write in direct speech

How do you write direct speech in English? - Easy Learning Grammar

The comma comes inside the quotation marks, unless the reporting verb is positioned inside a reported sentence that itself does not require a comma.
Typical reporting verbs are: agree, answer, ask, inquire, explain, say, tell, and wonder.
The words spoken are enclosed in inverted commas (single or double quotation marks).
Single quotation marks are often used to draw attention to a word that is being mentioned for a particular purpose.

Quick word challenge

Quiz Review

Score: 0 / 5

Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to footer

English lessons and resources

Direct speech writing rules in English

7th January 2019 by Andrew 14 Comments

In the above picture, Mark is talking to Jane. The words inside the blue box are the exact words that he speaks.

Here is how we express this:

This is direct speech. Direct speech is when we report the exact words that somebody says.

In this English lesson, you will learn:

The rules for writing direct speech.
The correct punctuation.
Vocabulary to report direct speech.

Reporting clause before the direct speech

The reporting clause of direct speech is the short clause that indicates who is talking. It is the clause that is outside of the inverted commas. It is therefore not the words being spoken.

We can write the reporting clause either before or after the direct speech. If the reporting clause is before the direct speech, we write it as follows:

Grammar rules – If the reporting clause is before the direct speech:

We write a comma (,) before the direct speech. We write the exact words inside the inverted commas. The first letter is a capital letter. We write a full stop (.) before the closing inverted commas.

Reporting clause before a question or exclamation

If the reporting clause is before a question or exclamation:

We write a comma (,) before the direct speech. We write the exact words inside the inverted commas. The first letter is a capital letter. We write a question mark (?) before the closing inverted commas. or We write an exclamation mark (!) before the closing inverted commas.

Reporting clause after the direct speech

If the reporting clause is after the direct speech:

We write the exact words inside the inverted commas. The first letter is a capital letter. We write a comma (,) before the closing inverted commas. We write a full stop (.) at the end of the reporting clause.

Reporting clause after a question or exclamation

If the reporting clause is after a question or exclamation:

We write the exact words inside the inverted commas. The first letter is a capital letter. We write a question mark (?) before the closing inverted commas. or We write an exclamation mark (!) before the closing inverted commas. We write a full stop (.) at the end of the reporting clause.

Advanced rules for direct speech

Sometimes we break up the direct speech into 2 parts:

The second part of the direct speech starts with a small letter if it is the same sentence as the first part of the direct speech.

The second part of the direct speech starts with a capital letter if it is a new sentence.

Vocabulary of direct speech

We have several names for the above punctuation marks:

Inverted commas Speech marks Quotation marks Quotes

Other reporting verbs

Here are some other useful reporting verbs:

reply (replied) ask (asked) shout (shouted) agree (agreed) comment (commented) admit (admitted)

They are often used for writing direct speech in books, newspapers and reports. It is more common to use them in reporting clauses after the direct speech.

“I really don’t like her dress,” she commented . “I don’t love you anymore,” he admitted .

Other English lessons

Private online English lessons How to pass the IELTS with a band 8 Adverbs of frequency Indefinite article “a” and “an” The prepositions FOR and SINCE All of our lessons

Direct speech video lesson

Reader Interactions

Matěj Formánek says

3rd November 2019 at 5:54 pm

How about this sentence: I know the satnav is wrong!” exclaimed Zena. – Why the subject and predicate are swapped? It’s sentence from textbook so I’m confused.

17th June 2020 at 4:07 pm

Can we write multiple sentences in direct speech that comes before reporting clause? In case if this is allowed, what punctuation mark should be used after the last sentence?

Example: “I entered the class room. As I did not find anybody there, I left the class room and went to buy a coffee.” explained the student to the teacher for his delay to come to the class.

Should the punctuation mark after the word coffee be comma instead of full stop?

Joaquim Barretto says

14th September 2020 at 1:25 pm

No full stop, but comma after the word coffee.

19th January 2021 at 2:34 pm

HI IM DAISY

courtney says

27th January 2021 at 12:07 pm

Clare Hatcher says

12th March 2021 at 9:55 am

Hello I like the layout of this – very clear. Just wondering if it is correct to use a comma in between two separate sentences in direct speech. I think that now in published material you find this instead. ‘I’m tired,’ she said. ‘Let’s stay at home.’ Would appreciate your thoughts Thanks

27th March 2021 at 8:54 am

If I wrote something with a comma at the end to continue speech like this:

“Hello,” he waved to the new student, “what’s you’re name?”

Do I have to use a capital letter even if I’m continuing with a comma or is it lowercase?

Sylvia Edouard says

30th September 2023 at 9:17 am

Yes, you need to use a capital letter as speech from someone has to start with a capital letter. Always.

15th April 2022 at 12:12 pm

which of the following is correct?

1. Should the status go missing when the metadata states, “Sign & return document?”

2. Should the status go missing when the metadata states, “Sign & return document,”? (comma inside)

3. Should the status go missing when the metadata states, “Sign & return document.”? (full stop inside)

Jan Švanda says

7th September 2023 at 1:31 pm

I presume the quotation is there to specify the exact phrase (for the metadata entry). I also encounter this from time to time, when writing technical documentation. I believe in that case you should write the phrase as it is, proper grammar be damned; beautifully looking documentation is useless if it leads to incorrect results.

In this case, I don’t even think this is “direct speech”, the metadata entry isn’t walking around and saying things, the quotation mark is there to indicate precise phrase – similar to marking strings in programming languages. Because of this, I don’t think direct speech rules apply, or at least, they should take back seat. If the expected status includes full stop at the end, the sentence would be:

4. Should the status go missing when the metadata states “Sign & return document.”? (no comma before, since it is not a direct speech; full stop inside, as it is part of the quoted status)

From grammatical perspective the end looks a bit ugly, but again, if this should be technical documentation, that is less important than precision.

A person says

15th August 2022 at 7:16 pm

One extra thing: YOU MUST NOT USE THE WORD SAID IN A REPORTING CLAUSE. EVER. IT’S UNIMAGINATIVE.

no joke, it’s actually discouraged and even close to banned at my school

7th September 2023 at 1:49 pm

This is stupid. You shouldn’t use it in _every_ sentence, there should be variety, but outright banning it doesn’t make sense.

Case in point:

Book: ‘Pride and Prejudice’. Phrase to search: ‘,” said’ (comma, followed by quotation mark, followed by space, followed by word ‘said’). Number of occurrences: 211. Total number of ‘,”‘ (comma, followed by quotation mark) strings is 436, so “said” is used in almost 50% cases of direct speech of this type.

I don’t think it would be right for your school to ban Jane Austin, do you?

blaire says

30th March 2024 at 5:36 pm

How do you use names in direct speech?

Is it: “I really don’t like her dress,” Ashley said. or “I really don’t like her dress,” said Ashley.

I’ve seen both and I’m so confused which one is correct, please help me.

Andrew says

3rd April 2024 at 11:31 am

Hello and thanks for your comment and question.

After the direct speech, both are correct.

Before the direct speech, only the first one is correct:

Ashley said, “I really don’t like her dress.” (correct) Said Ashley, “I really don’t like her dress.” (wrong)

I hope that helps you. Andrew https://www.youtube.com/@CrownAcademyEnglish/

Follow us on social media

Privacy policy

8 ways to say that something is FREE in English
English idioms and expressions related to CRIME
How to use either and neither – English lesson
Learn English vocabulary – Vegetables
English Idioms related to speed

Direct and Indirect Speech: Useful Rules and Examples

Are you having trouble understanding the difference between direct and indirect speech? Direct speech is when you quote someone’s exact words, while indirect speech is when you report what someone said without using their exact words. This can be a tricky concept to grasp, but with a little practice, you’ll be able to use both forms of speech with ease.

Direct and Indirect Speech

When someone speaks, we can report what they said in two ways: direct speech and indirect speech. Direct speech is when we quote the exact words that were spoken, while indirect speech is when we report what was said without using the speaker’s exact words. Here’s an example:

Direct speech: “I love pizza,” said John. Indirect speech: John said that he loved pizza.

Using direct speech can make your writing more engaging and can help to convey the speaker’s tone and emotion. However, indirect speech can be useful when you want to summarize what someone said or when you don’t have the exact words that were spoken.

To change direct speech to indirect speech, you need to follow some rules. Firstly, you need to change the tense of the verb in the reported speech to match the tense of the reporting verb. Secondly, you need to change the pronouns and adverbs in the reported speech to match the new speaker. Here’s an example:

Direct speech: “I will go to the park,” said Sarah. Indirect speech: Sarah said that she would go to the park.

It’s important to note that when you use indirect speech, you need to use reporting verbs such as “said,” “told,” or “asked” to indicate who is speaking. Here’s an example:

Direct speech: “What time is it?” asked Tom. Indirect speech: Tom asked what time it was.

In summary, understanding direct and indirect speech is crucial for effective communication and writing. Direct speech can be used to convey the speaker’s tone and emotion, while indirect speech can be useful when summarizing what someone said. By following the rules for changing direct speech to indirect speech, you can accurately report what was said while maintaining clarity and readability in your writing.

Differences between Direct and Indirect Speech

When it comes to reporting speech, there are two ways to go about it: direct and indirect speech. Direct speech is when you report someone’s exact words, while indirect speech is when you report what someone said without using their exact words. Here are some of the key differences between direct and indirect speech:

Change of Pronouns

In direct speech, the pronouns used are those of the original speaker. However, in indirect speech, the pronouns have to be changed to reflect the perspective of the reporter. For example:

Direct speech: “I am going to the store,” said John.
Indirect speech: John said he was going to the store.

In the above example, the pronoun “I” changes to “he” in indirect speech.

Change of Tenses

Another major difference between direct and indirect speech is the change of tenses. In direct speech, the verb tense used is the same as that used by the original speaker. However, in indirect speech, the verb tense may change depending on the context. For example:

Direct speech: “I am studying for my exams,” said Sarah.
Indirect speech: Sarah said she was studying for her exams.

In the above example, the present continuous tense “am studying” changes to the past continuous tense “was studying” in indirect speech.

Change of Time and Place References

When reporting indirect speech, the time and place references may also change. For example:

Direct speech: “I will meet you at the park tomorrow,” said Tom.
Indirect speech: Tom said he would meet you at the park the next day.

In the above example, “tomorrow” changes to “the next day” in indirect speech.

Overall, it is important to understand the differences between direct and indirect speech to report speech accurately and effectively. By following the rules of direct and indirect speech, you can convey the intended message of the original speaker.

Converting Direct Speech Into Indirect Speech

When you need to report what someone said in your own words, you can use indirect speech. To convert direct speech into indirect speech, you need to follow a few rules.

Step 1: Remove the Quotation Marks

The first step is to remove the quotation marks that enclose the relayed text. This is because indirect speech does not use the exact words of the speaker.

Step 2: Use a Reporting Verb and a Linker

To indicate that you are reporting what someone said, you need to use a reporting verb such as “said,” “asked,” “told,” or “exclaimed.” You also need to use a linker such as “that” or “whether” to connect the reporting verb to the reported speech.

For example:

Direct speech: “I love ice cream,” said Mary.
Indirect speech: Mary said that she loved ice cream.

Step 3: Change the Tense of the Verb

When you use indirect speech, you need to change the tense of the verb in the reported speech to match the tense of the reporting verb.

Indirect speech: John said that he was going to the store.

Step 4: Change the Pronouns

You also need to change the pronouns in the reported speech to match the subject of the reporting verb.

Direct speech: “Are you busy now?” Tina asked me.
Indirect speech: Tina asked whether I was busy then.

By following these rules, you can convert direct speech into indirect speech and report what someone said in your own words.

Converting Indirect Speech Into Direct Speech

Converting indirect speech into direct speech involves changing the reported speech to its original form as spoken by the speaker. Here are the steps to follow when converting indirect speech into direct speech:

Identify the reporting verb: The first step is to identify the reporting verb used in the indirect speech. This will help you determine the tense of the direct speech.
Change the pronouns: The next step is to change the pronouns in the indirect speech to match the person speaking in the direct speech. For example, if the indirect speech is “She said that she was going to the store,” the direct speech would be “I am going to the store,” if you are the person speaking.
Change the tense: Change the tense of the verbs in the indirect speech to match the tense of the direct speech. For example, if the indirect speech is “He said that he would visit tomorrow,” the direct speech would be “He says he will visit tomorrow.”
Remove the reporting verb and conjunction: In direct speech, there is no need for a reporting verb or conjunction. Simply remove them from the indirect speech to get the direct speech.

Here is an example to illustrate the process:

Indirect Speech: John said that he was tired and wanted to go home.

Direct Speech: “I am tired and want to go home,” John said.

By following these steps, you can easily convert indirect speech into direct speech.

Examples of Direct and Indirect Speech

Direct and indirect speech are two ways to report what someone has said. Direct speech reports the exact words spoken by a person, while indirect speech reports the meaning of what was said. Here are some examples of both types of speech:

Direct Speech Examples

Direct speech is used when you want to report the exact words spoken by someone. It is usually enclosed in quotation marks and is often used in dialogue.

“I am going to the store,” said Sarah.
“It’s a beautiful day,” exclaimed John.
“Please turn off the lights,” Mom told me.
“I will meet you at the library,” said Tom.
“We are going to the beach tomorrow,” announced Mary.

Indirect Speech Examples

Indirect speech, also known as reported speech, is used to report what someone said without using their exact words. It is often used in news reports, academic writing, and in situations where you want to paraphrase what someone said.

Here are some examples of indirect speech:

Sarah said that she was going to the store.
John exclaimed that it was a beautiful day.
Mom told me to turn off the lights.
Tom said that he would meet me at the library.
Mary announced that they were going to the beach tomorrow.

In indirect speech, the verb tense may change to reflect the time of the reported speech. For example, “I am going to the store” becomes “Sarah said that she was going to the store.” Additionally, the pronouns and possessive adjectives may also change to reflect the speaker and the person being spoken about.

Overall, both direct and indirect speech are important tools for reporting what someone has said. By using these techniques, you can accurately convey the meaning of what was said while also adding your own interpretation and analysis.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is direct and indirect speech?

Direct and indirect speech refer to the ways in which we communicate what someone has said. Direct speech involves repeating the exact words spoken, using quotation marks to indicate that you are quoting someone. Indirect speech, on the other hand, involves reporting what someone has said without using their exact words.

How do you convert direct speech to indirect speech?

To convert direct speech to indirect speech, you need to change the tense of the verbs, pronouns, and time expressions. You also need to introduce a reporting verb, such as “said,” “told,” or “asked.” For example, “I love ice cream,” said Mary (direct speech) can be converted to “Mary said that she loved ice cream” (indirect speech).

What is the difference between direct speech and indirect speech?

The main difference between direct speech and indirect speech is that direct speech uses the exact words spoken, while indirect speech reports what someone has said without using their exact words. Direct speech is usually enclosed in quotation marks, while indirect speech is not.

What are some examples of direct and indirect speech?

Some examples of direct speech include “I am going to the store,” said John and “I love pizza,” exclaimed Sarah. Some examples of indirect speech include John said that he was going to the store and Sarah exclaimed that she loved pizza .

What are the rules for converting direct speech to indirect speech?

The rules for converting direct speech to indirect speech include changing the tense of the verbs, pronouns, and time expressions. You also need to introduce a reporting verb and use appropriate reporting verbs such as “said,” “told,” or “asked.”

What is a summary of direct and indirect speech?

Direct and indirect speech are two ways of reporting what someone has said. Direct speech involves repeating the exact words spoken, while indirect speech reports what someone has said without using their exact words. To convert direct speech to indirect speech, you need to change the tense of the verbs, pronouns, and time expressions and introduce a reporting verb.

Search form

Highest rated
Verb phrase generator
Test your grammar

Punctuation in direct speech

We use inverted commas (also called quotation marks, quotes or speech marks) to indicate direct speech. Double quotes (") are preferred in American English, while single quotes (') are more common in British English:

" I'm coming home late tonight, " she said. (American English) ' I'm coming home late tonight, ' she said. (British English)

If we quote within direct speech, we use the other style for the embedded quotation:

"She said, ' I'm coming home late tonight ', " recalled Jim. (American English) 'She said, " I'm coming home late tonight ", ' recalled Jim. (British English)

As can be seen in the examples above, a comma ( , ) is used at the end of the quotation, before the closing speech mark.

A comma is also used before the quotation if we start the sentence with the reporting clause. In this case the terminal full stop (.) comes before the closing speech mark:

She added , "Don't expect me before 11 . "

If the quotation is a question or exclamation, the terminal marks ( ? and ! ) also come before the closing speech marks:

"Hurry up ! " he shouted. She asked, "Am I late ? "

The quotation normally begins with a capital letter, except if it is interrupted by a reporting clause, in which case the first letter of the continuation is not capitalised:

" I 'm coming home late tonight," she said and added, " d on't expect me before 11."

Rate this page

Direct Speech or Quoted Speech

Introduction to direct speech or quoted speech.

Direct Speech, also known as Quoted Speech, is a common grammatical construction used in both written and spoken language. This tutorial serves as a comprehensive guide to mastering this important literary device. Let's start by understanding what direct speech is.

Table of Contents

Understanding Direct Speech

Direct speech refers to the exact wording of someone's comments or speech as it was spoken. In written text, direct speech usually appears in quotation marks or inverted commas to denote that the words were spoken or written by another person. The actual text of direct speech punctuated with a speech tag, which identifies the speaker and might provide additional context.

John said, "I love playing football."

In this example, "I love playing football," is the direct speech, and "John said," is the speech tag.

