I am grateful for the chance to respond to this interesting and valuable study. The ubiquity of reported speech constructions in human languages is a remarkable fact about them, bearing out Bakhtinâ€™s (1984: 143) dictum that that we â€œlive in a world of othersâ€™ wordsâ€. But despite its ubiquity and functional distinctiveness, as Spronck and Nikitina (S&N) show us, the category of reported speech (RS) is harder to pin down than we might think. First of all there are problems with the term itself, given that what RS â€œreportsâ€ may include thought as well as speech, and even when it is (re)presented as speech, may not ever have actually been spoken. Notwithstanding those problems with the term â€œreported speechâ€, in practice it seems that the range of phenomena to which it has applied do match up closely with those referred to by alternative terms such as â€œreported discourseâ€, â€œrepresented speechâ€, and â€œconstructed dialogueâ€. Given that, and the fact that â€œreported speechâ€ is the most commonly used term for it nowadays, S&Nâ€™s decision to stick with it seems sensible.