0
Anonymous Posted 13 years ago
Grammar
Semi-indirect speech?
Hi,
in Jess Walter's Beautiful Ruins, I've come across the following passage:
Pasquale carried the photo downstairs and slid it into the corner of a framed painting of olives in the tiny hallway between the hotel and the trattoria. He imagined showing his American guests the photo and then feigning nonchalance: *sure, he would say, film stars occasionally stayed at the Adequate View. They liked the quiet.*
I've browsed through the local threads on semi-indirect speech, but they didn't help me determine whether the sentences in bold are an example of the semi-indirect speech or not. I'd like to know because, as I see it, their meaning depends on it: if the sentences in question are, indeed, semi-indirect, it means that the protagonist is speaking about the past (the film stars stayed but not anymore), whereas otherwise he can be speaking about something that still lasts.
Therefore, my questions are: 1) Are the sentences in bold semi-indirect? 2) Is the protagonist speaking about the past (something that doesn't apply anymore), or something that still lasts?
Thank you in advance for your insight!
in Jess Walter's Beautiful Ruins, I've come across the following passage:
Pasquale carried the photo downstairs and slid it into the corner of a framed painting of olives in the tiny hallway between the hotel and the trattoria. He imagined showing his American guests the photo and then feigning nonchalance: *sure, he would say, film stars occasionally stayed at the Adequate View. They liked the quiet.*
I've browsed through the local threads on semi-indirect speech, but they didn't help me determine whether the sentences in bold are an example of the semi-indirect speech or not. I'd like to know because, as I see it, their meaning depends on it: if the sentences in question are, indeed, semi-indirect, it means that the protagonist is speaking about the past (the film stars stayed but not anymore), whereas otherwise he can be speaking about something that still lasts.
Therefore, my questions are: 1) Are the sentences in bold semi-indirect? 2) Is the protagonist speaking about the past (something that doesn't apply anymore), or something that still lasts?
Thank you in advance for your insight!
Top answer
Anonymous Pasquale carried the photo downstairs and slid it into the corner of a framed painting of olives in the tiny hallway between the hotel and the trattoria. He imagined showing his American guests the photo and then feigning nonchalance: *sure, he would say, film stars occasionally stayed at the Adequate View. * "Sure", he would say, "film stars occasionally stayed at the Adequate View.
- Anonymous Pasquale carried the photo downstairs and slid it into the corner of a framed painting of olives in the tiny hallway between the hotel and the trattoria.
- He imagined showing his American guests the photo and then feigning nonchalance: *sure, he would say, film stars occasionally stayed at the Adequate View.
- * "Sure", he would say, "film stars occasionally stayed at the Adequate View.
- " This is direct speech - even if the words were never actually uttered.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
8 Answers
0
AnonymousPasquale carried the photo downstairs and slid it into the corner of a framed painting of olives in the tiny hallway between the hotel and the trattoria. He imagined showing his American guests the photo and then feigning nonchalance: *sure, he would say, film stars occasionally stayed at the Adequate View. They liked the quiet.*"Sure", he would say,
00
I'd call it semi-direct, since it is in the form of direct speech except that the quotation marks have been omitted.
Clive
Clive
00
Thank you both for your replies (I've registered and logged in in the meantime) and sorry that the bold type (between the asterisks) in my initial post didn't work. I must admit I can't agree with the opinion that this is direct speech because the simply indisputable trait of the direct speech (or the way it is recorded in writing) is, in my opinion, the presence of the quotation marks, there's no
00
Pu I must admit I can't agree with the opinion that this is direct speech because the simply indisputable trait of the direct speech (or the way it is recorded in writing) is, in my opinion, the presence of the quotation marks, there's no way around it.Well, no. Some writers, for various reasons, simply do not use quotation marks for direct speech. They are,
00
Would you agree, then, in line with my second question (see above), that the protagonist speaks about something that is already past (they liked but not anymore)?
It may or not be past at the time he puts the photo in the frame.
It will be past when he speaks (or if he speaks) in the future to his American guests.
It may or not be past at the time he puts the photo in the frame.
It will be past when he speaks (or if he speaks) in the future to his American guests.
00
I agree with you on that. My point is that, as I understand it, once those (merely) conventional quotation marks drop off, literary theory labels that "semi-direct speech" - something that remains direct speech in principle, but not in form. Thank you, though, for contributing to my post!
00
fivejedjonWell, no. Some writers, for various reasons, simply do not use quotation marks for direct speech. They are, after all, merely a convention.I agree with you on that. My point is that, as I understand it, once those (merely) conventional quotation marks drop off, literary theory labels that "semi-direct speech" - something that remains direct speech i
00
CliveIt will be past when he speaks (or if he speaks) in the future to his American guests.That's exactly what I've been wondering about. Thanks a lot!
0
Related Questions