Speech or thought representation and subjectification, or on the need to think twice

In this paper, I will investigate the interplay between subjectification and different forms of speech or thought representation. I will argue on the basis of deictic properties that two forms in particular lend themselves to subjectification: one the familiar indirect speech or thought, the other the neglected category of "distancing indirect speech or thought" (Vandelanotte 2002, 2004a, 2004b). I hope to show that the distinction between "representational" and "subjectified" forms can and should be defined in structural terms. In so doing, I hope to differentiate and nuance Thompson's (2002) claim as to the monoclausal nature of so-called complement clauses (including speech or thought reporting clauses).