Cover not available
Review published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 12:1 (2004) ► pp.204–213
Book review

Tomoko I. Sakita. Reporting Discourse, Tense, and Cognition. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2002. 304 pp. ISBN 0-08-044041-Xhardcover

Reviewed by
| Aichi University, Japan
Published online: 10 June 2004
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.12.1.19kat
References (22)
References
Allwood, J. 1996. “On Wallace Chafe’s ‘How consciousness shapes language’”. Pragmatics & Cognition 4(1): 55–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996. “How consciousness shapes language”. Pragmatics & Cognition 4(1): 35–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1986. “Tense in indirect speech”. Folia Linguistica: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae 20(3–4): 265–296.Google Scholar
Declerck, R. 1990. “Sequence of tenses in English”. Folia Linguistica: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae 241: 513–544.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Coupland, J., and Coupland, N. (eds). 1991. Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (ed). 1982. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, B. 1987. “‘He says … so I said’: Verb tense alternation and narrative depictions of authority in American English”. Linguistics 251: 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. “Deixis and subjectivity”. In F. Brisard (ed), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1988. “Putting linguistics on a proper footing”. In P. Drew and A. Wootton (eds), Erving Goffman. Cambridge: Polity Press, 161–227.Google Scholar
Philips, S. U. 1983. The Invisible Culture: Communication in Classroom and Community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rumsey, A. 1989. “Grammatical person and social agency in the New Guinea Highlands”. In B. Music, R. Graczyk and C. Wiltshire (eds), CLS 25, Part Two: Parasession on Language in Context. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 242–253.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1981. “Tense variation in narrative”. Language 57(1): 45–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. McH., and Coulthard, M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 2002. “Accounting for subjectivity (point of view)”. In B. Nevin (ed), The Legacy of Zellig Harris. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 137–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. 1986. “Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative”. In F. Coulmas (ed), Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 311–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsui, A. B. M. 1994. English Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. 1979. “The conversational historical present alternation”. Language 551: 168–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1982. CHP: The Conversational Historical Present in American English Narrative. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar