10.6092/issn.2785-0943/14826
This paper investigates how person alignment is arranged in discourse reporting. I focus on participant roles appearing in narrated and speech events (Jakobson [1957] 1971) and how they are linguistically encoded in (re)presentations of speech and thought. Besides the (re)presentations of speech and thought attributed to other speakers, I include two other types of report: self-quotations (Reported Speaker = Reporter) and quotations with an unknown source (Reported Speaker = ?). For illustrative purposes, I use data from internet communications of six Finno-Ugric languages: Hungarian, Estonian, Finnish, Erzya, Udmurt, Komi. The results show that three types of reports exhibit idiosyncrasies regarding the participant distribution in the narrated event. These idiosyncrasies affect how the linguistic encoding of participants is arranged and how different perspectives are highlighted in reported speech and thought. In addition to two canonical perspectives, i.e. Reported Speaker’s and Reporter’s, there are some ambiguous cases where person marking does not index only one type of perspective. Such ambiguity is characterized by the overlap between different roles carried out by one participant or subsumption of participants from different events under one formal reference. Furthermore, ambiguous cases often contain a generic reference equally suitable for participants in the narrated and current speech event.
application/pdf
2785-0943
14826
2
en
Denys Teptiuk
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads
Finno-Ugric
Person alignment in reported speech and thought: the distribution and typology of participant roles (based on six Finno-Ugric languages)
Text.Serial.Journal
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/
2
Research articles
2022-12-22
2022-05-04
2022-12-22
2022-12-22
39-92
LTC
Denys Teptiuk
2022/12/22
10.6092/issn.2785-0943/14826
39
University of Tartu
2785-0943
2
Finno-Ugric
en
92
<p>Winkler, Ekkehard. 2011. <em>Udmurtische Grammatik </em>[The Udmurt Grammar]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.</p>
Person alignment in reported speech and thought: the distribution and typology of participant roles (based on six Finno-Ugric languages)
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/article/download/14826/15270
2
           Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92   ISSN 2785-0943



    Person alignment in reported speech and thought: the
distribution and typology of participant roles (based on six
                              Finno-Ugric languages)

                                        DENYS TEPTIUK
                                       UNIVERSITY OF TARTU



                    Submitted: 04/05/2022        Revised version: 03/10/2022
                      Accepted: 06/10/2022           Published: 22/12/2022




                                             Abstract
This paper investigates how person alignment is arranged in discourse reporting. I focus on
participant roles appearing in narrated and speech events (Jakobson [1957] 1971) and how
they are linguistically encoded in (re)presentations of speech and thought. Besides the
(re)presentations of speech and thought attributed to other speakers, I include two other types
of report: self-quotations (Reported Speaker = Reporter) and quotations with an unknown
source (Reported Speaker = ?). For illustrative purposes, I use data from internet
communications of six Finno-Ugric languages: Hungarian, Estonian, Finnish, Erzya, Udmurt,
Komi. The results show that three types of reports exhibit idiosyncrasies regarding the
participant distribution in the narrated event. These idiosyncrasies affect how the linguistic
encoding of participants is arranged and how different perspectives are highlighted in
reported speech and thought. In addition to two canonical perspectives, i.e. Reported
Speaker’s and Reporter’s, there are some ambiguous cases where person marking does not
index only one type of perspective. Such ambiguity is characterized by the overlap between
different roles carried out by one participant or subsumption of participants from different
events under one formal reference. Furthermore, ambiguous cases often contain a generic
reference equally suitable for participants in the narrated and current speech event.


Keywords: reported speech; reported thought; reported evidence; person alignment; Finno-
Ugric.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/14826                                                39
Teptiuk                                                     Person alignment in reported speech and thought


1. Introduction


Cross-linguistically, reported speech (RS) and reported thought (RT) (often
abbreviated as RST ‘reported speech and thought’) exhibit many similarities on the
level of construction. They are both formed by a binary structure: report and the unit
introducing the report, i.e. Matrix,1 cf. (1). In many languages, the same unit can
introduce both speech and thought, making these types of report often
indistinguishable without an appropriate context, as e.g. in (2) from Komi (Uralic;
Russia) and (3) from Ungarinyin (Worrorran; Australia).


(1)      English (Indo-European; enTenTen20)2


a. [“Maybe tomorrow…”]REPORT she saidMATRIX.
b. [‘Probably just a stupid mailing list again…’]REPORT she thoughtMATRIX.


(2)      Komi-Zyrian (Uralic; KoZSmC, komimy1)
         Medvodź́ jurö        voisny     koz da                 požöm. Miśa,
         first        head:ILL      come:PST:3PL fir       and pine          QUOT.SELF

         parmayd      mijan      pom ńi       dor.
         taiga:2SG 1PL.GEN end nor edge
         ‘First, fir and pine came to my mind. I said/thought, our taiga is never-ending.’


(3)      Ungarinyin (Worrorran; Spronck 2015: 71, emphasis added)
         [[ngurrba nyungiminda]                      ama            jirri]
         [[ngurrba nyunga2-iy-minda]                 a1-ma-ø        jirri]
         [[hit.ITRV 3SG.F.O:1SG.S-FUT-take] 3SG.M-do-PRS M.ANAPH]
         ‘He says/thinks: “I will hit her.”’



1
    Another term used vastly in the literature is quotative index, coined by Güldemann (2001; also see
Güldemann 2008: 11 for an overview of different terms used). Güldemann’s (2008) framework views
the quotative index (alias Matrix) as an optional element in the reported discourse (alias RST)
construction. In contrast, Spronck & Nikitina (2019) argue for a stable syntactic relation between
Matrix and Report. They show that RST tends to preserve its syntax even in the Matrix-less RST
constructions (cf. Spronck & Nikitina 2019: 126-129). In this study, I follow the latter consideration
and adopt the terms Report and Matrix as they are used in Spronck & Nikitina (2019).
2
    See list of data sources at the end of the paper.


                                                                                                        40
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


Despite the close connection between RS and RT, there is a semantic difference
between them. Speech as a dialogic phenomenon and a tool for communication
presupposes an interlocutor to whom it was/is/will be addressed. Even a monologue
presupposes some addressee: either the speaker herself (e.g. thoughts uttered out loud
in solitude) or an imaginary audience (e.g. in theatre) (cf. Clark 2016; also see Bakhtin
1981; Goffman 1981; Jakobson 1990). Thinking as an individual process does not
require any interlocutor to be involved but has its addressee analogically to speech.
Thought is always self-addressed or egocentric in its original manifestation (see
Vygotsky [1934] 1986). In contrast, speech has another speaker as an addressee,
although it can also be egocentric, e.g. I said to myself.3
     Such differences in the dialogic nature of speech and thought shall be preserved
and reflected in reports of these processes. This study explores how these differences
are encoded linguistically. It aims to increase the understanding of speech and
thought and how their formal representation is constructed in RS and RT and
construed in the current speech. At the same time, differences in formal
representation shall point to how RS can be distinguished from RT, especially when
speech and thought can be introduced identically (see (2) and (3)).
     The paper builds upon the previous observations on idiosyncrasies of RS and RT
(Teptiuk forth.) and explores how differences in the dialogic nature of speech and
thought affect person indexing. Other shifters (Jakobson [1957] 1971), i.e. temporal,
modal and evidential categories changing in the report to match the current speech
(see Section 2), may also index such differences. To limit the scope of this
investigation, I will only concentrate on person indexing. By investigating this
parameter, I aim to contribute to the typology of person alignment in reported speech
(Nikitina 2012a). Since the typology in Nikitina (2012a) did not include RT, this study
attempts to cover this gap and investigate RT in comparison to RS in a relatively small
set of typologically similar languages.
     This study pursues descriptive goals and does not provide any quantitative
outcomes. Empirical data from six Finno-Ugric languages (Hungarian, Estonian,
Finnish, Erzya, Udmurt, Komi) support theoretical discussion and illustrate tendencies
common to these languages. The languages represent four branches (Ugric, Finnic,
Mordvinic, and Permic) and three linguistic areas (Central and Northeastern Europe

3
    Interestingly, constructions pointing out egocentricity of speech often introduce RT and may
conventionalize as RT-introducers in self-quotations (see e.g. Teptiuk 2021a on Hungarian
mondom/mondok ‘I say’).


                                                                                             41
Teptiuk                                                     Person alignment in reported speech and thought


and Russia) of the Uralic language family. The data are derived from social media
corpora available online for all languages (for more details, see Section 3).
     The selection of the languages is based merely on the author’s familiarity with their
structure and different aspects regarding RST therein. That said, they are not expected
to reflect unique patterns in person alignment in RST, not found elsewhere among the
world’s languages. Conversely, I expect to find patterns shared by other languages,
stemming from the foundational mechanisms of speech and thought reporting, and
peculiarities of participant distribution therein. Having a relatively small sample of
typologically similar languages shall allow comparability between them and stimulate
generation of hypotheses beyond the selected sample. Furthermore, it shall be
possible to point out language-specific patterns of organizing discourse participants
in RST and check for possible alternative strategies among the selected sample.
     The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 starts with a theoretical discussion on
discourse reporting with the focus on discourse participants, perspectivization, and
types of report according to their author. Method and data are introduced in Section
3. In Section 4, I illustrate the theoretical points outlined in Section 2 with the corpus
data. I present a short summary of results and discuss the implications of this study
in Section 5. A short conclusion closes the paper in Section 6.


2. Discourse reporting: typology and participant roles


Voloshinov’s ([1931] 1973: 115) definition of reported speech states that it is “speech
within speech, utterance within utterance, and at the same time speech about speech
and utterance about utterance.”4 This definition highlights the relationship between
two different discourse situations where one is embedded into another. Jakobson
([1957] 1971) further developed this idea in his concept of evidential meaning.
According to Jakobson (1971: 135), reported speech, among other evidential
strategies,5 reflects the interaction between three events: Speech event (ES), Narrated
event (EN), and Narrated Speech event (ENS).6 Figure 1 demonstrates this interaction

4
    Note that Voloshinov’s (1973) term ‘reported speech’ also includes reported thought, viewed as ‘inner
speech.’
5
    Cf. “[t]he speaker reports an event on the basis of someone’s report (quotative, i.e. hearsay evidence),
of a dream (relative evidence), of a guess (presumptive evidence), or of his own previous experience
(memory evidence)” (Jakobson 1971: 135).
6
    I use capital letters and subscripts to define the event since they are more visible in the text than
small letters and superscripts in Jakobson (1971).


                                                                                                         42
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


and highlights the borders between three events with color. ES highlighted with red
corresponds to the current speech situation. In turn, EN highlighted with blue is the
situation during which reported speech (or thought) is assumed to occur,7 embedded
in ES. Finally, ENS highlighted with green is “the alleged source of information about
the narrated event” (Jakobson 1971: 135).




Figure 1: Visual interpretation of Jakobson’s (1971) conceptualization of the evidential meaning and
     reported speech [ES – speech event (red), EN – narrated event (blue); ENS – narrated speech event
                                                 (green)]


According to Jakobson (1971: 136), personal and temporal deictics, as well as modal
and evidential categories may change in EN to refer to ES or its participants. Jakobson
(1971: 136) coined the term ‘shifter’ for such elements. To illustrate such shifters,
consider two types of RS in (4). In (4a), temporal (saw, yesterday) and personal (I)
deictics correspond to EN. In (4b), they shift to match ES. Temporal deictics align with
ES and highlight the sequence of events: had seen (the previous day) > said.
Furthermore, the personal deictic he is coreferential with Reported Speaker, John.


(4)     a. John said: ‘I saw Fred yesterday.’
        b. Johni said (that) hei had seen Fred the previous day.
        (adapted from Aikhenvald 2011: 238)


Shifters are not selected arbitrarily: their presence or absence highlight difference in
perspectives. Perspective, or in other words, referential orientation, is a location of
the anchor for deictic and expressive elements. In (4a), all referential elements


7
    RS and RT do not always entail factuality of their content and can demonstrate the occurrence of
speech or thought in hypothetical situations.


                                                                                                         43
Teptiuk                                                     Person alignment in reported speech and thought


correspond to EN and demonstrate the perspective of Speaker in EN, i.e. Reported
Speaker. In contrast, (4b) illustrates the perspective of Speaker in ES, i.e. Reporter.
      The two perspectives are traditionally discussed in connection with two formal
manifestations labeled as ‘direct’ (shifters-) and ‘indirect’ (shifters+) speech. Recent
studies in languages outside Europe have shown discrepancies between the marking
of tense, modality, and evidentiality, personal pronouns, honorifics, and vocatives in
RST (see Spronck 2012; Evans 2013; Spronck & Nikitina 2019 and references therein).
They observe that the traditional opposition between direct and indirect report
involves a range of intermediate types (see e.g. Aikhenvald 2008; Evans 2013;
Nikitina & Bugaeva 2021). These findings bring forth problems of the dichotomy and
indicate that it does not hold for many languages outside Western Europe (see e.g. ex.
(5) below). That considered, I will not use the labels ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’. Instead, I
will explore the selection of shifting elements in the report as a manifestation of the
two perspectives, Reporter’s vs. Reported Speaker’s.
      Although the two perspectives are usually split in RST, some languages allow the
combination thereof (see e.g. Aikhenvald 2008; Evans 2013; Knyazev 2022). Consider
(5) from Golin (Chimbu-Wahgi; PNG) where the subject argument in RS corresponds
to EN, but the object shifts and corresponds to ES, leading to a mixture of perspectives.8


(5)      Golin (Chimbu-Wahgi; Evans 2013: 85)
         Ix     [nay si-øx-w-a]                 di-nx-g-e
         you 1SG hit-1SG.S-RPRT-DIST            say-2SG-ASS-PROX
         ‘Youx said youx hit mey.’ [Lit. ‘youx “Ix hit mey” youx-said’]


Languages, where such mixture is not that prominent, may still exhibit it in certain
pragmatic environments.9 For instance, in (6) from Colloquial British English Reporter
presents the command initially addressed to her to Current Addressee (or Addressee
in ES).10 Mood remains unchanged, while the personal deictic shifts.




8
     Also, note that the participants in EN acquire the opposite roles in ES: Addressee in EN >
Speaker/Reporter in ES; Speaker in EN > Addressee in ES.
9
     To a certain degree, genre can also be important. Consider cases of free indirect speech in European
literature, reflecting the mixture of two perspectives (see e.g. Pascal 1977; Roncador 1988;
Vandelanotte 2021).
10
     NB: Current Addressee ≠ Reported Speaker.


