pdf exercises reported speech

Reported speech - 1

Reported speech - 2

Reported speech - 3

Worksheets - handouts

Reported speech

Worksheets - pdf exercises.

• Reported statements - worksheet
• Worksheet - reported questions
• Reported yes/no questions
• Worksheet - reported speech
• Reported speech - exercises pdf
• Indirect speech - exercises
• Reported speech - exercises
• Mixed reported speech 1
• Mixed reported speech 2
• Reported speech 1 
• Reported speech 2  
• Reported speech 3 
• Reported speech 4
• Reported speech 5
• Reported wh- questions
• Reported speech - worksheet 
• Reported commands
• Reported questions
• Reported speech 1
• Reported speech 2
• Reported requests and orders
• Reported speech exercise
• Reported questions - worksheet
• Indirect speech - worksheet
• Worksheets pdf - print
• Grammar worksheets - handouts

Grammar - lessons

• Reported speech - grammar notes
• How to use reported speech - lesson
• Tense changes - grammar

Reported Speech Exercises (With Printable PDF)

| Candace Osmond

| Grammar , Quizzes

Candace Osmond

Candace Osmond studied Advanced Writing & Editing Essentials at MHC. She’s been an International and USA TODAY Bestselling Author for over a decade. And she’s worked as an Editor for several mid-sized publications. Candace has a keen eye for content editing and a high degree of expertise in Fiction.

In English grammar, reported speech is used to tell someone what another person said. It takes another person’s words (direct speech) to create a report of what they said (indirect speech.) With the following direct and indirect speech exercises, it will be easier to understand how reported speech works.

Reported Speech Exercise #1

Complete the sentence in the reported speech.

Reported Speech Exercise #2

Fill in the gaps below with the correct pronouns required in reported speech. Ex. Mary said: “I love my new dress!” Sentence: Mary said ____ love ____ new dress. Answer: she, her

Reported Speech Exercise #3

Choose the correct reported speech phrase to fill in the sentences below.

Grammarist is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. When you buy via the links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission at no cost to you.

2024 © Grammarist, a Found First Marketing company. All rights reserved.

88,939 English ESL worksheets pdf & doc

Reported Speech with Examples and Test (PDF)

Reported speech is used when we want to convey what someone else has said to us or to another person. It involves paraphrasing or summarising what has been said , often changing verb tenses , pronouns and other elements to suit the context of the report.

*doesn’t change

Formula of Reported Speech

The formula for reported speech involves transforming direct speech into an indirect form while maintaining the meaning of the original statement. In general, the formula includes:

• Choosing an appropriate reporting verb (e.g., say, tell, mention, explain).
• Changing pronouns and time expressions if necessary.
• Shifting the tense of the verb back if the reporting verb is in the past tense.
• Using reporting clauses like “that” or appropriate conjunctions.
• Adjusting word order and punctuation to fit the structure of the reported speech.

Here’s a simplified formula:

Reporting Verb + Indirect Object + Conjunction + Reported Clause

For example:

• She said (reporting verb) to me (indirect object) that (conjunction) she liked ice cream (reported clause).

Here’s how we use reported speech:

Reporting Verbs: We use verbs like ‘say’ or ‘tell’ to introduce reported speech. If the reporting verb is in the present tense, the tense of the reported speech generally remains the same.

If the reporting verb is in the past tense , the tense of the reported speech often shifts back in time.

Tense Changes: Tense changes are common in reported speech. For example, present simple may change to past simple, present continuous to past continuous, etc. However, some verbs like ‘would’, ‘could’, ‘should’, ‘might’, ‘must’, and ‘ought to’ generally don’t change.

Reported Questions: When reporting questions, we often change them into statements while preserving the meaning. Question words are retained, and the tense of the verbs may change.

Reported Requests and Orders: Requests and orders are reported similarly to statements. Reported requests often use ‘asked me to’ + infinitive, while reported orders use ‘told me to’ + infinitive.

Time Expressions: Time expressions may need to change depending on when the reported speech occurred in relation to the reporting moment. For instance, ‘today’ may become ‘that day’ or ‘yesterday’, ‘yesterday’ might become ‘the day before’, and so forth.