Formatting Direct Speech

Following are some standard rules regarding the formatting and punctuating of direct speech:

Rule 1: Opening and Closing Quotation Marks

Always use opening and closing quotation marks to indicate the start and end of the direct speech portion of the sentence. These could be double (“ ”) or single (‘ ’) quotation marks, depending on the convention of the media or publication.

"I am going home," said Maria.

Rule 2: Speech Tag Placement

The location of the speech tag can change, depending on the context and the intended effect. It can either be placed before, in between, or after the direct speech.

She said, "I am tired."
"I am," he said, "very hungry."
"Let's go to the park," suggested Tim.

Rule 3: Capitalization and Punctuation

In direct speech, every new spoken line starts with a capital letter. Also, when the speech tag is at the end of the sentence, the quoted sentence should end with a comma, question mark, or exclamation mark but not with a period.

John said, "Please pass the salt."
"Where are we going?" asked Mary.
"What a beautiful view!" exclaimed Susan.

Understanding the Speech Tag

The speech tag typically has two parts: the noun (or noun phrase) that refers to the speaker and the reporting verb (e.g., "said", "asked", "whispered") that characterizes the mode of speech. It's also possible to add adverbial modifiers to describe the manner of speech.

"I can't wait to play the game," Tom said excitedly.

Overriding Rules in Direct Speech

While the rules mentioned above can guide you in punctuating most direct speeches correctly, some exceptions or overriding rules can alter punctuation and capitalization. Here are some examples:

Rule 1: Interrupted Speech

If the speech tag interrupts the direct speech, both parts of the speech would begin with a lowercase letter, assuming they form a single sentence.

"I can't," she whispered, "stand to see him upset."

Rule 2: Consecutive Sentences

When a character speaks consecutive sentences, start the second one with a capital letter.

"Please leave," she said. "I need to be alone."

Concluding Remarks

Mastering direct speech or quoted speech can enhance your writing skills tremendously, helping you write compelling dialogue and effectively integrate quotes in your work. By following the guidelines set in this tutorial, you'll be well on your way to using direct speech like a pro. Happy writing!

Practice Exercises:

Rewrite the following sentences with appropriate use of quoted speech:
Sam said that he was too tired to study.
Jane thought that it was a splendid idea.
He didn't know where she was going.
Use direct speech to write a conversation between two characters about their weekend plans.

Some nouns have same singular and plural forms or have plural ending (-s) - List

Reported speech: direct speech

Direct speech is a representation of the actual words someone said. A direct speech report usually has a reporting verb in the past simple. The most common reporting verb is said . The reporting clause may come first or second.

The reporting clause may sometimes come in the middle of the reported clause, especially in literary styles:

“No,” she said , “I’ve never seen it before.”

‘Was it,’ he asked , ‘the first time you had spoken to Mrs Dalton?’

We can use adverbs with the reporting verb to describe the way someone said something. This is more common when the reporting clause comes second:

“I will not accept it!” he said angrily .

‘Can I speak to the doctor?’ she asked rather nervously .

Reported speech: punctuation

Reported speech: reporting and reported clauses

Direct speech: inversion of subject and reporting verb

In narratives, especially novels and short stories, when the reporting clause comes second, we often invert the subject (s) and reporting verb (v):

“Things have always been the same in this village,” [V] said [S] the old man .

‘Hold on! I’m coming!’ [V] cried [S] Maurice .

Direct speech: present simple and continuous reporting verbs

Informal narratives.

In informal conversation, we sometimes use the present simple in the reporting clause. This makes the direct speech more vivid and dramatic:

So then this guy says , “I’ve got something for you. Come over here.” And he picked up a box and he says , “Open that.”

We can make the direct speech even more vivid and dramatic by using the present continuous. This is very informal:

And he’s looking at me and he ’s asking , “Who are you?” and I said, “I’m your nephew” and he ’s mumbling , “I don’t know you. I’ve never seen you before in my life.”

In very informal conversation, people sometimes use says as a reporting verb for all persons ( I, you, she, he, we, they ):

She says , ‘What’s going on here?’ and I says , ‘Nothing. There’s nothing happening – everything’s okay.’

Many speakers consider the above examples to be incorrect. This applies especially to the use of says with all persons.

Newspaper headlines

We also use the present simple in newspaper headlines. This makes the reported words more dramatic:

‘I WON’T RESIGN,’ SAYS MINISTER

Say or tell ?

Word of the Day

doggie day care

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

a place where owners can leave their dogs when they are at work or away from home in the daytime, or the care the dogs receive when they are there

Dead ringers and peas in pods (Talking about similarities, Part 2)

Learn more with +Plus

Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
English–Dutch Dutch–English
English–French French–English
English–German German–English
English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
English–Italian Italian–English
English–Japanese Japanese–English
English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
English–Polish Polish–English
English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
English–Spanish Spanish–English
English–Swedish Swedish–English
Dictionary +Plus Word Lists

Add ${headword} to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Direct Speech Definition and Examples

Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms

ThoughtCo / Vin Ganapathy

An Introduction to Punctuation
Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
B.A., English, State University of New York

Direct speech is a report of the exact words used by a speaker or writer. Contrast with indirect speech . Also called direct discourse .

Direct speech is usually placed inside quotation marks and accompanied by a reporting verb , signal phrase , or quotative frame.

Examples and Observations

I went in search of the good beer. Along the way, I caught an intriguing snippet of conversation in the sunroom: “ So if I win at that table, I’ll go on to the World Series, ” said the mom I know as some kind of government contractor. “ World Series? ” you ask. “ Of Poker, ” she replied. “ I went last year. ” Whoa. (Petula Dvorak, "White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner Has Nothing on Suburban Fete." The Washington Post , May 3, 2012)
" How old are you? " the man asked. "The little boy, at the eternal question, looked at the man suspiciously for a minute and then said, " Twenty-six. Eight hunnerd and forty eighty. " His mother lifted her head from the book. " Four ," she said, smiling fondly at the little boy. " Is that so? " the man said politely to the little boy. " Twenty-six. " He nodded his head at the mother across the aisle. " Is that your mother? " The little boy leaned forward to look and then said, " Yes, that's her. " " What's your name? " the man asked. The little boy looked suspicious again. " Mr. Jesus, " he said. (Shirley Jackson, "The Witch." The Lottery and Other Stories . Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1949)

Direct Speech and Indirect Speech

"While direct speech purports to give a verbatim rendition of the words that were spoken, indirect speech is more variable in claiming to represent a faithful report of the content or content and form of the words that were spoken. It is important to note, however, that the question of whether and how faithful a given speech report actually is, is of a quite different order. Both direct and indirect speech are stylistic devices for conveying messages. The former is used as if the words being used were those of another, which are therefore pivoted to a deictic center different from the speech situation of the report. Indirect speech, in contrast, has its deictic center in the report situation and is variable with respect to the extent that faithfulness to the linguistic form of what was said is being claimed." (Florian Coulmas, "Reported Speech: Some General Issues." Direct and Indirect Speech , ed. by F. Coulmas. Walter de Gruyter, 1986)

Direct Speech as Drama

When a speaking event is reported via direct speech forms, it is possible to include many features that dramatize the way in which an utterance was produced. The quotative frame can also include verbs that indicate the speaker's manner of expression (e.g. cry, exclaim, gasp ), voice quality (e.g. mutter, scream, whisper ), and type of emotion (e.g. giggle, laugh, sob ). It can also include adverbs (e.g. angrily, brightly, cautiously, hoarsely, quickly, slowly ) and descriptions of the reported speaker's style and tone of voice, as illustrated in [5].

[5a] "I have some good news," she whispered in a mischievous way. [5b] "What is it?" he snapped immediately. [5c] "Can't you guess?" she giggled. [5d] "Oh, no! Don't tell me you're pregnant" he wailed, with a whining nasal sound in his voice.

The literary style of the examples in [5] is associated with an older tradition. In contemporary novels, there is often no indication, other than separate lines, of which character is speaking, as the direct speech forms are presented like a dramatic script, one after the other. (George Yule, Explaining English Grammar . Oxford University Press, 1998)

Like : Signaling Direct Speech in Conversation

An interesting new way of signaling direct speech has developed among younger English speakers and is spreading from the United States to Britain. This occurs entirely in spoken conversation, rather than in writing.

- . . . Though the construction is new [in 1994] and not yet standard, its meaning is very clear. It seems to be used more often to report thoughts rather than actual speech. (James R. Hurford, Grammar: A Student's Guide . Cambridge University Press, 1994)

Differences in Reported Speech

Even in the days of audio and video recording, there can be surprising differences in direct quotations attributed to the same source. A simple comparison of the same speech event covered in different newspapers can illustrate the problem. When his country was not invited to a meeting of the Commonwealth of Nations in 2003, the president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, said the following in a televised speech, according to The New York Times :

"If our sovereignty is what we have to lose to be re-admitted into the Commonwealth," Mr. Mugabe was quoted as saying on Friday, "we will say goodbye to the Commonwealth. And perhaps the time has now come to say so." (Wines 2003)

And the following according to an Associated Press story in the Philadelphia Inquirer .

"If our sovereignty is to be real, then we will say goodbye to the Commonwealth, [sic; second quotation mark missing] Mugabe said in remarks broadcast on state television. "Perhaps the time has come to say so." (Shaw 2003)

Did Mugabe produce both versions of these comments? If he gave only one, which published version is accurate? Do the versions have different sources? Are the differences in the exact wording significant or not? (Jeanne Fahnestock, Rhetorical Style: The Uses of Language in Persuasion . Oxford University Press, 2011)

Indirect Speech Definition and Examples
How to Use Indirect Quotations in Writing for Complete Clarity
Reported Speech
French Grammar: Direct and Indirect Speech
Definition and Examples of Direct Quotations
How to Teach Reported Speech
Dialogue Guide Definition and Examples
Constructed Dialogue in Storytelling and Conversation
Quotation and Quote
Using Reported Speech: ESL Lesson Plan
Indirect Speech in the English Language
What Is Attribution in Writing?
What Are Reporting Verbs in English Grammar?
Indirect Question: Definition and Examples
Backshift (Sequence-of-Tense Rule in Grammar)
Question Mark Definition and Examples

Direct Speech and Reported Speech

There are two ways to report what someone says or thinks:

Direct Speech

Direct speech shows a person's exact words. Quotation marks ("....") are a sign that the words are the exact words that a person used.

Hai asked, "Where are you going?"

Manny replied, "I'm going home."

Reported Speech

Reported speech puts the speaker's words or ideas into a sentence without quotation marks. Noun clauses are usually used. In reported speech, the reader does not assume that the words are the speaker's exact words; often, they are a paraphrase of the speaker's words.

Hai asked Manny where he was going.

Manny said he was going home.

Note: Use of the word "that" is optional in reported speech. Both of the following sentences are correct:

The child said that they were lost.
The child said they were lost.

Verb Tense in Reported Speech

When you report what someone said in the past, you usually shift back a verb tense from the tense the speaker used. These are some examples of verb shifts:

simple present to simple past
past to past perfect
present perfect to past perfect

*If the reported information is still true, you may use the same tense.

Questions in Reported Speech

Word order: The word order in a reported question is the same as in a statement. The subject comes before the verb.

Question: Are you ready?
Statement: I am ready.
Question in reported speech: She wanted to know if I was ready.

Punctuation: If the sentence is a statement, end it with a period even if it contains a reported question.

Statement containing a reported question: She asked me what I thought of the book.
Question containing a reported question: Did she ask what you thought of the book?

Yes or No Questions

To change a yes/no question to a noun clause in reported speech, introduce the noun clause "if" or "whether." "Whether or not" may also be used.

Information Questions

To change an information question to a noun clause in reported speech, begin the noun clause with the question word and remember to use sentence word order.

The person who is reporting what someone said is usually different from the person who made the original statement. As a result, pronouns in reported speech often change.

Place and Time

Changes in the situation between direct and reported speech can result in changes to words indicating place and time.

Recommend and Suggest

The subjunctive, or base, form of the verb (no tense, without "to") is used in reported speech when the main verb is "recommend" or "suggest."

Infinitives

Infinitives (to + the simple form of the verb) may sometimes be used instead of noun clauses, especially in commands and in requests for action or permission.

Commands can be reported two ways:

A noun clause with a modal (usually "should")
An infinitive

Requests for Action or Permission

Requests for action or permission can be reported two ways:

A noun clause with "if"

Direct and Indirect Speech: The Ultimate Guide

Direct and Indirect Speech are the two ways of reporting what someone said. The use of both direct and indirect speech is crucial in effective communication and writing. Understanding the basics of direct and indirect speech is important, but mastering the advanced techniques of these two forms of speech can take your writing to the next level. In this article, we will explore direct and indirect speech in detail and provide you with a comprehensive guide that covers everything you need to know.

Table of Contents

What is Direct Speech?

Direct speech is a way of reporting what someone said using their exact words. Direct speech is typically enclosed in quotation marks to distinguish it from the writer’s own words. Here are some examples of direct speech:

“I am going to the store,” said John.
“I love ice cream,” exclaimed Mary.
“The weather is beautiful today,” said Sarah.

In direct speech, the exact words spoken by the speaker are used, and the tense and pronouns used in the quote are maintained. Punctuation is also important in direct speech. Commas are used to separate the quote from the reporting verb, and full stops, question marks, or exclamation marks are used at the end of the quote, depending on the tone of the statement.

What is Indirect Speech?

Indirect speech is a way of reporting what someone said using a paraphrased version of their words. In indirect speech, the writer rephrases the speaker’s words and incorporates them into the sentence. Here are some examples of indirect speech:

John said that he was going to the store.
Mary exclaimed that she loved ice cream.
Sarah said that the weather was beautiful that day.

In indirect speech, the tense and pronouns may change, depending on the context of the sentence. Indirect speech is not enclosed in quotation marks, and the use of reporting verbs is important.

Differences Between Direct and Indirect Speech

The structure of direct and indirect speech is different. Direct speech is presented in quotation marks, whereas indirect speech is incorporated into the sentence without quotation marks. The tenses and pronouns used in direct and indirect speech also differ. In direct speech, the tense and pronouns used in the quote are maintained, whereas, in indirect speech, they may change depending on the context of the sentence. Reporting verbs are also used differently in direct and indirect speech. In direct speech, they are used to introduce the quote, while in indirect speech, they are used to report what was said.

How to Convert Direct Speech to Indirect Speech

Converting direct speech to indirect speech involves changing the tense, pronouns, and reporting verb. Here are the steps involved in converting direct speech to indirect speech:

Remove the quotation marks.
Use a reporting verb to introduce the indirect speech.
Change the tense of the verb in the quote if necessary.
Change the pronouns if necessary.
Use the appropriate conjunction if necessary.

Here is an example of converting direct speech to indirect speech:

Direct speech: “I am going to the store,” said John. Indirect speech: John said that he was going to the store.

How to Convert Indirect Speech to Direct Speech

Converting indirect speech to direct speech involves using the same tense, pronouns, and reporting verb as the original quote. Here are the steps involved in converting indirect speech to direct speech:

Remove the reporting verb.
Use quotation marks to enclose the direct speech.
Maintain the tense of the verb in the quote.
Use the same pronouns as the original quote.

Here is an example of converting indirect speech to direct speech:

Indirect speech: John said that he was going to the store. Direct speech: “I am going to the store,” said John.

Advanced Techniques for Using Direct and Indirect Speech

Using direct and indirect speech effectively can add depth and complexity to your writing. Here are some advanced techniques for using direct and indirect speech:

Blending Direct and Indirect Speech

Blending direct and indirect speech involves using both forms of speech in a single sentence or paragraph. This technique can create a more engaging and realistic narrative. Here is an example:

“Sarah said, ‘I can’t believe it’s already winter.’ Her friend replied that she loved the cold weather and was excited about the snowboarding season.”

In this example, direct speech is used to convey Sarah’s words, and indirect speech is used to convey her friend’s response.

Using Reported Questions

Reported questions are a form of indirect speech that convey a question someone asked without using quotation marks. Reported questions often use reporting verbs like “asked” or “wondered.” Here is an example:

“John asked if I had seen the movie last night.”

In this example, the question “Have you seen the movie last night?” is reported indirectly without using quotation marks.

Using Direct Speech to Convey Emotion

Direct speech can be used to convey emotion more effectively than indirect speech. When using direct speech to convey emotion, it’s important to choose the right tone and emphasis. Here is an example:

“She screamed, ‘I hate you!’ as she slammed the door.”

In this example, the use of direct speech and the exclamation mark convey the intense emotion of the moment.

When should I use direct speech?
Direct speech should be used when you want to report what someone said using their exact words. Direct speech is appropriate when you want to convey the speaker’s tone, emphasis, and emotion.
When should I use indirect speech?
Indirect speech should be used when you want to report what someone said using a paraphrased version of their words. Indirect speech is appropriate when you want to provide information without conveying the speaker’s tone, emphasis, or emotion.
What are some common reporting verbs?
Some common reporting verbs include “said,” “asked,” “exclaimed,” “whispered,” “wondered,” and “suggested.”

Direct and indirect speech are important tools for effective communication and writing. Understanding the differences between these two forms of speech and knowing how to use them effectively can take your writing to the next level. By using advanced techniques like blending direct and indirect speech and using direct speech to convey emotion, you can create engaging and realistic narratives that resonate with your readers.

What Is The Parts of Speech? Definitions, Types & Examples

Simple Subject and Predicate Examples With Answers

100 Question Tags Examples with Answers

What is WH Question Words? Definition and Examples

List of Contractions in English With Examples

14 Punctuation Marks With Examples

Add comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

He Said, She Said: Mastering Reported Speech in English (Both Direct and Indirect)

“Reported speech” might sound fancy, but it isn’t that complicated.

