Reported speech needs advanced grammar skills and a quick mind

From a grammar standpoint, writing about the things we have said ourselves is much simpler than reporting to people what we heard or learned somebody else has said. This latter activity is what’s known in English grammar as reported speech or indirect speech, and it requires higher grammar skills and quickness of mind to do properly. As I’m sure many of us have already found out, putting the reported clause—the statement uttered by the person we are talking about—in the proper tense and form isn’t all that simple. Unless we are among the very few people on Earth gifted with total recall, we won’t be able to quote those utterances word for word. We will often need to paraphrase those utterances and apply what’s known as the normal sequence-of-tenses rule for reported speech—a rule that needs thorough mastery before it can be applied with confidence and finesse.

In “How to handle reported speech,” a three-part essay that I wrote for my English-usage column in The Manila Times in 2009, I discuss how the operative verb in the reported statement must be rendered to grammatically match the tense of the reporting verb, and what grammatical changes must be made in the reported statement to conform to the sense of reported speech. I am posting all three essays here for those who need a full-dress review of reported speech to further improve their English. (July 3, 2011)

How to handle reported speech

Part I:

Handling directly quoted statements is quite simple, but it can sometimes go wrong when we mix up the Ame­rican English and British English styles for using quotation marks and for punctuating quoted statements within quoted statements. It gets just a bit more complicated when we report what someone else has said but don’t use the exact words. We do this, of course, when we can’t remember the exact words or when we just want to summarize, focus on the salient points, or perhaps improve the grammar of what was said. We then enter the realm of what is called in English grammar as reported speech or indirect speech.

The pivotal factor in reported speech is the tense of the reporting verb. When the reporting verb is in the simple present tense, present perfect tense, or future tense, the operative verb in the reported statement remains unchanged; often, only the pronouns in the quoted statement need to be changed.

Consider the following directly quoted statement by American baker Kent Dueitt in an interview with The New York Times: “We keep the dough cooled, to prevent the baking powder from activating, and we don’t beat the dough up. We mix slow.”

In the simple present tense, that statement can be rendered in reported speech as follows:

American baker Kent Dueitt says that they keep the dough cooled to prevent the baking powder from activating and that they don’t beat the dough but mix it slow.

In the present perfect tense:

American baker Kent Dueitt has said that they keep the dough cooled to prevent the baking powder from activating and that they don’t beat the dough but mix it slow.

And in the future tense:

American baker Kent Dueitt will say that they keep the dough cooled to prevent the baking powder from activating and that they don’t beat the dough but mix it slow.

     

In all three of the reporting tenses above, the only grammatically significant change in the reported statement is the replacement of the pronoun “we” with “they.” Of course, the conjunction “that” is used to introduce the indirectly quoted statement, since it takes the form of a noun clause. In informal writing, however, the conjunction “that” can often be dropped to make the reported speech easier to articulate, as we can see in the following “that”-less construction of the simple present tense rendition:

American baker Kent Dueitt says they keep the dough cooled to prevent the baking powder from activating, and don’t beat the dough but mix it slow.

But things in reported speech become more iffy when the reporting verb is in the past tense. The general rule, as we all know, is for the operative verb in the reported statement to move one tense back, but that rule applies only when the action in the reported statement is a completed or consummated one.

Take this direct quote from a Philippine official about the Somalia ship-piracy issue as reported in The Manila Times: “At the moment, we have not gotten any feedback as to the advisability of issuing an official ban for Filipino seamen going there [Somalia].”

Quite simply, that direct quote can be rendered in reported speech this way:

The Philippine official said that they had not gotten any feedback at the moment as to the advisability of issuing an official ban for Filipino seamen going to Somalia.

When the action is a repeated or habitual one, however, as in the case of the baker’s statement quoted in The New York Times, the operative verb in the reported statement formally should take the modal form “would + verb”:

American baker Kent Dueitt said [that] they would keep the dough cooled to prevent the baking powder from activating and [that they] would not beat the dough but mix it slow. (April 18, 2009)

Part II:

In the previous essay, I observed that while the general rule in reported speech is to move the operative verb in the directly quoted statement one tense back, things are not as predictable when the action in the reported statement is a repeated or habitual one, as in this directly quoted statement by an American baker: “We keep the dough cooled, to prevent the baking powder from activating, and we don’t beat the dough up. We mix slow.” I said that in reported speech, the operative verbs in that reported statement formally take not the simple past tense but the modal form “would + verb”:

American baker Kent Dueitt said [that] they would keep the dough cooled to prevent the baking powder from activating and [that they] would not beat the dough but mix it slow.