Reported Speech with Examples PDF

  Reported Speech PDF – download

Reported Speech Test

  Reported Speech A2 – B1 Test – download

You May Also Like

Guide to Writing Engaging Blog Descriptions in English

Informal Contractions & Relaxed Pronunciation (PDF)

Holy Quran Short English Essay + Quran in English (PDF)

• I would like books for studying.

Reported Speech

Perfect english grammar.

Reported Statements

Here's how it works:

We use a 'reporting verb' like 'say' or 'tell'. ( Click here for more about using 'say' and 'tell' .) If this verb is in the present tense, it's easy. We just put 'she says' and then the sentence:

• Direct speech: I like ice cream.
• Reported speech: She says (that) she likes ice cream.

We don't need to change the tense, though probably we do need to change the 'person' from 'I' to 'she', for example. We also may need to change words like 'my' and 'your'. (As I'm sure you know, often, we can choose if we want to use 'that' or not in English. I've put it in brackets () to show that it's optional. It's exactly the same if you use 'that' or if you don't use 'that'.)

But , if the reporting verb is in the past tense, then usually we change the tenses in the reported speech:

• Reported speech: She said (that) she liked ice cream.

* doesn't change.

• Direct speech: The sky is blue.
• Reported speech: She said (that) the sky is/was blue.

Click here for a mixed tense exercise about practise reported statements. Click here for a list of all the reported speech exercises.

Reported Questions

So now you have no problem with making reported speech from positive and negative sentences. But how about questions?

• Direct speech: Where do you live?
• Reported speech: She asked me where I lived.
• Direct speech: Where is Julie?
• Reported speech: She asked me where Julie was.

• Direct speech: Do you like chocolate?
• Reported speech: She asked me if I liked chocolate.

Click here to practise reported 'wh' questions. Click here to practise reported 'yes / no' questions. Reported Requests

There's more! What if someone asks you to do something (in a polite way)? For example:

• Direct speech: Close the window, please
• Or: Could you close the window please?
• Or: Would you mind closing the window please?
• Reported speech: She asked me to close the window.

• Direct speech: Please don't be late.
• Reported speech: She asked us not to be late.

Reported Orders

• Direct speech: Sit down!
• Reported speech: She told me to sit down.

• Click here for an exercise to practise reported requests and orders.

• Click here for an exercise about using 'say' and 'tell'.
• Click here for a list of all the reported speech exercises.

Hello! I'm Seonaid! I'm here to help you understand grammar and speak correct, fluent English.

Read more about our learning method

Reported speech

Reported statements, questions, commands

Loading ad...

• Google Classroom
• Microsoft Teams
• Download PDF

South Africa's Ramaphosa announces cabinet that includes ex-opposition leader

• Medium Text

ANC TOOK HIT AT POLLS

Sign up here.

Additional reporting by Wendell Roelf in Cape Town and Bhargav Acharya, Kopano Gumbi and Alexander Winning in Johannesburg; Editing by Joe Bavier and Mark Porter

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Tim Cocks has reported from all over Africa for Reuters for the past two decades (aside from a stint covering the Iraq war in 2008/9). In his current role, he covers politics, climate change, diplomacy and human interest. Previously he was bureau chief for West & Central Africa. A story on the environmental disaster of Ghana’s artisanal gold mining won him a SABEW award for best feature in 2019. He is also the author of ‘Lagos:Supernatural City’, an intimate portrait of the life in Africa’s biggest metropolis.

Tannur Anders, based in Johannesburg, is a Breaking News Correspondent covering Sub-Saharan Africa. She has covered Johannesburg Stock Exchange-listed companies, the BRICs Summit of emerging economies and the South African central bank's interest rate decisions. Anders holds an undergraduate Politics, Philosophy and Economics degree and a post-graduate degree in Journalism and Media Studies. She is passionate about political-economic stories that highlight social issues. Her career highlight is interviewing the youngest-ever Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai.

World Chevron

Myanmar central bank denies UN report on weapons transactions

The report said Myanmar had the help of international banks, including those from Southeast Asian neighbor Thailand, for its purchases.

