a character may think of an assertion that he thinks has universal value, some sort of aphorism coined on the spot for himself. Just as a very silly slapstick example:

> (3.a) John looked through the window and he saw a man tripping on a banana peel. Men are stupid.

> (3.b) John looked through the window and he saw a man tripping on a banana peel. Men were stupid.

I am so much on the fence for a case like this that I feel tempted to use reported speech, but I am not sure. (I don't want to use quoted speech because I am purposedly reserving that for spoken dialogues only).

In general, do you know if this question has a name I can search, or could you point me to an existing in-depth discussion about this topic? Or some good analysis about how certain established authors approach this?

[This whole discussion only applies when the narrator uses the past tense when

Texts I can think of such as James Joyce's 'Eveline', Kate Chopin's 'The Story of an Hour' and Saki's 'The Reticence of Lady Anne' all use free indirect speech where the third person narrator favours the perspective of one character and thus we gain insight into their inner thoughts and feelings as we would normally with a first person narration.

So it raised the question, for me, why use an altered version of third person, that sure, establishes intimacy between the reader and the protagonist through a 'filtered' version of first person, when you could just go for a full-on first person narration and establish even greater intimacy?

I think most of us have already noticed that first-person view is often looked down upon by the majority, for being an "amateurish" way of writing. While it does seem very frequent in more inexperienced writers or stories geared towards children/ teens, I think it can be well executed if handled properly.

This applies to other styles of narration. Anyone who’s been writing for a short while knows all narrative points of view have their advantages and disadvantages.

First-person view offers unparalleled access but is extremely limiting. Given the fact that you’re stuck in a certain character’s mind, you are completely aware of their flaws, strengths, insecurities, aspirations and mindset. The problem is that you know nothing about the world, except from what the protagonist sees, there’s no insight in other characters’ thoughts, which can be devastating when the story suffers from the all too common bad protagonist syndrome. After all, who would want to be inside of the head of someone they dislike? Or worse, we would be unable to delve to the bottom of a character who caught our interest, we would only know them through the protagonist’s opinions and interactions with said character, nothing else. For example, in the Hunger Games movie adaptation, the focus on the events in the Capitol was a very welcomed addition, despite its original first person P.O.V.

Third-person view remedies this. With it, we have access to the whole world of the story, as well of all of the character’ actions. However, it offers an exclusively objective view of everything. One of the most charming aspects of a story are the feelings and characterization of the people who constitute the universe we built. A cold objective view highly limits these aspects, making third person quite off-putting.

Fortunately, there’s free indirect speech to save us from these problems, as it converges all of the positive aspects of the narrative styles above, while eliminating the disadvantages. It is essentially the practice of embedding a character’s speech or thoughts into a third-person narrative. In other words, the narrative moves back and forth between the narrator telling us what any character is thinking and showing us the character’s conscious thoughts.

Of course you can also use second person view. Though this only works if you thought things out well. This perspective is used when the main character is the person reading the book, which might be plain weird., unless it is a choose-yo

Hey everyone,

I'm about 30,000 words deep and wondering if I should change from free indirect speech - i think it's also called limited third person? - to first person.

Pros of how I've done it so far - more of a classical style, in line with the sort of books that inspired this story (Titus Groan is a biggie).

Cons - so many similar YA-ish stories are first person, and it does establish a strong bond with the protagonist.

I'm curious - have any of you done a complete overhaul of a WIP story? How did it go?

Hi everyone,

I'm just trying to find out what the technical term to describe clauses such as "he thought" or "she said" is, as follows:

"Well, he thought, she was right"

Also, when you alter a sentence from free indirect speech by adding a phrase like "she thought", what form of speech does that become?

Whenever I see 'this' rather than 'that' or 'tomorrow' rather than 'the next day' or anything like this in a 3rd person, past tense narration I feel like something's amiss. However, I recently discovered Free Indirect Speech as written by Jane Austen, and I have to wonder: do narrations that use Free Indirect Speech always chose 'this' over 'that' or is Reported Speech still used when the narrator doesn't convey the inner voice of the character?

1. Dentist: "Do not forget to clean the interproximal areas thoroughly."

The dentist reminded me not to forget to clean the interproximal areas thoroughly.

2. Patient: "Why did you choose this treatment?"

The patient asked me why i chose this treatment.

3. Dentist: "You must brush your teeth at least twice a day."

The doctor told her that she must brush her teeth at least twice a day.

4. Patient: "Is this procedure painful?"

The patient asked the dentist if the procedure was painful.

I’m not sure which of the variants is correct and how indirect speech in English works. Thank you in advance. Sentence: “The teacher asked if ..... to bring our textbooks to class.” Variants: 1.all we had remembered 2.had we all remembered 3.we had all remembered 4.had all we remembered.

I'm working through Chapter XI of Familia Romana, and that's the chapter where we're introduced to the indirect speech. I know that indirect statements in Latin are formed with an infinitive verb, with its subject on the accusative, and after that, a verb of "knowing, thinking, telling or perceiving". This said, I understand why verbs such as "audire" or "videre" use this construction, but then why does "iubere", which means "to order", uses indirect speech?

And how should it be translated? I've learned that this construction is translated to English by using the word "that" + indicative. So, in the sentence where we're introduced to the verb "iubere" is: "Iulius servum suum Tuscu­lum ire iubet atque medicum arcessere.", which I'm certain it roughly means "Julius orders his slave to go to Tusculum and summon a medic.", but it makes me insecure about not using "that" to translate the sentence. Any help would be appreciated!

Hola Todos,

One thing I am struggling with on my Spanish journey is DOs and IDOs. Specifically, being able to use them quickly when speaking or writing without having to pause and think.