The formal use of the modal form “would + verb” for this particular situation is meant to indicate that while the actions described—keeping the dough cooled and not beating it—were being repeatedly or habitually done by the bakers up to the point of Mr. Dueitt’s utterance, it’s possible that they might have stopped doing those actions thereafter. In other words, the use of the modal form recognizes that there’s a zone of uncertainty as to whether the repeated or habitual actions described had continued or persisted up to the time the statement was reported. Of course, without that uncertainty—if we are definitely sure that the bakers continue to do those actions up to now—we can very well use the simple present tense for the operative verbs in the reported speech, as follows:

American baker Kent Dueitt said [that] they keep the dough cooled to prevent the baking powder from activating and [that they] don’t beat the dough but mix it slow.

Now, as I had discussed in an earlier essay, when the reporting verb is in the simple past tense, the operative verb in a directly quoted statement—in whatever tense it might be—generally moves one tense backwards in reported speech.

From past progressive in a directly quoted statement:

We were cooling the dough when the baking powder activated it.

To past perfect progressive in reported speech (taking into account that Mr. Dueitt is male): He said they had been cooling the dough when the baking powder activated it.

From present progressive:

We are finding it difficult to cool the dough.

To past progressive:

He said they were finding it difficult to cool the dough.

From simple present perfect:

We have cooled the dough enough but the baking powder activated it.

To simple past perfect:

He said they had cooled the dough enough but the baking powder activated it.

From present perfect progressive:

We have been cooling the dough but the baking powder still activated it.

To past perfect progressive:

He said they had been cooling the dough but the baking power still activated it.

Keep in mind, though, that when the operative verb of the reported utterance is in the past perfect or past perfect progressive tense, no change is possible for it in reported speech; it stays in that tense.

Utterance in the past perfect:

The dough had cooled by the time we remembered to beat it.

In reported speech:

He said the dough had cooled by the time they remembered to beat it.

Utterance in the past perfect progressive:

We had been cooling that dough without beating it as a matter of procedure.

In reported speech:

He said they had been cooling that dough without beating it as a matter of procedure.

We will conclude this discussion in the next essay. (April 25, 2009)

Part III:

We are now almost done with our review of how directly quoted statements behave when transformed into reported speech, particularly in the way their operative verbs move one tense back in the paraphrased statement. All we need to do now is to tie up a few loose ends to make sure that the transformations we make are grammatically correct every time.

In making the transformations, we also need to always change the time signifiers in the directly quoted statement to conform to the sense of reported speech. These time signifiers, whenever present in the direct quote, must be back-shifted one step in time along with the back-shifting of the operative verb. If we forget to do this, our sentences would be askew both grammatically and logically.

These time signifiers or adverbs of time and their conversion to the form needed in reported speech should now be second nature to us, as we can see in the list below of the most common time-signifier conversions:

From “now” to “then”:

Direct quote: “The public should start taking precautions against the swine flu virus right now,” the health official said last week.

Reported speech: The health official said last week that the public should start taking precautions against the swine flu virus right then.

From “today” to “that day”

Direct quote: “I am giving you only until today to settle your account,” she said.

Reported speech: She said she was giving me only until that day to settle my account.

From “tomorrow” to “the following day”

Direct quote: “See me tomorrow to discuss your monthly sales,” my manager said.

Reported speech: My manager asked me to see him the following day to discuss my monthly sales.

From “yesterday” to “the previous day” or “the day before”

Direct quote: “Please tell me what you were doing at the park yesterday,” the irate wife asked her husband.

Reported speech: The irate wife asked her husband what he was doing at the park the previous day [or the day before].

From “last year” to “the year before”

Direct quote: “We met last year during a heavy downpour,” the bride told us.

Reported speech: The bride told us that they met the year before during a heavy downpour.”