                                                                                                        44
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


(6)      ICS rang Pauli, and Pauli said ‘ComeCS and see himi’
         (Aikhenvald 2011: 354; CS: current speaker)11


As becomes apparent from the illustration of different perspectives in RS, it is tightly
connected to two participants: Reported Speaker (Speaker in EN) and Reporter
(Speaker in ES). The choice between two perspectives affects how other participants
are encoded linguistically but largely depends on their status in EN and ES.
      Based on a few previous studies discussing perspectivization in RS (and less so in
RT),12 I propose the following typology of participants present in the RS situation (PN):


1) Reported Speaker, i.e. Speaker in EN whose utterance is reported;
2) Reported Addressee, i.e. Participant in EN to whom the reported utterance is directed;
3) Reported Interlocutor, i.e. ‘bystander’13 in EN;
4) Reported Other, i.e. Participant absent in EN.


Since every speech situation presupposes speaker and addressee (see Section 1), only
these two participants are necessary to establish a speech situation in EN. Other
participants are optional and therefore may be absent.
      As discussed in Section 1, RT differs from RS in dialogic nature. These differences
shall affect the distribution of participants and partial overlap thereof in RT. Reported
Speaker in RT shall coincide with Reported Addressee due to egocentricity of
thoughts. Interlocutor and Other are also relevant participants in the RT situation.
Speaker may think of Interlocutor(s) surrounding her in EN and bring thoughts about
participants absent in EN. However, thought can be directly accessible only to their
author (see Section 1), and it does not require an interlocutor to be involved. That
said, Interlocutor and Other shall be equally excluded from the Reported Speaker’s
mental space. Due to this characteristic, these participants can be viewed as
indistinguishable in RT. Consequently, Interlocutor and Other shall be encoded
identically as far as person indexing is concerned, unless they shift referring to
participants in ES. Otherwise, they can be distinguished when referred to with social
roles (‘daughter’, ‘mom’) or proper nouns (John, Fred).


11
     Another case discussed by Aikhenvald (2011: 356) Mummy says: ‘SamCS,, washCS=ADDRESSEE myCS hands’
reflects a toddler’s (2; 9) speech.
12
     To name just a few inspirations, see Li (1986), Aikhenvald (2008, 2011), Nikitina (2012a, 2012b).
13
     For more details, see Goffman (1979, 1981).


                                                                                                    45
Teptiuk                                                    Person alignment in reported speech and thought


      The participants in ES (PS) can be easily derived from their counterparts in EN:


1) Current Speaker, i.e. Reporter14 in ES;
2) Current Addressee, i.e. Participant in ES to whom the report is presented;
3) Current Interlocutor, ‘bystander’ in ES;
4) Current Other, i.e. Participant absent in ES.


In practice, PS may overlap with PN, and thus one participant will fulfill different roles
in both events. For instance, Current Speaker may report something said to her and
hence also be Reported Addressee. In some cases, this condition is governed on the
pragmatic level, i.e. dependent on the situation and presence of the participant with
a distinct role in both events (e.g. Current Speaker reports speech addressed to her).
In others, such an overlap of roles is realized due to characteristic features of report
type (see below) and hence can be considered semantic.
      Before discussing the method and data in the following section, one more issue
concerning the author of report shall be touched upon. Since there is no linguistic
restriction regarding to whom RS and RT can be attributed,15 Reported Speaker can
have many manifestations. Speech and thought can be attributed to other speakers
specified in ES or EN, or to Reporter herself. Furthermore, the original author of report,
as well as the time and circumstances of the utterance or thought, may remain covert.
      I propose adding one more parameter to the investigation and classify RS and RT
according to who Reported Speaker is. Similarly to the effect produced by the
differences in the dialogic nature between RS and RT (see above), I expect this
parameter to influence the distribution of participant roles and their linguistic
encoding (see below). I distinguish three types of report: (i) self-quotations (i.e.
Reported Speaker = Reporter), (ii) quotations (i.e. Reported Speaker ≠ Reporter),
and (iii) quotations with an unknown source (i.e. Reported Speaker = ?).16 Quotations

14
     I neglect other roles that can be assigned for Speaker in ES and focus only on the one relevant when
the report is produced.
15
     Cultural restrictions are, of course, possible. For instance, some cultures disfavor or even prohibit
attributing thoughts to other speakers or their reports even if they somehow became available to
Reporter (see e.g. Besnier 1993; Michael 2015).
16
     I use the term quotation, typical for formal semantics (although see Clark & Gerrig 1990; Evans 2013,
i.a.) to avoid unnecessary recycling of the term reported speech/thought or report. Despite using the term
quotation, this study does not adopt formal approaches to reported speech and focuses on it from
functional-typological perspective.


                                                                                                       46
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


with an unknown source are usually discussed in linguistic literature under the label
reported evidentiality restricted to the presentation of spoken material (and sometimes
to grammatical means of expression, e.g. in Aikhenvald 2004).17 However, one can
assume that thoughts like utterances can be attributed to an unknown cognizant (e.g.
generic ‘people’, universal ‘all’ and existential ‘some’).
     What makes quotations with an unknown source different from other reports is
that they usually do not contain reference to the author, time, and circumstances of
the original utterance (or thought) (Holvoet 2018: 248; also see Aikhenvald 2004,
i.a.). A quotation of this type is illustrated in (7) consisting of a proverb and
introduced merely by the reported evidential marker állítólag ‘allegedly’.


(7)      Hungarian (Uralic; MNSz)
         Bár         állítólag akit           utálnak         az
         although allegedly who:ACC           hate:PRS.3PL DEM.DIST
         sokáig         él.
         much:TERM      live.PRS.3SG
         ‘Although it is said that those who are hated live long.’


The label unknown is far from ideal because sometimes these characteristics may be
deliberately unspecified by Reporter. However, I stick to this label since it seems to
be more accurate and covers more cases of reported evidence than the label unspecified
does. The label unknown also backgrounds the possibility of deliberately leaving out
the information about the author, which is often not the case. For instance, consider
the impossibility of attributing proverbs to a specific speaker or time when such a
folklore knowledge was initially used as a simple, witty remark, cf. (7).
     The Reported Speaker-parameter is necessary for the following reason. I expect
each type of report to reflect idiosyncrasies regarding the participants, which would
affect their marking via person indexes. It can be assumed that Reported Speaker and
Reporter coincide in self-quotations. Hence, they shall be marked identically, but as
is demonstrated in Section 5, some non-Finno-Ugric languages may still employ


17
     Aikhenvald (2004: 10) acknowledges the possibility of using lexical means to express evidentiality
and even hypothesizes that lexical strategies are probably universal in the world’s languages compared
to grammatical (arguably often unfamiliar to European languages). However, the focus of her work
remains on grammatical expression of evidentiality. In contrast, this study disregards grammatical
expression of reported evidentiality and focuses on lexical strategies.


                                                                                                    47
Teptiuk                                                  Person alignment in reported speech and thought


different pronouns for Reported Speaker and Reporter in self-quotations. RT in self-
quotation, in turn, shall also subsume Reported Addressee due to egocentricity of
thoughts. In quotations, Reported Speaker shall always be distinct from Reporter, but
Reporter may fulfill other roles, i.e. Reported Addressee, Interlocutor, or Other. Note
that Reporter can only occupy the role of Reported Addressee when RS is presented;
in RT, only Reported Speaker can be Reported Addressee due to egocentricity of
thoughts. In quotation with an unknown source, Reported Speaker, Reported
Addressee, and Interlocutor(s) shall remain covert due to the basic semantic
characteristics of this report type (see above). Therefore, neither these participants
nor their perspectives shall be reflected in this type of report. Table 1 summarizes
these idiosyncrasies and their expected effect on participants. Their realization will
be illustrated with the corpus data and further discussed in Section 4.

                                                             Participants
 Types of report                 RS                              RT
 Self-quotation:                 Rep. Sp. [= Reporter]           Rep. Sp. [= Rep. Addr. = Reporter]
                                 Rep. Addr.                      Interlocutor
                                 Interlocutor                    Other
                                 Other
 Quotation:                      Rep. Sp. [≠ Reporter]           Rep. Sp. [= Rep. Addr. ≠ Reporter]
                                 Rep. Addr. (= Reporter)         Interlocutor (= Reporter)
                                 Interlocutor (= Reporter)       Other (= Reporter)
                                 Other (= Reporter)
 Quotation with an unknown                         *Rep. Sp., Addr., Interlocutor
 source:
                                 Other (= Reporter)              Other (= Reporter)


    Table 1: Types of report and expected distribution of participants [square brackets stand for
                            semantic and round for pragmatic features].


3. Method and data


To investigate how person alignment is arranged in quotations, self-quotations, and
quotations with an unknown source, I have compiled a database of reported speech
constructions in six Finno-Ugric languages: Hungarian, Estonian, Finnish, Erzya,
Udmurt, and Komi. I used data from social network sites (SNS). Considering the
principle “Yesterday’s discourse is tomorrow’s grammar” (see e.g. Du Bois 1985), SNS
provide relevant material. It reflects the language use in dynamic synchrony and


                                                                                                     48
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


contains features of colloquial speech and standard writing that often harmonically
combine within one text (Tagliamonte & Denis 2008; Helasvuo et al. 2014). Even
though such data contain some original features peculiar to a written modality in
general and specific to online communications (e.g. emoticons, unstandardized
shortenings, combinations of orthographic symbols), to a certain degree, language use
on SNS is a written approximation of spoken language.
      The data are derived from social media corpora available in open access online (see
Table 2). The material used is only a data sample, meaning that the data represent a
limited number of examples selected randomly from the corpora but queried with
specific tactics in mind (see below). The number of strategies queried differs across
languages, as the size of social media corpora does. Therefore, the number of collected
examples varies from 400 to 1000 per language.

     Language               Corpus                                                           # exx.
     Erzya                  Erzya social media corpus (ESmC): 968k words                     423
                            Erzya Corpora, blogs (EC_blogs): 138k words
     Estonian               etTenTen19: 185 mil. words                                       620
     Finnish                Internet communications corpus (IKA): 6,95 bil. words            1078
     Hungarian              Hungarian National Corpus (MNSz), Personal subcorpus: 18,6       570
                            mil. words
     Komi-Zyrian            Komi-Zyrian social media corpus (KoZSmC): 1,85 mil. words        466
     Udmurt                 Udmurt social media corpus (UdSmC): 2,66 mil. words              644
                            Udmurt Corpora, blogs (UdC_blogs): 488k words


                               Table 2: The corpora and amount of examples.


For the database, I used the typology of quotative constructions in these languages
(Teptiuk 2019, 2020) to query quotations, self-quotations, and quotations with an
unknown source. Table 3 presents glosses of the constructions used to introduce these
types of report.18 For each type of gloss in Table 3, at least 100 examples were
extracted from the corpora, when available. The strategies corresponding to the
glosses and used as a query are overviewed at the beginning of Section 4 and are
listed in Appendix. I also briefly address limitations concerning the tense forms in the
query in Section 4.1. Accidental repetitions and random collocations used in a




18
     Slash (/) stands for a disjunction of values (‘or’) here and elsewhere in the tables.


                                                                                                      49
Teptiuk                                                   Person alignment in reported speech and thought


function other than report-introducing were excluded. That said, the number of
examples for each strategy differs across languages and within one language.


                           Self-quotations      Quotations19           Quotations with
                                                                       unknown source
           Speech:         ‘I said’             ‘(s)he/they said’      ‘theyUNKNOWN said’
           Thought:        ‘I thought’          ‘(s)he/they thought’   ‘theyUNKNOWN thought’


                      Table 3: Types of RS and RT and constructions introducing them.


The collected examples were compiled in MS Excel database. Different reports were
placed in separate sheets, additionally distinguishing RS from RT. This division
resulted in 6 different sheets. The examples were manually annotated for different
types of categories. As mentioned in Section 1, only person indexing is discussed in
this paper; however, the database can be used in the future for other types of shifters.
Attention was paid to the correspondence of person indexes to the reported (EN) or
current speech event (ES), for which abbreviated labels ‘en’ and ‘es’ were used. The
realization of this category was specified in a separate column, e.g. personal deixis:
‘en’, ‘2sg’, which allowed further investigation on how such correspondence is
encoded linguistically.
      This is a pilot study with an overall goal to illustrate differences between types of
report. The empirical data are demonstrated here to support the qualitative
description and prepare a theoretical basis for further quantitative investigation. This
means that any quantitative representation of the data will be postponed for the
future, and some tendencies outlined here would need to be further tested with
statistical methods.
      The data in the paper are presented without any corrections of spelling or
punctuation. Examples from Eastern Finno-Ugric languages are transcribed and
illustrated without original in Cyrillic to save space. Occasional code-switches into
Russian in these languages are presented in transliteration with non-italics in the
example line. In the further presentation of data, where possible I will recycle the
colors employed in Figure 1 and use blue color to designate PN and red color for PS in

19
     For now, 2SG and 2PL forms are disregarded, representing a specific type of quotation where speech
and thought are attributed to Current Addressee. This characteristic sets it apart from quotations
attributed to Other (or more rarely Interlocutor) in ES and would require a study of its own, where
reports attributed to Current Addressee could be further explored.


                                                                                                      50
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


glosses and occasionally in translation lines. Ambiguous cases and other highlights
will be marked merely in bold. To save space, some more trivial examples will be
illustrated in the text in English. These examples, however, are derived from free
translations of actual examples in the database unless indicated otherwise.


4. Person alignment in different types of report according to Reported Speaker


Before discussing person alignment patterns in Section 4.2, I will briefly introduce the
strategies used to query different types of report in Section 4.1. A list of these
strategies can be found in Appendix.


4.1. Quotative strategies in Finno-Ugric languages and their use with different types
of report


Person indexing in Finno-Ugric languages considered in this study is flagged via
verbal personal endings, free pronouns, and possessive suffixes (except Estonian).
Personal endings and free pronouns shall be coreferential, but the latter are not
obligatory and can often be omitted. This condition mainly stems from the fact that
the highest-ranking argument of the clause is usually obligatorily marked on the verb
(e.g. Fin. syö-n joka päivä ‘eat.PRS-1SG every day’), excluding non-canonical
realizations (e.g. experiencer, possessor: Fin. minu-lla on pallo ‘1SG-ADE be:PRS.3SG
ball’ pro ‘I have a ball’). Possessive suffixes typically appear on nominal categories,
nonfinite verb forms and some adpositions. In contrast to other languages with
possessive suffixes, colloquial Finnish is quite relaxed about their use and more often
highlights the possessor with free pronouns in the genitive case (8a) instead of using
the possessive suffix with or without the pronoun in the genitive case (8b).


(8)   Finnish (Uralic; IKA)


a. …mun         äiti      ei        tiedä           siitä
   1SG:GEN      mother NEG:3SG know.PRS.CN DEM.DIST:ELA
   vieläkään.
   still
   ‘…my mom still doesn’t know about it.’




