Skip to main content

grammaticality - Direct Speech: the subordinator "that" before the reported clause


I've been taught that in "Reported Speech", the subordinator "that" is a signature of "indirect speech". For example:


He said, "I will be late." (Direct Speech)


He said that he would be late. (Indirect Speech)


But, it is wrong to say or write that:


He said that, "I will be late." (Wrong!)


However, I occasionally see counterexamples such as this Wikipedia Article:



In 2000, Robert Scheer created the website New Age Journal, which states that "We are not affiliated with any magazines printed on paper."


(link)



Is this a correct usage of the conjunction "that" in Direct Speech? Does it depend on the reporting verb and with some verbs, such as "to state", we can use the conjunction "that"?



Answer



One can write a sentence with a partial quotation:



Direct speech: We live in a madhouse! We have to move.


She says they "live in a madhouse" most of the time.



This is unobtrusive: the quotation is direct speech, because the exact words are repeated, made to fit into the syntax of the sentence, which was easy enough. It is a predicate, so it fits together with the subject they and the adverbial phrase most of the time to form a complete clause.



Direct: You know that they like it here.


She says that they "like it here".



Similar: no problem.


Alternative:



?She says that "they like it here".



This would also be direct speech, because the exact words are repeated. It is made to fit within the syntax of the sentence. This style is perhaps legitimate, but it is, in my opinion, inadvisable. I would prefer not to repeat they in the quotation, but rather keep that word as part of the embedding sentence, and only make "like it here" the quotation, as in the first option.


At any rate, with indirect speech, it is essential that the quoted part would fit into the sentence even if you removed the quotation marks (you'd only lose the knowledge that it was a quotation: otherwise, the meaning should not change).





?In 2000, Robert Scheer created the website New Age Journal, which states that "We are not affiliated with any magazines printed on paper."



I see two problems here, if we assumed the quotation marks were erroneous and we read it as indirect speech. First, there is a capital letter, which makes it not fit the surrounding sentence. Secondly, we would not make sense in the main sentence: in the main text, there is no we speaking, just Wikipaedia.


Conclusion: you are correct that this quotation can only be read as direct speech, and I agree that there should be no that before a normal quotation of direct speech. In addition, I would probably use a comma immediately before the direction quotation, or possibly a colon?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.