Apart from the time signifiers, we also need to routinely change the place signifiers “here” and “this” in directly quoted statements to conform to the sense of reported speech, as follows:

From “here” to “there”

Direct quote: “I saw you here with another woman this morning,” his fiancée said at the restaurant.

Reported speech: His fiancée said at the restaurant [that] she saw him there with another woman that morning.”

From “this” to “that”

Direct quote: “I warned you about this matter several times,” his supervisor said.

Reported speech: His supervisor said [that] he had warned him about that matter several times.

Finally, when the operative verb in a directly quoted statement is in the modal form, we need to remember to always change the modal auxiliary to its past tense form in reported speech.

From “will” to “would”

Direct quote: “The staff will leave only upon my instructions,” the general manager said.

Reported speech: The general manager said [that] the staff would leave only upon his instructions.

From “can” to “could”

Direct quote: “Alicia can finish her report in three days,” the supervisor said.

Reported speech: The supervisor said [that] Alicia could finish her report in three days.”

From “must” to “had to”

Direct quote: “All projects must be finished by yearend,” the president said.

Reported speech: The president said [that] all projects had to be finished by yearend.

From “may” to “might”

Direct quote: “I may go to New York next month,” my friend said.

Reported speech: My friend said he might go to New York next month.

We are done with our review of reported speech. (May 2, 2009)

-----------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, April 18 and 25 and May 2, 2008 © 2008 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

RELATED ESSAYS:

“The proper way to construct sentences for reported speech”

“Going back to the basic forms of reported speech”

Going back to the basic forms of reported speech

This week, in the “You Asked Me This Question” section of Jose Carillo's English Forum, I discuss how third conditional sentences in directly quoted statements behave when presented as reported speech. That rather advanced grammar discussion is the offshoot of a question raised by Forum member Pipes about his doubtful tense usage in a reported-speech sentence. It was a tough question that, in effect, asked: “Do conditional sentences backshift in reported speech?”

As the Forum hasn’t taken up the basics of these aspects of English grammar yet, I realize that the terms “reported speech,” “conditional sentences,” and “backshift” may not ring a bell to some Forum members and guests. By way of backgrounder, therefore, I have posted the essay below, “Dealing Properly with Reported Speech,” in this week’s edition of the Forum. Written for my English-usage column in The Manila Times in September 2008, this essay discusses the mechanisms involved in converting directly quoted utterances in the various simple tenses into reported speech. I trust that you will find it a welcome introduction to this admittedly challenging grammar subject. (May 8, 2011)

Dealing properly with reported speech

One of the trickiest aspects of English grammar is dealing with reported speech, which is also called indirect speech. Basically, we are taught that when the reporting verb is in the past tense, the operative verb of the reported utterance takes one step back from the present into the past. For instance, assume that an officemate by the name of Jennifer told us this yesterday: “I am unhappy with my job.” Today, when we report that remark to somebody else, we need to change the verb in the utterance from simple present to simple past and say: “Yesterday, Jennifer said she was unhappy with her job.”

We must keep in mind, though, that it’s not only the operative verb in the utterance that changes in reported speech. The first-person form of the pronoun in the utterance (“I” in this case) changes to its third-person form (to the pronoun “she” or to the proper name “Jennifer,” depending on the choice of the person reporting the utterance), and the adjective indicating possession in the original utterance (“my”) changes to the third-person form (“her”).

The change from present to past tense in reported speech is only for starters, of course. In the various other tenses, the operative verb of the utterance likewise generally moves one tense backwards in time when the reporting verb is in the past tense, as follows:

From present progressive (assuming that the speaker is male): “I am having a problem with one of my students.” To past progressive: “He said he was having a problem with one of his students.”

From simple present perfect: “I have been bypassed for promotion by my boss.” To simple past perfect: “He said he had been bypassed for promotion by his boss.”

From present perfect progressive: “I have been analyzing the problem but to no avail.” To past perfect progressive: “He said he had been analyzing the problem but to no avail.”

From simple past: “I saw the movie twice.” To past perfect: “He said he had seen the movie twice.” (If the act being reported happened very close or almost simultaneous to the utterance, however, the simple past may also be a logical tense for the operative verb of the reported utterance: “He said he saw the movie twice.”)

