Search results for 'tag:Expressions tag:Direct speech' matching tags 'Expressions' and 'Direct speech'

Please correct this English essay (1000 words)

amalievinter — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:21:47 GMT

GENRES

There are two categories within the world of texts: fiction (invented) and non-fiction (non-invented). The down-categories - e.g. epic, lyric poetry and drama - are called genres.
The concept "genre" descends from the Greek word "genos" that means family or kind. A genre is a category of texts - both fiction and non-fiction - that have something in common and that separate them from other texts. The genres can thus again be subdivided.

Examples of genres that both belong to fiction are the poem and the drama. Poems are often short, poetic texts - they describe an atmosphere, a feeling, an experience. They consist of stanzas and verses and have fixed rhymes, rhythms, sentence constructions and layouts. A word class dominates.

   Dramas are longer descriptions of actions - that is epic - in which there are included poetic aspects. They express with the help of a conflict that is the turn point and that drives the action forward. Therefore they consist of a beginning, a middle and an end that together has for intention of entertain.
   In order to exemplify the difference between different genres Shirley Jackson's "Charlesâ and âCall me Arnoldâ written by Studs Terkel are processed here.
   The first mentioned is the example of a classic short story. There is an introduction: âThe day my son Laurie started kindergarten â¦â (page 7, line 1) and more than one character involved: ââ¦ I watched him go off the first morning â¦â (page 7, line 3). The combination of direct and indirect speech which is one of the short story characteristics is also a part of it: âHow was school today? I asked elaborately casual. All right, he saidâ (page 7, line 14-15). Finally the story has a sudden and surprising ending: âCharles? she said. We donât have any Charles in the kindergarten.â (page 12, line 24-25).

The genre of the other text is the interview. The conspicuous difference from the short story is that it bounds of a question and an answer. There may possibly be an introduction and a conclusion. In this case you can see that it is an interview because the text only consists of direct speech: âIf I would believe in life after death. I would say my before-life I was living in Americaâ (page 14, line 14-15). He only shows himself for the interviewer and the reader. At the same time the text consists of spoken language expressions like âYou know what I mean?â (page 15, line 29). However it is an edited interview since the questions are edited out. This is among other things seen of the answer âI have emotionsâ (page 15, line 5) where it is obvious that he was guided to answer. The identity of the sender is explained too: âI was born in a little Austrian town, outside Grazâ (page 13, line 1) and âI came out second three times â¦â (page 13, line 15).

Just as the genre varies there is also a difference in the language of the texts. Both texts are built up like dialogues but there is difference between the sentences. While Shirley Jackson uses longer sentences with verbs, adjectives and details: âThe third day â it was Wednesday of the first week â Charles bounced a see-saw on the head of a little girl and made her bleed, and the teacher made him stay inside all during recessâ (page 8, line 24-27) and difficult words like âincredulousâ and âinsolentâ Schwarzeneggerâs answers are short, easy understood and fact orientated: âIt singles out: the winnerâ (page 13, line 13-14). He only speaks in main sentences.

The same disparity finds expression in the people's manner and characteristics. In the short story the people's character judging from actions and conversations is interpreted. Laurie is intelligent and smart as he while Charles is evil plays funny to get the parents' attention: âLook at my thumb. Gee, you are dumbâ (page 8, line 17-18). Later the story changes and Charles becomes good: âLaurie reported grimly at lunch on Thursday of the third week, Charles was so good today the teacher gave him an appleâ (page 10, line 20-22). But as Charles turns up to be Laurie he suddenly is a childish and brutal person: âCharles wanted to color with green crayons so he hit the teacher and she spanked him and said nobody play with play with Charles but everybody didâ (page 8, line 21-23).

The interview shows on the other hand clearly the person's identity. Schwarzenegger is determined and result oriented: âI had a dream that I wanted to be the best body-builder in the world and the most muscular manâ (page 13, line 4-5). He repeats himself about feelings: âYou must control your emotions â¦â (page 15, line 6-7) and âEmotions must not interfereâ (page 15, line 19). It's important for him that he has tangible, firm and honest demands - otherwise he may not be himself. This also means that his statements can sometimes be taken as didactically and provokingly: âIâm trying to make people in America aware that they should appreciate what they have here.â (page 14, line 23-24).