It’s just how you talk about what someone said.

Luckily, it’s pretty simple to learn the basics in English, beginning with the two types of reported speech: direct (reporting the exact words someone said) and indirect (reporting what someone said without using their exact words ).

Read this post to learn how to report speech, with tips and tricks for each, plenty of examples and a resources section that tells you about real world resources you can use to practice reporting speech.

How to Report Direct Speech

How to report indirect speech, reporting questions in indirect speech, verb tenses in indirect reported speech, simple present, present continuous, present perfect, present perfect continuous, simple past, past continuous, past perfect, past perfect continuous, simple future, future continuous, future perfect, future perfect continuous, authentic resources for practicing reported speech, novels and short stories, native english videos, celebrity profiles.

Download: This blog post is available as a convenient and portable PDF that you can take anywhere. Click here to get a copy. (Download)

Direct speech refers to the exact words that a person says. You can “report” direct speech in a few different ways.

To see how this works, let’s pretend that I (Elisabeth) told some people that I liked green onions.

Here are some different ways that those people could explain what I said:

Direct speech: “I like green onions,” Elisabeth said.

Direct speech: “I like green onions,” she told me. — In this sentence, we replace my name (Elisabeth) with the pronoun she.

In all of these examples, the part that was said is between quotation marks and is followed by a noun (“she” or “Elisabeth”) and a verb. Each of these verbs (“to say,” “to tell [someone],” “to explain”) are ways to describe someone talking. You can use any verb that refers to speech in this way.

You can also put the noun and verb before what was said.

Direct speech: Elisabeth said, “I like spaghetti.”

The example above would be much more likely to be said out loud than the first set of examples.

Here’s a conversation that might happen between two people:

1: Did you ask her if she liked coffee?

2: Yeah, I asked her.

1: What did she say?

2. She said, “Yeah, I like coffee.” ( Direct speech )

Usually, reporting of direct speech is something you see in writing. It doesn’t happen as often when people are talking to each other.

Direct reported speech often happens in the past. However, there are all kinds of stories, including journalism pieces, profiles and fiction, where you might see speech reported in the present as well.

This is sometimes done when the author of the piece wants you to feel that you’re experiencing events in the present moment.

For example, a profile of Kristen Stewart in Vanity Fair has a funny moment that describes how the actress isn’t a very good swimmer:

Direct speech: “I don’t want to enter the water, ever,” she says. “If everyone’s going in the ocean, I’m like, no.”

Here, the speech is reported as though it’s in the present tense (“she says”) instead of in the past (“she said”).

In writing of all kinds, direct reported speech is often split into two or more parts, as it is above.

Here’s an example from Lewis Carroll’s “ Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland ,” where the speech is even more split up:

Direct speech: “I won’t indeed!” said Alice, in a great hurry to change the subject of conversation. “Are you—are you fond—of—of dogs?” The Mouse did not answer, so Alice went on eagerly: “There is such a nice little dog near our house I should like to show you!”

Reporting indirect speech is what happens when you explain what someone said without using their exact words.

Let’s start with an example of direct reported speech like those used above.

Direct speech: Elisabeth said, “I like coffee.”

As indirect reported speech, it looks like this:

Indirect speech: Elisabeth said she liked coffee.

You can see that the subject (“I”) has been changed to “she,” to show who is being spoken about. If I’m reporting the direct speech of someone else, and this person says “I,” I’d repeat their sentence exactly as they said it. If I’m reporting this person’s speech indirectly to someone else, however, I’d speak about them in the third person—using “she,” “he” or “they.”

You may also notice that the tense changes here: If “I like coffee” is what she said, this can become “She liked coffee” in indirect speech.

However, you might just as often hear someone say something like, “She said she likes coffee.” Since people’s likes and preferences tend to change over time and not right away, it makes sense to keep them in the present tense.

Indirect speech often uses the word “that” before what was said:

Indirect speech: She said that she liked coffee.

There’s no real difference between “She said she liked coffee” and “She said that she liked coffee.” However, using “that” can help make the different parts of the sentence clearer.

Let’s look at a few other examples:

Indirect speech: I said I was going outside today.

Indirect speech: They told me that they wanted to order pizza.

Indirect speech: He mentioned it was raining.

Indirect speech: She said that her father was coming over for dinner.

You can see an example of reporting indirect speech in the funny video “ Cell Phone Crashing .” In this video, a traveler in an airport sits down next to another traveler talking on his cell phone. The first traveler pretends to be talking to someone on his phone, but he appears to be responding to the second traveler’s conversation, which leads to this exchange:

Woman: “Are you answering what I’m saying?”

Man “No, no… I’m on the phone with somebody, sorry. I don’t mean to be rude.” (Direct speech)

Woman: “What was that?”

Man: “I just said I was on the phone with somebody.” (Indirect speech)

When reporting questions in indirect speech, you can use words like “whether” or “if” with verbs that show questioning, such as “to ask” or “to wonder.”

Direct speech: She asked, “Is that a new restaurant?”

Indirect speech: She asked if that was a new restaurant.

In any case where you’re reporting a question, you can say that someone was “wondering” or “wanted to know” something. Notice that these verbs don’t directly show that someone asked a question. They don’t describe an action that happened at a single point in time. But you can usually assume that someone was wondering or wanted to know what they asked.

Indirect speech: She was wondering if that was a new restaurant.

Indirect speech: She wanted to know whether that was a new restaurant.

It can be tricky to know how to use tenses when reporting indirect speech. Let’s break it down, tense by tense.

Sometimes, indirect speech “ backshifts ,” or moves one tense further back into the past. We already saw this in the example from above:

Direct speech: She said, “I like coffee.”

Indirect speech: She said she liked coffee.

Also as mentioned above, backshifting doesn’t always happen. This might seem confusing, but it isn’t that difficult to understand once you start using reported speech regularly.

What tense you use in indirect reported speech often just depends on when what you’re reporting happened or was true.

Let’s look at some examples of how direct speech in certain tenses commonly changes (or doesn’t) when it’s reported as indirect speech.

To learn about all the English tenses (or for a quick review), check out this post .

Direct speech: I said, “I play video games.”

Indirect speech: I said that I played video games (simple past) or I said that I play video games (simple present).

Backshifting into the past or staying in the present here can change the meaning slightly. If you use the first example, it’s unclear whether or not you still play video games; all we know is that you said you played them in the past.

If you use the second example, though, you probably still play video games (unless you were lying for some reason).

However, the difference in meaning is so small, you can use either one and you won’t have a problem.

Direct speech: I said, “I’m playing video games.”

Indirect speech: I said that I was playing video games (past continuous) or I said that I’m playing video games (present continuous).

In this case, you’d likely use the first example if you were telling a story about something that happened in the past.

You could use the second example to repeat or stress what you just said. For example:

Hey, want to go for a walk?

Direct speech: No, I’m playing video games.

But it’s such a nice day!

Indirect speech: I said that I’m playing video games!

Direct speech: Marie said, “I have read that book.”

Indirect speech: Marie said that she had read that book (past perfect) or Marie said that she has read that book (present perfect).

The past perfect is used a lot in writing and other kinds of narration. This is because it helps point out an exact moment in time when something was true.

The past perfect isn’t quite as useful in conversation, where people are usually more interested in what’s true now. So, in a lot of cases, people would use the second example above when speaking.

Direct speech: She said, “I have been watching that show.”

Indirect speech: She said that she had been watching that show (past perfect continuous) or She said that she has been watching that show (present perfect continuous).

These examples are similar to the others above. You could use the first example whether or not this person was still watching the show, but if you used the second example, it’d probably seem like you either knew or guessed that she was still watching it.

Direct speech: You told me, “I charged my phone.”

Indirect speech: You told me that you had charged your phone (past perfect) or You told me that you charged your phone (simple past).

Here, most people would probably just use the second example, because it’s simpler, and gets across the same meaning.

Direct speech: You told me, “I was charging my phone.”

Indirect speech: You told me that you had been charging your phone (past perfect continuous) or You told me that you were charging your phone (past continuous).

Here, the difference is between whether you had been charging your phone before or were charging your phone at the time. However, a lot of people would still use the second example in either situation.

Direct speech: They explained, “We had bathed the cat on Wednesday.”

Indirect speech: They explained that they had bathed the cat on Wednesday. (past perfect)

Once we start reporting the past perfect tenses, we don’t backshift because there are no tenses to backshift to.

So in this case, it’s simple. The tense stays exactly as is. However, many people might simplify even more and use the simple past, saying, “They explained that they bathed the cat on Wednesday.”

Direct speech: They said, “The cat had been going outside and getting dirty for a long time!”

Indirect speech: They said that the cat had been going outside and getting dirty for a long time. (past perfect continuous)

Again, we don’t shift the tense back here; we leave it like it is. And again, a lot of people would report this speech as, “They said the cat was going outside and getting dirty for a long time.” It’s just a simpler way to say almost the same thing.

Direct speech: I told you, “I will be here no matter what.”

Indirect speech: I told you that I would be here no matter what. (present conditional)

At this point, we don’t just have to think about tenses, but grammatical mood, too. However, the idea is still pretty simple. We use the conditional (with “would”) to show that at the time the words were spoken, the future was uncertain.

In this case, you could also say, “I told you that I will be here no matter what,” but only if you “being here” is still something that you expect to happen in the future.

What matters here is what’s intended. Since this example shows a person reporting their own speech, it’s more likely that they’d want to stress the truth of their own intention, and so they might be more likely to use “will” than “would.”

But if you were reporting someone else’s words, you might be more likely to say something like, “She told me that she would be here no matter what.”

Direct speech: I said, “I’ll be waiting for your call.”

Indirect speech: I said that I would be waiting for your call. (conditional continuous)

These are similar to the above examples, but apply to a continuous or ongoing action.

Direct speech: She said, “I will have learned a lot about myself.”

Indirect speech: She said that she would have learned a lot about herself (conditional perfect) or She said that she will have learned a lot about herself (future perfect).

In this case, using the conditional (as in the first example) suggests that maybe a certain event didn’t happen, or something didn’t turn out as expected.

However, that might not always be the case, especially if this was a sentence that was written in an article or a work of fiction. The second example, however, suggests that the future that’s being talked about still hasn’t happened yet.

Direct speech: She said, “By next Tuesday, I will have been staying inside every day for the past month.”

Indirect speech: She said that by next Tuesday, she would have been staying inside every day for the past month (perfect continuous conditional) or She said that by next Tuesday, she will have been staying inside every day for the past month (past perfect continuous).

Again, in this case, the first example might suggest that the event didn’t happen. Maybe the person didn’t stay inside until next Tuesday! However, this could also just be a way of explaining that at the time she said this in the past, it was uncertain whether she really would stay inside for as long as she thought.

The second example, on the other hand, would only be used if next Tuesday hadn’t happened yet.

Let’s take a look at where you can find resources for practicing reporting speech in the real world.

One of the most common uses for reported speech is in fiction. You’ll find plenty of reported speech in novels and short stories . Look for books that have long sections of text with dialogue marked by quotation marks (“…”). Once you understand the different kinds of reported speech, you can look for it in your reading and use it in your own writing.

Writing your own stories is a great way to get even better at understanding reported speech.

One of the best ways to practice any aspect of English is to watch native English videos. By watching English speakers use the language, you can understand how reported speech is used in real world situations.

FluentU takes authentic videos—like music videos, movie trailers, news and inspiring talks—and turns them into personalized language learning lessons.

You can try FluentU for free for 2 weeks. Check out the website or download the iOS app or Android app.

P.S. Click here to take advantage of our current sale! (Expires at the end of this month.)

Try FluentU for FREE!

Celebrity profiles, which you can find in print magazines and online, can help you find and practice reported speech, too. Celebrity profiles are stories that focus on a famous person. They often include some kind of interview. The writer will usually spend some time describing the person and then mention things that they say; this is when they use reported speech.

Because many of these profiles are written in the present tense, they can help you get used to the basics of reported speech without having to worry too much about different verb tenses.

While the above may seem really complicated, it isn’t that difficult to start using reported speech.

Mastering it may be a little difficult, but the truth is that many, many people who speak English as a first language struggle with it, too!

Reported speech is flexible, and even if you make mistakes, there’s a good chance that no one will notice.

Enter your e-mail address to get your free PDF!

We hate SPAM and promise to keep your email address safe

Direct Speech Definition And Examples (FREE Worksheet)

The other day, my friend walked into class late and out of breath. As he sat down, he gasped, “I swear, a squirrel just chased me across the park!”

Yup, a squirrel! We all cracked up.

Now, notice how I used his exact words. That’s what we’re talking about today—direct speech.

So, stick around, and let’s dive into this fascinating topic together!

What Is Direct Speech?

In a nutshell, direct speech is when we use the same, exact words that someone else said.

It’s like a live broadcast of their thoughts!

Spot those quotation marks (‘…’) around what my friend said? Those are super important when we’re dealing with direct speech. They’re like little fences that say, “Hey, everything inside here is exactly what was said, no edits!”

But hang tight; we’ll dive more into this soon.

Direct Speech Rules

Direct speech has some rules, just like most things in English! But don’t worry; they’re pretty straightforward.

Quotation Marks : When using direct speech, we always put the speaker’s words in quotation marks. These could be single (‘…’) or double (“…”), depending on what you prefer or what your teacher asks for.
Capital Letters : The first word in direct speech starts with a capital letter. For example, John said, “I am happy.”
End Punctuation : If there’s a full stop (.) or a question mark (?), or an exclamation mark (!) in the direct speech, it goes inside the quotation marks. Like this: He said, “What a lovely day!”

When Do We Use Direct Speech?

Alright, so you might be wondering, “When do I actually use direct speech?” Well, my friend, you’d be surprised how often it comes in handy!

Direct speech isn’t just for sharing hilarious squirrel chase stories. It’s a great tool to make your stories and writing more interesting . It can make your reader feel like they’re right there, listening to the conversation.

So whether you’re penning a tale of brave knights, retelling a funny family dinner conversation , or reporting a heated debate in your school council, direct speech is your secret weapon to add life and excitement to your writing !

Reporting Verbs In Direct Speech

You know what’s cool about using direct speech?

We have these things called ‘reporting verbs ‘ to help introduce the speaker’s words.

“Said” is the most common one, but hey, it’s far from being the only one! Variety is the spice of life, right?

Imagine you’re sharing what your teacher said about your upcoming test. Sure, you could say: “My teacher said, ‘We have a test next Monday.'” But it could be much more fun and precise if you use a different reporting verb, like “announced” or “declared.” So, you could write: “My teacher announced, ‘We have a test next Monday.'”

Reporting verbs can be sneaky. They don’t just tell us that someone spoke; they can also tell us a bit about how or why they spoke. “Whispered,” “shouted,” and “muttered” give us an idea about the volume.

“Complained,” “joked,” and “bragged” tell us something about the speaker’s attitude.

So, next time you’re using direct speech, try swapping out “said” for a different reporting verb. You might be surprised at how much more colorful and interesting your writing becomes!

Direct Speech Examples

Let’s see some examples of direct speech that speak to your everyday life!

Picture yourself at a sleepover with your best friends, and someone suggests playing Truth or Dare . Your friend, Jake, gets really excited and yells, “Let’s start with truth or dare questions!” See that? You’ve just used direct speech to share Jake’s excitement!

Then, later in the evening, you all decide to switch games. Your friend, Mia, declares, “ Never have I ever skipped a day of school!” That’s another example of direct speech right there.

The next day at school, your English teacher introduces a fun activity with tongue twisters . She instructs the class, “Repeat after me: ‘How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?'” That’s direct speech, giving a lively peek into your classroom.

Let’s not forget about that homework that’s due tomorrow. You might overhear a classmate confess, “I always procrastinate until the last minute to do my homework.” Well, that’s direct speech too!

And, for the final touch, imagine your school principal sharing an inspirational quote during assembly. He could say, “Remember the wise words of Albert Einstein, ‘Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think.'” With direct speech, you’re able to convey the quote exactly as it was given.

Differences Between Indirect And Direct Speech

Here’s a table comparing direct and indirect speech. It’s always great to see things side by side!

Indirect To Direct Speech Exercises

Change the following sentences from indirect speech to direct speech.

He said that he liked the movie.
She told me that she would come later.
They said they had already finished their homework.
The teacher said that the exam would be next week.
“I like the movie,” he said.
“I will come later,” she told me.
“We have already finished our homework,” they said.
“The exam will be next week,” the teacher said.

Direct Speech Punctuation Worksheet With Answers

Add the appropriate punctuation marks to the following sentences to correctly punctuate the direct speech.

She exclaimed “I can’t believe it”
“What a beautiful day” he said
“Did you see that” asked Sarah
He said I can’t wait to go on vacation .
“I love ice cream” said Emily “especially chocolate”
She exclaimed, “I can’t believe it.”
“What a beautiful day!” he said.
“Did you see that?” asked Sarah.
He said, “I can’t wait to go on vacation.”
“I love ice cream,” said Emily, “especially chocolate.”

FAQs On Direct Speech

Let’s answer some of the most common questions you might have about direct speech.

What Are 2 Examples Of Direct Speech?

1. Alice said, “I can’t wait for the school trip next week!” 2. The coach yelled, “Good job, team! Let’s keep this energy up!”

What Is An Example Of Direct And Indirect Speech?

Direct Speech : “I’m really tired,” John told me. Indirect Speech : John told me that he was really tired.

How Do You Write A Direct Speech?