From past progressive: “I was taking medication then.” To past perfect progressive: “He said he had been taking medication at the time.”

However, when the operative verb of the reported utterance is in the past perfect or in the past perfect progressive, no change is possible for it in reported speech; it stays in that tense.

Utterance in the past perfect: “The bridge had collapsed by the time I reached the river.” Reported speech: “He said the bridge had collapsed by the time he reached the river.”

Utterance in the past perfect progressive: “I had been depending on that scholarship grant for four years.” Reported speech: “He said he had been depending on that scholarship grant for four years.”

We must also always remember that when the operative verb in the utterance is in the modal form, we need to change the modal auxiliary to its past tense form in reported speech. Thus, “will” changes to “would,” “can” to “could,” “must” to “had to,” and “may” to “might.”

As examples, “I will find her without any difficulty” becomes “He said he would find her without any difficulty” in reported speech; “I can beat her anytime in chess” becomes “He said he could beat her anytime in chess”; “All past due accounts must be settled at once” becomes “He said that all past due accounts had to be settled at once”; and “I may leave anytime” becomes “He said he might leave anytime.”

-----------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, September 6, 2008 © 2008 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

The proper way to construct sentences for reported speech

Constructing sentences for reported speech or indirect speech, which is what most everybody does to tell other people about what someone has said, might seem like a very simple thing to do, but it isn’t. Indeed, except when direct quotes are used or when the reporting verb is in the present tense, it requires some grammar savvy and quickness of mind to put the reported clause—the action we are talking about—in the proper tense and form. We need to apply what’s known as the normal sequence-of-tenses rule for reported speech, and this rule needs thorough mastery before we can put reported clauses in the proper tense and form correctly all the time and with minimum effort.

A few months ago, I had occasion to discuss the normal sequence-of-tenses rule for reported speech when a Forum member expressed perplexity over the particulars of its use in a movie dialogue. The discussion was in a two-part essay I wrote for my English-usage column in The Manila Times in August last year, “The normal sequence-of-tenses rule for reported speech.” I am now posting that essay here in my blogspot for the benefit of those who might likewise need a refresher on the subject. (February 12, 2011)

The normal sequence-of-tenses rule for reported speech 

Part I:

The following very interesting question about reported speech—admittedly a grammar Waterloo for not a few English-language writers and speakers—was e-mailed to me by Mark L. last weekend:

“Just one question on a grammatical concept that I find so difficult to answer:

“In the movie The Blind Side, Sandra Bullock sees this guy walking. She stops her car and asks, ‘Where are you going?’

“The boy replies, ‘To the gym.’

“And the boy continues walking.

“Sandra gets out of the car, catches up with the boy, and says, ‘You said you were going to the gym. Well, the gym is closed. Tell me, Mike, why were you going to the gym?’

“Was she right using ‘were’ instead of ‘are’?”

Here’s my reply to Mark:

Yes, the Sandra Bullock character in that movie was right in using “were” instead of “are” when she said, “You said you were going to the gym. Well, the gym is closed. Tell me, Mike, why were you going to the gym?”

To understand why the past tense “were” has to be used instead of the present tense “are” in that line of dialogue, we need a reacquaintance with the grammar of reported speech. What’s at work here is the so-called normal sequence-of-tenses rule in English grammar. 

Reported speech or indirect speech is, of course, simply the kind of sentence someone makes when he or she reports what someone else has said. For instance, a company’s division manager might have told a news reporter these exact words: “I am resigning to join another company.” In journalism, where the reporting verb is normally in the past tense, that statement takes this form in reported speech: “The division manager said he was resigning to join another company.” 

Depending on the speaker’s predisposition or intent, the operative verb in utterances can take any tense. However, when an utterance is in the form of reported speech and the reporting verb is in the past tense, the operative verb of that utterance generally takes one step back from the present into the past: the present becomes past, the past usually stays in the past, the present perfect becomes past perfect, and the future becomes future conditional. This is the so-called normal sequence-of-tenses rule in English grammar. 

Now let’s review how this rule applies when that division manager’s utterance is reported in the various tenses: 

Present tense to past tense. Utterance: “I am resigning to join another company.” Reported speech: “The division manager said he was resigning to join another company.” 

