In this essay I will analyse the representation of speech in Justin Bieber’s Never Say Never and thought in Kanye West’s Can’t Tell Me Nothing using approaches developed by G.N. Leech, M.H. Short and S. Rimmon-Kenan. I will use the aspects of Leech and Short’s essay ‘Speech and Thought Presentation’ that I consider to be constructive and compensate the shortcomings of their essay with the improvements – in my view – made in Rimmon-Kenan’s essay. Also, since Rimmon-Kenan’s essay ‘Narration: speech representation’ does not include an account of thought representation, I will convert his distinctions of speech representation. Thus “diegetic summary” (DS) will be “diegetic thought summary” (DTS); “Summary, less ‘purely’ diegetic” will be “Thought Summary, purely diegetic” (TS); “Indirect content paraphrase”(ICP) will be “Indirect thought content paraphrase” (ITC); “Indirect discourse, mimetic to some degree”(ID) will be “ Indirect thought, mimetic to some degree” (IT): “Free indirect discourse” (FID) will be “Free indirect thought” (FIT); “Direct discourse” (DD) will Be “Direct thought” (DT) and “Free direct discourse”(FDD) will be “Free Direct thought” (FDT). ITC, FIT, DT and FDT correspond with Leech and Short’s distinctions (in definition and symbol, except for ITC which correspond with their IT). I will give examples of DTS, TS and ITS:

DTS: The bare report of a thought, without any specification of how the thinker felt or the language the thinker used to think.
E.g., ‘He wondered about her love for him’
TS: Summary which represents thought in that it names in greater detail the thought act:
E.g., ‘He wondered if she had another lover or if she was capable of love’
IT: Indirect thought which gives the illusion of perceiving aspects of the style of the thought act.
E.g., ’He thought she had another bloody lover, he’d kill ‘em if ‘e ever saw ‘em.’

As is