                                                                                     51
Teptiuk                                         Person alignment in reported speech and thought


b. … niin (minun)     äiti-ni        teki        kun       olin
     so    1SG:GEN    mother-1SG do:PST.3SG      when      be:PST:1SG
  pieni.
  little
  ‘…my mom did so when I was little.’


Each language investigated here has in its inventory at least one generic speech verb
‘say’ and mental verb ‘think’ (see Appendix). These verbs used in the past tense can
introduce speech and thought attributed to different speakers. Finno-Ugric languages
also exhibit cases of historical present tense. The majority also possess more than one
past tense. For this study, only basic past tense forms were investigated unless the
form is conventionally used in the present tense (e.g. Hung. mondok ‘I say’ pro ‘I
said/thought’, cf. Teptiuk 2021a). Differences between tenses in quotative
constructions (see e.g. Sakita 2002 for English) are beyond the scope of this study and
shall be confronted in the future.
  Where possible, I gave preference to a more colloquial variant, e.g. the contracted
variant ütsin in colloquial Estonian instead of standard ütlesin (pro ‘I said’), or the
contracted variant aszonta in Hungarian instead of standard azt mondta (pro ‘(s)he
said’). This choice was mainly motivated by descriptive goals since only a few studies
(if any) focus on these colloquial variants. By investigating these strategies, I also
attempted to see if the contraction and change in the marker’s form impact its use.
  For self-quotations, 1SG forms were checked; for quotations, 3SG forms were
preferred over other possible manifestations (see fn. 19); for quotations with an
unknown source, 3PL forms were investigated. In some cases, 3PL Reported Speakers
can be identified from the context; in others, Reported Addressee can be identified.
When either of these two conditions was realized, such types of report were labeled
as quotations. Note that although quotations and quotations with an unknown source
can be introduced formally identically, the differences regarding their participants
are expected to remain. This will be one of the topics picked up in Section 4.2.
  The distribution of speech and mental verbs across different report types can be
uneven. For instance, Komi possesses three different mental verbs that can be roughly
translated as ‘think’: ćajtny, mövpavny, and dumajtny (< Russian dumat’ ‘think’). I have
checked all these verbs, but as is shown in Appendix, only ćajtny is used across all
report types, while dumajtny appears only in self-quotations and mövpany in




                                                                                            52
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


quotations only. The reason behind such uneven distribution of verbs is unclear for
now and would require a separate investigation in the future.
   Besides strategies with speech and mental verbs, Finnish and Estonian possess ‘new
quotatives’ (see Buchstaller & Van Alphen 2012), consisting of the equational verb
‘be’ and etymologically non-reportative elements, e.g. Fin. se oli niinku ‘she was like’,
Est. ma olin mingi et ‘I was like’ (lit. ‘I was something that’) (see Appendix; for more
details on the strategies see e.g. Teptiuk 2019: Ch. 4). By default, these strategies can
be used with both RS and RT, although they are attracted more to RT in self-
quotations than other report types (cf. Teptiuk forth.). The current corpus
investigation shows that these strategies are not used for quotations with an unknown
source, and in Estonian are limited to quotations of speech while in self-quoting
contexts can also introduce thought.
   In addition, all languages have non-clausal units introducing RS (and more rarely
also RT). For instance, self-quotative particles in Permic languages (Komi miśa and
Udmurt pöj) were included for the glosses ‘I said’ and ‘I thought’ in Table 3. These
particles are restricted in their use to contexts where Reporter introduces her own
speech or thought (see Appendix; for more details on the particles, see Teptiuk
2021a). The same holds for quotative particles introducing speech and thought
belonging to both known and unknown speakers. Thus, besides lexical evidential
constructions with the verb ‘say’, grammaticalized quotative/reported evidential
particles available in each language were also used as a query. There are several such
particles in some languages, e.g. Est. kuuldavasti, väidetavalt, both ‘allegedly’. In
addition to the use of autochthonous particles, Komi, Udmurt and Erzya borrow
quotative particles mol and tipa from the contact Russian language (see e.g. overviews
in Teptiuk 2020, 2021b). However, the number of the borrowed particles in the
corpora is limited with usually less than 100 examples in the entire corpus. They are
also limited to colloquial speech and are used by the speakers who are more relaxed
about borrowing functional and lexical elements from Russian and eventual code-
mixing with Russian. A similar situation is observed in the distribution of new
quotative constructions with the equational verb ‘be’ in Finnish and Estonian, where
some strategies are more numerous than others and are typical for colloquial speech
only.
   To limit the scope of this investigation, I have excluded some strategies and did
not use them as a query for different types of report for now. One type not included
in the current investigation is turn-taking strategies highlighting the reported speaker



                                                                                      53
Teptiuk                                                      Person alignment in reported speech and thought


(e.g. Hungarian erre ő ‘upon this (s)he’, see Teptiuk 2019: 211-218). Another such
strategy is the quotative construction consisting of non-reportative verbs, e.g.
Hungarian azzal jött/em ‘I/she said’, lit. ‘I/she came with that’.
      Search results could be extremely numerous if only the verbs are queried. To make
them more effective, I added complementizers to some strategies. Unlike many
European languages, Finno-Ugric are less sensitive in perspectivization when
complementizers are present in Matrix. Strategies with complementizers can
introduce both Reporter’s and Reported Speaker’s perspectives in colloquial speech.
Thus, adding one to Matrix would not necessarily lead to over-representation one
perspective over the other in the database.20 As for the query, adding the
complementizer increases the chances that the quotative construction would be
followed by an independent sentential unit forming the report. Thus, accidental
collocations21 were excluded to a certain extent by the query itself. Already
grammaticalized quotative particles were queried on their own, although cases, where
they occur as a part of more complex construction with speech or mental verbs, were
also considered.
      Although the queries were designed to search for different types of report, some
types were more numerous than others (see Table 4). The most numerous in the
database is the quotation of speech, which included besides quotations attributed to
specified 3SG speakers also examples with 3PL Reported Speakers. The least numerous
is the quotation of thoughts attributed to an unknown source. Interestingly, my
database also contains more examples of RT in self-quotations than in quotations. The
same holds for the difference between RT and RS in self-quotations. Even though it is
too early to make any robust generalizations, the data hint that speakers report their
own thoughts more than the thoughts of others, and the least so when the other is
unknown. Although the data for the latter are limited, they still reflect some
tendencies across languages (for more details, see Section 4.2.3).

20
     As an anonymous reviewer has pointed out, adding a complementizer could still introduce a non-
categorical bias or a preference regarding the perspective. I find this point valid and acknowledge that
a better tactic shall be developed to limit the number of examples in the corpora. However, the focus
of this study is not on the quantitative representation of different perspectives in RST. It merely
explores the person alignment in highlighting different perspectives. Therefore, I find the query tactics
implemented here tolerable for collecting a more significant number of valid examples that still
demonstrate different perspectives, regardless of the presence of a complementizer.
21
     For instance, Fin. sanoin vaan mielipiteeni ‘I told my opinion’, mä olin niinku se jätka ‘I was like this
dude’ (IKA).


                                                                                                           54
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


                                                           RS               RT
            Self-quotations                                684              727
            Quotations                                    1598              387
            Quotations with an unknown source              378              32


                               Table 4: Types of report in the database.


4.2. Person alignment in Finno-Ugric languages


Person indexing in RS and RT exhibits the following systemic tendency. The behavior
of person indexes can be summarized in the view of their correspondence with EN, ES
or lead to ambiguity. The latter means that the reference does not lead to
interpretation favoring only one perspective. This characteristic mainly stems from
the interaction between pragmatic conditions and the reference to concrete
participant roles. The reference to concrete participants depends on the idiosyncrasies
theorized for different report types in Section 2.
   The possibility of mixing perspectives within one report, as in (9), has been
previously discussed for Udmurt in Winkler (2011: 170). However, in my database,
examples like (9) have occurred neither in Udmurt nor in other languages. The
database’s only cases with mixed perspectives contain multipart RST, as in (10). In
such RST, each perspective is demonstrated separately and does not lead to the
mixture of forms in one clause, as in (9).


(9)   Udmurt (Uralic; Winkler 2011: 170; glossing and translation are modified)
          ́
      Vladimir syče kuraśky-sa as-s-e       uli     kari-śko      šuysa
      PN           such beg-CV         self-3SG-ACC under do-PRS.1SG         COMP

      malpa-m.
      think-PRF.3SG
      ‘VladimirI apparently thought that hei humbles himselfi (lit. I humble himself)
      by begging in such a manner.’


(10) Erzya (Uralic; ESmC)
     T́evem,   keĺa,   veĺese                 lamot,      eŕavi
      work:1SG QUOT           village:INE     many:PL     have.to:PRS.3SG
      kardajse-piŕese           ĺezdams                   ́ anstenze…
                                              avanstenze-tet ́
      yard:INE-garden:INE help:INF            mother:DAT.3SG-father:DAT.3SG


                                                                                    55
Teptiuk                                                Person alignment in reported speech and thought


     ‘He says, I have a lot of work, he needs to help his parents with the yard and
     the garden.’


Even though technically the parts in (10) belong to one stretch of the report, when
approached analytically, they shall not be considered cases of mixed perspective in
the strict sense, as examples like (9) would typically be. Thus, in the further
presentation of data, I will not pay special attention to such cases, and they will be
discussed together with other cases where person indexes demonstrate only one
perspective in a stretch of RST.
  This subsection is split into three smaller subsections dedicated to each report type.
In what follows, I review how these idiosyncrasies reflect on the indexing of
participants and what pragmatic conditions influence the choice of one perspective
over another or lead to the ambiguity.


4.2.1. Person alignment in self-quotations


In this section, I first turn to the discussion of self-quotations of speech and illustrate
the peculiarities of person alignment therein with examples. Second, I discuss self-
quotations of thought and illustrate the differences between the two types of report.
  1SG forms in self-quotation of speech reflect ambiguity in Finno-Ugric languages.
These forms simultaneously refer to Reporter as PS and Reported Speaker as PN. Thus,
it is impossible to point out if Reporter presents the report from the standpoint of ES
or EN solely from the linguistic encoding of this participant, cf. (11).


(11) Estonian (Uralic; etTenTen19)
     … küsis            une        kohta     ja       ütsin,         et
          ask:PST.3SG   sleep:GEN about      and say:PST:1SG         COMP

     vahepeal       kõnnin         unes           a      seda        lapsest
     sometimes      walk:PRS.1SG sleep:INE but DEM:PRTV child:ELA
     saati.
     from
     ‘…she asked about sleep, and I said that I sometimes walk in sleep, but (I do) it
     starting from childhood.’




                                                                                                   56
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


At first glance, this observation might seem a bit trivial. However, theoretically one
could expect to find a language reflecting the differentiation between two sources of
consciousness, flagged with personal markers. As was pointed out by Güldemann
(2008: 7), “[e]ven in self-quoting, […] two centers of consciousness differing from
each other at least on the time dimension must be recognized.” However, as becomes
apparent from this investigation, such differentiation appears as a contextual
implicature and, at least in Finno-Ugric languages, is not marked via personal
markers.
   In contrast, 1PL forms in my data can be considered primarily indicative of
Reported Speaker’s perspective since they typically subsume Reported Speaker and
Reported Addressee(s), as in (12a). However, certain ambiguity is observed when the
1PL form allow an inclusive generic interpretation. When such is pragmatically
possible, 1PL forms may subsume Reported or Current Addressee or even
simultaneously refer to both, and none of these interpretations excludes the others,
as in (12b).


(12)
a. Estonian (Uralic; etTenTen19)
   siis   ma    ütsin,          ee        Liigume [sic!]       äki?
   then 1SG say:PST:1SG         INTERJ    move:NPST.1PL PTCL
   ‘then I said, ee should we move?’
b. Erzya (Uralic; ESmC)
   (Vest ́ źardo-butí moń kevkstimiź,
                                 ́     meks, keĺa ton śormadat Pazońt ́ langa?)
   Meŕiń:          mińek        od     śormadićanok        uĺit.́
   say:PST:1SG     1PL.GEN new writer:1PL                  be:PRS.3PL
                ́ śormadi Pazdońt?...)
   (Kijak ejstedest              ́
   ‘(Once I was asked: why do you write about God?) I said: we have new/young
   writers. (Does anyone of them write about God?...)’


2SG and 2PL forms typically refer to addressees in EN and ES, as in (13).


(13) English (Indo-European)


a. I said: “Don, you should quit smoking.”
b. I said to Bill earlier today that you should quit smoking.



                                                                                   57
Teptiuk                                                   Person alignment in reported speech and thought


The ambiguity in using these forms can also be observed when Reported Addressee is
also Current Addressee or vice versa, as in (14a). Even though the cases when 2SG and
2PL refer to Current Addresses are few in my database, interestingly, all of them
exhibit such ambiguity. Thus, examples like (13b) where Current Addressee is absent
in EN and thus fulfills the role of Reported Other are lacking in my database. I will
return to this type of reference once again below. In addition to Addressees, 2SG forms
can be used for generic reference, as in (14b). Similarly, they lead to ambiguity since
they refer to PN and PS equally.


(14)
a. Finnish (Uralic; IKA)
  (sää sanoit et sää oot siellä.. ja pysyt etkö sanonuki)
  ... mut mähän            sanoin            et   mää voin                lentää
       but 1SG:PTCL        say:PST:1SG       COMP 1SG    can:PRS.1SG fly:INF
  sun          luo…
  2SG:GEN      to(wards)
  ‘(you said that you are there... and you will stay, didn’t you?) …but I said that I
  can fly to you…’
b. Komi (Uralic; KoZSmC)
  Me      na   kyvlyśli,               miśa,        on               kö
  1SG PCTL respond:PST.1SG             QUOT.SELF NEG.PRS:2SG         COND
  udžav,       olan               prösta –        byd      lun    kažitćö          kuźön
  work.CN      live:PRS.2SG empty:ADV             whole day seem:PRS.3SG long:INSTR
  da      ydžydön.
  and hard:INSTR
  ‘I even replied, if you don’t work, you live emptily – the whole day seems long and
  hard.’


3SG and 3PL forms can also lead to similar ambiguity when used for generic reference
(15a). In addition, ambiguity is also observed when 3SG and 3PL forms refer to
Reported Other/s who are also absent in ES (15b).


(15)
a. Finnish (Uralic; IKA)
  En           sanonut       et        pitää               olla      tiedossa,
  NEG:1SG      say:PST.CN COMP         have.to:PRS.3SG be:INF knowledge:INE


                                                                                                      58
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


     sanoin          et         MONET        ketkä      menee
     say:PST:1SG     COMP       many:PL      who:PL go:PRS.3SG
     kihloihin               niin niillä           on            jo
     engagement:PL:ILL so          3PL:ADE         be:PRS.3SG    already
     hääpäivä             tiedossa...
     wedding:day          knowledge:INE
     ‘I didn’t say that it should be known, I said that many who get engaged, they know
     already the day of the wedding…’
b. Erzya (Uralic; ESmC)
     Śekskak      mon meŕiń:               sonze        ojmeze        kavtov    javś.
     therefore 1SG say:PST:1SG             3SG.GEN      soul:3SG      two:LAT   divide:PST.3SG
     ‘Therefore, I said: his soul has divided into two [parts].’