The fluidity of my speech and understanding (with words I know) is pretty good but this is a big weak point when DOs and IDOs are involved. I understand the grammatical rules fine but I want to be able to actually use them instinctively and understand them quickly too.

Is there any specific exercises you guys would recommend to help me achieve this that have worked for you? Currently am watching a lot of videos on youtube and doing grammar exercises on study Spanish but I feel like there must be a better method or exercise to become really strong in this area.

Gracias

I know that when we report something said in the past, we backshift, for example:

"I'm playing football right now." > "He said he was playing football right now."

But what if we read something written in some report about a past situation:

"The Government has initiated a process of reforming the..."

If we read the report two years after it was prepared, we wouldn't say "The report stated that...", but "The report states that...". So basically, it said that in the past, but it still says that.

So do we say "The report states that the Government has initiated a process..." or "The report states that the Government had initiated a process..."

Side question: Can we even use "has + initiated" at all, or it can only be "initiated" without "has"?

Thanks in advance.

I have heard a lot of different things for IFK inside of a box, and I’m not sure which one it is supposed to be. Mostly referring to if it’s within the 6 yard box, I’ve heard: -make it 6 yards away from goal -make it on the 6 yard box line -make it 4 yards from the goal I just wanna make sure I have the right rules for if this happened again in a game, so I don’t mess it up

I have a solo podcast. One voice reading articles about Mindfulness. Most of these articles are made of indirect speech, but sometimes a few sentences are direct speech. As far as sound design is concerned, how can I differentiate between the two kinds of speeches? I would like the listener to be able to understand which is which. Thanks.

If in a direct speech someone says something that is always true should I apply the normal rule? Or it works like in type 0 if clauses?

Example:

> He said: "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius"

1. He said that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius.
2. He said that water boiled at 100 degrees Celsius.

Which one is correct?

I'm working on an essay, but am unsure of when to use the subjunctive. I feel like referencing sources is the perfect place to use it, but it also feels like it would get chunky to do throughout a whole thesis. An example paragraph:

"2011 wuchs die Craft Bier-Industrie in der USA bei 13 % und Johnson schätzt, dass der Produktion von Craft-IPA zwischen den Jahren 2008 und 2017 976 % gestiegen ist. Sellhammer schätzt aber, dass der Zunahme der Popularität noch größer als 976 % ist. Dieser Steigung geschieht parallel mit der Verringerung von Bierverkäufe in der USA."

Would I use Konjunktiv 1 in all of the above sentences? Or just in some of them? Thanks in advance!

When should it be used? I’m 4 chapters in my first novel and every time I tried to use it, it just fell wacky and I switched to direct speech I dunno, perhaps I am missing out something but I haven’t been able to use it so far

Can someone explain the difference between 겠다고 and (으)ㄹ 거라고

For example both these sentences: 내일 새 차를 사겠다고 했어요 and 제프 씨가 만들 거라고 했어요 look like they both mean that someone said they WILL do something.

So how do you know when to use one over the other?

(I'm genuinely sorry for my bad english.) Majority of the time, the videos include an "Professional Motivational Speaker" that would say something right out of a script which can be pretty obvious if you pay attention as the sentences in each videos are really similar. They didn't get anyone that has actually gone through hard times and successfully overcame those times to speak but instead they got some person that's a "Professional Motivational Speaker". They took advantage of other people's sadness and even depression for Views.

Direct And Indirect Speech SlipTest 20 Marks

Hi friends and my dear students! In this post, I have covered Direct And Indirect Speech Worksheet  / Exercise. After practicing Direct And Indirect Speech SlipTest 20 Marks, Please do share it with your friends.

Change the following sentences into the Indirect speech:

1. Balu said, “I don’t drink coffee.”

A) Balu said that he didn’t drink coffee.

2. The teacher said to Ramu, “How old are you?”

A) The teacher asked Ramu how old he was.

3. My uncle said to me, “What is your name?”

A) My uncle asked me what my name was.

4. Sita said, “I am busy now.”

A) Sita said that she was busy then.

5. Anita said, “We are late today.”

A) Anita said that they were late that day.

Also Check

Prepositions Advanced Worksheet 

English Grammar MCQ Worksheet For All Competitive Exams

Identify The Adjectives In Sentences

6. Prathiba said, “My aunt is in England.”

A) Prathiba said that her aunt was in England.

7. He said, “Oh God! I will never steal again.”

A) He exclaimed that he would never steal again.

8. The Station Master said, “The train will be late.”

A) The Station said that the train would be late.

9. He said, “I have been ill since yesterday.”

A) He said that he had been ill since the previous day.

10. Alice said, “Alea, how clever you are!”

A) Alice admired Alea that she was very clever.

11. Neeraja said to me, “I will help you.”

A) Neeraja told me that she would help me.

12. The teacher said, “Be silent in the class.”

A) The teacher ordered the students to be silent in the class.

13. Mohan said to me, “I met Suresh in Mumbai.”

A) Mohan told me that he had met Suresh in Mumbai.

14. “What is this strange cry?” said Shankar.

A) Shankar asked me what that strange cry was.

15. “Please go there”, he said to me.

A) He requested me to go there.

Also Play

Play Basic English Grammar - 1
Play Going To Quiz
Play Simple Past Quiz
[Play Simple Present Quiz ](

Merhaba herkese! “Bana kek yaptığını söyledi.” gibi dolaylı anlatım içeren cümlelerde neden sıfat-fiil ve sahiplik eki kullanılıyor?

When should it be used? I’m 4 chapters in my first novel and every time I tried to use it, it just fell wacky and I switched to direct speech I dunno, perhaps I am missing out something but I haven’t been able to use it so far