When we tell people what another person said or thought, we often use reported speech or indirect speech. To do that, we need to change verb tenses (present, past, etc.) and pronouns (I, you, my, your, etc.) if the time and speaker are different. For example, present tenses become past, I becomes he or she, and my becomes his or her, etc.
reported speech online test
The most common verbs we use in reported speech are say and tell. We must pay attention here. We say tell somebody something, and say something (to somebody).
In reported or indirect speech we must also pay attention to the use of pronouns. When a person tells us something, he or she uses the first person (I, me, my, we, us, our) to talk about himself or herself and the second person (you, your) to talk about us, the person listening. But when we tell someone else what that person said, we are going to use the third person (he, she, his, her, etc.) to talk about the speaker and the first person (I, me, my) to talk about ourselves, the listener.
One thing to remember with putting commands in reported speech is that we often use the verb 'tell' + object + infinitive. For example, 'She told her daughter to do her homework'. I think that would be the best option in the sentences that are direct commands.
In assertive sentences like this, 'said' remains unchanged and is followed by 'that'. If the Reported verb is in the past tense and the Reported speech is in the present, the reported speech (while change of narration) converts into the past. Subject 'I' become 'She'. Hence, option 1.
In assertive sentences like this, 'said' remains unchanged and is followed by 'that'. If the Reported verb is in the past tense and the Reported speech is in the present, the reported speech (while change of narration) converts into the past. Subject 'I' become 'She'. Hence, option 3.
In assertive sentences like this, 'said' remains unchanged and is followed by 'that'. If the Reported verb is in the past tense and the Reported speech is in the past, the reported speech (while change of narration) converts into the past perfect. Subject 'I' become 'She'. Hence, option 3.
In assertive sentences like this, 'said' remains unchanged and is followed by 'that'. If the Reported verb is in the past tense and the Reported speech is in the present, the reported speech (while change of narration) converts into the past. Hence, option 4.
In assertive sentences like this, 'said' remains unchanged and is followed by 'that'. If the Reported verb is in the past tense and the Reported speech is in the past, the reported speech (while change of narration) converts into the past perfect. Subject 'I' become 'She'. Hence, option 1.
In assertive sentences like this, 'said' remains unchanged and is followed by 'that'. If the Reported verb is in the past tense and the Reported speech is in the present, the reported speech (while change of narration) converts into the past. Hence, option 1.
In assertive sentences like this, 'said' remains unchanged and is followed by 'that'. If the Reported verb is in the past tense and the Reported speech is in the present, the reported speech (while change of narration) converts into the past. Hence, option 2.
In assertive sentences like this, 'said' remains unchanged and is followed by 'that'. If the Reported verb is in the past tense and the Reported speech is in the present perfect, the reported speech (during change of narration) converts into the past perfect. Hence, option 3.
In assertive sentences like this, 'said' remains unchanged and is followed by 'that'. If the Reported verb is in the past tense and the Reported speech is in the present, the reported speech (while change of narration) converts into the past. Subject 'I' becomes 'He'. Hence, option 2.
This null finding could be interpreted as a demonstration of the lack of influence of speech type on item memory. Item memory can be defined as memory for the content, the gist, of an event and is thought to be part of episodic memory (Tulving, 1972). Not being able to remember what a story was about can therefore be seen as reflecting item memory difficulties. In addition to the content of an event, people could remember aspects of the context in which it took place. For example, one might recall the time and location of an event and how one came to know a particular fact (for a review, see Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993). Memory for these types of information is known as source memory (e.g., McIntyre & Craik, 1987; Schacter, Kaszniak, Kihlstrom, & Valdiserri, 1991). Studies on item and source memory in patients (e.g., Janowsky, Shimamura, & Squire, 1989; Schacter et al., 1991) and healthy adults (e.g., Glisky, Polster, Routhieaux, 1995; Senkfor & Van Petten, 1998) demonstrate that item and source memory are functionally dissociable and can be located in different areas of the brain. According to the source monitoring framework, decision processes are performed during remembering to evaluate activated memory records and attribute them to specific sources, rather than those records being tagged during encoding. Could it be that the use of direct and indirect speech affects source memory rather than item memory? If so, this should occur during retrieval from long-term memory rather than during online processing.
We investigated source memory for statements that were reported in either direct or indirect speech. Given that, as discussed earlier, source memory effects occur during retrieval (rather than sources being tagged online), we used a memory task in which we presented participants with a story and later ask them to assign utterances taken from the story to one of the protagonists. We hypothesized that source memory would be better for participants who read the statements in indirect compared to direct speech.
Based on the results of Experiment 1, we hypothesized that indirect speech leads to stronger source representations at the gender level than direct speech. We tested this a priori hypothesis in Experiment 2. This experiment is in essence a replication of Experiment 1 with one change to the materials. All the statements uttered by a female protagonist were now uttered by a male protagonist and vice versa. This produced a counterbalancing of the links between gender and statements across Experiments 1 and 2. If the results of Experiment 1 were somehow due to these links, then the results would show a different pattern in Experiment 2. We did not expect to find effects of speech type on source representations on the individual level or on the degree of transportation. Because we found no effect of the positioning of the speaker relative to the reported speech in two direct speech conditions in Experiment 1, we only compared the indirect speech condition and the direct speech-PF condition. We chose the direct speech-PF condition, because this condition was most similar to the indirect speech condition, with the name of the protagonist being mentioned before the content of the utterance.
As expected, we found a significant effect of speech type on source memory not only at the gender level but also at the individual level (see Table 4). Bayesian t-tests confirm these conclusions (see Table 5). There is very strong evidence for the prediction that indirect speech leads to better source memory for the speaker than direct speech. Thus, these analyses converge to show highly robust effects of speech type on memory for protagonist gender as well as protagonist identity. Source memory on both levels was better in the indirect than the direct speech condition. There was no significant effect of speech type on transportation (see Table 4). Bayesian analysis shows the evidence against this hypothesis is moderate (see Table 5).
These results show that the effects of speech type on source memory we consistently found cannot be explained by better memory in general in the indirect speech condition compared to the direct speech condition. Bayesian analysis supports these conclusions. A Bayesian mixed ANOVA with the same design as the frequentist ANOVA just reported shows that the average of models including the speech type by memory interaction is four times more likely than the average of models not including that interaction (BFinclusion = 4.33). A one-sided Bayesian independent samples t-test (scaling factor = .70) similarly shows more support for the hypothesis that indirect speech leads to better source memory for the speaker than direct speech, BF+0 = 4.12. A two-sided Bayesian t-test (scaling factor = .70) shows that there is five times as much evidence for the null hypothesis of no speech effect on content memory than for an effect in either direction, BF01 = 5.45. Taken together, these data support the prediction that indirect speech leads to better source memory for the speaker than direct speech, whereas speech type does not impact content memory. 2ff7e9595c
Comments