Even though circumstantially Reported Other and Current Other often coincide, this
should not always be the case. There are examples where these two participants fulfill
different roles in EN and ES, respectively. For instance, there are situations where
Current Other is Reported Addressee in EN (17). Although an example of the opposite
where Reported Other is Current Addressee is lacking in the database, it appears to
be theoretically possible, cf. (13b). Thus, the lack of such examples in my data might
be merely accidental.
     The ambiguity in perspective also appears among the honorific uses of 3SG and 3PL
in Hungarian when the pronoun is not explicitly expressed.22 Consider (16a) where
the pronoun drop leads to two possible interpretations of the 3SG imperative form in
the report, which can equally refer to Reported Addressee from the perspective of EN
or ES. Note that the pronoun drop may cause problems in interpretation in similar
contexts beyond RST. (16b) taken from the translation of the novel Good men (Hung.
Jó emberek) by Arturo Pérez-Reverte demonstrates such ambiguity in a regular
conversation between two characters.




22
     The Hungarian honorific pronouns Ön/Önök are formally different from the regular pronouns ő/ők,
but both honorific and non-honorific pronouns use 3SG/3PL morphology elsewhere.


                                                                                                 59
Teptiuk                                              Person alignment in reported speech and thought


(16) Hungarian (Uralic)


a. (MNSz)
  Aszontam         neki,     hogy       nézzen               rám.
  DEF.say:PST:1SG DAT:3SG COMP          look:IMP.HON/3SG DAT:1SG
  ‘I said to her: look at me.’ or ‘I said to her to look at me.’
b. (Pérez-Reverte 2017: 390; glossing and translation added)
  – Az      erénye… –        kezd             bele, de   aztán      elakad.
     DEF    honor:HON/3SG start.PRS.3SG PRE but then                freeze.PRS.3SG
  – Mi van az erényemmel?
  – Nem az önéről beszélek, uram. Hanem a lányoméről.
  ‘– Her/Your honor… – he starts but then freezes.
  – What’s with my honor?
  – I don’t speak about Your honor, my lord. But about my daughter’s.’


In other situations, 3SG and 3PL forms are used as shifters and refer to Reported
Addressee absent in ES, similarly to the second interpretation in (16a).


(17) Udmurt (Uralic; UdSmC)
     Vaśaly      šuiśko,        soly,         pöj,       instagram
     PN:DAT      say:PRS.1SG    3SG:DAT       QUOT.SELF PN
      ́
     teĺefonaz             puktono.
     phone:ILL.3SG         install:PTCP.NEC
     ‘I said to Vasya that Instagram shall be installed on his telephone.’


Person alignment in self-quotations of speech is summarized in Table 5. As in Table
1, I use square brackets to mark semantic and round brackets for pragmatic relations
between the participants.
  Now let us turn to self-quotations of thought. This type of report exhibits different
behavior of person indexing when compared to RS. First, the 1SG forms subsume not
only Reported Speaker and Reporter but also Reported Addressee. This is the most
apparent in the situations when unverbalized egocentric speech is introduced with a
speech verb and a reflexive pronoun indicating Reported Addressee in M, as in (18).




                                                                                                 60
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


      Person indexing        Perspective          Participant role
      1SG                    ambiguous            Reported Speaker [= Reporter]
      1PL                    EN                   Reported Speaker [= Reporter] [+ Reported
                                                  Addressee]
                             ambiguous            Reported     Speaker    [=    Reporter]    [+
                                                  Reported/Current Addressee]
      2SG                    ambiguous            Generic
      2SG/PL                 EN                   Reported Addressee/s
                             ES                   Current Addressee/s (= Reported Other/s)
                             ambiguous            Reported Addressee/s [= Current Addressee/s]
      3SG/PL                 ES                   Reported Addressee/s [= Current Other/s]
                             ambiguous            Reported Other/s [= Current Other/s]
                                                  Generic
      3SG/PL.HON             EN                   Reported Addressee/s
      3SG.(+/-HON)           ambiguous            Reported Addressee [= Current Other]


  Table 5: Person alignment and their relation to different perspectives in self-quotation of speech.


(18) Udmurt (Uralic; UdSmC)
      Mon soleś        kinoze                 ućkysa      vdoxnovilsja,
      1SG 3SG:ABL movie:ACC.3SG watch:CV inspire:PST.M:REFL
      kužym        baśti            no        aslym          šui:         “ved’
      power        get:PST.1SG      and self:DAT:1SG say:PST.1SG          PTCL.ENIM

      mon no       bygato                ta     užyn           asleśtym
      1SG and be.able:FUT.1SG DEM work:INSTR                   own:ABL.1SG
      bygatonlykme         voźmatyny.”
      ability:ACC.1SG show:INF
      ‘After watching his movie, I got inspired, gathered my forces and said to myself:
      “I can show my abilities with this work after all.”’


Even though the egocentricity of thoughts/unverbalized speech might not always be
overtly marked in M, the situation is not different therein, and the speaker’s thoughts
shall be viewed as originally egocentric (cf. Vygotsky 1986; Teptiuk forth.). Also, note
that only Reported Addressee is identical with Reported Speaker and Reporter, but
Current Addressee/s differ from these participants. Thus, when 2SG and 2PL forms are
used as shifters, they refer to Current Addressee/s, e.g. I thought, you were Erzya. On
other occasions, they refer to Reported Interlocutor/s, which is discussed below.



                                                                                                    61
Teptiuk                                                    Person alignment in reported speech and thought


     1PL forms subsume Reported Interlocutor or Current Addressee in addition to
Reporter and her other roles in EN. In a handful of examples in my database from all
languages except Estonian, it was impossible to tease apart if the form subsumes PN
or PS.23 On the one hand, 1PL forms always involve Reporter as a part of self-reference.
Thus, Reporter may refer to PN and PS with the same form without explicitly
distinguishing them. On the other hand, RT is always egocentric and does not require
other participants to be immediately present in EN. Reporter can adapt her thoughts
to ES and involve PS where necessary. Furthermore, some context hint at an immediate
representation of thoughts in ES. Thus, the difference between EN and ES can be quite
insignificant. For instance, consider (19), where Reporter apparently almost instantly
quotes her thoughts after they had occurred to her. The passive form often used in
Finnish instead of 1PL may be interpreted as involving (i) Current Addressee and
consequently demonstrating Reporter’s perspective (we = ‘I + you’ in ES) or (ii)
Reported Other and consequently demonstrating Reported Speaker’s perspective (we
= ‘I + s/he’ in EN).


(19) Finnish (Uralic; IKA)
        (Onx sul e-mailii?)
        Mä vaan ajattelin              et        voitais              keskustella
        1SG just think:PST:1SG         COMP      can:PASS:COND talk:INF
        tästä             samasta      aiheesta...
        DEM.PROX:ELA      same:ELA topic:ELA
        ‘(Do you have an e-mail?) I just thought that we could talk about the same
        topic…’


Note that among Finno-Ugric languages investigated here, only Udmurt marks
inclusivity or exclusivity of addressees/interlocutors by using either reflexive pronoun

23
     Examples of 1PL lack among Estonian self-quotations of thought in the database. However, few
examples in etTenTen19, searched with the query mõtlesin et me ‘I thought that we’, show that they
lead to the same ambiguity. Consider the following example where 1PL refers to Reported Interlocutor
who is Current Other: Einar tegi mulle plaanikuga sellist lendu et mul siiamaani irvitus näol ma juba
vahepeal mõtlesin et me lendame yakiga mitte plaaneriga ‘Einar organized such a flight with the aeroplane
that I have the grimace on the face till now, I already thought that we (i.e. I + PN [Einar]) fly with
Yak and not with aeroplane.’ One more case among queried shows the same, while one more indicates
the ambiguity described for the second case in Table 6: 1PL refers to Reported Other who is Current
Addressee.


                                                                                                       62
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


aśmeos ‘we ourselves (+addressee)’ or mi ‘1PL (-addressee)’ (cf. Winkler 2011: 69, 71;
also see Norvik et al. 2022). However, in Udmurt, such forms do not occur in RT,
even outside the new media genre. As for RS, they are found in the few examples in
Udmurt Corpus and Udmurt social media corpus in self-quotations but are more
typical for quotations. (20) illustrates the use of the inclusive form that subsumes
Reported Addressee in self-quotation of speech. The same holds for other examples in
(self-)quotations. It is possible to assume that on the condition of being used in
(self-)quotations of thought, such a feature could have possibly hinted at whether the
form involves Current Addressee or not. However, for now, this condition is only
theoretically possible and is yet to be empirically proven.


(20) Udmurt (Uralic; UdC)
      Šui              soosly: aśmeos          ke          öm,
      say:PST.1SG      3PL:DAT ourselves PTCL.COND NEG.PST:1PL
      kin    udmurt       kuĺturajez      konkursyn           voźmatoz.
      who Udmurt          culture:ACC competition:INE demonstrate:FUT:3SG
      ‘ISP said to themADDR: if we(SP + ADDR) didn’t (do it), who would represent Udmurt
      culture on the competition.’


Among the similarities between RS and RT, we can observe that 2SG and 3SG forms
can be used to mark generic referents. Similarly, in the environment when Reported
Other/s are also absent in ES, it is impossible to distinguish if 3SG and 3PL forms refer
to Reported Other(s) or Current Other(s), or if they simply overlap. Interestingly, even
though RT is always egocentric and thus could be expected to use 2SG and 2PL only
for Current Addressee(s), there are cases where these forms can also refer to Reported
Interlocutor(s). Such cases represent what can be labeled as ‘unverbalized speech’.
Unverbalized speech is formally identical to RS but pragmatically denotes RT and can
be considered an intermediate category reflecting properties of both types of report.
(21) from Udmurt demonstrates such type of report.


(21) Udmurt (Uralic; UdC_blogs)
      (Ĺukaśkem dyšetiśjos šory ućki, ućki no, kylziśki, kylziśki no,)
      malpaj,             eee,      nylaška,        myn       bert.   Myn
      think:PST.1SG       INTERJ    girl:DIM        go.IMP.2SG back   go.IMP.2SG




                                                                                      63
Teptiuk                                                          Person alignment in reported speech and thought


        aj     dyšetsky               no      dyšetsky             na.
        PTCL   study.IMP.2SG          and study.IMP.2SG            still
        ‘(I looked at the students gathered, looked and listened and) I thought, eee, girl,
        go back. Go and study more.’


Note that Reported Speaker still conceptually subsumes the role of Reported
Addressee, and the 2SG forms in (21) are used to refer to Reported Interlocutor.
  More canonically, Reported Interlocutors in RT are referred to with 3SG and 3PL
forms that indicate that thinking happens outside of their reach, and other PN cannot
access the Reported Speaker’s thoughts. Such a reference to PN indicates no referential
shift and can be contrasted with the 2SG and 2PL forms used in RS to refer to Reported
Addressees and signal the same lack of referential shift. This leads to the conclusion
that certain person indexes behave oppositely in RS and RT among self-quotations.
Compare the two examples in (22) where pronouns correspond to EN.


(22) Estonian (Uralic; etTenTen19)


a. RT
  (…ütles üks tüdruk, et ta “leidis hullult mugava voodi kuhu minna” ja kutsus mind
  katsuma-testima seda. Olin täis ja)
  mõtsin               mis       sitta              ta   ajab,               mis      voodi,
  think:PST:1SG what             shit:PRTV 3SG drive:PRS.3SG                 what     bed
  mis          katsumine         ja        läksin          pitse                    lammutama.
  what         try.out:AN        and go:PST:1SG            shot.glass:PL.PRTV take.down:INF
  ‘(…one girli said that shei “found crazily comfortable bed where to go” and invited
  me to test it. I was smashed and) I thought: what the hell is shei talking about,
  what bed, what testing and went to take shots.’
b. RS
  Siis tuli                      ja        küsis,          ja      ma      ütsin         et
  then come:PST.3SG              and ask:PST.3SG           and 1SG say:PST:1SG           COMP

  sinu           asi         vä?
  2SG:GEN        thing       Q

  ‘Then she came and asked, and I said: is it your business?’




                                                                                                             64
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


Now notice how they shift to match ES in (23), reflecting the opposite use of pronouns
as above.


(23) Estonian (Uralic; etTenTen19)


a. RT
   Mõtsin,          et      pommitan     sind       ka selle
   think:PST:1SG COMP bomb:PRS.1SG 2SG:PRTV also DEM:GEN
   küsimusega.
   question:COM
   ‘I thought that I would bomb you too with this question.’
b. RS
   … jah     ma    ütsin            talle,     et   ma    armastan   teda…
        yes 1SG say:PST:1SG         3SG:ALL COMP 1SG love:PRS.1SG 3SG:PRTV
   ‘…yes, I said to him that I love him…’


Of course, the opposite use of personal markers mainly stems from the change of
participant roles with the change of perspective. However, it is interesting that
opposite forms signal (the lack of) the perspective shift in RS and RT. Such differences
in person alignment can distinguish RT from RS where Matrix does not point explicitly
at one type of report, as in (24). Obviously, when attempting such a distinction, one
must consider the surrounding context and pragmatics of the situation in addition to
the person indexing.


(24) Finnish (Uralic; IKA)


a. RT
   (…Toni juoksi meidän perään ja alkoi kyseleen et mihkä ollaan menos.)
   Silloin olin            ihan     et       “Hyi   kuka toiki         on?!”
   then      be:PST:1SG totally COMP INTERJ who DEM.PROX:ADD           be:PRS.3SG
   (no sit vastattiin että kävelyllehän me...)
   ‘(…Toni ran after us and started asking where we were going.) Then I was like
   “Oh, who’s that?!” (but then answered that we [went] for a walk…)’




                                                                                     65
Teptiuk                                                 Person alignment in reported speech and thought


b. RS
  (Ja se niinku höpis jostain rehtorisista [sic!] kysymyksistä)
  ja      mää olin            ihan     et   “näytänks              mää susta
  and 1SG be:PST:1SG totally COMP appear:PRS.1SG:Q 1SG 2SG:ELA
  koululaiselta”
  school.kid:ABL
  (ja sit se ei vastannu.)
  ‘(And he kinda blabbered something about rhetorical questions) and I was like
  “according to you, do I look like a school kid?” (and then he didn’t answer.)’


The forms used in self-quotations of thought are summarized in Table 6.