The identity thought is the generally essence of both "Charles" and "Call me Arnold". In "Charles" it is an abstract condition when Charles' actions only do not say anything about identity. But if the parents' role is included it makes sense. The parents are engaged at their child's childhood - e.g. shown in connection with the mother's correction of Charles: âAnything, I said. Didnât learn anythingâ (page 7, line 19). On the other hand they cannot realize the facts and see through that Charles doesn't exist even though the mother discovers a difference: ââ¦ my sweet-voiced, nursery-school tot replaced by a long-trousered, swaggering character â¦â (page 7, line 5-6). The message is that a neglected togetherness or upbringing will damage the identity.

In "Call me Arnold" it is about concrete conditions because Schwarzenegger only directly tells about his own story. Furthermore there is a focus on the individual: âNobodyâs holding you backâ (page 14, line 19-20) and âIf you have a dream and it becomes a reality, donât stay satisfied with it too longâ (page 16, line 2-3). The message is that the identity is created by objective, simple and logical observations and considerations with yourself.
The different way of expression, the person development and the communication but about the same theme explains why different genres are founded. Some genres are better in something than others and appeals better to another spectrum of people. This difference that unites texts will cause the interest of reading forever.

Re: May / would / could (Guest:Lamboo)

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:27:20 GMT

Hi my Dear friend,
This is Pavan Kumar

would is used to say about determination like " i would finish this work " and another usage is the that is to express past habitual actions "i would go on foot to school when i was studying 8th standard" like that. and could is used to say about past ability "i could give the seminar infront of 100 members" and could is used to make polite expressions "could u please move a little bit " and when we want to express the indirect speech also at the time COULD is used. anthony said, "i can do this work". anthony said that He could do that work. like that and so many expressions and usages are there with could.

Re: Reported Speech

miriam — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:36:47 GMT

Hello. Sorry to hear you're feeling uncomfortable with this type of activity. But you're not alone: I would be, too!

The sentences lack context, which makes it difficult to tell when tense changes are necessary and when they are not (among other things).

There is one sentence that is wrong without a doubt: # 7. The sentence in direct speech uses the present continuous, and the reporting verb (added) is in the past tense, so it really makes no sense to use a construction with "will" to report that statement. You should either keep the same tense (present continuous) or change to past continuous. Sentence #6 has a similar mistake. The decision, however, is sometimes difficult to make since I have no idea when the original statements were made, when they are/were reported, and, also important, whether what was said still applies at the time of reporting or it doesn't.

The rest of the sentences seem OK in general, except for a few details, such as dates and time references, and person changes. For example, in # 8 you retain "a year ago" instead of changing it to some other expression like "the year before" or "the previous year". Again, though, that would depend on several variables, the moment of reporting among them. Also, in #10 you changed "our customers" to "his customers" (why not "their" customers?).

And you're not consistent with verb changes. In # 1, you shifted from the present perfect to the past perfect. But then, in other sentences, such as # 2, you retained the tense from the sentence in direct speech.

I know this isn't much help, but it will -hopefully- point you in the direction of your mistakes and/or inconsistencies.

When we're taught indirect speech, we're told to remember the "golden rule": change verb tenses. But the truth is that it always depends on the context and the content itself, on the people speaking and the time of speaking.

Give these sentences another try, please, and let's see what happens?

Miriam

Re: Expression: "She said she was seeing TV."

Yankee — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:10:47 GMT

Hi Tom

The the past perfect is frequently not used in reported speech and many grammar books also accept this. The past perfect continuous is probably used even more rarely. Here are my thoughts:

First of all, Pucca is right about using 'watching' rather than 'seeing'.

Second, we need to know what the original "direct" speech was. Again, Pucca gave an appropriate and very typical example:

John - What are you doing, Caroline?
Caroline - I'm watching TV.