Watch CBS News

Supreme Court rejects challenge to Biden administration's contacts with social media companies

By Melissa Quinn

Updated on: June 26, 2024 / 12:10 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid from a group of social media users and two states to curtail the Biden administration's efforts to pressure social media companies to remove content that officials said was misinformation.

The court determined that the users and the states, Louisiana and Missouri, did not have the legal right to seek an injunction against the Biden administration over its contacts with the platforms. The users had argued that their speech was unconstitutionally stifled when their social media posts were removed or suppressed after prodding by administration officials. 

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the case known as Murthy v. Missouri, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing for the majority. She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 

The decision by the high court reverses a lower court order that limited the contacts White House and administration officials could have with platforms, which the Justice Department had argued went too far. That injunction had been on hold while the Supreme Court considered the case.

"The plaintiffs rely on allegations of past government censorship as evidence that future censorship is likely," Barrett wrote. "But they fail, by and large, to link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants' communications with the platforms. Thus, the events of the past do little to help any of the plaintiffs establish standing to seek an injunction to prevent future harms."

In a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Justice Samuel Alito called the case "one of the most important free speech cases to reach this court in years," and accused government officials of coercing private entities — the social media companies — to suppress speech.

The trio of dissenters criticized the majority for sidestepping the free speech issues raised in the case and permitting "the successful campaign of coercion ... to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear and think."

Murthy v. Missouri

The legal battle centered around the five social media users' claims that the Biden administration's communications with platforms violated their First Amendment rights. The challengers had accused federal officials of mounting a "sprawling federal 'Censorship Enterprise,'" through which they coerced social media companies into censoring or suppressing speech they disfavored.

The users and officials from Louisiana and Missouri urged the Supreme Court to limit how far the federal government can go in interactions with social media companies, arguing that the efforts from the Biden administration crossed the constitutional line from persuasion, which is allowed, to coercion, which is not. 

The Supreme Court's ruling comes as the federal government prepares to combat misinformation online ahead of the November presidential election, while confronting sophisticated artificial intelligence tools that are more readily available to the public. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the ruling from the court helps to ensure that the Biden administration can continue its work with tech companies to protect the American people.

"This administration engages with social media and other technology companies on critical topics, including terrorism threats, foreign malign influence campaigns, online harassment of women and children, and mental health of children and adolescents," she said in a statement. "The Supreme Court's decision today ensures this work can continue as the country faces ongoing threats online."

Jean-Pierre said the White House continues to believe that while social media companies make independent decisions about the information presented on their platforms, they have a responsibility to take into account the effects their sites have on the public.

The case was one of several before the justices in its current term that stood at the intersection of social media and the First Amendment's free speech protections. In this dispute, a federal district judge in Louisiana sided with the social media users, finding that White House officials and some federal agencies and their employees violated the First Amendment by coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies' content-moderation decisions. The judge issued a sweeping order restricting the Biden administration's contacts with platforms.

A federal appeals court agreed that certain White House officials and the FBI unconstitutionally coerced platforms to suppress content related to COVID-19 vaccines and the 2020 election. But the court narrowed the scope of the district court judge's order to cover a smaller group of federal officials.

The Supreme Court in October agreed to take up the case and consider whether the Biden administration impermissibly worked to suppress speech on Facebook, YouTube and X. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the court's decision to pause the lower court's injunction and said they would have maintained the limits on the Biden administration's contacts with platforms while the case proceeded.

The Biden administration had argued that they were using the bully pulpit to persuade platforms to address content it believed was problematic, especially in the context of its efforts to push Americans to get vaccinated during the pandemic. The administration warned that the limits put in place by the district court would hamper its ability to address national security threats or pass along public-health information.

Lawyers for the challengers, though, had claimed that the Biden administration was using social media companies to silence speakers and viewpoints and accused government officials of bullying the platforms.

Writing for the majority, Barrett said the 5th Circuit was wrong to affirm the district court's sweeping injunction. For some of the individual social media users whose content was targeted, she noted the social media restrictions began before Biden administration officials began discussions with the platforms.