  Person indexing        Perspective         Participant role
  1SG                    ambiguous           Reported Speaker [=Rep. Addressee = Reporter]
  1PL                    ambiguous           Rep. Speaker [=Rep. Addr. = Reporter] [+ Rep.
                                             Interloc. = Cur. Other]
                                             Rep. Speaker [= Rep. Addr. = Reporter] [+ Rep.
                                             Other = Cur. Addr.]
  2SG                    ambiguous           Generic
  2SG/PL                 EN                  Reported Interlocutor/s
                         ES                  Current Addressee/s (= Reported Other/s)
  3SG/PL                 EN                  Reported Interlocutor/s
                         ambiguous           Reported Other/s [= Current Other/s]
                                             Generic


 Table 6: Person alignment and their relation to different perspectives in self-quotation of thought.


4.2.2. Person alignment in quotations


Person alignment in quotations shows the expected difference compared to self-
quotations. Even though some roles are realized differently in quotations, there are
also some similarities with self-quotations in terms of reference to the participants in
EN and ES, and ambiguity in perspectivization.
  The 1SG and 1PL forms do not subsume Reporter in EN; however, they do refer to
Reporter when these forms shift and refer to PS, e.g. They said that I live in a dream
world. When speech is attributed to multiple speakers, the 1PL forms mark Reported
Speakers, e.g.: They said, we understand only some words. In contrast, when it is



                                                                                                    66
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


attributed to one speaker, the 1PL form can also subsume Reported Addressee(s),
Interlocutor(s), or Others, as in (25).


(25) English (Indo-European; invented)


a. She said: let’s go.
b. She said: thanks for advice, but Gary and I, we should go now.
c. Shei said: I will call my husbandz and tell him that wei + z should go there tomorrow.


When 1SG and 1PL forms are used as shifters, Reporter often fulfills the role of
Reported Addressee in EN. The same holds for the 2SG and 2PL forms canonically used
to mark Reported Addressees in EN, as in (26).


(26) Finnish (Uralic; IKA)
      (mutta hermostuin sitten kun pentuja ei voinut mennä kattomaan,)
      ja     nämä            ihmiset      oli             tyyliin ota         tai
      and DEM.PROX.PL person:PL be:PST.3 SG like                  take.IMP.2SG or
      jätä             älä             jahkaile...
      take.IMP.2SG NEG.IMP.2SG stall.PRS.CN
      ‘(but I got nervous when it was not possible to go and check puppies,) and these
      people were like take [it] or leave [it], don’t stall…’


Based on these observations, an interesting tendency can be drawn from the database,
showing that Reporters often present speech originally addressed to them. Even
though the statistical significance of this tendency shall be confronted in a separate
study, to my knowledge, a similar tendency has not been previously discussed in the
studies focusing on RST. It could be an interesting topic to explore further in the
future if it holds for this and other colloquial genres.
   1PL used as shifters typically subsume Reporter and another participant present in
EN. The two participants usually fulfill the role of Reported Addressees, but this
condition appears pragmatic rather than semantic. For instance, the Reported
Addressee condition is fulfilled in (27a), while (27b) demonstrates the situation when
the 1PL form involves Reporter but the speech is unlikely to be addressed directly at
Reporter. Instead, the 1PL form subsumes Reporter and Current Addressee/s, marked
with the addressee-inclusive form aśme ‘our own’. Note that unlike in (20) where the



                                                                                            67
Teptiuk                                                       Person alignment in reported speech and thought


lexical cognate aśmeos ‘we ourselves’ is used to subsume Reported Speaker and
Reported Addressees, aśme in (27b) is used as a shifter. Thus, contextual variation can
be observed in RS when the addressee-inclusive form is used, showing that it can
pragmatically subsume either Reported or Current Addressee(s).


(27)
a. Finnish (Uralic; IKA)
  Poliisit        saapuivat            paikalle      ja      sanoivat        et        jos
  police:PL arrive:PST:3PL             place:ALL and say:PST:3PL             COMP      if
  meil            ois             ollu        vyöt        ni oltais               kuoltu
  1PL:ADE         be:COND.3SG be:PP           belt:PL so be:PASS:COND             die:PASS.PP
  kaikki!
  all
  ‘The police arrived and said that if we had had belts on, we all would have died!’
b. Udmurt (Uralic; UdSmC)
  Juneskoyś ekspertjos šuizy,                           ́
                                                  aśme deputatjos dory
  PN:ELA          expert:PL say:PST.3PL           our deputy:PL to:ILL
  kule                     vaźiśkyny     no       soosen        veraśkyny.
  have.to:PRS.3SG turn.to:INF            and 3PL:INSTR speak:INF
  ‘The UNESCO experts said that one has to turn to our deputies and speak with
  them.’


Furthermore, in specific contexts, 1PL forms may subsume both Reported Speaker and
Reporter. Such subsumption of PN and PS leads to ambiguity in perspective (28). Note
that (28) also reflects the tendency where reported information was initially
addressed to Reporter. Nonetheless, the difference between the two perspectives is
not highlighted in the person marking of participants.


(28) Udmurt (Uralic; UdSmC)
        Lyktysa         todi,            ćto      Buranovoje, pe,            myniśkom.
        come:CV         know:PST.1SG     COMP PN:ILL                  QUOT   go:PRS:1PL
        ‘When we were arriving, I got to know that we are going to Buranovo, as they
        said.’




                                                                                                          68
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


The 2SG forms can be used for generic reference, similarly to self-quotations. More
typically, they mark Current or Reported Addressee, depending on whether they shift
or not, e.g. She asked who are you? / who you were (invented). The same holds for 2PL
forms, referring to multiple addressees, Reported or Current. As for 3SG and 3PL forms,
they are used as shifters and refer to multiple Reported Speakers when speech is
attributed to such, e.g. Theyi said theyi would come (invented). Alternatively, when it
is attributed to a single speaker, 3PL forms may subsume Reported Speaker and
Reported Other, as in (29).


(29) Estonian (Uralic; etTenTen19)
       … sugulane      töötab             toyotas         ja     ütles,         et
          relative     work:PRS.3SG       PN:INE          and say:PST.3SG       COMP

       neil       neli kasutatud volvot            ka     sees      kasutatud
       3PL:ADE four used            PN:PRTV        also inside used
       autodes.
       car:PL:INE
       ‘…[my] relative works in Toyota and said that they have 4 used Volvos among
       the used cars.’


3SG and 3PL forms can also be used for generic reference (e.g. he said, one has to paint
it fast) or refer to Reported Other(s) (e.g. The commentator said (that) she’s Erzya).
When such a reference happens, they do not pertain to one perspective and can be
considered ambiguous. The honorific forms in Hungarian exhibit the same tendencies
as in self-quotations when free pronouns are elliptic (see e.g. ex. (16)). Otherwise,
they refer to Reported Addressees in EN, similarly to non-honorific 2SG and 2PL forms,
or honorific 2PL forms in other languages. Table 7 provides a summary of person
alignment in quotation of speech.

 Person indexing        Perspective    Participant role
 1SG                    EN             Reported Speaker
                        ES             Reporter (= Reported Addressee)
 1PL                    EN             Rep. Speakers
                                       Rep. Speaker + Rep. Other/Interlocutor/Addressee (=
                                       Reporter)
                        ES             Reporter + Rep. Interlocutor (= Rep. Addressees)
                                       Reporter + Current Addressee/s
                        ambiguous      Generic


                                                                                          69
Teptiuk                                                Person alignment in reported speech and thought


                                     Reported Speaker + Reporter
 2SG                  EN             Reported Addressee (= Reporter)
                      ES             Current Addressee (= Reported Other)
                      ambiguous      Generic
 2PL                  EN             Reported Addressees (+ Reporter)
                      ES             Current Addressees (= Reported Others)
 3SG                  ES             Reported Speaker [= Current Other]
                      ambiguous      Reported Other [= Current Other]
                                     Generic
 3PL                  ES             Reported Speakers [= Current Others]
                                     Reported Speaker + Rep. Other
                      ambiguous      Reported Others [= Current Others]
                                     Generic
 3SG/PL.HON           EN             Reported Addressee/s
 3SG/PL(.+/-HON)      ambiguous      Reported Addressee/s [= Current Other/s]


   Table 7: Person alignment and their relation to different perspectives in quotation of speech.


Now let us turn to person alignment in quotations of thought. In general, one may
notice quite a few similarities with person alignment between RS and RT. Since we
are dealing with RT, obviously, we find some differences in the distribution of roles.
For instance, Reported Speaker automatically becomes Reported Addressee of her
own thoughts, even though practically such thoughts are always produced by
Reporter and are only attributed to Reported Speaker (cf. Teptiuk forth.).
  When 1SG and 1PL pronouns shift they refer to Reporter, and Reporter plus Current
Addressee, respectively. Interestingly, 1PL forms referring to PN do not subsume
Reporter in my data, although it could have been practically possible if Reporter had
carried the role of Reported Interlocutor in EN. Occasionally, 1PL is used to refer to
both Reported Speaker and Reporter. Such reference leads to ambiguity in
perspective, and it is impossible to distinguish if Reporter presents EN from Reported
Speaker’s or her own perspective. Consider (30), where the passive form is again used
instead of 1PL in colloquial Finnish and subsumes both Reported Speaker and
Reporter.


(30) Finnish (Uralic; IKA)
       (Tavallaan olin jo jättämässä mun nykyisen ja uus jätkä “odotti” mua, oli jo
       odottanut yli vuoden ja totta kai oli nyt hiton onnellinen)



                                                                                                    70
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


      kun       ajatteli            et        viimein     oltais            yhessä…
      when      think:PST.3SG       COMP      finally     be:PASS:COND together
      ‘(In a way Ii was already about to leave my current [boyfriend] and a new guyz
      “waited” for me, hez was already waiting for more than a year and of course hez
      was damn happy) since hez thought that finally wei + z could be together…’


Similarly to self-quotations, there is a small number of RT-constructions in quotations
consisting of unverbalized speech. They can be distinguished from other cases of RT
by the 2SG forms referring to Reported Interlocutor, as in (31).


(31) Estonian (Uralic; etTenTen19)
      (– Kurat, sul ju põrand verd täis!)
      “Ahhh, mine               persse,       tead!” –             mõtles       Ene omaette…
       INTERJ   go.IMP.2SG      ass:ILL       know:PRS.2SG         think:PST.3SG PN   in.privacy
      ‘(– Goddammit, your floor is full of blood!) “Ahhh, go to hell, you know!” –
      silently thought Ene…’


In other cases, 2SG forms are used as shifters and refer to Current Addressee (e.g. she
probably thought that you are too young) or reflect ambiguity when used for the generic
reference (e.g. you won’t step into the same river twice, the guy thought).
   Interestingly, 2PL forms are few in my database for quotations of thought and are
used only as shifters subsuming Reported Speaker and Current Addressee, e.g. or hei
thought (that) what if someone among your common friends had seen himi there.
Furthermore, one formal reference missing in my database for RT in quotations is the
use of honorific 3SG and 3PL forms in Hungarian. The same is true for self-quotations
of thought (see Table 6). In general, it is not that surprising. In practice, such reference
can be expected only in situations when unverbalized speech is presented. However,
since thoughts remain silent to the interlocutors, the use of honorifics in such cases
can be considered redundant. Furthermore, there might be a reason why such speech
remained unverbalized. In my database, this subtype of RT often conveys a negative
attitude that Reported Speaker expresses towards Reported Interlocutor, as e.g. in
(31). Such an attitude conflicts with the meaning honorific forms tend to convey, e.g.
respect, courtesy, esteem. Therefore, it goes without surprise that what remains




                                                                                                   71
Teptiuk                                                Person alignment in reported speech and thought


unverbalized hardly ever contains an honorific attitude towards Reported Interlocutor
and consequently explains the lack of honorific forms.24
     3SG and 3PL forms used as shifters correspond to their use in quotations of speech
and refer to Reported Speaker, e.g. shei thought that shei would wait a bit. Also, cases
of ambiguity can be observed when 3SG and 3PL refer to Reported Others (e.g. he
thought that these cops won’t catch (him on) a new Mercedes), or they are used for a
generic reference (the rascal thought that no-one of landlords pays taxes as a rule). As
noted for quotations of speech, 3PL forms can subsume several Reported Speakers (e.g.
theyi thought that theyi could get a dog themselves) or refer to Reported Speaker and
Reported Other (e.g. hei thought that theyi +z had once again established themselvesi +z
permanently in power). In addition to these uses, 3SG forms may also refer to Reported
Interlocutor. Such use was already described for self-quotations of thought (cf. exx.
(22a), (24a)). (32) demonstrates a similar use in quotations.


(32) Finnish (Uralic; IKA)
        (– vitsit sä oot kyllä laihtunu! se sano ja katto ku ihaillen.)
        varmaan     ajatteli            et     kerranki    se             läski
        surely      think:PST.3SG       COMP   for.once    DEM.DIST       fatso
        on          saanu      jotain             aikaseks.
        be:PRS.3SG get:PP something.PRTV          early:TRANSL
        ‘(– are you kidding, you have slimmed very much! he said and looked as if
        surprised.) surely he thought (that) finally this fatso has accomplished
        something.’


Note that EN in (32) demonstrates the dialogue between Reported Speaker and
Reporter, the latter of which fulfills the role of Reported Interlocutor in EN. Thus, in
addition to Reported Interlocutor, the 3SG forms in quotations can be used by Reporter
for self-reference, creating an extra distancing and impartial effect on the presentation
of someone else’s thought (or speech). A hypothetical assumption about other people’s
thoughts, especially portraying them in a negative light as in (32), may put extra
pressure on Reporter. Hence, an additional requirement may arise to create extra


24
     Counterexamples to this tendency can sometimes occur. See e.g. ex. (15b) from Komi in Teptiuk
(2021a: 223-224), containing an honorific reference in the report of unverbalized speech: ‘My tongue
was very itching to answer that You yourself appointed and we announced. But I didn’t manage (to
answer).’


                                                                                                   72
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


distancing on such occasions, leading to such an atypical self-reference. These and
other types of person alignment discussed above for quotations of thought are
summarized in Table 8.

 Person indexing        Perspective    Participant role
 1SG                    EN             Reported Speaker [= Reported Addressee]
                        ES             Reporter
 1PL                    EN             Rep. Speakers
                                       Rep. Speaker + Rep. Other/Interlocutor (≠ Reporter)
                        ES             Reporter + Current Interlocutor
                        ambiguous      Reported Speaker + Reporter
 2SG                    EN             Reported Interlocutor
                        ES             Current Addressee (= Reported Interlocutor/Other)
                        ambiguous      Generic
 2PL                    ES             Current Addressee (= Reported Other) + Reported Speaker


 3SG                    EN             Reported Interlocutor (= Reporter)
                        ES             Reported Speaker [= Current Other]
                        ambiguous      Reported Other [= Current Other]
                                       Generic
 3PL                    ES             Reported Speakers [= Current Others]
                                       Reported Speaker [= Current Other] + Rep. Other
                        ambiguous      Reported Others [= Current Others]
                                       Generic


   Table 8: Person alignment and their relation to different perspectives in quotation of thought.