Writing direct speech is as easy as 1-2-3! 1. Start with the speaker’s name or a description of them. 2. Then, use a reporting verb (like ‘said,’ ‘shouted,’ and ‘whispered’). 3. Finally, write the exact words the speaker said inside quotation marks. Here’s an example: John whispered, “I think there’s a monster under my bed!”

How Do You Teach Direct And Indirect Speech?

Teaching direct and indirect speech can be super fun, especially if you use interactive methods. Here are a few ideas: a. Role Play : Have students act out a conversation using both direct and indirect speech. This can help them understand the differences. b. Conversion Game : Give students sentences in direct speech and ask them to convert it into indirect speech, and vice versa. c. Storytelling : Encourage students to write stories that use both direct and indirect speech. This can help them practice using these techniques in a creative context.

Final Thoughts On Direct Speech

We’ve reached the end of our exploration into direct speech. Hopefully, you now have a solid grasp of what it is and how it works. Now, it’s your turn to put it into practice!

If you found this information helpful or interesting, don’t keep it to yourself! Share this blog with your friends, colleagues, or anyone who might benefit from understanding direct speech better. Sharing is caring, after all!

Also, if you want to stay up to date with more language tips, tricks, and resources, be sure to follow Hi English Hub on Pinterest and Twitter .

Direct Speech – Examples

In English grammar, sentences are the key part that helps us convey our thoughts and ideas. Without sentences, it would be impossible for us to interact, state, or speak out our thoughts. But sentences can be of different types. Different sentences convey different information in their own unique ways.

Today, we will learn about one such unique sentence structure that works on its own functionality, the direct speech . In general, direct speech can be defined as a sentence where the exact words used by some speaker or writer are used to convey the message. Here, we make a sentence that uses the same words from the original speech that some person, at some point, spoke.

However, there are certain rules that we need to follow while using a direct speech sentence. If you are not aware of them, refer to the explanations below and enlighten yourself with every rule to avoid confusion.

What is a Direct speech?

By definition, direct speech is a sentence in which the exact words used or spoken by a speaker is presented. This is a sentence structure in which the words of a person are reproduced in speech marks. This is especially used to make the readers feel engaged or quote something very important.

In simple words, direct speech is the sentence where we see quotation marks or inverted commas containing a certain set of words in the grammatical tense of when it was originally spoken. That means the message that someone at some point has written or spoken is conveyed exactly in the same manner in the present.

This form of sentence structure is used for various different purposes. However, the most common use of direct speech is storytelling or quoting a thought. It makes dialogue presentation easy and helps understand characters more interestingly and engagingly.

If you are still confused, look at the examples below to understand easily:

“Where are you going?” said Aunt Polly.
“Oh my god, I never thought this would happen again!” said our teacher angrily.
“I think I will drop today’s plan,” replied Sarah, sighing.
Harry said, “I am not well. I cannot come.”
Our teacher yelled, “Keep quiet, or I’ll deduct all your marks.”
“Did you play the guitar?” asked Marry.
“Where is my new birthday gift?” Sia asked excitedly.
“I am feeling lazy,” said Paul.

In the above examples, we can notice that different sets of words are stated inside quotation marks. And those words are evidently not being spoken in a current state. So, direct speech is a sentence where the exact words spoken at some point are written in a new sentence. This is to convey the exact message that the original speaker had conveyed.

Rules of direct speech

Now that we know what direct speech is, it is important to learn how to form and use one correctly. Direct speech is the presentation of the exact words of some person. It may seem easy in that sense. But there are some rules, especially punctuating rules, that we need to be aware of.

Some of the main rules regarding direct speech are;

• In a direct speech sentence, the speech of a particular person should always be between speech marks. That means the speech is opened and closed by speech marks, quotation marks, or inverted commas. For example: “I hate math classes,” said Vicky.

• The next important rule is that each character’s new speech will start on a new line. Also, each line of speech will begin with a capital letter.

• A line of speech usually ends with a comma, question mark, or exclamation mark. Further, if a sentence needs to be broken up for added information, we can use commas or question marks to finish the first part of the speech.

• A reporting clause mostly comes at the end of the sentence. Reporting clause means the phrase that indicates we are referring to the words that someone said or thought. They are the part that goes like: He said, Sarah asked, they screamed , etc. It is usually placed at the end of a sentence. But in some cases, it can also come in the beginning.

• Each reporting clause is ended with a full stop. But that is the case usually when it is mentioned at the end of a sentence. If a reporting clause is used at the beginning of a sentence, we will generally end it with a comma.

These are the general rules that we need to learn in order to form direct speech sentences. Missing any of these points can cause grammatical errors.

Difference between direct and indirect speech

There is another form of speech in grammar, the indirect speech. Indirect speech and direct speech are both different types of sentences that convey a message in different ways.

As we learned, direct speech is a sentence where the exact same words spoken by someone are presented. On the other hand, indirect speech is where we rephrase the words of the speaker in a sentence. In indirect speech, only the necessary or important points of someone’s message or speech are reported.

Here, unlike direct speech, we do not write the full speech of the speaker. Instead, we report the necessary content by rephrasing them in our own words.

For example;

Direct speech: “I am bored of school activities,” John screamed. Here, the exact words used by John are conveyed. There is no change or replacement of words.

Indirect speech: Sam said that he wanted to go to the movies.

Here, the words used might not match exactly with the words used by Sam in the original context. However, the main objective is to convey the same message. And in indirect speech, we do that without quoting the person’s speech.

So, this is the basic difference between direct speech and indirect speech. Both the speech types work equally well in different situations. However, when it concerns characters and dialogues, one cannot avoid direct speech to make the sentences more interactive and engaging.

More than or More then – Which one is correct?
Distributive Pronouns – Examples & Rules
Adjective of Number – Examples
Unergative Verbs – Examples
Relative Adverbs – Examples
Present Perfect Tense – Examples
Subordinate Clauses – Examples
Passive Voice – Examples & Rules

20 Easy Examples of Direct Speech

Back to: Direct and Indirect Speech (Narration)

Some easy examples of direct speech are given below. Attentively look at the use of punctuation marks, pronouns, proper nouns and type of sentences in the examples.

Table of Contents

Direct Speech Assertive Sentences Examples

Assertive sentence makes statement. It can be about a speaker’s thoughts and feelings or about day to day events, etc. assertive sentence always ends with full stop.

Tom said, “I have a dog.”
The fisherman said, “I am going to catch a fish.”
Manasi said, “I am ill today.”
Debi said, “I will go to Calcutta tomorrow.”
Rakesh told Amit, “We were listening to music.”

Direct Speech Interrogative Sentence Examples

Interrogative sentence asks question. We can form interrogative sentence with WH-question, yes/no question. Interrogative sentence in direct speech always ends with question mark.

The man said to him, “What is your name?”
I said to Rana, “Where are you going?”
The teacher said to Arun, “Can you stand up?”
My friend said to me, “Have you seen Taj Mahal?”
Ritu said, “Do you have a pen?”

Direct Speech Imperative sentence Examples:

We use imperative sentence to give order, advice, to instruct or to request something.

Mother told me, “Do your homework.”
Father said, “Study more for your exam.”
Ranju said, “Please, come with me.”
The dwarf said to snow white, “Do not eat the apple.”
The commander said to the soldiers, “Protect our country.”

Direct Speech in Exclamatory Sentence Examples

Exclamatory sentence is used to convey or express emotions like joy, sorrow, pity, fear, wish etc. In case of Direct speech, exclamatory mark is used to show and stress on emotions in exclamatory sentence.

The boys said, “Hurray! We won the match.”
The old lady told the girl, “Alas, my cat has died.”
She said, “What a sight it was!”
The neighbour told the mother, “What an adorable baby you have!”
The teacher said, “ What an intelligent boy!”

English Grammar
Clause structure and verb patterns

Reported speech

Level: intermediate

Reporting and summarising

When we want to report what people say, we don't usually try to report their exact words. We usually give a summary , for example:

Direct speech (exact words) :

Mary : Oh dear. We've been walking for hours! I'm exhausted. I don't think I can go any further. I really need to stop for a rest. Peter : Don't worry. I'm not surprised you're tired. I'm tired too. I'll tell you what, let's see if we can find a place to sit down, and then we can stop and have our picnic.

Reported speech (summary) :

When Mary complained that she was tired out after walking so far, Peter said they could stop for a picnic.

Reporting verbs

When we want to report what people say, we use reporting verbs . Different reporting verbs have different patterns, for example:

Mary complained (that) she was tired . (verb + that clause) She asked if they could stop for a rest . (verb + if clause) Peter told her not to worry . (verb + to -infinitive) He suggested stopping and having a picnic . (verb + - ing form)

See reporting verbs with that , wh- and if clauses , verbs followed by the infinitive , verbs followed by the -ing form .

GapFillDragAndDrop_MTY1NTE=

GapFillTyping_MTY1NTI=

Tenses in reported speech

When reporting what people say or think in English, we need to remember that the rules for tense forms in reported speech are exactly the same as in the rest of the language.

This is a letter that Andrew wrote ten years ago:

If we wanted to report what Andrew said in his letter, we might say something like this:

Andrew said that when he was 22, he was an engineering student in his last month at university. He wanted to travel abroad after he had finished his course at the university, but he would need to earn some money while he was abroad so he wanted to learn to teach English as a foreign language. A friend had recommended a course but Andrew needed more information, so he wrote to the school and asked them when their courses started and how much they were . He also wanted to know if there was an examination at the end of the course.

We would naturally use past tense forms to talk about things which happened ten years ago. So, tenses in reports and summaries in English are the same as in the rest of the language.

Sometimes we can choose between a past tense form and a present tense form. If we're talking about the past but we mention something that's still true , we can use the present tense:

John said he'd stayed at the Shangri-la because it' s the best hotel in town. Mary said she enjoyed the film because Robert de Niro is her favourite actor. Helen said she loves visiting New York.

or the past tense:

John said he'd stayed at the Shangri-la because it was the best hotel in town. Mary said she enjoyed the film because Robert de Niro was her favourite actor. Helen said she loved visiting New York.

If we're talking about something that everybody knows is true , we normally use the present tense :

Michael said he'd always wanted to climb Everest because it' s the highest mountain in the world. Mary said she loved visiting New York because it' s such an exciting city.

Hi! I found the following paragraph from a grammar site while I was studying the reported speech. Can you help me? It says; --> We can use a perfect form with have + -ed form after modal verbs, especially where the report looks back to a hypothetical event in the past: He said the noise might have been the postman delivering letters. (original statement: ‘The noise might be the postman delivering letters.’)

And my question is: How do we understand if it is a hypothetical event in the past or not? We normally don't change 'might' in reported speech. (e.g. ‘It might snow tonight,’ he warned. --> He warned that it might snow that night.) But why do we say 'He said the noise might have been the postman delivering letters.' instead of 'He said that the noise might be the postman delivering letters.’ What's the difference between these two indirect reported speeches? Could you please explain the difference? And I also found this example which is about the same rule above: --> He said he would have helped us if we’d needed a volunteer. (original statement: a) ‘I’ll help you if you need a volunteer’ or b) ‘I’d help you if you needed a volunteer.’) Can you also explain why we report this sentence like that. How can we both change a) and b) into the same indirect reported speech? Thank you very much!

Hello Melis_06,

1. He said the noise might have been the postman delivering letters. 2. He said that the noise might be the postman delivering letters.

In sentence 1 it is clear that the noise has ended; it is a noise that 'he' could hear but it is not a noise that you can hear now. In sentence 2 the noise could have ended or it could be a noise that you can still hear now. For example, if the noise is one which is constant, such as a noise that comes from your car engine that you are still trying to identify, then you would use sentence 2. In other words, sentence 2 allows for a wider range of time possibilities - both past (ended) and present (still current).

Your second question is similar:

He said he would have helped us if we needed a volunteer - you no longer need a volunteer

He said he would help us if we needed a volunteer - this could still be relevant; you may still need a volunteer.

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello my friend : what are you doing now? me : I'm eating an apple now and My friend repeated his question now

my question

Can I repeat the sentence in the past ( I was eating an apple) and mean( I'm eating an apple now) ?

You can but it is unusual. If you say I was eating an apple (past continuous), it means that it was in the past. You already finished eating the apple and you are not eating it now. But if your friend asked you just a moment ago, I guess you are still eating the apple when she/he asks the second question, so I would say I'm eating an apple (because you are still doing it).

Alternatively, you can use a past tense reporting verb e.g. I said I was eating an apple (referring to the time of the first question), or I said I 'm eating an apple (to show that you are still eating it now, at the moment of speaking).

LearnEnglish team

Am I correct then? When someone wants us to repeat the sentence we have just said a moment ago we say 'I said I am doing...' if we are still doing that action. But if we are done with that action, then we say 'I said I was doing...' Did I get it right? Thanks!

Hello Meldo,

Yes, that's correct. Well done!

Hi. I wish to enquire if the verb tense used after a conjunction also changes in complex sentences as per tense transition rules, especially if it is already in simple past tense. In order to explain, could you please solve the following for me: 1. It has been quite a while since I last saw you. 2. Nevertheless, she has been quite desensitized to such perverse actions to the extent that it seldom ever seems obnoxious to her. 3. Let me keep this in my cupboard lest I misplace this. 4. I had arrived at the station before you even left your house. 5. I met my grandfather before he died.

Hi Aamna bluemoon,

The verb may or may not be backshifted, depending on whether the original speaker's point of view and the reporter's point of view are the same or not. For example:

She said it had been quite a while since she last saw me . (it seems relatively recent, for both the original speaker and the reporter)
She said it had been quite a while since she had last seen us . (a lot of time has passed between speaking and reporting this, or the situation has changed a lot since then e.g. they have met frequently since then)
She said she had met her grandfather before he died . (seems quite recent)
She said she had met her grandfather before he'd died . (a lot of time has passed between speaking and reporting this)

I hope that helps.

Hi, can you help me, please? How could I report this famous quotation: 'There's no such things as good news in America'.

Hi bri.q630,

First of all, the sentence is not grammatically correct. The phrase is 'no such thing' (singular), not 'things'.

How you report it depends. Using 'said' as the reporting verb we have two possibilities:

1. They said (that) there's no such thing as good news in America. 2. They said (that) there was no such thing as good news in America.

Sentence 2 tells that only about the time when 'they' said it. It does not tell us if it is still true or not.

Sentence 1 tells us that what 'they' said is still relevant today. In other words there was no good news (in their opinion) when they spoke, and there is still no good news now.

Thank you Peter,

All things are getting clear to me.

So, you mean, I can use both sentences depending on what I want to indicate, can't I?

then the possible indications are bellow, are those correct?

1-a I remembered the World War 2 ended in 1945. (This would be indicated the statement is still ture.)

1-b I remembered the World War 2 had ended in 1945. (This would be indicated I might missunderstand.)

2-a I felt time is money. (This would be indicated the statement is still ture.)

2-b I felf time was money. (This would be indicated I might not feel any more.)

3-a I knew the sun rises in the east. (This would be indicated the statement is still true.)

3-b I knew the sun rase in the east. (This would be indicated I might misunderstand or forget.)

4-a I guessed* that Darth Vader is Luke's father. (This would be indicated I still believe he is.*sorry for the typo)

4-2 I guessed that Darth Vader was Luke's father. (This would be indicated I might know he is not.)

Thank you in advance.

Hello again Nobori,

1-a I remembered the World War 2 ended in 1945. (This would be indicated the statement is still ture.) 1-b I remembered the World War 2 had ended in 1945. (This would be indicated I might missunderstand.)

Both forms are possible here. The 'ending' is a moment in the past; after this there is no war. By the way, we treat 'World War 2' as a name so there is no article before it.

2-a I felt time is money. (This would be indicated the statement is still ture.) 2-b I felf time was money. (This would be indicated I might not feel any more.)

That's correct. Remember that backshifting the verb does not mean something is no longer true; it simply does not tell us anything about the present. Here, it tells the reader how you felt at a given moment in time; you may

3-a I knew the sun rises in the east. (This would be indicated the statement is still true.) 3-b I knew the sun rase in the east. (This would be indicated I might misunderstand or forget.)

That's also correct. Again, remember that backshifting the verb does not mean something is no longer true; it simply does not tell us anything about the present.

4-a I guessed* that Darth Vader is Luke's father. (This would be indicated I still believe he is.*sorry for the typo) 4-2 I guessed that Darth Vader was Luke's father. (This would be indicated I might know he is not.)

Again, correct. In the second example it might still be true that he is Luke's father, or it might have turned out to be not true. The sentence does not tell us.

Hi Peter, Thank you for your thoughtful answer. Allthing is now very clear to me. Best

Hi, I am translating a fiction novel into English and need your help regarding the reporting speech as for few things I am not getting any clear understanding over the internet. As you know in fiction, we need to write in non-ordinary way to create unique impressions of the word and academic writing is different than speaking. Will be grateful if you could give your insight below, especially considering in the context of fiction/academic writing.

1) Let’s say If someone is giving a speech or presentation, I want to mix their speech, indirect-direct and past tense- present tense. Below are three examples:

-He said, their company makes excellent profit every year OR their company made excellent profit every year ( can both be correct? As the sentence)

- Roger had given his speech yesterday. He said, their company makes excellent profit every year and your company will sustain for next hundred years.(Can YOUR be used in the sentence)

- Roger said people wants to feel important OR Roger said people wanted to feel important (which will be correct as this is a trait which is true in past and present)

2) He thought why he is talking to her OR He thought why he was talking to her (are both write? As usually I see in novels the second example with WAS)

3) Gia was sitting with Jake and she told him she had met with her last year. Her mother had taken her to the dinner. Her mother had told her about her future plans. Her mother also had paid the bill for the dinner. (Do I need to use every time past perfect in this example though it doesn’t feel natural? As a rule of thumb I think past perfect needs to be used when we talk about another past event in the past )

Hello Alamgir3,

We're happy to help with a few specific grammar questions, but I'm afraid we can't help you with your translation -- I'd suggest you find an editor for that.

1) In the second clause, you can use present or past. We often use the present when it's still true now, but the past is not wrong. FYI we don't normally use a comma after 'said' in reported speech.

2) 'Why was he talking to her?' he thought.

3) This is really more of a question of style than grammar. Here I would suggest doing something like combining the four sentences into two and then leaving out 'had' in the second verb in each sentence. Even if it isn't written, it's understood to be past perfect.

All the best, Kirk LearnEnglish team

Hello teachers, I'm sorry, I could not find where to new post. Could you tell me about the back-sifting of thoughts bellow? Which forms are correct?

1-a I remembered the World War 2 ended in 1945. 1-b I remembered the World War 2 had ended in 1945.

2-a I felt time is money. 2-b I felf time was money.

3-a I knew the sun rises in the east. 3-b I knew the sun rase in the east.

4-a I guess that Darth Vader is Luke's father. 4-2 I guessed that Darth Vader was Luke's father.

Do those questions have the same conclusion as indirect speech, such as say and tell?

Hello Nobori,

The verb form remains the same when we want to make it clear that the situation described by the verb is still true, and this works in the same way as indirect speech. For example:

She said she loves me. [she loved me then and she loves me still] She said she loved me. [she loved me then; no information on how she feels now]

Other than this rule, the choice is really contextual and stylistic (up to the speaker). Sometimes a choice implies something. For example, the saying 'time is money' is a general statement, so if you choose to backshift here the listener will know it is an intentional choice and suspect that something has changed (you no longer believe it).

Hi teachers, I've read almost the section of comments below and my summarize is the present tense only can be used if the statement is still true now and past simple only tells the statement was true in the past and doesn't tell the statement is true or not now. Just to make sure, I wanna ask, If I'm not sure whether the statement is still true or not now, can I choose backshift instead (this is still apply to past tense become past perfect)? Thank you

Hello rahmanagustiansyah,

It sounds to me as if you've got the right general idea. Could you please give a couple of example sentences that illustrate your question?

Thanks in advance, Kirk The LearnEnglish Team

For example, Steve said "Anna hates you." Then I wanna tell about that to my friend, but I'm not sure whether Anna still hates me or not now. What should I choose between these two options. Answer 1:Steve said Anna hates me or Answer 2 : Steve said Anna hated me. Thank you

Hi rahmanagustiansyah,

In that case, I would choose answer 2. I might even add "... but I don't know if she still does" to the sentence to clarify, if that is the key point you want to communicate.

Jonathan The LearnEnglish Team

Hello Natasa Tanasa,

Both sentences are grammatically possible.

The first sentence is only possible if when the person asks the original question the woman is no longer there (she has already gone). The second sentence can be used in this situation too, or in a situation in which the woman was still there when the original question was asked. As the past tense is used in the original question ( Who was... ), both sentences are possible.

Hello Ahmed Imam,

When the situation is still true at the time of reporting, we can leave the verb form unchanged. For example:

1. She told me she loved me.

2. She told me she loves me.

In sentence 1 we know she loved me when she told me but we don't know whether or not she loves me now. In sentence 2, we know she loved me when she told me and we know that she loves me now.

In your example, if the supermarket is still in the same place then we can use either form. If the supermarket has been closed down or moved to another location then we need to use was .

As for which is 'safer', you'll need to make your own mind up! Keeping the verb in the same form carries more specific information and that may be appropriate or even important.

Hello eugelatina87,

I'll give you a hint: a verb is missing from the question.

Does that help you complete it?

All the best,

The first two sentences are possible and they can both mean that he is still Mary's boyfriend now. The first one makes this more clear, but the second one doesn't only refer to the past.

Hello magnuslin

Regarding your first question, the most common way of saying it is the second one. In some very specific situation, perhaps the first option would be possible.

This also answers your second question. It is not necessary to always backshift using the tenses you mention.

As for your third question, no, it is not necessary. In fact, it is probably more common to use the past simple in the reported speech as well.

All the best

Hello manu,

Both forms are possible. If you use had been then we understand that he was there earlier but not when he said it - in other words, when he said it he had already left. If you use was then he may have left at the time of speaking, or he may have still been there.

Hello _princess_

I would recommend using answer a) because this is the general pattern used in reported speech. Sometimes the verb in the reported clause can be in the present tense when we are speaking about a situation that is still true, but the reported verb in the past tense can also have the same meaning. Since here the time referred to could be either past or present, I'd recommend using the past form.

Hello mwright,

This is an example of an indirect question. An indirect question reports a question, but is not a question itself, which is why we do not use a question mark at the end. Since it is not a question, we use the normal word order without inversion or auxiliary verbs. For example:

Indicative: He lives in Rome. Interrogative: Does he live in Rome? (Where does he live?) Reported: She asked if he lives in Rome. (She asked where he lives.)

Hello ahlinthit

There are different styles of punctuating direct speech -- in other words, you might find other sources that will disagree with me -- but what I would use here is something different: "The boss is dead!" said the doctor.

Hope this helps.

Best wishes

Hello Timmosky,

The form that comes after the auxiliary verb 'do' (or 'does' or 'did') is not the plural present simple verb, but rather the bare infinitive (also known as 'base form' or 'first form') of the verb. Does that make sense?

All the best, Kirk The LearnEnglish Team

Hello sky-high,

This is very formal language. The phrase 'to the effect that' means 'with the meaning that'. In this context it can be understood to mean 'with the result that'.

Best wishes,

The difference is quite logical. If we use 'said' then we are talking about a claim by Peter in the past which he may or may not still maintain. If we use 'says' then we are talking about an opinion expressed by Peter which he still holds.

The reported information (whether or not Rooney is in good shape) can refer to only the past or to the present as well and the statement (what Peter thinks) can separately refer to only the past or the present as well. Of course, all of this is from the point of view of the person reporting Peter's opinion, and whether or not they think that Peter still thinks now what he thought then.

Both are possible. If you use the present tense then it is clear that the statement is still true (i.e. the business was not growing when Mary spoke and is still not growing now). If you use the past tense then no information is given regarding the present (i.e. the business was growing when Mary spoke and may or may not be growing now).

Hello aseel aftab,

It should be 'if they had'. This is not from this page, is it? I don't see it anywhere here, but if I've missed it please let me know.

Online courses

Group and one-to-one classes with expert teachers.

Learn English in your own time, at your own pace.

One-to-one sessions focused on a personal plan.

Get the score you need with private and group classes.

Athabasca University
English Grammar Handbook
Concise ESL Support

Direct and indirect speech

Write Site - Home
Staff and contact info
Write Site dropbox
RealTime writing coaching
Writing forum
Webinar schedule
Lessons and videos
Basic grammar: Parts of speech
Words often confused and misused
Recognition of sentence parts
Transitional devices
Common sentence errors
Punctuation
Word mechanics
Vocabulary and spelling
Introduction
Conditional and hypothetical constructions
Infinitives and gerunds
Irregular verbs
Modals and related expressions
Passive verb tenses
Phrasal verbs
Prepositions
Pronunciation
Verb tenses
Supplementary resources
Critical thinking, reading and writing
The writing process
Research writing
Writing in the disciplines
Genres common to academic writing
Argumentative essay
Argumentation structure
Expository writing
Analytical film review process
Conducting and writing up interviews
Avoiding plagiarism
Library basics
Studying writing at AU
Writing resources
Writing courses
Assess your writing and language skills
Marking guide for writing assignments

When using indirect or reported speech, the form changes. Usually indirect speech is introduced by the verb said , as in I said , Bill said , or they said . Using the verb say in this tense, indicates that something was said in the past. In these cases, the main verb in the reported sentence is put in the past. If the main verb is already in a past tense, then the tense changes to another past tense; it can almost be seen as moving even further into the past.

Verb tense changes also characterize other situations using indirect speech. Note the changes shown in the chart and see the table below for examples. With indirect speech, the use of that is optional.

The situation changes if instead of the common said another part of the very to say is used. In that case the verb tenses usually remain the same. Some examples of this situation are given below.

Another situation is the one in which modal constructions are used. If the verb said is used, then the form of the modal, or another modal that has a past meaning is used.

While not all the possibilities have been listed here, there are enough to provide examples of the main rules governing the use of indirect or reported speech. For other situations, try to extrapolate from the examples here, or better still, refer to a good grammar text or reference book.

Some other verbs that can be used to introduce direct speech are ask, report, tell, announce, suggest, and inquire. They are not used interchangeably; check a grammar or usage book for further information.

Updated September 11, 2023 by Digital & Web Operations, University Relations ( [email protected] )

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

Direct and Indirect Speech

Introduction to Direct and Indirect Speech

The distinction between Direct and Indirect Speech may be confusing for some students. Often when we need to explain an incident or action, it involves quoting what someone said. A social situation, as well as a work email or presentation, are examples of such instances. There are two forms of Speech used to explain what other people say: direct Speech and indirect Speech (or reported Speech).

Direct Speech

The same words spoken are quoted indirect Speech. If we use Direct Speech in writing, we bring the words spoken between quotation marks (" ") and leave them alone. We may be reporting something that is being said (for example, a phone conversation) or asking someone about a previous conversation later.

Nirmal said, "There's a dog outside the window."

Mahima says, "What time will you be home?"

Supriya said, "I don't know!"

Indirect Speech

When we use reported or Indirect Speech to speak about the past, we generally change the tense of the words we say. We use reporting verbs like 'say,' 'tell,' and 'ask,' and we can introduce the reported words with the word 'that.' There are no inverted commas in this sentence.

For Example,

Mahima said that she had seen him.

Nirmal said he was looking forward to playing in the match on Saturday.

Children often mix up Direct and Indirect Speech. We need a way to say the difference between what someone is claimed to have said and what they said when we're writing. What did she say if you asked her? You may respond in one of two ways:

“I don’t like pizza,” Siddi said. (Direct Speech)

Siddi says she doesn’t like pizza. (Indirect Speech)

Note how Speech marks (“...”) are used in Direct Speech to indicate precisely what was said. Speech labels are located at the beginning and end of the actual words spoken. The words 'Siddi said' are not in Speech marks because they were not spoken aloud; rather, they are a way for the writer to express who was speaking to the reader.

The past tense is often used in reported Speech. This is because the words have already been spoken, and the writer is simply reporting on what has already been saying. It's critical to think about what was said and convert it to the past tense.

Direct and Indirect Narration Rules

Following are the steps to convert the Direct/Indirect Speech and also let’s discuss Direct and Indirect Speech tenses rules in detail.

Step 1: Write down the reporting verb that is used to determine the Indirect Speech's tense.

Step 2: Change the position and time to reflect the speaker's actual location and time.

Step 3: For both the object and the subject, use the correct pronoun.

Step 4: Make sure the sentence has the correct structure and word order.

Now we'll go through each of these measures in greater depth.

Step 1: Choosing the Verb's Tense and Conversion

Case 1: Nirmal said, ‘I go to the gym every day.

Case 2: Nirmal says, ‘I go to the gym every day.’

The verb ‘say' is used in both of the instances above to express the action of speaking. In addition, the reporting verb say is used in the past tense in the first case – said. In case 2, however, the reporting verb is in the present tense.

As a consequence, all verbs must be in the relevant past tense here. If the reporting verb is in the past tense, this is often followed. Thus, Nirmal said, ‘I go to the class every day will change to Nirmal said that he went to the gym every day.

The second rule is that the tense is not changed whether the reporting verb is in the future or present tense. So, Nirmal says, ‘I go to the class every day will be changed to Nirmal says that he goes to the class every day.

Step 2: Changes are Made to the Word That Communicates Place, Time, and Connection.

The time or place specified in the sentence should be changed to match the current time or position.

On 21st, May 2015: ‘I will come tomorrow,’ Sriram said.

On 21st, May 2015, Sriram said that he would come the next day.

Step 3: The Subject and Object Pronouns are Chosen Separately.

Case 1: Saurav will say to his friends, “I have started learning psychology” will change to Saurav will tell his friends that he has started learning psychology.

In this case, the speaker and the reporter are the same people. As a consequence, the pronoun should be the first person pronoun.

Case 2: Ma’am said to me, “I hope you will bring the geometry to my next class” will changed to Ma’am hoped that I would bring the geometry to her next class.

The speaker is ma'am, and the reporter is the student. As a consequence, the ma'am pronoun should be in the third person. The reporter's pronoun should also be in the first person.

Remember that we do not change the tense of the reporting verb within the quotation marks when it is in the present or future tense.

When using English, you'll want to use both direct and indirect Speech regularly, so make sure you're familiar with both and can use them correctly. Direct Speech isn't always an accurate representation of what someone has said. Using inverted commas before and after the quotation, you may quote from other texts similarly. Instead of using the verb "to tell," consider using a verb like "to compose," "to state," or "to define." You may convey what is being reported using a variety of verbs; for example, while "to say" is widely used, you may also want to use "to tell" to explain something that has been told to you. Keeping a small diary of what has been said around you is an important way to practise – explain what people have said and try to write a few examples of each form.

FAQs on Direct and Indirect Speech

1. What is Direct and Indirect Speech with Examples?

The same words spoken are quoted in the direct speech. If we use direct speech in writing, we bring the words spoken between quotation marks (" ") and leave them alone. We are talking about the present moment and we are talking about the original content. Direct Speech: “I'm seeing my brother tomorrow.” or “I’ll call them tomorrow”

While reporting if we are changing the words without changing the meaning of the sentence then it is called indirect speech. Here the present tense is converted into past tense. Here the sentence of the speaker is summarized without changing the meaning and reported.

Indirect Speech: She said she was seeing her brother the following day. Or She said that it was hot.

2. What are Simple Rules for Conversion of Indirect Speech to Direct Speech?

Both inverted commas and quotation marks should be eliminated. Put a full stop at the end of the sentence. Shift the present tense of the verb within the inverted commas/quotation marks to the corresponding past tense. Shift it to the past perfect tense if it's in the simple past tense.

Step 1: change the tenses from present to past

Present Tense: I like chocolates

Past Tense: she said that she liked chocolates

Step 2: Change the sentences from simple past to past perfect

Present: He arrived on Tuesday

Past: He said that he had arrived on Tuesday

Step 3: while converting future tense, ‘will’ changes to would

Present: I will be attending the wedding.

Past: She said that she would be attending the wedding.

Step 4: change the present continuous tense to the past continuous tense.

Present: We are eating dinner

Past: They said that they were eating dinner.

Step 5: Change the Present Perfect Tense into Past Perfect Tense

Present: She has finished her task.

Past: She said that she had finished her task.

Step 6: Change the Past Progressive Tense into the Perfect Continuous Tense

Present: My husband was cooking

Past: She said that her husband had been cooking.

Step 7: And also remember past perfect and past perfect progressive doesn't change.

Step 8: And also the future Progressive Tense changes into “would be”. The Future Perfect Tense changes into “would have”.The Future Perfect Progressive Tense changes into “would have been”.

And also follow these simple rules.

The conjunction ‘that’ is used in indirect speech.

The pronoun ‘I’ has to be changed according to the person.

The verb “am" is changed to “was".

For converting to Indirect speech, the words representing nearness will be changed to the words representing distance like the adverb “now” will be converted to the word “Then”, here now represent the nearness in time while ‘then’ represent distance.

3. What are the Examples of Direct Speech?

Few examples of Direct speech are:

Nirmal said, "There's a dog outside the window."

Mahima says, "What time will you be home?"

Supriya said, "I don't know!"

I like chocolates.

Where do you live in?

Where are you?

I play basketball

I do yoga every morning

Can you pass me the bottle, please?

I brought a new pen

I will shift to Mumbai

She had worked hard.

My mom is preparing sweets

Don’t talk to me

I play chess every day

Ananth is dancing on the floor

I like Sachin Tendulkar

She plays the guitar very well

4. Differentiate between Direct and Indirect Speech.

5. Give some examples for indirect speech.

She said that she liked chocolates

He said that he played basketball

She asked me to be on time

Neha said that her parents were very well.

He said that he played chess every day

She told me that she liked Sachin Tendulkar

She told me that she had been to the USA.

She said that she had finished her task.

he said that he would come to the party by 8 PM

She said that she hadn’t seen Nupur recently.

She asked me to bring her dress the next day

He asked us not to be late.

They told that they were ready for competition

Learn How To Write Reported Speech Dialogue Correctly

How to use dialogue tags with reported speech

How do you write reported speech dialogue?

When you start to learn to write dialogue, it seems simple. All you need to do is add a reporting verb or dialogue tag.

You probably learned this at high school. When a character speaks lines of dialogue, you put a double quotation mark at the beginning and end.

But if you use reported speech, you need to include a tense shift.

In This Article

What’s the difference between dialogue writing and reported speech?

Most dialogue uses active speech. It is what a character says.

But reported speech dialogue is when a character says what another character said.

Let’s look at the difference.

Direct dialogue

When you write dialogue , you are using direct speech.

You are using the exact words that the character says, and then adding a dialogue tag to say who spoke the words.

“I’m going into town this morning. I should be back before dinner,” she said.

The reporting verb is almost always in the simple past verb tense, which is the general rule for fiction writing.

It doesn’t matter which tense the dialogue is using.

It can be present continuous, present perfect , or present simple.

“I’m having friends over for dinner tomorrow night,” he said.

“I’ve had friends over for dinner quite often,” he said.

“I have friends over for dinner all the time,” he said.

You can also use the present simple tense for reporting verbs in some circumstances.

It is when you want to say that someone says something often or all the time.

“When I get older, I think I’ll travel the world,” she says.

“I’m going to buy a Ferrari one day,” he always says.

But you wouldn’t use the present dialogue form in most fiction writing.

Reported speech dialogue

In reported speech or indirect speech , we may not necessarily use the exact words of the speaker.

It is often used to convey small talk or gossip about what other people said.

It is also used to paraphrase long speeches or extended discourse.

We can use both past and present tense in reported speech. But again, the past is much more common.

She said she was going into town that morning and that she should be back before dinner. Past form

He always says that he is going to buy a Ferrari one day. Present form

You need to format dialogue with punctuation and quotation marks. But you write reported speech as a standard sentence.

You include the attribution and reporting verb without punctuation.

When you use the past form, you need to pay special attention to the tense shift.

No matter what tense the original utterance used, reported speech always uses the past.

It is because it is something someone said in the past. It is an action that occurred in the past, so we refer to it as a past event.

Tense shift examples

Compare the difference between these direct and indirect sentences.

I want to go to Norway. He said he wanted to go to Norway.

She will pass her exam for sure. He told me that she would pass her exam for sure.

They wanted to buy a new house but didn’t get the loan. Tom told me that they had wanted to buy a new house but didn’t get the loan.

The general rule is that active speech in present or future tenses shifts back to the past simple.

When active speech is in the present perfect, it shifts back to the past perfect.

But for past simple active speech, it can shift back to past perfect, or stay in the past simple.

In all forms, the relative pronoun, that , is optional.

How to use tense shift in reported speech dialogue

Using reported speech dialogue in writing

When you incorporate reported speech within a character’s dialogue, you need to keep the tense shift.

Here are some reporting dialogue examples.

“Have you seen Jillian lately?” Mary asked.

“Oh, yes. I saw her yesterday, and she told me that she was going to France next month ,” Anne replied.

“I didn’t feel well this morning, so I called my boss to let him know. There is an important meeting this afternoon. But my boss said that it was okay and that he would get someone else to take the minutes . I still feel guilty, though,” Jane said.

“I saw Michelle this morning, and she told me that she had been waiting for days for the results of her blood test . I’m not sure what’s wrong, but she looked worried,” Susan said.

As you can see in the reported speech dialogue examples above, the parts that are indirect reported speech retain the correct past form.

The rest of the direct written dialogue can be in any tense or form the speaker uses.

Punctuating your dialogue

There are five basic aspects of good dialogue punctuation.

1. All punctuation is inside the quotation marks.

These include full stops (periods), commas, question marks, and exclamation marks.

Jim said, “I’m not aware of it”. Wrong Jim said, “I’m not aware of it.” Correct

“I don’t know what to think”, she said. Wrong “I don’t know what to think,” she said. Correct

“Where did he go”? she asked. Wrong “Where did he go?” she asked. Correct

“Get out of here”! he shouted. Wrong “Get out of here!” he shouted. Correct

2. Using an em dash or ellipsis.

We use em dashes to indicate a speaker was interrupted. You add an ellipsis when a speaker’s words trail off, or when an utterance is incomplete.

“I was planning on buying–” she started. “No way! I told you we need to save money,” he said.

“It’s funny when you think about things, and well …” Anne said. “You think too much, Anne,” Mary said.

3. Start a new paragraph for a new speaker.

It is confusing for a reader if the dialogue runs on in the same paragraph.

When there is a new speaker in dialogue, always start in a new paragraph.

4. Quotation marks for long dialogues

Dialogues are usually short and sharp.

But you might have a piece of dialogue that is more of an oration, and you need to divide it into paragraphs.

You can use an opening and closing quotation mark for the whole dialogue.

Another option is to add one opening quotation mark at the beginning of each new paragraph and then close the final paragraph.

5. Don’t mix quotation mark styles.

It is up to you whether you use curly, straight, double, or single quotations.

In his book, Cloudsteet, Tim Winton uses no quotation marks at all for the dialogue. But it is still great dialogue.

Generally, readers won’t mind what your choice is.

But they will be distracted or confused if you mix different types of quotation marks.

It isn’t an easy check as you are proofreading. But there is an easy way to make sure you are consistent.

Try using an online writing app to help you.

If you use Prowritingaid, you can check your whole manuscript by ticking Dialogue Tags Check in your combo settings.

How to check for consistent quotation marks in Prowritingaid

For Grammarly users, you can find any errors in your Correctness tab.

It will show you any quotation mark inconsistencies.

How to check for consistent quotation marks in Grammarly

Once you know how to write active dialogue and reported speech, it is easy to combine the two into reported dialogue.

Just remember that dialogue is active speech.

But reported speech is indirect, so it always needs to use backward tense shift into the past.

The most critical part of good dialogue writing is your use of correct and consistent punctuation .

When you get it right, a reader doesn’t notice it. They become blind to it.

But if you have inconsistencies, it stands out and can become annoying.

Related Reading: Are Question Tags Effective In Your Dialogue Writing?

About The Author

Derek Haines

When You Can Use Burned Or Burnt And Learned Or Learnt

What Is Parallelism In Writing And How To Use It

Hands-On ProWritingAid Review – Grammar And Writing Editor

Privacy overview.

India Votes 2024

Fact-checking five days of Narendra Modi’s speeches: A catalogue of lies

Uttarakhand restricts sale of land for agriculture as locals protest tourism infrastructure boom

Expelled BJP Minority Morcha leader Usman Ghani arrested in Rajasthan

Banana republic in the making?: A South Asian perspective on India from Kathmandu

‘Be freed from what holds you back’: Poems by Buddhist women from the Murty Classical Library

Business history: How Jaypee Infratech’s stalled construction projects left homebuyers in the lurch

Canada: Amid anti-immigration rhetoric, curbing international students is a knee-jerk reaction

By mixing Carnatic and Hindustani, Mysore’s kings helped create a unique body of music

Women’s Prize for Fiction: A reader’s guide to the six books on the 2024 shortlist

Congress accuses BJP leader Anurag Thakur of violating poll code, seeks Election Commission action

Over 17,400 citizens write to EC seeking action against PM Narendra Modi for hate speech

The prime minister’s comments on sunday were a ‘direct attack on the muslims of india’, one of the groups told the poll panel..

Thousands of Indians wrote two letters to the Election Commission on Monday seeking action against Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his remarks that the Congress would distribute citizens’ property among “ infiltrators ” if voted to power in the Lok Sabha elections.

“The prime minister, while campaigning as the [Bharatiya Janata Party’s] Star Pracharak [campaigner], made a speech on April 21 in Rajasthan that has disturbed the sentiments of millions of Constitution respecting citizens of India,” said a group in a petition to the poll panel. “The speech is dangerous and a direct attack on the Muslims of India.”

The petition was signed by 2,209 persons.

On Sunday, Modi had said: “When the Congress-led government was in power, they had said that Muslims have the first right over the country’s assets. This means that they will distribute wealth to those who have more children and those who are infiltrators . Is this acceptable to you?”

The citizens group pointed out to the Election Commission that Modi’s use of pejorative language against Muslims in a bid to seek votes “seriously undermines India’s stature as the ‘Mother of Democracy’ in the world”.

“The Election Commission’s failure to take any action against such hate speech will only undermine its credibility and autonomy that has been safeguarded and upheld by a series of exemplary officers before you,” the petition read.

Modi on Sunday was purportedly referring to remarks that Congress leader Manmohan Singh had made on December 9, 2006, when he addressed a meeting of the National Development Council. Singh, the prime minister at the time, had said that the country’s priorities were to uplift the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, minorities and women and children.

“We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably in the fruits of development,” Singh had said. “They must have the first claim on resources.”

Another letter by the Samvidhan Bacchao Nagrik Abhiyan, signed by more than 17,400 persons, alleged that Modi had “blatantly violated this code [Model Code of Conduct]” and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by making a speech “aiming at not only appealing to ‘communal feelings’ but also instigating and aggravating hatred in the Hindus against Muslims”.

The Model Code of Conduct is a set of guidelines issued by the Election Commission that political parties have to follow while campaigning.

The letter by the Samvidhan Bacchao Nagrik Abhiyan alleged that Modi had “equated Muslims as a population which produces more children and is infiltrators”. “Modi is resorting to lies as nowhere in the election manifesto of the Congress party is it said that it will collect information about the gold owned by Hindu women and distribute it among Muslims,” it added.

Though the BJP shared a video clip of Singh’s remarks on social media, the Congress noted that the section had been taken out of context. Modi’s comments have drawn sharp criticism from the Opposition.

The Congress also dared Modi to show one paragraph in its manifesto where it talked about redistributing wealth to the Muslim community.

The Samvidhan Bacchao Nagrik Abhiyan’s letter asked the poll panel to censure Modi, alleging that the prime minister’s speech “has the potential of tearing apart the social fabric of India” and impose a ban on his campaign “as has been done earlier for violations of this nature”.

Modi’s dog whistle on Muslims not the only time EC has ignored contentious statements by BJP leaders
No power to ban political parties or candidates for hate speech, Election Commission tells SC
Narendra Modi
Hate speech
Lok Sabha 2024
Election Commission
Manmohan Singh

Justices Seem Ready to Limit the 2020 Election Case Against Trump

Such a ruling in the case, on whether the former president is immune from prosecution, would probably send it back to a lower court and could delay any trial until after the November election.

Share full article

Demonstrators holding signs. The Supreme Court is in the background.

Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer

Charlie Savage reported from Washington, and Alan Feuer from New York.

Here are four takeaways from the Supreme Court hearing on Trump’s claim to immunity.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday about Donald J. Trump’s claim that the federal charges accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election must be thrown out because he is immune from being prosecuted for any official act he took as president.

Here are some takeaways.

Several justices seemed to want to define some level of official act as immune.

Although Mr. Trump’s claim of near-absolute immunity was seen as a long shot intended primarily to slow the proceedings, several members of the Republican-appointed majority seemed to indicate that some immunity was needed. Some of them expressed worry about the long-term consequences of leaving future former presidents open to prosecution for their official actions.

Among others, Justice Brett Kavanaugh compared the threat of prosecution for official acts to how a series of presidents were “hampered” by independent counsel investigations, criticizing a 1984 ruling that upheld a now-defunct law creating such prosecutors as one of the Supreme Court’s biggest mistakes. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. criticized an appeals court ruling rejecting immunity for Mr. Trump, saying he was concerned that it “did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we are talking about or what documents are talking about.”

“It’s a serious constitutional question whether a statute can be applied to the president’s official acts. So wouldn’t you always interpret the statute not to apply to the president, even under your formulation, unless Congress had spoken with some clarity?” “I don’t think across the board that as serious constitutional question exists on applying any criminal statute to the president.” “The problem is the vague statute — obstruction and 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States can be used against a lot of presidential activities historically with a creative prosecutor who wants to go after a president.” “I think that the question about the risk is very serious. And obviously it is a question that this court has to evaluate. For the executive branch, our view is that there is a balanced protection that better serves the interests of the Constitution that incorporates both accountability and protection for the president.”

The Democrat-appointed justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — asked questions indicating greater concern about opening the door for presidents to commit official crimes with impunity.

“This is what you’re asking us to say, which is that a president is entitled not to make a mistake — but more than that, a president is entitled for total personal gain to use the trappings of his office. That’s what you’re trying to get us to hold — without facing criminal liability.” “Your honor, I would say three things in response to that. First, the doctrine that immunity does not turn on the allegedly improper motivation or purpose is something that this court has reaffirmed in at least nine or 10 —” “That’s absolute immunity. But qualified immunity does say that whatever act you take has to be within what a reasonable person would do. I’m having a hard time thinking that creating false documents, that submitting false documents, that ordering the assassination of a rival, that accepting a bribe, and countless other laws that could be broken for personal gain, that anyone would say that it would be reasonable for a president or any public official to do that.”

The arguments signaled further delay and complications for a Trump trial.

If the Supreme Court does place limits on the ability of prosecutors to charge Mr. Trump over his official actions, it could alter the shape of his trial.

A decision to send all or part of the case back to the lower courts could further slow progress toward a trial, increasing the odds that it does not start before Election Day.

Of the matters listed in the indictment, some — like working with private lawyers to gin up slates of fraudulent electors — seem like the private actions of a candidate. Others — like pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to do things — seem more like official acts he took in his role as president.

At one point, Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that prosecutors could simply drop Mr. Trump’s arguably official actions from their case and proceed to a swift trial focused only on his private actions. And D. John Sauer, the lawyer for Mr. Trump, told the court that no evidence of Mr. Trump’s official actions should be allowed into the trial.

But Michael R. Dreeben, a Justice Department lawyer arguing on behalf of the special counsel’s office, said the indictment laid out an “integrated conspiracy” in which Mr. Trump took the official actions to bolster the chances that his other efforts to overturn the election would succeed.

He argued that even if the court holds that Mr. Trump has immunity from liability for his official actions, prosecutors should still be allowed to present evidence about them to the jury because the actions are relevant to assessing his larger knowledge and intentions — just as speech that is protected by the First Amendment can still be used as evidence in a conspiracy case.

The hearing revolved around two very different ways of looking at the issue.

Looming over the hearing was a sweeping moral question: What effect might executive immunity have on the future of American politics?

Not surprisingly, the two sides saw things very differently.

Mr. Sauer claimed that without immunity, all presidents would be paralyzed by the knowledge that once they were out of office, they could face an onslaught of charges from their rivals based on the tough calls they had to make while in power. He pictured a dystopian world of ceaseless tit-for-tat political prosecutions that would destroy the “presidency as we know it.”

If a president can be charged, put on trial and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president’s decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed. Every current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office. The implications of the court’s decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case. Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq? Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike? Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies? The answer to all these questions is no.

Envisioning the opposite scenario, Mr. Dreeben worried that any form of blanket immunity would place presidents entirely outside of the rule of law and encourage them to commit crimes, including “bribery, treason, sedition, even murder,” with impunity.

“The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong,” he said.

This court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. Petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts unless he was first impeached and convicted. His novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability; for bribery, treason, sedition, murder and here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution. The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong.

Both sides found advocates for their positions on the court.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. clearly seemed worried that without some form of criminal immunity, former presidents would be vulnerable to partisan warfare as their successors used the courts to go after them once they were out of office. And that, he added, could lead to endless cycles of retribution that would be a risk to “stable, democratic society.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared more concerned that if presidents were in fact shielded by immunity, they would be unbounded by the law and could turn the Oval Office into what she described as “the seat of criminality.”

If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country? If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate, because O.L.C. has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning. But once we say no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want, I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.

What happens next?

There did not seem to be a lot of urgency among the justices — especially the conservative ones — to ensure that the immunity question was resolved quickly. That left open the possibility that Mr. Trump could avoid being tried on charges of plotting to overturn the last election until well after voters went to the polls to decide whether to choose him as president in this election.

And if he is elected, any trial could be put off while he is in office, or he could order the charges against him dropped.

It could take some time for the court to do its own analysis of what presidential acts should qualify for the protections of immunity. And even if the justices determine that at least some of the allegations against Mr. Trump are fair game for prosecution, if they do not issue a ruling until late June or early July, it could be difficult to hold a trial before November.

That would become all but impossible if the court took a different route and sent the analysis back to the trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan. If Judge Chutkan were ordered to hold further hearings on which of the indictment’s numerous allegations were official acts of Mr. Trump’s presidency and which were private acts he took as a candidate for office, the process could take months and last well into 2025.

Aishvarya Kavi

Reporting from Washington

A spectacle outside the Supreme Court for Trump’s defenders and detractors.

Just as the Supreme Court began considering on Thursday morning whether former President Donald J. Trump was entitled to absolute immunity, rap music started blaring outside the court.

The lyrics, laced with expletives, denounced Mr. Trump, and several dozen demonstrators began chanting, “Trump is not above the law!”

Mr. Trump was not in Washington on Thursday morning — in fact, he was in another courtroom , in New York. But the spectacle that pierced the relative tranquillity outside the court was typical of events that involve him: demonstrations, homemade signs, police, news media, and lots and lots of curious onlookers.

One man, Stephen Parlato, a retired mental health counselor from Boulder, Colo., held a roughly 6-foot-long sign with a blown-up photo of Mr. Trump scowling that read, “Toxic loser.” The back of the sign featured the famous painting by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge of dogs playing poker, adorned with the words, “Faith erodes … in a court with no binding ethics code.” He made the sign at FedEx, he said.

The Supreme Court’s decision to even hear the case, which has delayed Mr. Trump’s election interference trial , was “absurd,” he said.

“I’m a child of the late ’60s and early ’70s and the Vietnam War,” said Mr. Parlato, dressed in a leather jacket and cowboy hat. “I remember protesting that while in high school. But this is very different. I’m here because I’m terrified of the possibility of a second Trump presidency.”

Inside the court, Jack Smith sat to the far right of the lawyer arguing on behalf of his team of prosecutors, Michael R. Dreeben, a leading expert in criminal law who has worked for another special counsel who investigated Mr. Trump, Robert S. Mueller III.

Among those in attendance were Jane Sullivan Roberts, who is married to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Ashley Estes Kavanaugh, who is married to Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

In an orderly line outside along the side of the court, people were calmly waiting to listen to the arguments from the court’s public gallery. More than 100 people, many of them supporters of Mr. Trump, were in line as of 8:30 a.m. Reagan Pendarvis, 19, who had been waiting there since the middle of the night, said the first person in line had gotten there more than a day before the arguments began.

Mr. Pendarvis, a sophomore at the University of California, San Diego who is living in Washington for the spring semester, was wearing a black suit and bright red bow tie. He said he had been struggling to keep warm since he took his place in line.

Mr. Pendarvis, a supporter of Mr. Trump, said he thought that the cases brought against the former president were an uneven application of the law.

“I think a lot of the cases, especially that happen for Donald Trump, don’t really happen for Democrats on the other side,” he said. “That’s just my take on it.”

David Bolls, 42, and his brother, Jonathan, 43, both of Springfield, Va., also in line for the arguments, also contended that the prosecutions against Mr. Trump were an abuse of judicial power.

“For me, I want to see an even application of justice,” David Bolls said.

For others in line, the Supreme Court’s deliberations were not the main draw. Ellen Murphy, a longtime Washington resident, was trying to sell buttons she designs, though she acknowledged that it was unlikely she would be allowed in with all of her merchandise.

Dozens of the buttons, which said, “Immunize democracy now” and “Trump is toast” over a toaster with two slices of bread, were pinned to a green apron she was wearing.

“We lose our democracy,” Ms. Murphy said, “if the president can do whatever he wants just because he’s president.”

Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting.

Adam Liptak

What’s next: Much will turn on how quickly the court acts.

The justices heard arguments in the immunity case at a special session, the day after what had been the last scheduled argument of its term. Arguments heard in late April almost always yield decisions near the end of the court’s term, in late June or early July.

But a ruling in early summer, even if it categorically rejected Mr. Trump’s position, would make it hard to complete his trial before the election. Should Mr. Trump win at the polls, there is every reason to think he would scuttle the prosecution.

In cases that directly affected elections — in which the mechanisms of voting were at issue — the court has sometimes acted with unusual speed.

In 2000, in Bush v. Gore, the court issued its decision handing the presidency to George W. Bush the day after the justices heard arguments.

In a recent case concerning Mr. Trump’s eligibility to appear on Colorado’s primary ballot, the justices moved more slowly, but still at a relatively brisk pace. The court granted Mr. Trump’s petition seeking review just two days after he filed it , scheduled arguments for about a month later and issued its decision in his favor about a month after that.

In United States v. Nixon, the 1974 decision that ordered President Richard M. Nixon to comply with a subpoena for audiotapes of conversations with aides in the White House, the court also moved quickly , granting the special prosecutor’s request to bypass the appeals court a week after it was filed.

The court heard arguments about five weeks later — compared with some eight weeks in Mr. Trump’s immunity case. It issued its decision 16 days after the argument , and the trial was not delayed.

Abbie VanSickle

The oral argument lasted nearly three hours, as the justices tangled with a lawyer for the former president and a Justice Department lawyer. A majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the idea of sweeping presidential immunity. However, several of them suggested an interest in drawing out what actions may be immune and what may not — a move that could delay the former president’s trial if the Supreme Court asks a lower court to revisit the issues.

Many of the justices seemed to be considering the idea that presidents should enjoy some form of protection against criminal prosecution. The devil, however, will be in the details: How should that protection extend?

And that question will have profound relevance not only for future presidents, but much more immediately for Donald Trump. The court could decide to draw those rules itself in a broad way for history. Or it could send this case back to a lower court to set the rules of what form immunity could take. If the case is sent back for further proceedings, it could have a dramatic effect on the timing of Trump’s trial, pushing it well past the election in November.

Looking back, one of the main points of discussion turned on the question of which situation would be worse: a world in which presidents, shorn of any legal protections against prosecution, were ceaselessly pursued in the courts by their rivals in a never-ending cycle of political retribution, or allowing presidents to be unbounded by criminal law and permitted to do whatever they wanted with impunity.

Charlie Savage

Sauer, Trump’s attorney, declines to offer a rebuttal. The argument is over.

If the court finds that there is some immunity for official actions, one of the most important questions will be whether prosecutors can still present evidence to the jury of Trump’s official actions (like pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to do certain things) as evidence that helps illuminate Trump’s knowledge and intent for his private acts as a candidate. Dreeben says the jury needs to understand the whole “integrated conspiracy” but prosecutors would accept a jury instruction in which the judge would say they cannot impose liability for the official actions but may consider them as evidence of his knowledge and intent for the other actions. That’s how courts handle protected speech that is evidence to a larger conspiracy, he notes.

Justice Barrett picks up the question of timing again. She suggests that if prosecutors want to take Trump quickly to trial, they could simply drop those parts of the indictment that seem to be his official acts as president and proceed with only those parts of the indictment that reflect Trump’s private actions taken as a candidate for office. Dreeben is not wild about that idea.

Dreeben suggests that allegations in the “private acts bucket,” as Justice Jackson just called it, would include things like the scheme to create fake electors and the way in which Trump fomented a mob of his supporters to violently attack the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Justice Barrett seems to signal that she is less likely to find that presidents have blanket immunity for their official acts. When Dreeben says the system needs to balance the effective functioning of the presidency and accountability for a former president under the rule of law, and the existing system does that pretty well or maybe needs a few ancillary rules but that is different from the “radical proposal” put forward by Trump’s legal team, she says: “I agree.”

Dreeben, in a balancing act that seems to acknowledge that the court is looking for some form of criminal immunity for presidents, says he is trying to do two things at once, neither of them easy. He wants to design a system to find some rules that preserve the “effective functioning of the presidency” but that still allows for “accountability” if presidents violated the law.

Kavanaugh asks Dreeben about Obama’s drone strike that killed an American citizen suspected of terrorism, Anwar al-Awlaki, which Trump’s lawyer invoked in his opening. Dreeben notes that the Office of Legal Counsel analyzed the question and found that the murder statute did not apply to presidents when they were acting under public authority, so authorizing the strike was lawful. This is the way the system can function, he said — the Justice Department analyzes laws carefully and with established principles.

Justice Kavanaugh signals that he is likely to find that presidents must have immunity for their official actions. He talks about how the threat of prosecution by independent counsels (under a law that lapsed in 1999) hampered Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton, and says a 1984 ruling upholding that structure as constitutional was one of the Supreme Court’s biggest mistakes. (Notably, Kavanaugh was a prosecutor on the staff of independent counsel Ken Starr during his investigation into President Bill Clinton, before becoming a White House lawyer under President George W. Bush.)

Dreeben tries to push back on Kavanaugh’s argument by saying that even after Watergate, even after all of the independent counsel investigations mentioned above, the legal system has survived without “having gone off on a runaway train” of actual criminal prosecutions against former presidents.

The Supreme Court rejected Bill Clinton’s claim of immunity.

In Clinton v. Jones in 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed a sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton to proceed while he was in office, discounting concerns that it would distract him from his official responsibilities. Both of his appointees, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, voted against him.

“The president is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court, adding, “We have never suggested that the president, or any other official, has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity.”

The case was in one sense harder than the one against Mr. Trump, as it involved a sitting president. In another sense, though, it was easier, as it concerned an episode said to have taken place before Mr. Clinton took office (Paula Jones, an Arkansas state employee, said Mr. Clinton had made lewd advances in a hotel room when he was governor of the state).

The case is best remembered for a prediction in Justice Stevens’s majority opinion that “it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner’s time.” In fact, it led to Mr. Clinton’s impeachment.

In the same paragraph, Justice Stevens made a second prediction.

“In the more than 200-year history of the Republic, only three sitting presidents have been subjected to suits for their private actions,” he wrote. “If the past is any indicator, it seems unlikely that a deluge of such litigation will ever engulf the presidency.”

Suits against Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman were dismissed, and one against President John F. Kennedy involving a car accident during his 1960 campaign was settled. The case against Mr. Clinton added a fourth.

Justice Stevens, who died in 2019, failed to anticipate the enormous volume of civil and criminal litigation in which Mr. Trump and his businesses have been named as defendants.

We are now over the two-hour mark of the Supreme Court’s arguments in the Trump immunity case. The Justice Department lawyer has continued to face skeptical questions from many of the court’s conservatives, several of whom appear particularly focused on how to draw the line between a president’s core powers and non-core powers. In other words, what actions by a president might be shielded from prosecution and what would not. The questioning suggests that some of the justices may favor a ruling that could lead to more lower-court proceedings, perhaps delaying the trial.

The Supreme Court’s relatively new process (coming out of Covid) of letting each justice ask questions at the end in order of seniority has an interesting consequence, as seen here. Dreeben kept wanting to say these things about government legal memos and to go into the details about the actions Trump is accused of taking, but the Republican-appointed justices kept cutting him off. It’s the turn of Kagan, a Democratic appointee, to ask any final questions she wants, and she is letting him talk on and on.

Much of the discussion this morning has swirled around the question of whether, without immunity, presidents will be hounded by their rivals with malicious charges after leaving office. Alito and other conservatives on the court seem concerned that the Trump prosecutions will open the door to endless attacks against future presidents.

The other main topic of discussion has been whether presidents enjoy some form of immunity for carrying out their official duties and, if so, how those official actions are defined. That’s an important question for the Trump election case because Trump has claimed he was acting in his role as president when, by his own account, he sought to root out fraud in the 2020 vote count. It’s also important for a different reason: the justices could send the official acts question back to a lower court to sort out, and that process could take a long time, delaying the case's trial until after this year’s election.

Justice Alito suggests that there is a risk to our stable democracy if presidents who lose close elections would not be allowed to retire in peace but could face prosecution. He has essentially flipped the situation under consideration upside down: that Trump is being prosecuted for having used fraud to remain in power after losing a close election.

A part of this exchange between Justice Alito and the Justice Department's lawyer, Dreeben, gets at a pressure point in American-style democracy and the rule of law. One of the safeguards against illegitimate prosecutions of ex-presidents, Dreeben says, is that if the Justice Department has advised the president that doing something would be lawful, the department could not later turn around and prosecute the now-former president for relying on that advice and doing that thing.

Alito points out that this creates an incentive for presidents to appoint attorneys general who will just tell them that anything they want to do would be legal. Indeed — that is a critique of the Office of Legal Counsel system, in which politically appointed lawyers decide what the law means for the executive branch.

An example: During the George W. Bush administration, memos about post-9/11 surveillance and torture were written by a politically appointed lawyer with idiosyncratically broad views of a president’s supposed power, as commander in chief, to authorize violations of surveillance and torture laws. The Justice Department later withdrew those memos as espousing a false view of the law, but held that officials who had taken action based on those memos could not be charged with crimes.

Justice Alito suggests there are not enough legal safeguards in place to protect presidents against malicious prosecution if they don’t have some form of immunity. He tells Dreeben that the grand jury process isn’t much of a protection because prosecutors, as the saying goes, can indict a ham sandwich. When Dreeben tries to argue that prosecutors sometimes don’t indict people who don’t deserve it, Alito dismissively says, “Every once in a while there’s an eclipse too.”

If you are just joining in, the justices are questioning the Justice Department lawyer, Michael Dreeben, about the government’s argument that former President Trump is not absolutely immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election. Dreeben has faced skeptical questions from several of the conservative justices, including both Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, who have suggested that the fraud conspiracy statute being used against the former president is vague. That statute is central to the government’s case against Trump.

Justice Alito now joins Justice Kavanaugh in suggesting that the fraud conspiracy statute is very vague and broadly drawn. That is bad news for the indictment brought against Trump by Jack Smith, the special counsel.

The scope and viability of this fraud statute, which is absolutely central to the Trump indictment, wasn’t on the menu of issues seemingly at play in this hearing. Kavanaugh and Alito appear to have gone out of their way to question its use in the Trump case.

Justice Sotomayor points out that under the Trump team’s theory that a criminal statute has to clearly state that it applies to the presidency for it to cover a president’s official actions, there would essentially be no accountability at all. Because only a tiny handful of laws mention the president, that means a president could act contrary to them without violating them. As a result, the Senate could not even impeach a president for violating criminal statutes, she says — because he would not be violating those laws if they don’t apply to the president.

Dreeben is under heavy fire from the court’s conservatives.

The precedent most helpful to Trump: Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

In 1982, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald , the Supreme Court ruled that former President Richard M. Nixon had absolute immunity from civil lawsuits — ones brought by private litigants seeking money — for conduct “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”

The ruling is helpful to former President Donald J. Trump, establishing as it does that immunity can be expansive, lives on after a president leaves office and extends to the very limits of what may be said to be official conduct.

But the decision also falls well short of dictating the outcome in the case that is being argued on Thursday, which concerns a criminal prosecution, not a civil suit.

The 1982 case arose from a lawsuit brought by an Air Force analyst, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, who said he was fired in 1970 in retaliation for his criticism of cost overruns. By the time the Supreme Court acted, Nixon had been out of office for several years.

“In view of the special nature of the president’s constitutional office and functions,” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote for the majority 5-to-4 decision, “we think it appropriate to recognize absolute presidential immunity from damages liability” for Nixon’s official conduct, broadly defined.

But the decision drew a sharp line between civil suits, which it said can be abusive and harassing, and criminal prosecutions like the one Mr. Trump is facing.

“In view of the visibility of his office and the effect of his actions on countless people, the president would be an easily identifiable target for suits for civil damages,” Justice Powell wrote, adding, “The court has recognized before that there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions.”

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger underscored the point in a concurring opinion. “The immunity is limited to civil damages claims,” he wrote.

Even in the context of civil suits, Nixon v. Fitzgerald conferred immunity only on conduct within the “outer perimeter” of a president’s official duties. Jack Smith, the special counsel, has said that Mr. Trump’s efforts to subvert democracy are well outside that line.

The Justice Department has already granted sitting presidents immunity while they are in office.

Former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that former presidents must enjoy “complete immunity” from prosecution for any crimes they committed in office would significantly expand the temporary immunity that sitting presidents already have.

Nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes says that presidents are shielded from being prosecuted while in office, and no court has ever ruled that way. But political appointees in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, whose interpretations are binding on the executive branch, have declared that the Constitution implicitly establishes such immunity.

This argument boils down to practicalities of governance: The stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to carry out his duties, Robert G. Dixon Jr. , then the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in a memo in September 1973 . This would prevent the executive branch “from accomplishing its constitutional functions” in a way that cannot “be justified by an overriding need,” he added.

Mr. Dixon, an appointee of President Richard M. Nixon, wrote his memo against the backdrop of the Watergate scandal, when Mr. Nixon faced a criminal investigation by a special counsel, Archibald Cox. The next month, Nixon’s solicitor general, Robert H. Bork , in a court brief , similarly argued for an “inference” that the Constitution makes sitting presidents immune from indictment and trial.

(That same month, Mr. Nixon had Mr. Cox fired in the so-called Saturday Night Massacre. Mr. Nixon’s attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned rather than carry out his orders to oust the prosecutor; Mr. Nixon then turned to Mr. Bork, the department’s No. 3, who proved willing to do it. Amid a political backlash, Mr. Nixon was forced to allow a new special counsel, Leon Jaworski , to resume the investigation.)

The question arose again a generation later, when President Bill Clinton faced an investigation by Kenneth Starr, an independent counsel, into the Whitewater land deal that morphed into an inquiry into his affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. Randolph D. Moss , Mr. Clinton’s appointee to lead the Office of Legal Counsel, reviewed the Justice Department’s 1973 opinions and reaffirmed their conclusions .

Legal scholars, as well as staff for prosecutors investigating presidents, have disputed the legitimacy of that constitutional theory. In 1974, Mr. Jaworski received a memo from his staff saying he could, in fact, indict Mr. Nixon while he was in office, and he later made that case in a court brief .

And in a 56-page memo in 1998, Ronald Rotunda, a prominent conservative constitutional scholar whom Mr. Starr hired as a consultant on his legal team, rejected the view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office. Mr. Starr later said that he had concluded that he could indict Mr. Clinton.

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” Mr. Rotunda wrote. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”

Mr. Starr commissioned the Rotunda memo as he was drafting a potential indictment of Mr. Clinton, and Mr. Starr decided that he could charge the president while in office. In the end, however, both Mr. Jaworski and Mr. Starr decided to let congressional impeachment proceedings play out and did not try to bring indictments while Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton remained in office.

The question may never be definitively tested in the courts. In 1999, Congress allowed a law that created independent counsels like Mr. Starr — prosecutors who do not report to the attorney general — to expire, and the Justice Department issued regulations to allow for the appointment of semiautonomous special counsels for inquiries into potential high-level wrongdoing in the executive branch.

Special counsels are, however, bound by Justice Departments policies and practices — including the Office of Legal Counsel’s proclamation that sitting presidents are temporarily immune from criminal indictment or trial.

Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage

Is there such a thing as executive immunity?

There are no direct precedents on the broad question of whether presidents have criminal immunity for their official actions.

The Supreme Court has held that presidents are absolutely immune from civil lawsuits related to their official acts , in part to protect them against ceaseless harassment and judicial scrutiny of their day-to-day decisions. The court has also held that presidents can be sued over their personal actions .

The Supreme Court has further found that while presidents are sometimes immune from judicial subpoenas requesting internal executive branch information, that privilege is not absolute. Even presidents, the court has decided, can be forced to obey a subpoena in a criminal case if the need for information is great enough.

But until Mr. Trump wound up in court, the Supreme Court has never had a reason to decide whether former presidents are protected from being prosecuted for official actions. The Justice Department has long maintained that sitting presidents are temporarily immune from prosecution because criminal charges would distract them from their constitutional functions. But since Mr. Trump is not in office, that is not an issue.

The closest the country has come to the prosecution of a former president over official actions came in 1974, when Richard M. Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached over the Watergate scandal. But a pardon by his successor, President Gerald R. Ford, protected Nixon from indictment by the Watergate special prosecutor.

Mr. Smith’s team has argued that Ford’s pardon — and Nixon’s acceptance of it — demonstrates that both men understood that Nixon was not already immune. Mr. Trump’s team has sought to counter that point by arguing — inaccurately — that Nixon faced potential criminal charges only over private actions, like tax fraud. But the special prosecutor weighed charging Nixon with abusing his office to obstruct justice.

Mr. Trump’s team has argued that denying his claims risks unleashing a routine practice of prosecuting former presidents for partisan reasons. But Mr. Smith’s team has argued that if courts endorse Mr. Trump’s theory, then future presidents who are confident of surviving impeachment could, with impunity, commit any number of crimes in connection with their official actions.

“Such a result would severely undermine the compelling public interest in the rule of law and criminal accountability,” prosecutors wrote.

Hypothetical questions test the limits of Trump’s immunity claim.

An exchange during an appeals court argument in January about a hypothetical political assassination tested former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he is absolutely immune from prosecution for his official conduct.

His lawyer, D. John Sauer, has urged the justices to consider only what he is actually accused of: plotting to subvert the 2020 election. But hypothetical questions are routine at the Supreme Court, and they have a way of illuminating the contours and implications of legal theories.

That is what happened in January, when Judge Florence Y. Pan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had to press Mr. Sauer to get an answer to a hypothetical question: Are former presidents absolutely immune from prosecution, even for murders they ordered while in office?

“I asked you a yes-or-no question,” Judge Pan said. “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”

Mr. Sauer said his answer was a “qualified yes,” by which he meant no. He explained that prosecution would be permitted only if the president were first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

Impeachments of presidents are rare: There have been four in the history of the Republic, two of them of Mr. Trump. The number of convictions, which require a two-thirds majority of the Senate: zero.

Mr. Sauer’s statement called to mind a 2019 federal appeals court argument over whether Mr. Trump could block state prosecutors from obtaining his tax and business records. He maintained that he was immune not only from prosecution but also from criminal investigation so long as he was president.

At that time, Judge Denny Chin of the Second Circuit pressed William S. Consovoy, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, asking about his client’s famous statement that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing political support.

“Local authorities couldn’t investigate?” Judge Chin asked, adding: “Nothing could be done? That’s your position?”

“That is correct,” said Mr. Consovoy. “That is correct.”

This headline followed: “If Trump Shoots Someone on 5th Ave., Does He Have Immunity? His Lawyer Says Yes.”

For his part, Mr. Sauer does not seem eager to revisit the question about assassinations. Indeed, in asking the Supreme Court to hear Mr. Trump’s appeal, Mr. Sauer urged the justices not to be distracted by “lurid hypotheticals” that “almost certainly never will occur.”

What counts as an official act as president?

Another issue that has come up in lower courts in this case was what counted as an official act for a president, as opposed to a private action that was not connected to his constitutional responsibilities.

If the justices want to dispose of the dispute without definitively ruling on whether presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts, they could do so by finding that the specific steps former President Donald J. Trump took to remain in office that are cited in the federal indictment were not official actions. If so, the broader immunity question would not matter, and the prosecution could proceed.

The acts by Mr. Trump cited in the indictment include using deceit to organize fake slates of electors and to try to get state officials to subvert legitimate election results; trying to get the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to help fraudulently alter the results; directing his supporters to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; and exploiting the violence and chaos of their ensuing riot.

In its court filings, Mr. Trump’s team has sought to reframe those accusations not only as official actions, but innocuous or even admirable ones.

“All five types of conduct alleged in the indictment constitute official acts,” they wrote. “They all reflect President Trump’s efforts and duties, squarely as chief executive of the United States, to advocate for and defend the integrity of the federal election, in accord with his view that it was tainted by fraud and irregularity.”

Mr. Smith’s team has argued that they should be seen as the efforts of a person seeking office, not of an officeholder carrying out government responsibilities.

“Those alleged acts were carried out by and on behalf of the defendant in his capacity as a candidate, and the extensive involvement of private attorneys and campaign staff in procuring the fraudulent slates as alleged in the indictment underscores that those activities were not within the outer perimeter of the office of the presidency,” they wrote.

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing Mr. Trump’s case in Federal District Court in Washington, issued her ruling rejecting Mr. Trump’s immunity claim without including any detailed analysis of whether his acts were “official.”

If the Supreme Court were to send the matter back to her to take a stab at answering that question before restarting the appeals process, Mr. Trump will, at a minimum, have used up additional valuable time that could help push any trial past the election.

Noah Weiland and Alan Feuer

Here are the lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court.

The two lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court on Thursday have each played a role in some of the defining legal battles stemming from Mr. Trump’s term in office.

Arguing the case for the special counsel Jack Smith will be Michael Dreeben, who worked for a different special counsel’s office that scrutinized Mr. Trump’s presidency: Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into links between Russia and associates of Mr. Trump. Mr. Dreeben, one of the nation’s leading criminal law experts, has made more than 100 oral arguments before the Supreme Court, including when he served as deputy solicitor general.

On Mr. Mueller’s team, he handled pretrial litigation, defending the scope of the investigation and preventing the office from losing cases on appeal. He also helped with a second part of Mr. Mueller’s investigation, examining whether Mr. Trump had tried to obstruct the inquiry in his dealings with associates involved in the case.

Mr. Dreeben, who was heavily involved in the writing of Mr. Mueller’s final report on his investigation, supported an interpretation of presidential power that emphasized limits on what a president could do while exercising his or her powers, according to “Where Law Ends,” a book written by Andrew Weissmann, another prosecutor on Mr. Mueller’s team.

After Mr. Mueller’s investigation concluded, Mr. Dreeben took a teaching position at Georgetown University’s law school and returned to private practice at O’Melveny, arguing in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of the city of Austin over a First Amendment dispute about the placement of digital billboards.

Opposing Mr. Dreeben in front of the Supreme Court will be D. John Sauer, a lawyer based in St. Louis who once served as the solicitor general of Missouri. Mr. Sauer joined Mr. Trump’s legal team late last year to handle appellate matters, including his challenge to a gag order imposed on him in the election case in Washington.

As Missouri’s solicitor general, Mr. Sauer took part in a last-ditch effort to keep Mr. Trump in power after his defeat in the 2020 election, filing a motion on behalf of his state and five others in support of an attempt by Texas to have the Supreme Court toss out the results of the vote count in several key swing states.

He also joined in an unsuccessful bid with Texas in asking the Supreme Court to stop the Biden administration from rescinding a Trump-era immigration program that forces certain asylum seekers arriving at the southwestern border to await approval in Mexico.

When he left the solicitor general’s office last January, Mr. Sauer, who once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, returned to his private firm, the James Otis Law Group. The firm is named after a prominent Revolutionary War-era lawyer who built a career out of challenging abuses by British colonial forces.

To justify his defense in the immunity case, Trump turns to a familiar tactic.

When the Supreme Court considers Donald J. Trump’s sweeping claims of executive immunity on Thursday, it will break new legal ground, mulling for the first time the question of whether a former president can avoid being prosecuted for things he did in office.

But in coming up with the argument, Mr. Trump used a tactic on which he has often leaned in his life as a businessman and politician: He flipped the facts on their head in an effort to create a different reality.

At the core of his immunity defense is a claim that seeks to upend the story told by federal prosecutors in an indictment charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 election. In that indictment, prosecutors described a criminal conspiracy by Mr. Trump to subvert the election results and stay in power.

In Mr. Trump’s telling, however, those same events are official acts that he undertook as president to safeguard the integrity of the race and cannot be subject to prosecution.

In many ways, Mr. Trump’s immunity claim is breathtaking. In one instance, his lawyers went so far as to say that a president could not be prosecuted even for using the military to assassinate a rival unless he was first impeached.

But the wholesale rewriting of the government’s accusations — which first appeared six months ago in Mr. Trump’s motion to dismiss the election interference case — may be the most audacious part of his defense. It was certainly a requisite step his lawyers had to take to advance the immunity argument.

Other courts have ruled that presidents enjoy limited immunity from civil lawsuits for things they did as part of the formal responsibilities of their job. To extend that legal concept to criminal charges, Mr. Trump’s lawyers needed to reframe all of the allegations lodged against him in the election interference case as official acts of his presidency rather than as the actions of a candidate misusing his power.

IMAGES

direct speech example
100 Examples of Direct and Indirect Speech
how to write direct speech in english
Direct and Indirect Speech Examples
Direct Speech
how to write direct speech in english

VIDEO

Speaking in Style: Mastering Direct and Indirect Speech
Direct Speech and Indirect Speech, in English, volume Nine (9)
Direct and indirect Speech
Direct Speech Interpreting
Narration (Direct speech and Indirect speech) 📚📚very important child, you are learning children 📚📚
Direct Speech and Indirect Speech, in English, volume Eight (8)

COMMENTS

How do you write direct speech in English?
Grammar. How do you write direct speech in English? - Easy Learning Grammar. Direct speech gives the actual words that the speaker used. It is common in novels and other writing where the actual words of a speaker are quoted. The reporting verb may come before the words that were actually spoken, or after them, or at a natural pause inside the ...
Direct speech writing rules in English
Grammar rules - If the reporting clause is before the direct speech: We write a comma (,) before the direct speech. We write the exact words inside the inverted commas. The first letter is a capital letter. We write a full stop (.) before the closing inverted commas.
Direct and Indirect Speech: Useful Rules and Examples
Differences between Direct and Indirect Speech. Change of Pronouns. Change of Tenses. Change of Time and Place References. Converting Direct Speech Into Indirect Speech. Step 1: Remove the Quotation Marks. Step 2: Use a Reporting Verb and a Linker. Step 3: Change the Tense of the Verb. Step 4: Change the Pronouns.
How to structure and punctuate direct speech in fiction
Direct speech is carefully structured to help the reader follow the conversation. Every time there is a new speaker in the conversation, a new line is used. Each new section of dialogue is like ...
Punctuation in direct speech
Punctuation in direct speech. We use inverted commas (also called quotation marks, quotes or speech marks) to indicate direct speech. Double quotes (") are preferred in American English, while single quotes (') are more common in British English: "I'm coming home late tonight," she said. (American English) 'I'm coming home late tonight,' she said.
Direct Speech or Quoted Speech
In direct speech, every new spoken line starts with a capital letter. Also, when the speech tag is at the end of the sentence, the quoted sentence should end with a comma, question mark, or exclamation mark but not with a period. ... Mastering direct speech or quoted speech can enhance your writing skills tremendously, helping you write ...
What is Direct Speech? with Useful Examples
In English grammar, there are generally two ways of reporting a spoken text: direct and indirect. Direct speech differs in composition compared to indirect speech. This article will discuss the definition, rules, and examples of direct speech that will help you understand how it is used in writing.
How to write direct speech
Avoid verbs that aren't speech verbs in your speech declarations. Add actions or thoughts into direct speech, using the 'before' or 'after' approach. 1. New speaker = new paragraph. This is the first rule, and it's a very straightforward one. When a new person speaks, you should start a new paragraph.
Reported speech: direct speech
Reported speech: direct speech - English Grammar Today - a reference to written and spoken English grammar and usage - Cambridge Dictionary
How to Write Direct Speech: Tips and Examples
In direct speech, the actual words of the speaker are put inside quotation marks. In indirect speech, a summary of what the speaker said is given. In direct speech, the tense of the verb stays the same as in the original sentence. In indirect speech, the tense of the verb is changed according to the time of reporting.
Direct Speech Definition and Examples
Direct Speech as Drama . When a speaking event is reported via direct speech forms, it is possible to include many features that dramatize the way in which an utterance was produced. The quotative frame can also include verbs that indicate the speaker's manner of expression (e.g. cry, exclaim, gasp), voice quality (e.g. mutter, scream, whisper), and type of emotion (e.g. giggle, laugh, sob).
Direct Speech and Reported Speech
Direct Speech Direct speech shows a person's exact words. Quotation marks ("....") are a sign that the words are the exact words that a person used. Reported Speech Reported speech puts the speaker's words or ideas into a sentence without quotation marks. Noun clauses are usually used. In reported speech, the reader does not assume that the words are the speaker's exact words; often, they are ...
Direct and Indirect Speech: The Ultimate Guide
Direct and Indirect Speech are the two ways of reporting what someone said. The use of both direct and indirect speech is crucial in effective communication and writing. Understanding the basics of direct and indirect speech is important, but mastering the advanced techniques of these two forms of speech can take your writing to the next level. In this article, we will explore direct and ...
Direct and Indirect Speech (Grammar Rules and Great Examples)
Direct Speech: He says, "I am watching a new TV series.". Indirect Speech: He says that he is watching a new TV series. Of course, you have to consider the correlation between the report and the idea on the quoted text. Sometimes, a change in tense is not needed even if the reporting verb is in the past tense. Examples:
He Said, She Said: Mastering Reported Speech in English (Both Direct
Direct speech: "I don't want to enter the water, ever," she says. "If everyone's going in the ocean, I'm like, no.". Here, the speech is reported as though it's in the present tense ("she says") instead of in the past ("she said"). In writing of all kinds, direct reported speech is often split into two or more parts, as ...
Direct Speech Definition And Examples (FREE Worksheet)
Writing direct speech is as easy as 1-2-3! 1. Start with the speaker's name or a description of them. 2. Then, use a reporting verb (like 'said,' 'shouted,' and 'whispered'). 3. Finally, write the exact words the speaker said inside quotation marks.
Direct Speech
In indirect speech, only the necessary or important points of someone's message or speech are reported. Here, unlike direct speech, we do not write the full speech of the speaker. Instead, we report the necessary content by rephrasing them in our own words. For example; Direct speech: "I am bored of school activities," John screamed.
20 Examples of Direct Speech
Direct Speech Imperative sentence Examples: We use imperative sentence to give order, advice, to instruct or to request something. Mother told me, "Do your homework.". Father said, "Study more for your exam.". Ranju said, "Please, come with me.". The dwarf said to snow white, "Do not eat the apple.". The commander said to the ...
Reported speech
Reported speech (summary): When Mary complained that she was tired out after walking so far, Peter said they could stop for a picnic. ... As you know in fiction, we need to write in non-ordinary way to create unique impressions of the word and academic writing is different than speaking. Will be grateful if you could give your insight below ...
Direct and indirect speech
AU is Canada's Open University, offering open and flexible distance learning with world-class online courses, undergraduate and graduate degree programs, and professional development options. A look into direct and indirect speech and how its used.
Direct and Indirect Speech
Step 1: Write down the reporting verb that is used to determine the Indirect Speech's tense. Step 2: Change the position and time to reflect the speaker's actual location and time. Step 3: For both the object and the subject, use the correct pronoun. Step 4: Make sure the sentence has the correct structure and word order.
How To Use Reported Speech Dialogue In Your Writing
When you start to learn to write dialogue, it seems simple. All you need to do is add a reporting verb or dialogue tag. You probably learned this at high school. When a character speaks lines of dialogue, you put a double quotation mark at the beginning and end. But if you use reported speech, you need to include a tense shift.
Over 17,400 citizens write to EC seeking action against PM Narendra
Over 17,400 citizens write to EC seeking action against PM Narendra Modi for hate speech The prime minister's comments on Sunday were a 'direct attack on the Muslims of India', one of the ...
Justices Seem Ready to Limit the 2020 Election Case Against Trump
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday about Donald J. Trump's claim that the federal charges accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election must be thrown out because he is ...

How do you write direct speech in English? - Easy Learning Grammar

Direct speech writing rules in English

Reporting clause before the direct speech

Reporting clause before a question or exclamation

Reporting clause after the direct speech

Reporting clause after a question or exclamation

Advanced rules for direct speech

Vocabulary of direct speech

Other reporting verbs

Other English lessons

Direct speech video lesson

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Follow us on social media

Privacy policy

Direct and Indirect Speech: Useful Rules and Examples

Direct and Indirect Speech

Differences between Direct and Indirect Speech

Change of Pronouns

Change of Tenses

Change of Time and Place References

Converting Direct Speech Into Indirect Speech

Step 1: Remove the Quotation Marks

Step 2: Use a Reporting Verb and a Linker

Step 3: Change the Tense of the Verb

Step 4: Change the Pronouns

Converting Indirect Speech Into Direct Speech

Examples of Direct and Indirect Speech

Direct Speech Examples

Indirect Speech Examples

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Posts:

Search form

Punctuation in direct speech

Rate this page

Direct Speech or Quoted Speech

Understanding Direct Speech

Formatting Direct Speech

Rule 1: Opening and Closing Quotation Marks

Rule 2: Speech Tag Placement

Rule 3: Capitalization and Punctuation

Understanding the Speech Tag

Overriding Rules in Direct Speech

Rule 1: Interrupted Speech

Rule 2: Consecutive Sentences

Concluding Remarks

Practice Exercises:

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Reported speech: direct speech

Direct speech: inversion of subject and reporting verb

Direct speech: present simple and continuous reporting verbs

Newspaper headlines

Learn more with +Plus

Direct Speech Definition and Examples

Examples and Observations

Direct Speech and Indirect Speech

Direct Speech as Drama

Like : Signaling Direct Speech in Conversation

Differences in Reported Speech

Direct Speech and Reported Speech

Direct Speech

Reported Speech

Verb Tense in Reported Speech

Questions in Reported Speech

Yes or No Questions

Information Questions

Place and Time

Recommend and Suggest

Infinitives

Requests for Action or Permission

Direct and Indirect Speech: The Ultimate Guide

What is Direct Speech?

What is Indirect Speech?

Differences Between Direct and Indirect Speech

How to Convert Direct Speech to Indirect Speech

How to Convert Indirect Speech to Direct Speech

Advanced Techniques for Using Direct and Indirect Speech

Blending Direct and Indirect Speech

Using Reported Questions