Answer: Reporting Clauses and the Verb "Hear"

[chomiji]

velocitygrass asks "Can the reporting clause ever be indirect with the verb 'hear'?"

Let's take a look at the reporting clause and see if there's a good answer to this question.

First, a confession: your humble Fandom Grammarian here had never heard of the term "reporting clause" (or its partner, the "reported clause") previously. However, a bit of research showed that they are pretty straightforward:

Reporting clause	Reported clause
Vimes said	he was sick and tired of listening to his Dis-Organizer.
The Alchemists Guild claims	that transmutation is possible.
Angua thought	that Carrot looked a bit tired for once.

Together, the reporting clause and the reported make up indirect discourse. Again, the easiest way to explain this is by example:

Direct Discourse:

"There's nothing quite like a good loaf of Dwarf bread," said Carrot.

"I imagine that's true," said Angua, after a moment.

Indirect Discourse:

Carrot said that there was nothing quite like a good loaf of Dwarf bread.

After a moment, Angua answered that she imagined that was true.

As you see, in direct discourse, the characters' words are quoted: we see exactly what the characters said. This is how we're used to seeing speech handled in fiction. In indirect discourse, the characters' words are paraphrased to one extent or another. Notice, for example, that Angua's "I imagine" has become "she imagined."

Now that we have the terminology straight, let's take another look at the question. velocitygrass is asking about using the verb "hear" in the reporting clause. I'm going to assume that what's meant is a sentence like this:

Detritus heard that werewolves didn't get along with vampires.

The interesting thing about this sentence is that it's hard to guess what the direct version would have been. From whom did Detritus hear this information? Still, even just turning the sentence around gives us a reasonable, if not exactly common, sentence:

"Werewolves didn't get along with vampires," was what Detritus heard.

A little more information might make the sentence less odd:

"Werewolves didn't get along with vampires," was what Detritus heard whenever he brought up the issue of Angua's friendship with Sally.

Both versions are legitimate English sentences, however.

In researching this question, I couldn't find any direct discussion of this situation. However, Advanced Grammar in Use (by Martin Hewings), a manual aimed at university-level students, has an extensive discussion of reporting clauses that includes this example:

I hear you're unhappy with your job.

What's interesting about this sentence is that the use of "hear" adds a level of uncertainty about the information that's reported - and that's probably deliberate. The speaker is implying that zie doesn't know whether it's true that the other person is unhappy, and zie is leaving open the question of how zie found out about the other person's supposed dissatisfaction.

With this idea in mind, let's go back to our troll watchman and the question of enmity between vampires and werewolves:

Detritus heard that werewolves didn't get along with vampires.

Now we can see that the author might have selected the verb "hear" deliberately for that element of uncertainty. Detritus might not remember exactly who told him about the animosity between vampires and werewolves, or he might have heard it several times, from several sources. It doesn't really matter: what's important is that it's an idea that doesn't come from his own experiences and that he is uncertain whether it's true or not.

So, in answer to the original question, we've found that "hear" can indeed be used in a reporting clause. It can even be a wise choice if you want to suggest that the information reported might be wrong or doesn't have a definite source.

 

Comments

[velocitygrass.livejournal.com]

Thanks for looking into this!


The word "indirect" was badly chosen in my question, because I didn't want to refer to indirect speech as opposed to direct one. I'm sorry about that. I'd hoped my example would clarify.

My example was: "Goddammit, Sheppard," he heard Caldwell's exasperated voice.

Usually the reporting clause straight-forward tells us who said or thought the preceding (or following) direct speech, as in: "Goddammit, Sheppard," Caldwell said.

I wanted to know if I could keep the focus on John (the "he" in my example) and the fact that he still only hears Caldwell and hasn't seen him yet.

The unusual thing about this reporting clause (if it is one) is that the subject of the clause is not the originator of the speech, and I wasn't sure if that was possible/correct.


Still, thank you very much for your explanations and going into the nuances of the difference between using heard and said.

[chomiji]

Hmm, no, that example did not come up at all. I'm sorry I was so far off base!

But (switching from Grammarian hat to Beta hat) I would suggest trying a rewrite for that sentence. At the moment, the interjection (given as direct discourse) has no connection to the complete little sentence "He heard Caldwell's exasperated voice."

Really, both "Goddamit, Sheppard!" and "Caldwell's exasperated voice" are both the objects of "heard." He heard the interjection quoted, and he heard Caldwell's voice. But you need to put across the connection that "he" has made between the two things, which is that they are essentially the same.

The solution might be something like this:

He heard Caldwell's exasperated voice: "Goddamit, Sheppard!"

Or perhaps like this?

"Goddamit, Sheppard!"

It was Caldwell's exasperated voice.

Or maybe

"Goddamit, Sheppard!" he heard, in Caldwell's exasperated voice.

I like the last one the least, although it is the closest to your original sentence.

[velocitygrass.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean about both the quote and the voice being the object of the sentence.

Thank you for your suggestions.

The first one doesn't quite fit for me because I'm going for something like a written equivalent of the visual of focusing a shot on someone, then hearing another character's voice while still staying on the focused person and their reaction before eventually cutting to the person who spoke.

The second works better as it keeps that intact. I'm not sure it sounds right in the flow of the paragraph (which you of course can't know).

Maybe it could be rephrased to:

"Goddamit, Sheppard!" he heard Caldwell say in an exasperated voice.

(Even though that loses a bit of that feeling that it's about the voice first and the speaker second.)

This really seems to be a bit tricky. Thankfully, I haven't come across this problem again (though there were two instances in this particular fic).

Thanks again for your suggestions and thoughts. I appreciate it!