Cris - What is Caroline doing?
John - She said she was watching TV.

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

For the past perfect continuous to work in your reported speech sentence, the direct speech would have to be something like this:

Scenario: Caroline's father sees Caroline. Caroline is not watching TV when her father sees her.

Caroline's father: "What have you been doing, Caroline? Your mother and I haven't seen you for hours."
Caroline: "I've been watching TV."

A few minutes later, somewhere else in the house:

Caroline's mother: "What has Caroline been doing?"
Caroline's father: "She said she'd been watching TV. / She said she's been watching TV."

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

If the direct speech were the past continuous, I might also use the past continuous in the reported speech:

John: "What were you doing when the earthquake started, Caroline?"
Caroline: "I was watching TV."

Cris: "What was Caroline doing when the earquake started?"
John: "She said she was watching TV." *

* To my ear, the past perfect continuous (had been watching) would sound like overkill in this sentence. It probably would not be used (in conversation) by most native speakers. You'd be more likely to find the past perfect continuous used in written narration.

Re: About the expression "...what was the matter" or "what the matter was"

Conchita57 — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:51:12 GMT

The exercise sentence is in reported speech, also called 'indirect speech/question'. Therefore, the correct answer is B: 'My mother asked what the matter was with me'. The direct question could have been: 'What is the matter with you?'.

Your last example is fine.

Re: word order in indirect speech

CalifJim — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:34:05 GMT

What is the matter? This asks for the subject

I reject this premiss. It doesn't ask for the subject. And (surprise, surprise!) it doesn't really ask for the complement either. It's an idiomatic expression that says "Talk to me about what is bothering you" or "Tell me the problem". The answer is a complete sentence that does not use the word matter at all.

-- What's the matter?
-- I failed my exam.

-- What's the matter?
-- I can't get this key to open the safe.

So the question is how matter could be used in the answer if you had to. I suggest that either form is possible:

The matter is that I failed my exam.
That I failed my exam is the matter.

The matter is that I can't get this key to open the safe.
That I can't get this key to open the safe is the matter.

The first in each pair is the usual order, so I'd say the original question asks for the complement, if pressed to decide. Nonetheless, the ambivalence here is reflected in the use of both forms in indirect speech.

asked what the matter was / asked what was the matter

Given my preference above, of course here I prefer asked what the matter was.

CJ

Re: comma

Likeguslee — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 06:50:29 GMT

Here are the basic rules for comma

The Comma (,)

The uses of the comma are:

Separate a list of items
i.e.: Apples, pears, bananas and grapes are fruit
Indicates a word in apposition
i.e.: The organisation, XYZ Enterprises, sends all members of staff on training at least once a year
Used before or after a participle phrasing
i.e.: Being in possession of a lottery ticket, you may stand a chance to win
Indicate a slight pause
i.e.: We have hardly had a summer in Gauteng, it has been overcast and rainy most days
Separate an exclamation or an expression
i.e.: Oh dear, is that you meant?
Introduce direct speech
i.e.: The speaker said, "The comma is used to introduce direct speech."
Ellipsis
i.e.: Crips may be eaten too frequently; popcorn, too seldom
Used to indicate parenthesis*
(whether it be related or non-related) i.e.: English Word Power, an interactive English language development software, helps to develop ones skills to effectively communicate in English.

Regarding your examples, none of them would require a comma.

creation of sentence transformation exercises

Hela — Thu, 18 May 2006 20:03:21 GMT

Dear teachers,

I'm learning how to build up "sentence transformations" exercises. Would you please help to build sentence (a) so that sentence (b) can be found?

1) a) Would it be possible to build a sentence in direct speech where we could have an expression other than "it's been ages since"?

= b) "Mom, ... it has been ages since you said we could go to the park. When are we leaving?"

2) a) We haven't been to this restaurant for a long time - look what's happened to the prices.

= b) It... has been ages since we've been to this restaurant - look what's happened to the prices.

3) a) Which other construction can I write here to have the subjunctive in sentence (b)?

