423 Deictic Centres of Referential Expressions in Indirect Speech and Thought: Caesar’s De Bello Gallico I.1‒32 * Suzanne Adema (Amsterdam) 1. Introduction Beside direct speech and reports of speech acts, indirect speech is a main category of speech representation in narrative texts. 1 However, the category of indirect speech in, for instance, Caesar’s De Bello Gallico is far from homogeneous, as some instances of indirect speech seem as succinct as re- ports of speech acts, subsidiary to the events of the story, while others are as elaborate and vivid as direct speeches, standing out as almost independent discourse units (Rasmussen 1963: 63). 2 A starting point for a new approach to the heterogeneous category of indi- rect speech might be the assumption that a narrator can vary in the degree in which he uses the two deictic centres available in indirect speech, his own and that of the represented speaker (Sznajder 2002 and 2005; cf. also Van- delanotte 2009). This assumption is supported when we look at linguistic elements such as tense and adverbs, in which the narrator appears to have a choice to use his own deictic centre (past tenses, the use of tum or id tempus) or that of the represented speaker (present and perfect subjunctives, nunc). We could say that the more elements in an indirect speech are geared to the deictic centre of the represented speaker, the more it resembles the vividness and autonomy of direct speech. * This article is part of a project funded by NWO (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research). I would like to thank Nies Koopman, Maarten Prot, Josine Schrickx and David Stienaers for their comments on earlier versions of this article. 1 The term report of a speech act is used for those instances in which a narrator mentions that a speech took place without quoting it. 2 An example of indirect speech resembling the report of a speech act is the message in which Caesar is informed of the plans of the Helvetians to cross the Roman province ( Gall. 1.7, example 1). This message, embedded in a subordinate clause, is presented in the light of Caesar’s reaction to it. In contrast, the lengthy explanation of the situation in Gaul by Divi- ciacus (Gall. 1.31, example 9) resembles an autonomous discourse unit, as it contains many elements geared to the deictic centre of the represented speaker (e.g. nunc, several present and perfect tense subjunctives, see below).