4.2.3. Person alignment in quotations with an unknown source


Compared to quotations and self-quotations, quotations with an unknown source
exhibit noticeable systemic differences in person alignment. Although one may still
find similar relation between the person marking and participant roles as in
quotations and self-quotations, some types of perspective are not reflected in
quotations with an unknown source.
   None of the forms refers to the participants in EN. As was expected in Section 2,
this happens because the whole situation behind the report and its original
participants remain unspecified by Reporter if not totally unknown. As follows,
Reporter cannot tie the report to the perspective of PN. In contrast, it is possible to



                                                                                                     73
Teptiuk                                                      Person alignment in reported speech and thought


adapt the report to ES, and therefore 1SG and 1PL, as well as 2SG and 2PL forms can be
used as shifters. (33) and (34) demonstrate such uses.


(33) Udmurt (Uralic; UdC_blogs)
       A,         valamon,                šuizy          val,        odig nylkyšno      mi
       INTERJ     understand:PTCP         say:PST.3PL    PST.AUX     one woman          1PL
       pölyn          śekyten        šuysa.
       among          pregnant COMP
       ‘Ah, understood, it was said that one woman among us is pregnant.’


(34) Finnish (Uralic; IKA)
       Te      ette           kuulemma        osaa            käyttää      kytkintä…
       2PL NEG:2PL            QUOT            know:PRS.CN use:INF          clutch:PRTV
       ‘Allegedly, you don’t know how to use the clutch…’


Similarly to quotations and self-quotations, 1PL, 2SG, 3SG, and 3PL forms are also used
for generic reference. Technically, they exhibit ambiguity in terms of perspective,
even though there is no possibility to tie them to any PN, e.g. it is said that one
shouldn’t plant potatoes in the same spot for a couple of years. The system of person
marking in quotations of speech with an unknown source is summarized in Table 9.


 Person indexing         Perspective      Participant role
 1SG                     ES               Reporter
 1PL                     ES               Reporter + Reported Other
                                          Reporter + Current Addressee(s)
                         ambiguous        Generic
 2SG                     ES               Current Addressee [= Reported Other]
                         ambiguous        Generic
 2PL                     ES               Current Addressees [= Reported Others]


 3SG/PL                  ambiguous        Reported Other/s [= Current Other/s]
                                          Generic


Table 9: Person alignment and their relation to different perspectives in quotations of speech with an
                                              unknown source.




                                                                                                         74
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


Now let’s turn to RT in quotations with an unknown source. As briefly mentioned at
the beginning of this section, such cases are few in the database. Therefore, I can
discuss only some participant roles and their linguistic coding. All possibilities
summarized below in Table 10 correspond to the options observed for RS in
quotations with an unknown source. Interestingly, my database does not contain cases
where quotations of thought with an unknown source involve or relate to Current
Addressee/s, e.g. some/people thought that you were a snob (invented). This lack of data
might be merely accidental; another possibility suggests a cross-linguistic tendency
where Reporters tend to report thoughts about themselves, as in (35), but, for some
reason, prefer not to do so regarding PS if thoughts are not attributed to a concrete
source. However, a further investigation of this tendency is beyond the scope of the
current study.

(35) Hungarian (Uralic; MNSz)
     Tudom,                sokan     gondolták,         hogy    én a
     know:PRS.1SG.DEF      many      think:PST:3PL.DEF COMP 1SG DEF
     MIÉP fizetett      alkalmazottja vagyok…
     PN      pay:PP     employ:PP:3SG be.PRS:1SG
     ‘I know that a great many people thought that I am a paid employee of MIÉP25…’

The lack of reference to PN is explained with the same considerations as for quotations
of speech with an unknown source. Namely, the situation when the report has
occurred originally, and its original author and addressees are unknown (see Section
2). Consequently, the reference to PN remains irrelevant if not impossible when this
report is produced. Table 10 summarizes the observed possibilities for person
alignment in quotations of thought with an unknown source.

 Person indexing           Perspective    Participant role
 1SG                       ES             Reporter
 1PL                       ambiguous      Generic
 3SG/PL                    ambiguous      Reported Other/s [= Current Other/s]
                                          Generic


Table 10: Person alignment and their relation to different perspectives in quotations of thought with
                                       an unknown source.



25
     Magyar Igazság és Élet Pártja ‘The Hungarian Justice and Life Party’ or MIÉP was a right-wing political
party in Hungary.


                                                                                                         75
Teptiuk                                          Person alignment in reported speech and thought


5. Summary and discussion


This section summarizes results for Finno-Ugric languages discussed here and put
them into a broader context without keeping strict boundaries between summary and
discussion. I will focus on the effect of the reference to participants on
perspectivization in discourse reporting.
  Based on the empirical data illustrated in Section 4.2, one can conclude that the
situation appears to be more complex than theorized in Section 2. Among Finno-Ugric
languages, any (re)presentation of speech and thought is indeed connected to the two
perspectives, i.e. Reported Speaker’s and Reporter’s. However, we also find many
ambiguous cases in addition to the two perspectives. Even though these results are
drawn based on only a handful of Finno-Ugric languages, they could be extended to
other languages keeping the two perspectives canonically distinct in RST and not
exhibiting specific cultural restrictions on reports of speech and thought.
  The Reported Speaker’s perspective brings forth PN. Such perspectivization is
available only for quotations and self-quotations and excludes the third type of report,
i.e. quotations where the source (i.e. Reported Speaker) remains at best unspecified
if not completely unknown. What characterizes such type of perspective is that
although PN may fulfill some role in ES, Reporter chooses to neglect them. This also
holds for the cases when such a participant is Reporter. Thus, Reporter becomes
impartial in speech and thought (re)presentation. This is also true for the marking of
other participants in self-quotations. Thus, when other participants are displayed from
the perspective of EN in self-quotations, Reporter basically neglects her role in ES and
reports it from the Reported Speaker’s perspective, i.e. the earlier/different self.
  The Reporter’s impartiality in self-quotations can indicate the differentiation of two
sources of consciousness in this type of report, briefly touched upon by Güldemann
(2008: 7). Namely, Güldemann (2008: 7) indicates that even in self-quotations, one
can still differentiate two speakers/cognizants at least on the time dimension, i.e. ‘I-
now’ (Reporter) and ‘I-then’ (Reported Speaker). Although such differentiation has
not been found in the marking of Reporter/Reported Speaker in self-quotations
throughout this investigation (see below), self-quotations can still indicate differences
in two perspectives by highlighting the roles that other participants occupy in EN.
  In contrast, the Reporter’s perspective is highlighted when she chooses to neglect
the perspective of Reported Speaker. This type can be observed not only in quotations
and self-quotations, but also in quotations with an unknown source. As a matter of



                                                                                             76
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


fact, only this type of perspective remains for quotations with an unknown source;
otherwise, the perspective is ambiguous or rather unassigned.
   Different reasons stand behind the selection of Reporter’s perspective over the
Reported Speaker’s. In some cases, the Reporter’s perspective is motivated by the
absence of PN in ES. For instance, when this condition holds, the Reporter’s perspective
can be observed in the marking of Reported Speaker in quotations or Reported
Addressee in self-quotations. In other cases, it is motivated by the information in the
report. An important characteristic leading to the choice of this perspective over the
possibility of staying impartial is the report containing information about Reporter.
This is crucial for quotations with an unknown source, allowing only this type of
perspectivization. As is mentioned above, in quotations and self-quotations Reporter
may also choose to be impartial. Impartiality in the presentation of the report also
interacts with other characteristics discussed for so-called ‘direct’ modes of
presentation, e.g. vividness, dramatization, involvement (cf. Wierzbicka 1974; Li
1986). Therefore, the report containing information about Reporter is not always
presented from the Reporter’s perspective.
   However, when the report contains information about Current Addressee, Reporter
always selects her own perspective. On the one hand, this selection is motivated by
discourse conditions in ES: Reporter delivers her own or someone else’s speech or
thought to no one else but Current Addressee. On the other hand, this might also be
influenced by Current Addressee’s role in EN. In all instances among quotations of
speech, Current Addressee is absent in EN, and only in a few examples of quotations
of thought, she is Reported Interlocutor in EN. Regarding the latter, even the direct
involvement of Current Addressee in EN does not seem to override the requirement
for Reporter to stick to her own perspective instead of turning to the Reported
Speaker’s. Thus, Current Addressee’s role in EN might have little involvement in the
choice of perspective after all. Nonetheless, the frequent absence of Current Addressee
in EN is interesting and somewhat characterizes reports about this participant.
   Among ambiguous cases, four different scenarios can be pointed out. The first
scenario is characterized by the presence of the participant with distinct roles in EN
and ES. These roles appear to be technically the same but realized in different events.
This characteristic can directly affect the core participants like Reporter and Reported
Speaker. For instance, this realization can be observed on the semantic level in self-
quotations since Reporter is also Reported Speaker. I have not found any differences
in marking these participants in self-quotations, which would highlight differences



                                                                                     77
Teptiuk                                         Person alignment in reported speech and thought


between the two sources of consciousness briefly mentioned above. Outside the core
participants, the first scenario is observed when Reported Addressee is also Current
Addressee. Since these roles are identically marked in EN and ES, it is impossible to
distinguish the two perspectives that blend in one report, at least on the level of
person marking. Finally, the same ambiguity arises when Other/s in EN is/are equally
absent in ES. No matter who Reporter or Reported Speaker is, the absence of such
participants in both events leads to identical person marking across different report
types.
  In contrast to the first scenario, the second scenario involves two distinct
participants, PN and PS, referred to with the same forms. Only one such case was
observed in quotations when 1PL forms refer to Reporter and Reported Speaker. Since
two core participants are subsumed under one form, such personal reference blends
the two perspectives in one report. However, it does not mean that other shifters
cannot interact with perspectivization. Thus, other markers may still be used to
highlight one perspective over another.
  The third scenario involves the use of person marking for a generic reference. Dahl
(2000) has observed that the Swedish generic pronoun man behaves similarly to other
egophoric pronouns used to encode speech act participants, i.e. PS in RST-
constructions. The use of generic reference in different report types shows that they
may involve PS and PN equally. Outside RST, generic 2SG is quite typical for Estonian
(Lindström et al. 2020, 2022) and Finnish (Suomalainen 2020), 3SG marked on the
verb with null arguments are occurring in Finnish (Kaiser 2015), Estonian (Lindström
et al. 2022) and Hungarian, the latter of which also uses 3PL (Dalmi 2022). Similarly
to Hungarian, Eastern Finno-Ugric languages seem to use 3SG and 3PL forms (Gulyás
2019) in addition to 2SG typical for Russian (Leinonen 1983), dominant in the region.
In addition to those markers, I have observed a certain amount of 1PL forms used for
a generic reference in my data. For instance, 1PL forms may be contextually vague in
self-quotations of speech and include besides Reported Speaker [= Reporter] also
Reported or Current Addressees, since the form subsumes a more generic group of
people like ethnos or humanity in general. The question of which interpretation is
more accurate remains open since reported information with generic reference
equally applies to PN and PS. The same holds for 3SG forms creating generic meaning
in necessity constructions (e.g. ‘one cannot do so’) or 3PL arguments referring to a
non-specific inclusive group of people (e.g. ‘the Erzya people’, ‘everyone’).




                                                                                            78
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


      The fourth scenario is quite close to the 1PL examples discussed in the previous
paragraph since it reflects a contextually caused ambiguity when formal reference
appears to be somewhat incomplete to achieve a specific interpretation. One such
case involves honorific forms in Hungarian when Reported Addressee is absent in ES,
and the pronoun is elided from the report. Since formally such interpretation allows
viewing the report as containing shifters or lacking them, the assignment of one
perspective is problematic. Another such case is when 1PL forms are used in self-
quotations of thought. Besides Reporter who automatically fulfills the role of Reported
Speaker/Addressee, such forms may subsume two types of participants. Notably, these
participants fulfill different roles in EN and ES. The first type involves Reported
Interlocutor absent in ES; the second type – Current Addressee absent in EN. Even
though these participants fulfill distinct roles in two events, it is impossible to say if
Reporter refers to PN or PS when she uses 1PL forms.
      The lack of differentiation in marking Reporter and Reported Speaker in self-
quotations discussed for the first scenario is not restricted to Finno-Ugric languages
investigated here and reflects a cross-linguistic tendency. I have conducted a short
investigation of the available literature on discourse reporting and raised a query in
the LINGTYP mailing list (21.01.2022). According to what I have managed to find
out, we do not (yet) know about languages that would pinpoint the following
difference in self-quotations: ‘I-now’ as Reporter vs. ‘I-then’ as Reported Speaker,
unless sociopragmatic conditions require it. Such a sociopragmatic requirement can
be seen in (36) from Pontianak Malay, an example kindly provided to me by David
Gil via the list (21.01.2022):


(36) Pontianak Malay (Austronesian; MPIEVA Jakarta Field Station Corpus)26
         aku tanyaʔ kalɔʔ pakɛʔ         bəs   saya maɔʔ       sɛwə mɔbil   kamu   tu.
         1SG ask        TOP    use      bus 1SG want          rent car     2SG    DEM.DIST

         ‘I (aku) asked whether, instead of taking a bus, I (saya) could rent your car.’