"[W]ithout proof of an ongoing pressure campaign, it is entirely speculative that the platforms' future moderation decisions will be attributable, even in part, to the defendants," Barrett wrote.

The majority said that available evidence shows that the platforms have continued to enforce their policies against misinformation posted about COVID-19, even as the federal government ended the national emergency and unwound response measures.

"Enjoining the government defendants, therefore, is unlikely to affect the platforms' content-moderation decisions," the court said.

But Alito disagreed, and said it is "reasonable to infer" that the efforts of federal officials' impacted at least some of Facebook's content moderation decisions. Focusing specifically on Facebook and the targeting of Hines' posts, he called the Biden administration's efforts "subtle and sophisticated," and said some high-ranking officials "browbeat" platforms for months. 

Alito rejected the Justice Department's assertions that officials were using the bully pulpit to inform the public, and said its contention "stretches the concept beyond breaking point."

"In sum, the officials wielded potent authority. Their communications with Facebook were virtual demands. And Facebook's quavering responses to those demands show that it felt a strong need to yield," he said.

The dispute involving the Biden administration's contacts with social media companies was one of two the Supreme Court heard involving "jawboning," or informal pressure by the government on an intermediary to take certain actions that will suppress speech. 

In the first case, the court unanimously ruled the NRA "plausibly alleged" that New York's top financial regulator violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to end their business relationships with the NRA to "punish or suppress" the group's pro-gun rights advocacy. The court's ruling revives a lawsuit that the NRA filed against Maria Vullo, the former head of the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Melissa Quinn is a politics reporter for CBSNews.com. She has written for outlets including the Washington Examiner, Daily Signal and Alexandria Times. Melissa covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.

More from CBS News

Supreme Court strips SEC of key enforcement power to penalize fraud

Supreme Court rejects Steve Bannon's bid to remain out of prison on appeal

Texas Supreme Court upholds ban on gender-affirming care for minors

Why the Supreme Court's decision limiting federal agencies is so significant

Ukraine war latest: Belarus deploys extra air defence forces to border; 10 Ukrainian prisoners freed with Vatican's help

Ten Ukrainian civilians who had been imprisoned in Russia for years have been released after mediation from the Vatican. Overnight, five people were killed in a Ukrainian drone strike on a Russian village. Listen to a Sky News podcast on Putin and North Korea while you scroll.

Sunday 30 June 2024 08:23, UK

• Five killed, including two children, in Ukrainian strike on Russian village
• Ten Ukrainians imprisoned in Russia freed after Vatican mediation
• Belarus deploys additional air defence forces to Ukraine border
• Your questions answered : Has the West been honest about Ukraine's failures?
• Listen to the Daily above and tap here to follow wherever you get your podcasts

Ask a question or make a comment

We're pausing our live coverage for now. 

You can scroll below to catch up on the latest developments, and we'll be back with our regular coverage tomorrow. 

Six people have been killed in a Russian attack on a small town in the southern Zaporizhzhia region, a Ukrainian official has said. 

A further eight people have been injured, regional governor Ivan Fedorov said. 

Infrastructure, a shop and residential buildings in Vilniansk have also been damaged, he added. 

The strike comes after five people were killed in the Kursk region of Russian due to a Ukrainian drone attack. 

Two young children were also injured in the strike on the village of Gorodishche, around 73 miles (118km) from the Ukrainian border, Kursk governor Alexey Smirnov said. 

Two other people were injured and were in a "serious condition" in hospital, he added. 

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has met one of the men released from Russian captivity earlier today. 

The Ukrainian president met Nariman Dzhelyal who was successfully returned home after three years in captivity. 

"We will bring security to all our people and peace to Ukraine. I thank everyone who is helping. I thank Nariman for this meeting and for his strength," Mr Zelenskyy said. 

Mr Dzhelyal was detained in Crimea in 2021 while serving as the first deputy chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People. 

During his imprisonment, he sent several letters, Mr Zelenskyy said. 

He added that in one of them he wrote: "We are fighting not only for the integrity of our territories but also for the unity of our society, our beautiful, strong nation." 

