The article is devoted to the consideration of the pragmatic potential of reportative category as a nuclear component of indirect evidentiality. The reportative category implies the indication of the source of information. In speech situations, there is a need to refer to someone's opinion. The purpose of the article is to determine in which speech acts the need to refer to someone's opinion arises and what pragmatic function is performed by reportative category as a means to indicate the source of information. Two strategies are outlined in the article: a strategy of consolidation with someone's opinion, recognition of information from third parties as reliable, and a strategy for discrediting someone's opinion, refuting information from third parties. When implementing the consolidation strategy, when referring to information from third parties, an "increase" of speaker’s authority may occur if the information provider has a lower status than the source of information. For example, a reference to the prevailing opinion serves to maintain one's opinion. When referring to information from third parties, an "increase" in the source of information authority may occur, if the person has a higher status. When implementing a strategy to discredit someone's opinion, a reference to the prevailing opinion can be an object of refutation, contrary to the results of speaker’s own experience. In this case, the information content is denied, the authority of the information source is questioned. Information from third parties may also be subject to refutation, contrary to the results of their own experience. The content of information is denied, the competence of informants or communicative tasks of an informer is questioned – not to inform but to intimidate.