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