US officials told Reuters news agency late last night that the Biden administration would provide Ukraine with $150m (£118.6m) worth of weapons and ammunition, including HAWK air defence interceptors and 155 millimetre artillery munitions.

The weapons aid package is expected be unveiled on Monday, the officials said.

Ukraine has urgently requested air defence support as Russia has pounded its energy facilities in recent weeks via aerial attacks. 

The US began shipping HAWK interceptor missiles to Ukraine in 2022 as an upgrade to the shoulder-launched Stinger air defence missile systems - a smaller, shorter-range system. 

The support package will include other munitions and equipment to support Ukraine's defence needs, the officials added. 

The US has provided Ukraine with more than $50bn (£39.5bn) in military aid since 2022. 

We reported earlier on the 10 Ukrainian civilians who were released from Russian captivity earlier today after years of imprisonment (see 8.49am post). 

Watch them reunite with their loved ones in Kyiv's international airport in newly released footage.

A report by the Ukrainian military's centre for strategic communications has found that the country's forces have damaged or destroyed more than 30 Russian military aircraft in the first six months of 2024. 

Most of the strikes against the aircraft have taken place in occupied Ukraine except for a handful of strikes over the Sea of Azov and within Russia, the centre said, as reported by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). 

The centre did not specify what portion of these Ukrainian strikes were air defence interceptions of Russian aircraft in flight and what percentage were strikes against Russian aircraft at airfields. 

The ISW said they were unable to verify the report.

But it said the downing of Russian aircraft, especially critical aircraft like the A-50 and Il-22, has temporarily constrained Russian aviation activities over occupied Ukraine, but added Ukrainian forces "have yet to be able to significantly attempt to contest the air domain".

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has revealed that Russian strikes have resulted in Ukraine losing around 80% of its thermal power and one third of its hydroelectric power.

Discussing the attack in Dnipro, Mr Zelenskyy said it was a reminder to Ukraine's allies that the country needed more air defence systems. 

He said: "This is why we constantly remind all of our partners: only a sufficient amount of high quality of air defence systems, only a sufficient amount of determination from the world at large can stop Russian terror."

Kyiv has also struck back at Russia with its own attacks, which also often target energy infrastructure.

Belarus has deployed additional air defence forces to its border with Ukraine to protect "critical infrastructure facilities" due to increased Ukrainian drone activity, a Belarusian military commander has said.

Belarus, an ally of Russia, said earlier this week it had shot down a quadcopter that had illegally crossed the border from Ukraine "to collect information about the Belarusian border infrastructure". 

The situation in the airspace over the border remains tense, Andrei Severinchik, commander of the Belarusian Air Defence Forces, said. 

"We are ready to decisively use all available forces and means to protect our territory and the population of the Republic of Belarus from possible provocations in the airspace," he said. 

Belarus' defence ministry said earlier today it had information showing Ukraine had been moving more troops, weapons and military equipment to the northern Zhytomyr region, which borders Belarus. 

There was no immediate response from Ukraine. 

Russian elites and oligarchs have reportedly moved from criticising the country's war effort in Ukraine to supporting it, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has reported.

Mikhail Zygar, the founder of the Russian opposition television channel TV Rain, reported that many elites who were opposed to the war in 2022 started to support the war in 2023 because they "believe Russia is prevailing".

Mr Zygar said these people made this assessment due to Russia's slow but steady battlefield gains, a persisting Ukrainian munitions disadvantage, and perceived "waning" Western security assistance to Ukraine.

One anonymous Russian oligarch who previously criticised the war reportedly told Mr Zygar that Russia must win the war otherwise "they won't allow us to live... and Russia would collapse".

The ISW said it cannot independently verify Mr Zygar's reporting but it is consistent with the institute's assessment that this section of Russian society came to heel behind Vladimir Putin in support of the war after his government intensified crackdowns against elites in the wake of the 2022 invasion. 

As Russia announces it has captured a second village in 24 hours (see 12.26pm post), let's take a look at where Russia has advanced along the frontline with Ukraine. 

As well as pockets of advances on the border north of Kharkiv, Russia appears to have captured areas along the length of the front, from the Donetsk region right up to the western edge of Luhansk.

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free