According to David Gil’s comment, “the speaker uses aku in the main clause when
talking to a friend, but saya in the embedded clause, in which the reported situation
is a more impersonal one involving a commercial transaction” (Gil p.c.). David Gil’s
explanation, however, states that “the relevant factor governing the choice of 1SG
pronoun is not reported speech per se, but rather the different politeness conditions

26
     Glossing and translation by David Gil, emphasis added.


                                                                                             79
Teptiuk                                                 Person alignment in reported speech and thought


associated respectively with the main and embedded clauses [here: Matrix and
Report, DT].” Quite a few (South)east Asian languages may exhibit similar cases.
However, those cases would not be restricted to discourse reporting and would largely
depend on similar sociopragmatic conditions.27
     Theoretically, one could also think of a language that oppositely to the scenario ‘I-
now’ vs. ‘I-then’ would systematically encode co-referentiality between Reporter and
Reported Speaker in self-quotations by using dedicated logophoric markers. Many
studies focusing on the phenomenon of logophoricity specify that it almost never
concerns first-person referents; less rarely but still it can be applied to the second
person (see e.g. Comrie & Hyman 1981; Roncador 1992; Nikitina 2012b). After
browsing the literature, I have found only two African languages using dedicated
logophoric forms in self-quotation: Ngbaka-Ma’bo (Ubangi; CAR, DRC) and Gokana
(Ogoni; Nigeria). As discussed in Roncador (1988: 166), Ngbaka-Ma’bo remains an
open case since the data in Thomas (1963), illustrating such use, allows various
interpretations. For Gokana, Comrie & Hyman (1981: 23) specify that the logophoric
suffix on the main verb in self-quotations is “superfluous and dispreferred”, since “it
is not possible to get the two first-person singular pronouns to be non-coreferential”
(Comrie & Hyman 1981: 23, emphasis added).
     A case where the logophoric pronoun is used in self-quotations is also illustrated
in Nikitina (2020: 90) for another African language Wan (Mande; Ivory Coast).
However, it would rather qualify as an example where (socio)pragmatic factors affect
the appearance of logophoric pronoun in self-quotation. In that example, the reporter
uses 2SG pronoun for self-reference, which creates extra distancing. Hence, the
logophoric pronoun is used to signal co-referentiality between the 2SG argument in
Matrix and the participant in Report.
     Different possibilities for logophoric modes of organizing discourse reporting in
Finno-Ugric languages are yet to be extensively studied, especially for self-quotations.
Nevertheless, I have noticed an interesting tendency while compiling a database. All
languages investigated here to a different degree may signal such co-referentiality in


27
     In response to my query, I was also suggested to check different strategies of gender indexing.
Although social roles and sociopragmatic conditions do influence gender indexing in some languages
(cf. Rose 2013), such languages do not use two 1st person pronouns that would differ depending on
the gender of the addressee. Although it remains a theoretical possibility, an updated database of
genderlects so far shows a lack of a similar system (Rose p.c.). Otherwise, a language containing such
a system could show the use of two different pronouns in self-quotations, similarly to (36).


                                                                                                    80
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


quotations by eliding free pronouns from the report, e.g. ‘(s)hei said, Øi comes’.
However, such ‘logophoric strategies’ are not used systematically. Furthermore, all
languages also exhibit opposite cases where co-referentiality is marked by the
presence of pronouns, e.g. ‘(s)hei said, (s)hei comes’. Thus, some other factors may
affect the presence or absence of free pronouns co-referential with the main argument
in Matrix. A similar situation is observed in self-quotations. Thus, until there is
evidence to the contrary, Reported Speaker and Reporter two participants acquire
identical marking in self-quotation cross-linguistically, at least as far as person
indexing of these two participants is concerned.28
     Although there are several ambiguous scenarios in Finno-Ugric languages, they do
not seem to create any discursive problems. Even if various interpretations are
possible, they do not seem to be crucial for the success of the narrative or
communicative act involving different types of reports. The distribution of
participants may also appear to be mostly theoretically complex but would not create
practical complications for the successful construal of their formal marking in the
context. However, this issue shall be separately studied using experimental methods.
     There is also a system behind the complexity. The reasons behind the selection of
different perspectives in RST are numerous, but they have a limited number of
realizations. Person alignment interacts with the distribution of participants and leads
to assigning different roles to forms used in them. When scrutinized, idiosyncrasies
observed among different report types stem from the semantics of these types and the
limited set of possible participants.




28
     Note that this remark is mainly relevant for pronominal marking. Different verbal indexing in self-
quotations and clauses introducing them was mainly beyond this short investigation’s scope and would
require a separate study. Another point requiring a separate check is the use of other reference types
for such a differentiation. For instance, in some East Asian languages, it is common to refer to speech
act participants by the person’s social role. Beyond this region, proper names can also be used. I owe
the knowledge about the former to Pavel Ozerov (p.c.), and I am grateful to him for the latter remark
about proper names. Also see Haiman (1995) discussing English where third-person construals are
sometimes used in viewing the first person. Such cases shall be further investigated if they are used to
differentiate two sources of consciousness and if some language has already established a system based
on these distinctions in self-quotations.


                                                                                                     81
Teptiuk                                         Person alignment in reported speech and thought


6. Conclusion


This paper dealt with the person alignment in different types of reports. Data from
internet communications of six Finno-Ugric languages were used to illustrate person
alignment in six report types. In contrast to previous studies mainly focusing on
representations of speech belonging to a speaker different from Reporter, I have
included three types of speech and thought reports according to Reported Speaker:
self-quotations, quotations, and quotations with an unknown source. I have shown
that person alignment largely depends on the distribution of participant roles, and the
report types behave differently in marking core participants. Among other participant
types, they often show similarities, but again largely depend on the distribution of
participant roles in the narrated and current speech event. The overlap of participants
in EN and ES, as well as common reference to PN and PS with one form often cause
ambiguity in perspectivization, which is otherwise connected to the perspective of
Reporter as PS and Reported Speaker as PN.
  Some results and ideas provided here need to be further explored, as well as the
statistical significance of some observations need to be confirmed in the future.
Although theoretical implications made here are meant to be extended to other
languages beyond the six Finno-Ugric, the phenomenon of discourse reporting shall
be further studied in individual languages to confirm or disclaim their universality.
However, I hope I managed to convince the reader in need to further investigate
discourse reporting in its complexity and look at the phenomenon of discourse
reporting beyond a mere (re)presentation of speech attributed to other speakers.



Acknowledgements


This work was supported by the Estonian Research Council grant PRG1290. I am
greatly thankful to the Kone Foundation for supporting my stay at the Helsinki
Collegium for Advanced Studies in 2021, during which many ideas outlined in this
paper were formulated, and the compilation of the database of reported speech and
thought constructions was initiated. I am grateful to the colleagues at the Collegium
and the University of Helsinki for the possibility of discussing some earlier ideas that
lead to this publication. I want to thank all responders to my query in the LINGTYP
mailing list and Marili Tomingas for taking the time to read and comment on the



                                                                                            82
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


original draft. I am enormously obliged to the two anonymous reviewers for their
fruitful comments and suggestions. The responsibility for all remaining shortcomings
is entirely mine.


Abbreviations

 1 = 1st person                 ENIM    = enimitive                          PP   = past participle
 2 = 2 person
         nd
                                ENS   = narrated speech event                PRE   = preverb
 3 = 3 person
         rd
                                ES   = speech event                          PRF   = perfect
 ABL   = ablative               F   = feminine                               PROX    = proximate
 ACC    = accusative            FUT    = future                              PRS   = present
 ADD    = additive              GEN    = genitive                            PRTV    = partitive
 ADE    = adessive              HON    = honorific                           PS   = participant in speech event
 ADV    = adverbial             ILL   = illative                             PST   = past
 ALL   = allative               IMP    = imperative                          PTCL   = particle
 AN   = action noun             INE   = inessive                             PTCP   = participle
 ANAPH    = anaphoric           INF   = infinitive                           Q    = question particle
 ASS   = assertion              INSTR   = instrumental                       QUOT    = quotative particle
 AUX    = auxiliary verb        INTERJ   = interjection                      QUOT.SELF    = self-quotative particle
 CN   = connegative             ITRV   = iterative aspect                    REFL   = reflexive
 COMP    = complementizer       LAT    = lative                              RPRT    = reportative
 COND    = conditional          M    = masculine                             RS   = reported speech
 CV   = converb                 NEC    = necessitative                       RST   = reported speech and thought
 DAT    = dative                NEG    = negative                            RT   = reported thought
 DEF   = definite               NPST    = non-past                           S   = subject prefix
 DEM    = demonstrative         O    = object prefix                         SNS   = social network sites
 DIM    = diminutive            PASS   = passive                             SG   = singular
 DIST   = distal                PL    = plural                               TERM    = terminative
 ELA   = elative                PN = participant     in the narrated event   TOP    = topic
 EN   = narrated event          PN    = proper noun                          TRANSL    = translative


References


Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   https://doi.org/10.1086/509492
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2008. Semi-direct speech: Manambu and beyond. Language
   Sciences 30(4). 383-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.07.009
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2011. Semi-direct speech in typological perspective. In
   Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Language at large: Essays on



                                                                                                        83
Teptiuk                                            Person alignment in reported speech and thought


  syntax          and           semantics,         327-369.             Leiden:            Brill.
  https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004206076.i-606.74
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Austin / London: University of Texas
  Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/1772435
Besnier, Niko. 1993. Reported speech and affect on Nukulaelae Atoll. In Jane H. Hill
  & Judith T. Irvine (eds.), Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse, 161-181.
  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buchstaller, Isabelle & Ingrid van Alphen. 2012. Introductory remarks on new and old
  quotatives. In Isabelle Buchstaller & Ingrid van Alphen (eds.), Quotatives: Cross-
  linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives, xii-xxx. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.02pre
Clark, Herbert H. & Richard J. Gerrig. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language
  66(4). 764-805. ttps://doi.org/10.2307/414729
Clark, Herbert H. 2016. Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review
  123(3). 324-347. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000026
Comrie, Bernard & Larry M. Hyman. 1981. Logophoric reference in Gokana. Journal
  of        African      Languages           and       Linguistics         3(1).          19-37.
  https://doi.org/10.1515/jall.1981.3.1.19
Dahl, Östen. 2000. Egophoricity in discourse and syntax. Functions of Language 7(1).
  33-77. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.7.1.03dah
Dalmi, Gréte. 2022. Who on earth is pro? – Licensing null arguments in Hungarian
  matrix and dependent clauses. In Gréte Dalmi, Egor Tsedryk & Piotr Cegłowski
  (eds.), Null subjects in Slavic and Finno-Ugric. Licensing structure and typology, 253-
  280.         Berlin       /          Boston:          Mouton             De          Gruyter.
  https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501513848-009
Du Bois, John W. 1985. Competing motivations. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in
  Syntax,     343-365.     Amsterdam          /     Philadelphia:        John       Benjamins.
  https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.17dub
Evans, Nicholas. 2013. Some problems in the typology of quotation: A canonical
  approach. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.),
  Canonical morphology and syntax, 66-98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0004
Goffman, Erving. 1979. Footing. Semiotica 25(1-2). 1-30.
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.




                                                                                               84
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


Gulyás, Nikolett F. 2019. Impersonals in Finno-Ugric. Paper presented at 3rd SOUL
   (Syntax of Uralic Languages) (keynote talk). University of Tartu, June 19.
Güldemann, Tom. 2001. Quotative constructions in African languages: A synchronic and
   diachronic survey. Habilitation Thesis: Institute für Afrikanistik, Universität Leipzig.
Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and
   diachronic            survey.           Berlin:           Mouton             de           Gruyter.
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211450
Haiman, John. 1995. Grammatical signs of the divided self: A study of language and
   culture. In Werner Abraham, Talmy Givón & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse
   grammar and typology: Papers in honor of John W. M. Verhaar, 213-234. Amsterdam:
   John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.27.17hai
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, Marjut Johansson & Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen. 2014. Johdatus
   digitaalisen vuorovaikutukseen [Introduction to the digital interaction]. In Marja-
   Liisa Helasvuo, Marjut Johansson & Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen (eds.), Kieli verkossa:
   Näkökulmia        digitaaliseen    vuorovaikutukseen,       9-29.    Helsinki:         Suomalaisen
   Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Holvoet, Axel. 2018. Epistemic modality, evidentiality, quotativity and echoic use. In
   Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), Epistemic modalitites and evidentiality in cross-linguistic
   perspective,      242-259.         Berlin       /      Boston:      Walter        de      Gruyter.
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110572261-011
Jakobson, Roman. 1971 [1957]. Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. In
   Selected writings, vol. II, word and language, 130-148. The Hague / Paris: Mouton.
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110873269.130
Jakobson, Roman. 1990. Langue and parole: Code and message. In Linda R. Waugh
   & Monique Monville-Burston (eds.), Roman Jakobson, 1896-1982. On language, 80-
   110. Cambridge / London: Harvard University Press.
Kaiser, Elsi. 2015. Impersonal and generic reference: A cross-linguistic look at Finnish
   and        English        narratives.         ESUKA        –        JEFUL         6(2).      9-42.
   http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.2.01
Knyazev, Mikhail. 2022. SAY-complementizers and indexical shift in Poshkart
   Chuvash: With emphasis on communicative reception reports. Studies in Language
   46(2). 402-452. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19078.kny
Leinonen, Marja. 1983. Generic zero subjects in Finnish and Russian. Scando-Slavica
   29(1). 143-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/00806768308600841




                                                                                                   85
Teptiuk                                              Person alignment in reported speech and thought


Lindström, Liina, Nicole Nau, Birutė Spraunienė & Asta Laugalienė 2020. Impersonal
  constructions with personal reference. Referents of deleted actors in Baltic and
  Estonian. Baltic Linguistics 11. 129-213. https://doi.org/10.32798/bl.700
Lindström, Liina, Maarja-Liisa Pilvik & Helen Plado. 2022. The use of 2nd person
  singular forms in Seto. Paper presented at Minor Finnic Languages 1: Historical and
  Current Perspectives. University of Uppsala, June 3.
Li, Charles N. 1986. Direct and indirect speech: A functional study. In Florian Coulmas
  (ed.),   Direct   and   indirect   speech,    29-45.     Berlin:     Mouton       de   Gruyter.
  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.29
Michael, Lev. 2015. The cultural bases of linguistic form: The development of Nanti
  quotative evidential. In Rik De Busser & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), Language structure
  and environment: Social, cultural, and natural factors, 99-133. Amsterdam /
  Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.6.05mic
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2012a. Personal deixis and reported discourse. Towards a typology
  of       person     alignment.        Linguistic        Typology         16(2).        233-263.
  https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0008
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2012b. Logophoric discourse and first person reporting in Wan
  (West        Africa).      Anthropological          Linguistics         54(3).         280-301.
  https://doi.org/10.1353/anl.2012.0013
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2020. Logophoricity and shifts of perspective: New facts and a new
  account.          Functions          of            Language             27(1).            78-99.
  https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.20001.nik
Nikitina, Tatiana & Anna Bugaeva. 2021. Logophoric speech is not indirect: Towards
  a syntactic approach to reported speech constructions. Linguistics 59(3). 609-633.
  https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0067
Norvik, Miina, Yingqi Jing, Michael Dunn, Robert Forkel, Terhi Honkola, Gerson
  Klumpp, Richard Kowalik, Helle Metslang, Karl Pajusalu, Minerva Piha, Eva Saar,
  Sirkka Saarinen & Outi Vesakoski. 2022. Uralic typology in the light of new
  comprehensive      data    sets.    Journal    of      Uralic      Linguistics    1(1).    4-42.
  https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00002.nor
Pascal, Roy. 1977. The dual voice: Free indirect speech and its functioning in the
  nineteenth-century European novel. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  https://doi.org/10.2307/3726924
Pérez-Reverte, Arturo. 2017. Jó emberek [Good people]. Budapest: Libri Könyvkiadó
  Kft.