Past tense to past tense. Utterance: “I resigned to join another company.” Reported speech: “The division manager said he resigned to join another company.” (The past tense can usually be retained in reported speech when the intended act is carried out close to its announcement; if much earlier, the past perfect applies.) 

Present perfect to past perfect tense. Utterance: “I have resigned to join another company.” Reported speech: “The division manager said he had resigned to join another company.”        

Future tense to future conditional tense. Utterance: “I will resign to join another company.” Reported speech: “The division manager said he would resign to join another company.” 

We can see that the reported speech for the utterance of the Sandra Bullock character falls under the first category above—from present tense to past tense. So it’s correct to use the past tense “were” instead of “are” in that reported speech: “Sandra gets out of the car, catches up with the boy, and says, ‘You said you were going to the gym. Well, the gym is closed. Tell me, Mike, why were you going to the gym?’” 

Now, having explained the workings of reported speech and how the normal sequence-of-tenses rule applies in that utterance of the Sandra Bullock character, I’ll be discussing in the next essay a slight grammatical wrinkle in that line of dialogue. (August 21, 2010)

Part II:

In the preceding essay, I explained the workings of reported speech and how the normal sequence-of-tenses rule applies in this reported speech of the Sandra Bullock character in the movie The Blind Side: “Sandra gets out of the car, catches up with the boy, and says, ‘You said you were going to the gym. Well, the gym is closed. Tell me, Mike, why were you going to the gym?’”

In answer to the question of reader Mark L. on whether the Sandra Bullock character was right in using “were” instead of “are” in her directly quoted utterance, I said yes, she was right. I explained that under the normal sequence-of-tenses rule, when the reporting verb for an utterance is in the past tense, the operative verb of that utterance generally takes one tense backward from the present to the past—in this case from “are going” to “were going.”

I qualified my answer, though, by saying that there’s actually a slight grammatical wrinkle in the tense usage of that line of dialogue, and this is what I’ll be discussing now in this week’s column.

Here, again, is that directly quoted utterance of the Sandra Bullock character:

“You said you were going to the gym. Well, the gym is closed. Tell me, Mike, why were you going to the gym?”

The first sentence, “You said you were going to the gym,” is definitely reported speech, with the reporting verb “said” in the past tense. So it’s definitely correct for the operative verb “are” in Mike’s original utterance to take one tense backward to the past tense “were.” From the Sandra Bullock character’s standpoint, Mike made that statement in the past and she is, in effect, reporting his statement. The normal sequence-of-tenses rule should then apply to Mike’s action—it should be rendered one tense backward (from “you are going” to “you were going”) in the reported speech.

But the use of “were” is a little bit problematic in the third sentence of the Sandra Bullock character’s utterance, “Tell me, Mike, why were you going to the gym?” This is because unlike the first sentence, this third sentence doesn’t have a reporting verb. In fact, it’s not really reported speech but an interrogative statement, so it’s not grammatically valid for Mike’s action to take one tense backward in that sentence; another thing, Mike’s statement is reported just a few seconds after it was uttered (the intent of “going to the gym” is therefore still very much in Mike’s mind). Strictly speaking, then, the verb “are going” shouldn’t take one tense backward but stay as is, “Tell me, Mike, why are you going to the gym?”  

The scrupulously correct rendering of that utterance should therefore be as follows: “You said you were going to the gym. Well, the gym is closed. Tell me, Mike, why are you going to the gym?"

Why then did the dialogue use “were” in that third sentence?

Well, in real life, people can’t be expected to be so scrupulously grammatical when they talk, unlike the grammarian in me doing this grammar analysis. Indeed, we really shouldn’t expect people to be so finicky with their English grammar as to shift from reported speech in the first sentence to simple declarative in the third when referring to precisely the same statement. The normal thought process of people in day-to-day situations is actually much more linear and uncomplicated than that, so it’s likely that the scriptwriter of that movie (and probably Sandra Bullock herself while delivering her lines) thought it best to use “were” in both sentences for naturalness and consistency’s sake.

We should keep in mind, though, that when our English is being formally tested and our future might well depend on our score in an exam, we need to be much more exacting with our grammar than that movie dialogue. (August 28, 2010)

-------------------

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, August 21 and 28, 2010 © 2010 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.