Distinguish Between Direct And Indirect Quotes

Hall, for example, probably the most famous and influential writer in the field, distinguishes between what he calls “low context” societies like the United States and Europe and the “high context” societies found throughout most of the developing world. In the former, when one communicates with others—whether orally or in writing—one is expected to be direct, clear, explicit, concrete, linear, and to the point. But in most of the rest of the world, such behavior is considered a bit rude and shallow: one should approach one’s subject in a thoughtfully indirect, suggestive, and circumlocutious manner.97

not only that symbolic hybridity can signal perspective—both the language facet of perspective and, indirectly, the perception facet of perspective—but also that symbolic hybridity can only feature in specific discourse categories, namely those categories that can contain elements of the character’s discourse and thus have a mimetic quality. TT shifts in linguistic hybridity can therefore lead to TT shifts in discourse category and these discourse-category shifts in turn can trigger TT shifts in the language facet of perspective. The following discussion will illustrate this in more detail. For this, I will draw on Leech and Short’s (2007) as well as Brian McHale’s (1978) classification of speech and thought presentation. Leech and Short (2007:255ff.) distinguish the following five speech-presentation categories: Narrative Report of Speech Act (NRSA) Indirect Speech (IS) Free Indirect Speech (FIS) Direct Speech (DS) Free Direct Speech (FDS) For a detailed discussion of these five speech-presentation categories see Leech and Short 2007:255–270. McHale (1978:258–259) further subdivides indirect discourse into (i) “indirect content paraphrase” and (ii) “indirect discourse, mimetic to some degree”. Building on McHale, I will therefore distinguish between (i) indirect speech (IS) and (ii) mimetic indirect speech (MIS). Short (1996:293) refers to NRSA as “Narrative Representation of Speech Acts” rather than “Narrative Report of Speech Act” and adds another category, that of “Narrator’s Representation of Speech (NRS)”. NRS is the most minimalist form of speech presentation, as it “merely tells us that speech occurred” without “specify[ing] the speech act(s) involved

Early in his majestic Church Dogmatics, Barth experimented with a doctrine of inspiration that allowed for a strong affirmation of scriptural fallibilism with a high doctrine of scriptural authority. The Bible, he said there, (CD I.2, section 19) was not directly identical to the Word of God, but could become it in a secondary fashion, by the agency, act, and presence of the Holy Spirit. Barth’s Christocentrism there took on a Christomorphic tone, so that Holy Scripture consisted in an altogether human text and authorship, joined to an altogether Divine Reality and Spirit. Such indirect identity gave Barth’s early doctrine of Scripture remarkable dynamism and exegetical freedom. But in practice, Barth did not distinguish so sharply and confidently between the inspired Word and the biblical letter. His fine print excurses showed a reliance upon the biblical text as both authoritative and self-authenticating, a living witness to Almighty God.