                                                                                                 86
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


Roncador, Manfred von. 1988. Zwischen direkter und indirekter Rede. Nichtwörtliche
   direkte Rede, erlebte Rede, logophorische Konstruktionen und Verwandtes [Between
   direct and indirect speech. Nonverbal direct speech, free indirect speech, logophoric
   constructions         and        related        phenomena].       Tübingen:        Niemeyer.
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111678764
Roncador, Manfred von. 1992. Types of logophoric marking in African languages.
   Journal        of    African        Languages      and    Linguistics    13(2).     163-182.
   https://doi.org/10.1515/jall.1992.13.2.163
Rose, Françoise. 2013. Le genre du locuteur et de l’allocutaire dans les systems
   pronominaux: Genre grammatical et indexicalité du genre [The gender of the
   speaker and the addressee in pronominal systems: grammatical gender and
   indexicality of gender]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 108(1). 381-
   417.
Sakita, Tomoko I. 2002. Reporting discourse, tense, and cognition. Oxford: Elsevier.
   https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004487215
Spronck, Stef. 2012. Minds divided: Speaker attitudes in quotatives. In Isabelle
   Buchstaller & Ingrid van Alphen (eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross-
   disciplinary        perspectives,      71-117.         Amsterdam:       John       Benjamins.
   https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.07spr
Spronck, Stef. 2015. Reported speech in Ungarinyin: grammar and social cognition in a
   language of the Kimberley region, Western Australia. PhD dissertation: Australian
   National University.
Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina. 2019. Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic
   domain. Linguistic typology 23(1). 119-159. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-
   0005
Suomalainen, Karita 2020. Kuka sinä on?: Tutkimus yksikön 2. persoonan käytöstä ja
   käytön variaatiosta suomenkielisissä arkikeskusteluissa [Who is you?: The study on the
   use of 2SG person and on the variation of use in Finnish everyday conversations]. PhD
   dissertation: University of Turku.
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Derek Denis. 2008. Linguistic ruin? LOL! Instant messaging
   and         teen         language.           American         Speech      83(1).        3-34.
   https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2008-001
Teptiuk, Denys. 2019. Quotative indexes in Finno-Ugric (Komi, Udmurt, Hungarian,
   Finnish and Estonian). PhD dissertation: University of Tartu.




                                                                                              87
Teptiuk                                         Person alignment in reported speech and thought


Teptiuk, Denys, 2020. Quotative indexes in Erzya: a typological overview. Finnisch-
  Ugrische Mitteilungen 44. 47-79.
Teptiuk, Denys, 2021a. Self-quotative markers in Permic and Hungarian. Linguistica
  Uralica 57(3). 213-232. https://doi.org/10.3176/lu.2021.3.04
Teptiuk, Denys. 2021b. Quotative indexes in Permic: Between the original strategies
  and Russian. In Diana Forker & Lenore Grenoble (eds.), Language contact in the
  territory of the former Soviet Union, 217-259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.50.08tep
Teptiuk, Denys. Forthcoming. Self-quotations of speech and thought, and how to
  distinguish them. In Daniela Casartelli, Silvio Cruschina, Pekka Posio & Stef
  Spronck (eds.), Grammar of thinking. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thomas, Jacqueline M.C. 1963. Le parler Ngbaka de Bokanga. Phonologie, morphologie,
  syntaxe [The Ngbaka dialect of Bokanga. Phonology, morphology, syntax]. The Hague
  / Paris: Mouton.
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2021. Clearer contours: The stylization of free indirect speech
  in nineteenth century fiction. In Peter J. Grund & Terry Walker (eds.), Speech
  representation in the history of English, 131-155. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190918064.003.0006
Voloshinov, Valentin N. 1973 [1931]. Marxism and the philosophy of language. New
  York / London: Seminar Press.
Vygotsky, Lev. 1986 [1934]. Thought and language: Revised edition. Cambridge, MA:
  MIT Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1974. The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Research on
  Language           &       Social         Interaction          7(3-4).           267-307.
  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817409370375
Winkler, Ekkehard. 2011. Udmurtische Grammatik [The Udmurt Grammar].
  Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.


Corpora
Erzya Corpora, blogs (EC_blogs)
  http://erzya.web-corpora.net/erzya_corpus/search
Erzya Corpora, Social Media Corpus (ESmC)
  http://erzya.web-corpora.net/erzya_social_media/search
English Web 2020 (enTenTen20)




                                                                                            88
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


   https://app.sketchengine.eu/#dashboard?corpname=preloaded%2Fententen20_t
   t31_1&corp_info=1
English Web 2019 (enTenTen19)
   https://app.sketchengine.eu/#dashboard?corpname=preloaded%2Fettenten19_fi
   l2
Estonian Web 2019 (etTenTen19)
   https://app.sketchengine.eu/#dashboard?corpname=preloaded%2Fettenten19_fi
   l2
Internet-keskusteluaineistoja (IKA)
   https://korp.csc.fi/korp-
   old/#?stats_reduce=word&cqp=%5B%5D&corpus=s24_2001,s24_2002,s24_200
   3,s24_2004,s24_2005,s24_2006,s24_2007,s24_2008,s24_2009,s24_2010,s24_2011,s
   24_2012,s24_2013,s24_2014,s24_2015,s24_2016,s24_2017,s24_2018,s24_2019,s24
   _2020,s24_001,s24_002,s24_003,s24_004,s24_005,s24_006,s24_007,s24_008,s24_0
   09,s24_010,s24,ylilauta
Komi-Zyrian Corpora, Social Media Corpus (KoZSmC)
   http://komi-zyrian.web-corpora.net/index_en.html
Magyar Nemzeti Szövegtár, személyes alkorpusz (MNSz)
   http://mnsz.nytud.hu
Udmurt Corpora (UdC)
   http://udmurt.web-corpora.net/udmurt_corpus/search
Udmurt Corpora, blogs (UdC_blogs)
   http://udmurt.web-corpora.net/udmurt_corpus/search
Udmurt Corpora, Social Media Corpus (UdSmC)
   http://udmurt.web-corpora.net/index_en.html



Appendix


Below I present the list of quotative strategies used to query different types of reports,
arranged language-wise. Next to the strategy, separated by semi-colons I present the
gloss and approximate translation to show the range of use for a concrete strategy in
the database. Even though the strategies are ordered with the following principle:
‘speech verbs > mental verbs > other clausal units > non-clausal units’, the letters




                                                                                       89
Teptiuk                                                         Person alignment in reported speech and thought


next to strategies are not indicative and shall not be used to compare the strategies
between the languages.


 1. Erzya:
 1a. meŕiń; ‘say:PST:1SG’; ‘I said’, ‘I thought’;
 1b. meŕś; ‘say:PST.3SG’; ‘(s)he said’, ‘(s)he thought’;
 1c. meŕśt ́ ‘say:PST.3PL’; ‘they said’, ‘theyUNKNOWN said’;
 1d. arśiń; ‘think:PST:1SG’; ‘I thought’;
 1e. arśeś ‘think:PST.3SG’; ‘(s)he thought’;
 1f. arśeśt ́ ‘think:PST.3PL’; ‘they thought’; ‘theyUNKNOWN thought’;
 1g. keĺa; ‘QUOT’; ‘I said’, ‘I thought’, ‘(s)he said’, ‘(s)he thought’, ‘theyUNKNOWN. said’, ‘theyUNKNOWN
 thought’;
 1h. mol; ‘QUOT’; ‘(s)he said’, ‘theyUNKNOWN said’.
 2. Estonian:
 2a. ütsin; gloss: ‘say:PST:1SG’; approximate translation: ‘I said’, ‘I thought’;
 2b. ütles; ‘say:PST.3SG’; ‘(s)he said’;
 2c. üt(le)sid; ‘say:PST.3PL’; ‘they said’, ‘theyUNKNOWN said’;
 2d. mõtsin; ‘think:PST:1SG’; ‘I thought’;
 2e. mõtles; ‘think:PST.3SG’; ‘(s)he thought’;
 2f. mõt(le)sid; ‘think:PST.3PL’; ‘they thought’, ‘theyUNKNOWN thought’;
 2g. olin nagu; ‘be:PST:1SG like’; ‘I said’, ‘I thought’;
 2h. olin mingi; ‘be:PST:1SG something’; ‘I said’, ‘I thought’;
 2i. mul oli (nii) et; ‘1SG:ADE be:PST.3SG (so) COMP’; ‘I said’, ‘I thought’;
 2j. mul oli nagu (et) ‘1SG:ADE be:PST.3SG like (COMP)’; ‘I thought’;
 2k. oli (nii) et; ‘be:PST.3SG (so) COMP’; ‘(s)he said’;
 2l. olid et; ‘be:PST.3PL COMP’; ‘they said’;
 2l. oli nagu (et) ‘be:PST.3SG like (COMP)’; ‘(s)he said’;
 2m. oli lihtsalt ‘be:PST.3SG simply’; ’(s)he said’;
 2n. väidetavalt; ‘allegedly’; ‘theyUNKNOWN said’;
 2o. kuuldavasti; ‘allegedly’; ‘theyUNKNOWN said’;
 2p. kuulukse; ‘QUOT’; ‘theyUNKNOWN said’.
 3. Finnish:
 3a. sanoin et; gloss: ‘say:PST:1SG COMP’; approximate translation: ‘I said’;
 3b. sanoi et; ‘say:PST.3SG COMP’; ‘(s)he said’;
 3c. sanoivat et; ‘say:PST:3PL COMP’; ‘they said’;
 3d. ajattelin et; ‘think:PST:1SG COMP’; ‘I thought’;
 3e. ajatteli et; ‘think:PST.3SG COMP’; ‘(s)he thought’;
 3f. ajattelivat et; ‘think:PST:3PL COMP’; ‘they think’, ‘theyUNKNOWN thought’;
 3g. olin (ihan) et; ‘be:PST:1SG completely COMP’; ‘I said’, ‘I thought’;
 3h. olin tyyliin (et); ‘be:PST:1SG like (COMP)’; ‘I said’;
 3i. olin niinku (et); ‘be:PST:1SG like (COMP)’; ‘I thought’;




                                                                                                            90
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2-2 (2022): 39-92


 3j. olin silleen et; ‘be:PST:1SG so COMP’; ‘I said’, ‘I thought’;
 3k. olin vaan et; ‘be:PST:1SG just COMP’; ‘I said’, ‘I thought’;
 3l. oli et; ‘be:PST.3SG COMP’; ‘(s)he said’;
 3m. oli ihan et; ‘be:PST.3SG completely COMP’; ‘(s)he said’, ‘(s)he thought’;
 3n. oli niinku et; ‘be:PST.3SG like COMP’; ‘(s)he said’;
 3o. oli tyyliin; ‘be:PST.3SG like’; ‘(s)he said’;
 3p. oli silleen et; ‘be:PST.3SG so COMP’; ‘(s)he said’, ‘(s)he thought’;
 3q. oli vaan et; ‘be:PST.3SG just COMP’; ‘(s)he said’, ‘(s)he thought’;
 3r. kuulemma; ‘QUOT’; ‘theyUNKNOWN said’.
 4. Hungarian:
 4a. mondok / mondom; gloss: ‘say:PRS.1SG/.DEF’; approximate translation: ‘I said’, ‘I thought’;
 4b. aszontam; ‘DEF.say:PST:1SG’; ‘I said’, ‘I thought’;
 4c. aszongya; ‘DEF.say:PRS.3SG.DEF’; ‘(s)he says’;
 4d. aszonta; ‘DEF.say:PST:3SG.DEF’; ‘(s)he said’;
 4e. aszongyák; ‘DEF.say:PRS:3PL.DEF’; ‘they said’, ‘theyUNKNOWN said’;
 4f. aszonták; ‘DEF.say:PST:3PL.DEF’; ‘they said’, ‘theyUNKNOWN said’;
 4g. gondoltam; ‘think:PST:1SG’; ‘I thought’;
 4h. gondolta; ‘think:PST:3SG.DEF’; ‘(s)he thought’;
 4i. gondolták; ‘think:PST:3PL.DEF’; ‘they thought’; ‘theyUNKNOWN thought’;
 4j. állítólag; ‘allegedly’; ‘theyUNKNOWN said’, ‘(s)he said’.
 5. Komi:
 5a. šui; gloss: ‘say:PST.1SG’; approximate translation: ‘I said’;
 5b. šuis; ‘say:PST.3SG’; ‘(s)he said’;
 5c. šuisny; ‘say:PST.3PL’; ‘they said’, ‘theyUNKNOWN said’;
 5d. ćajti; ‘think:PST.1SG’; ‘I thought’;
 5e. dumajti; ‘think:PST.1SG’; ‘I thought’;
 5f. ćajtis; ‘think:PST.3SG’; ‘(s)he thought’;
 5g. mövpalis; ‘think:PST.3SG’; ‘(s)he thought’;
 5h. ćajtisny; ‘think:PST.3PL’; ‘they thought’, ‘theyUNKNOWN thought’;
 5i. miśa; ‘QUOT.SELF’; ‘I said’, ‘I thought’;
 5j. pö; ‘QUOT’; ‘(s)he said’, ‘(s)he thought’, ‘they said’, ‘theyUNKNOWN said’;
 5k. mol; ‘QUOT’; ‘(s)he said’;
      ́
 5l. tipa; ‘like’; ‘I said’, ‘(s)he said’, ‘they said’, ‘theyUNKNOWN said’.
 6. Udmurt:
 6a. šui; gloss: ‘say:PST.1SG’; approximate translation: ‘I said’, ‘I thought’;
 6b. šuiz; ‘say:PST.3SG’; ‘(s)he said’;
 6c. šuizy; ‘say:PST.3PL’; ‘they said’, ‘theyUNKNOWN said’;
 6d. malpaj; ‘think:PST.1SG’; ‘I thought’;
 6e. malpaz; ‘think:PST.3SG’; ‘(s)he thought’;
 6f. malpazy; ‘think:PST.3PL’; ‘they thought’, ‘theyUNKNOWN thought’;
 6g. pöj; ‘QUOT.SELF’; ‘I said’, ‘I thought’;
 6h. pe; ‘QUOT’; ‘(s)he said’, ‘they said’, ‘theyUNKNOWN said’;



                                                                                                   91
Teptiuk                                                        Person alignment in reported speech and thought


 6i. mol; ‘QUOT’; ‘I said’, ‘I thought’, ‘(s)he said’, ‘they said’;
      ́
 6j. tipa; ‘like’; ‘I said’, ‘(s)he said’, ‘they said’.


                Table 11: Quotative strategies used as a query of different report types.




CONTACT
denys.teptiuk@ut.ee




                                                                                                           92
