Indirect speech

In linguistics, speech or indirect discourse is a grammatical mechanism for reporting the content of another utterance without directly quoting it. For example, the English sentence Jill said she was coming is indirect discourse while Jill said "I'm coming" would be direct discourse. In fiction, the "utterance" might amount to an unvoiced thought that passes through a stream of consciousness, as reported by an omniscient narrator.
In many languages, indirect discourse is expressed using a content clause or infinitival. When an instance of indirect discourse reports an earlier question, the embedded clause takes the form of an indirect question. In indirect speech, grammatical categories in the embedded clause often differ from those in the utterance it reports. For instance, the example above uses the third person pronoun "she" even though Jill's original utterance used the first person pronoun "I". In some languages, including English, the tense of verbs can also be changed following the sequence of tense. Some languages also have a change of mood. For instance Latin indirect speech uses the infinitive for statements and the subjunctive for questions.

Changes in form

In indirect speech, words generally have referents appropriate to the context in which the act of reporting takes place, rather than that in which the speech act being reported took place. The two acts often differ in a reference point – the point in time and place and the person speaking – and also in the person being addressed and the linguistic context. Thus when a sentence involves words or forms whose referents depend on these circumstances, they are liable to change when the sentence is put into indirect speech. In particular, this commonly affects:

personal pronouns, such as I, you, he, we, and the corresponding verb forms.
demonstratives, such as this and that.
phrases of relative time or place such as now, yesterday and here.

There may also be a change of tense or other modifications to the form of the verb, such as change of mood. These changes depend on the grammar of the language in question – some examples can be found in the following sections.
Indirect speech need not refer to a speech act that has actually taken place; it may concern future or hypothetical discourse; for example, If you ask him why he's wearing that hat, he'll tell you to mind your own business. Also, even when referring to a known completed speech act, the reporter may deviate freely from the words that were actually used, provided the meaning is retained. This contrasts with direct speech, where there is an expectation that the original words will be reproduced exactly.

Ambiguity

Some modal verbs do not change in indirect speech. The indirect speech sentence is then ambiguous since it can be a result of two different direct speech sentences. For example:

I can get it for free. OR I could get it for free.
:He said that he could get it for free.

However, in many Slavic languages, there is no change of tense in indirect speech and so there is no ambiguity. For example, in Polish :

Mogę mieć to za darmo.
:On powiedział, że może mieć to za darmo.

Examples

English

Some examples of changes in form in indirect speech in English are given below. See also Sequence of tenses, and.

It raining hard.
:She says that it raining hard.
:She said that it raining hard.
the ceiling blue.
:He said that the ceiling blue.
I to party.
:I said that I to party.
to party ?
:I asked if he/she to party.
How to live in city?
:I asked him how to live in city.
Please leave the room.
:I asked them to leave the room.
a traitor...
:You believe a traitor...

The tense changes illustrated above, which occur because the main verb is in the past tense, are not obligatory when the situation described is still valid:

Ed a bore.
:She said that Ed a bore.
over to watch television.
:Benjamin said that over to watch television.

In these sentences, the original tense can be used provided that it remains equally valid at the time of the reporting of the statement.

Ancient Greek

In Ancient Greek, statements and questions that are reported are sometimes quoted by using indirect statements and questions.
There are three types of indirect statements and one type of indirect question, but all are introduced with a verb of thought, belief, speaking, or questioning.
Verbs such as φημὶ require no additional introductory particle. The quoted speech is rendered with the following changes: the finite verb is transformed into the corresponding infinitive, and the nominative subject and the predicate are transformed into the accusative. The accusative object remains unchanged. Tense, voice, and number remain unchanged.

αὕτη ἡ γυνή ἐστι καλή "This woman is pretty."
ὁ ἀνήρ φησι ταύτην τὴν γυναῖκα εἶναι καλήν "The man says this woman is pretty."

Verbs such as γιγνώσκω require no additional introductory particle. However, the nominative subject, and the predicate, if present, are changed into the accusative case, and the finite verb, agreeing with them, is changed into the corresponding participle in the accusative case. The accusative object remains unchanged. Tense, voice, and number remain unchanged.

ὁ ἀνὴρ γιγνώσκει ταύτην τὴν γυναῖκα οὖσαν καλήν. "The man knows this woman is pretty."

With the two species of indirect statements above, however, if the subject of the quoted speech is the same as its speaker, the subject is omitted and is understood in the nominative, and the predicate, if present, remains in the nominative case.
Verbs such as λέγω require either ὡς or ὅτι as an introductory particle. If the introductory verb is in a secondary tense, the finite verb of the ὡς/ὅτι clause is usually changed from the indicative mood into the corresponding tense in the optative mood, but the indicative verb is sometimes retained for vividness.

ἡ γυνή ἐστι καλή. "The woman is beautiful."
ὁ ἀνὴρ ἔλεγεν ὡς ἡ γυνὴ εἴη καλή/ἐστι καλή. "The man said that the woman was beautiful."