= b) It is very important that... all employees BE DRESSED in their proper uniforms before 6.30 am

4) a) Holden Caulfieldâs parents were not careful in his upbringing soâ¦ ??

= b) If... his parents had been more careful in his upbringing, Holden Caulfield would have been quite different.

5) a) I didnât buy that new Mercedes we saw yesterday; I havenât got the money even to afford a used car. (correct ??)

= b) If... I had the money, I would have bought that new Mercedes we saw yesterday; but I can't even afford a used car.

Thank you for your help.
Hela

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

just the truth — Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:28:55 GMT

Mr M: You are choosing one interpretation; I have chosen two.

JTT: That's my point, Mr M. You have given an interpretation that, I'm afraid to say, just doesn't square with reality.

Mr M: A little while ago, he went to the lease renewal office to renew his lease.
The clerk told him then that he couldn't/(can't) renew his lease.
He came back and reported to us: 'I just found out that I couldn't/can't renew my lease'.
He couldn't renew his lease then.
He still can't renew his lease.
Both expressions are possible.

JTT: Both are possible because both point to the current state of the situation. Again, it has nothing to do with tense, rather it's a reporting issue. We tend to use the historical past tense forms of the modals as default reported speech signals. That's all.

Since, "I just found out that I CAN'T renew my lease" works perfectly well with the past tense form , it clearly points up that this isn't an issue of complying with any tense requirements.

Mr M: However, if it were possible in the future to renew his lease, he could still say 'I just found out that I can/could renew my lease'-- by the SAME rule that I gave.

If we return it to direct speech, the clerk said, 'You can't renew your lease.'
He then came back and said, 'I just found out that I can't/couldn't renew my lease.'
Or, he could have simply said, 'I can't/couldn't renew my lease.'

On the other hand, the clerk might have said, 'You can renew your lease later'.
In this case, he came back and said, 'I just found out that I can/could renew my lease.'
Or, he could simply have said, 'I can renew my lease'-- NOT X'I could renew my lease'. Hence, the two forms are not equally applicable to the future.

JTT: I respectfully submit you've trapped yourself. At least twice, you allow that could be used, then you deny its use. It's not helpful to confuse the issue of reported speech with what is, in your third paragraph, an example that has nothing to do with reported speech. Though the information for both comes from the same source, the "clerk's mouth", what the lessee wants to state differs in the two situations.

In 'I just found out that I can/could renew my lease.', the word is fulfilling requirements for reported speech. Here too, is pointing to a future potential. If we assume, as you have, that it has something to do with matching the past tense verb , we have the completely untenable position of calling it past tense which is a future tense.

'I could renew my lease' is most certainly possible. Without the connection to reported speech, it has simply become a more tenative . Both state equally that "It's possible to renew my lease"; only shifts to its GREATER conditional/tenative meaning.

It then should come as no surprize that "the two forms are not equally applicable to the future". and do different jobs. That doesn't mean that they are present or past tense forms and this is what causes all the confusion. Though they are not equally applicable to the future, they are BOTH applicable to the future and in this case the future only.

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

Mister Micawber — Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:55:28 GMT

You are choosing one interpretation; I have chosen two.

A little while ago, he went to the lease renewal office to renew his lease.
The clerk told him then that he couldn't/(can't) renew his lease.
He came back and reported to us: 'I just found out that I couldn't/can't renew my lease'.
He couldn't renew his lease then.
He still can't renew his lease.
Both expressions are possible.

However, if it were possible in the future to renew his lease, he could still say 'I just found out that I can/could renew my lease'-- by the SAME rule that I gave.

If we return it to direct speech, the clerk said, 'You can't renew your lease.'
He then came back and said, 'I just found out that I can't/couldn't renew my lease.'
Or, he could have simply said, 'I can't/couldn't renew my lease.'

On the other hand, the clerk might have said, 'You can renew your lease later'.
In this case, he came back and said, 'I just found out that I can/could renew my lease.'
Or, he could simply have said, 'I can renew my lease'-- NOT X'I could renew my lease'. Hence, the two forms are not equally applicable to the future.