I sent this yesterday, but it seems not to have disseminated. My 
apologies if you see it twice. It's a response to the conversations 
about projected clauses and recursion.

     In a decidedly low tech, student friendly version of this, Coffin, 
Donohue, and North compare this to the balloons in cartoons, which 
connect a projected quote or thought to a character. (The thoughts, by 
convention, usually have two small bubbles underneath them.)
    When we use "that" or paraphrase the content of a quote, it is a 
"projected report." (The verb often shifts to perfect aspect or modal. 
/He said "I bought a new car." He said he had bought a new car.//He 
thought "This is the right way to do it."/ /He thought [that] this would 
be the right way to do it./
     I have been thinking about these lately as patterns of evidentiality.
    1) Spot dropped dead.
    2) I saw Spot drop dead.
    3) Paul said "Spot dropped dead."
    4) I believe Spot dropped dead.
    5) I heard Paul say that Spot dropped dead.
    6) According to a source close to the owner, Spot dropped dead.
    7) A source close to the owner alleges that Spot dropped dead from 
poor nutrition.
     From a functional perspective, it is interesting to look at how 
each of these construe the truth possibilities of Spot dropping dead. 
These are not the only way we qualify or ground a statement in 
evidentiality, but they are important.  Looking at it this way makes it 
directly relevant to writing and critical reading.  We are not just 
looking at these as forms, but as highly meaningful choices.

Craig

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/