Latin

In Latin grammar, indirect speech is called ōrātiō oblīqua. An indirect statement or question can replace the direct object of a verb that is related to thought or communication.
An indirect statement is expressed by changing the case of the subject noun phrase from nominative to accusative and by replacing the main verb with an infinitive. The voice remains unchanged, but the tense of the infinitive is controlled mostly by the temporal relationship between the time expressed by the matrix verb's tense and the time denoted by the infinitive. The present tense at the moment of utterance is expressed by the present infinitive. The past tense is expressed by the perfect infinitive. The future tense is expressed by the future infinitive.
Practically, six tenses of the indicative must be transformed into three available infinitival tenses. An accurate reproduction of the full temporal sense of direct speech is thus often impossible:

Amo libertatem.
:Dicit se amare libertatem.
Rex dedit omnibus leges.
:Credo regem dedisse omnibus leges.
Videbimus permulta cras.
:Speras nos visuros esse permulta cras.
Tertium non datur.
:Docuit philosophus tertium non dari.
In Senatu imperator interfectus est.
:Audivi imperatorem in Senatu interfectum esse.

As is shown from the first example, even a coreferent subject must be expressed in the accusative if its clause is put into the infinitive. The accusative of reflexive pronouns is used in the corresponding person and number.
For predication by a copula, the case of the predicate adjective or noun changes from nominative to accusative. The same happens to any syntactic constituent that stood in the nominative case before it became indirect speech.

Sum felix.
:Dixit se esse felicem.
Cadam pugnans.
:Dicit se casurum esse pugnantem.

After passive verbs of speaking, reporting, thinking, or perceiving, the nominative with infinitive is generally preferred, especially after monolectic matrix verb types. That construction is called, in generative linguistics, subject-to-subject raising: the noun phrase is detached from the infinitive and is raised as the nominative subject of the matrix passive verb:

Dicitur . Impersonal construction: the infinitival clause serves as the subject of the verb dicitur.
:Dicitur Homerus . Personal construction: the noun Homerus in the nominative serves as the subject of the verb dicitur. The whole infinitival clause is said to serve now as the object of the verb dicitur.

If an imperfect or a pluperfect was initially used in direct speech, the perfect infinitive is normally used instead, as it the only one capable of denoting a state of affairs earlier than the one denoted by the matrix verb that introduces the indirect speech.

Cogitabam/Cogitaveram aliquid.
:Dixit se cogitasse aliquid

The future perfect indicative, a tense denoting a state of affairs completed in the future and so later than another state of affairs in the future, becomes, according to at least some grammarians, the circumlocution fore ut + perfect of pluperfect subjunctive, in accordance to the sequence of tenses at hand, a sort of substantive consecutive clause serving as subject of the infinitive fore. In the passive, a form of the periphrastic infinitive -tus fore is normally used:

Cogitavero aliquid.
:Dixit fore ut cogitasset aliquid
Urbs expugnata erit
:Dixit urbem expugnatam fore

A potential subjunctive is changed to some sort of periphrastic infinitive: a present subjunctive becomes -urum esse or posse, followed by the present infinitive; an imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive becomes -urum fuisse:

Urbem capiam
:Dixit se urbem capturum esse/capere posse
Urbem caperem
:Dixit se urbem capturum fuisse
Urbem cepissem
:Dixit se urbem capturum fuisse

An indirect question is expressed by changing the mood of the main verb from the indicative to the subjunctive. Some rhetoric questions change the verb to the accusative, followed by the infinitive, as if it were a real declarative statement in direct speech ). It is normally appropriate to retain the word that introduces the question, but a relative pronoun or adverb is occasionally used instead of one that is initially interrogative. The subjunctive tense is controlled by the Sequence of Tenses. Its sequence depends on the tense of the matrix verb of asking, perceiving etc. by which the indirect question is introduced:
1. The present indicative becomes the present subjunctive after a primary tense, but it turns into the imperfect subjunctive after a secondary tense :

Quis hoc dubitat?
:Quaerit quis hoc dubitet.
:Quaesivit quis hoc dubitaret.

2. The future indicative is turned into the periphrastic conjugation in -urus sim or -urus essem.

Quis hoc dubitabit?
:Quaerit quis hoc dubitaturus sit.
:Quaesivit quis hoc dubitaturus esset.

However, the use of present subjunctive after a primary tense and imperfect subjunctive after a secondary tense is also often attested, especially if the future reference is obvious from the context and for a passive verb.
3. The imperfect, perfect, pluperfect and future perfect indicative are turned into the perfect or pluperfect subjunctive after primary and secondary tenses respectively:

Quis hoc dubitabat/dubitavit/dubitarat/dubitarit?
:Quaerit quis hoc dubitarit.
:Quaesivit quis hoc dubitasset.

A deliberative subjunctive, always in the present tense in direct speech, is always retained in an indirect question. The tense of the direct form is unchanged unless the matrix verb had a secondary tense, when the present tense becomes imperfect. An initially secondary subjunctive, the imperfect, is retained, regardless of the tense into which the matrix verb is changed, primary or secondary:

Quid scribam?
: Nescit quid scribat.
: Nesciebat quid scriberet.
Quid scriberem?
: Nescit/nesciebat quid scriberet.

The potential subjunctive is retained as well. Primary subjunctives are changed to the corresponding secondary subjunctives, which stay the same. The idea of possibility is often expressed by periphrases: by -urus sim, essem, fuerim, fuissem and by a subjunctive tense of possum + present infinitive:

Quis hoc dubitet?
:Quaerit quis hoc dubitet/dubitare possit.
:Quaesivit quis hoc dubitaret/dubitare posset.
Quis hoc dubitaret/dubitasset?
:Quaerit quis hoc dubitaret/dubitasset/dubitaturus fuerit.

A dependent clause in the indicative is put into the subjunctive if it is changed to indirect speech. Almost all the rules stated above hold for indirect questions:
The simple present particular conditional becomes the present indicative in the protasis and the apodosis:

Si id credis, erras
:Dicit te, si id credas, errare
:Dixit te, si id crederes, errare.

The unreal present conditional :

Si id crederes, errares.
:Dicit/dixit te, si id crederes, erraturum fuisse.

The vivid future conditional :

Cur, si id credideris, errabis?
:Quaerit cur, si id credideris, erraturus sis.
:''Quaesivit cur, si id credidisses, erraturus esses.''

Russian

In Russian and many other Slavic languages, indirect speech uses the same verb tense as the equivalent sentence in direct speech:

Я не люблю шоколад.
:Она сказала, что не любит шоколад.

Persian

Persian is similar to Slavic languages and indirect speech uses the same verb forms as those of direct speech:

شکلات دوست ندارم.
:گفت که شکلات دوست ندارد.

German

German indirect speech consists formally of dependent clauses depending on a verb of saying, holding, thinking or the like, but they may sometimes be elliptically left out and simply implied. Questions take their question-word, yes-no-questions take ob, and statements take dass for the conjunction. Also, German indirect speech must be put into subjunctive mood. That is one of the primary uses for the non-periphrastical subjunctive.

Hans gibt an, dass er täglich Sport treibe. Darauf will Michael wissen, welche Sportart er bevorzuge. Markus hingegen interessiert sich mehr dafür, ob er dazu ein Fitness-Studio aufsuche.
: Hans states he practices sport daily. Michael consequently wants to know which kind of sports he prefers. Markus on the other hand is rather interested in whether he goes to a gym for doing so.

The conjunction "dass" can be left out. In that case, the indirect speech is put into main-clause word order even though it is still a dependent clause separated by a comma:

Hans gibt an, er treibe täglich Sport.
: Hans states he practices sport daily.

In longer segments of indirect speech, which, at least in written German, are as normal as they would be in Latin, only the first sentence or none of them has a "dass", and full-stops are put wherever they would have been put in direct speech.

Hans gibt an, dass er täglich Sport treibe. Er habe zuerst mit Dauerlauf begonnen. Mittlerweile ziehe er aber den Mannschaftssport vor. Er spiele Fußball im Verein SC Oberhügelhausen und trainiere fleißig, damit man ihn bald in die erste Mannschaft aufnehme; darauf habe er gute Chancen.
: Hans states he practices sport daily. At first he began with jogging, but now he prefers team sports. He has started to play football in the club SC Oberhügelhausen and he is training hard so that they will add him to the first team soon; he has good chances for that.

Shorter statements of indirect speech may be presented in the indicative if they are not doubted; however, it would be colloquial to do so but to leave the "dass" out:

Hans gibt an, dass er täglich Sport treibt.
: Hans states he practices sport daily.

Notes on the subjunctive:

The German subjunctive is mostly regular even if the indicative is irregular such as sein "to be". The stem of the word is followed by -e, -est, -e, -en, et, -en. Other than in the indicative, an -e- remains even the most colloquial speech be.
If the direct speech is in the present, the present subjunctive is used. If the direct speech is the past, whether it is expressed by the perfect or by the preterite, the perfect subjunctive is used. If the direct speech is in the future, the future subjunctive is used; both of the latter are formed by adding the auxiliaries that form the perfect or future into the subjunctive.
If the present subjunctive is the same as the present indicative, which can often happen other than in the third person-singular, whose the regular indicative ending is a -t, the second subjunctive, also known as irrealis, Konjunktiv II, or traditionally as the imperfect subjunctive, is used. The present subjunctive is identical to the preterite in weak verbs but has the same endings as the first subjunctive, which differentiate at least the first-person and the third-person singular in strong verbs, whose indicative does not end in -e. Strong verbs usually also add an umlaut or even use an older form to form the umlaut.
If the imperfect subjunctive is the same as the preterite indicative, shorter statements also use the periphrastic construction of the conjunctive for the actual irrealis. However, the subjunctive can be left in place unchanged, which is almost always the case for longer segments.
The second subjunctive is often used even when the first subjunctive form of a verb is unambiguous. Grammarians differ whether that is ever acceptable, such as when expressing a large amount of doubt.
If the direct speech is in the pluperfect, the "redoubled perfect" is accurate: "Er sagte, das Fußballspiel habe gestern nicht stattfinden können, weil ein Gewitter den Platz überschwemmt gehabt habe."