Borderland Semantics of the Imperative. (The case of the Belarusian language in comparison to English)
Abstract
24
Full text
Borderland Semantics of the Imperative. (The case of the Belarusian language in comparison to English)1 Volha Hapeyeva ABSTRACT: This paper is dedicated to the study of the imperative and other directive strategies in Belarusian. The experiment was designed to find out how native speakers evaluate various directive strategies and how their syntactic structures are connected with the imperative meaning. Respondents participating in the study rated five sentence-stimuli on ascale from 1 to 5 as the most commanding and least polite (rating 1) to the least commanding and the most polite (rating 5). The sentences present five different directive strategies: the performative verb zahadvac ‘to order’; the optative verb xacec ‘to want’; the infinitive of the notional verb; the imperative form of the notional verb; the notional verb in the future tense form. The experiment showed that the imperative form proper received the lowest mark on the scale compared to other directive strategies, testifying to the fact that native speakers perceive other forms as more commanding. The nonfinite form, the future tense as well as sentences with aperformative verb explicitly expressing imperative meaning are among the most popular strategies named by the respondents. The military discourse and the discourse of orders and commands which presupposes astrict hierarchal structure, employs the infinitive in Belarusian, while in English the imperative is used in such cases and thus is perceived by the speaker as avery strong directive strategy. KEYWORDS: command, directive strategies, imperative form and semantics, non-canonical imperatives. 1. INTRODUCTION Afairly large body of literature dealing with the topic of the imperative is available today. Nevertheless, one of the most important tasks is still to establish the semantics and categorical situation of the imperative, and to identify avariety of meanings and forms that are involved in the zone of the imperative. The aim of this paper is to define how the imperative form is perceived by the native speakers of Belarusian in contrast with other strategies which can convey the commanding semantics and to propose the possible assumptions as to why some strategies are perceived by native speakers as more directive and some are perceived as less directive. The scope of the study is apilot experiment which includes the reactions of 37 respondents to five stimulus sentences. 1 Iwould like to thank my reviewers for their valuable comments and remarks, which helped me to make my paper more logically structured and valid. OPEN ACCESS
VOLHA HAPEYEVA 25 2. DEFINING THE IMPERATIVE The literature dealing with the imperative displays some terminological inconsistencies. E.König and P.Siemund use the term imperative only for those speech acts where the appeal is directed towards the 2nd person, using for other cases terms such as hortative, optative, debitive, etc. (König & Siemund, 2007, p.313). The problematic point here is that these terms are generally used only when speaking of languages where there is aseparate morphological marking of the relevant locutive power. At the same time, V.Xrakovskij notes that there are classical and peripheral forms of the imperative and that it is necessary to distinguish between an ideal imperative paradigm and an imperative paradigm in aparticular language (Xrakovskij, 2001, p.1037). When dividing imperatives into canonical (central or nuclear) and non-canonical (peripheral), researchers rely on the form, i.e. the 2nd person is accepted as aprototypical form of the imperative. As J.Kuryłowicz noted, “the status of the second person of the imperative differs from that of the rest of its paradigm (if there is one). It is in fact the second person singular that is fundamental in the imperative” (Kuryłowicz, 1964, p.137). Other forms are treated as marginal or peripheral, although they are included in the basic paradigm (as it can be seen in the Belarusian grammar), but some researchers deny their status of the imperative: “what are traditionally described as first-person and third-persons imperatives, however, in the Indo-European languages at least, are not true imperative […]“ (Lyons, 1977, p.747). At the same time, this division is not universal for all languages of the world. Imperative forms, as well as the peculiarities of their functions and usage, are culturally and socially determined. Despite the fact that the imperative is considered to be universal (the form for transferring the relevant meaning is found in all languages with few exceptions), it creates certain difficulties in typological studies, since each language has its own repertoire of forms and meanings that correlate with the imperative, and which is often asymmetric in comparison with the set in another language. Imperative forms are used in Belarusian and English to transfer the meaning of different speech acts such as order, request, recommendation, etc. Compare, the English and Belarusian examples, the English ones were taken from (Aikhenvald, 2010, p.198): English Belarusian Wait until the price is right!— advice Sjadajce, kali laska (In English: ,Sit down, please‘)— invitation Feel free to call if you like— invitation Raspišycesja tut (In English: ,Put your signature here‘)— request Yes, go ahead— permission Žyvice bahata (In English: ,Live in prosperity‘)— wish Meanwhile in Tuyuca (an Eastern Tucanoan language spoken in Brazil and Colombia) three different suffixes are added to the verb in order to express the meaning of invitation,permission or warning (ibid., 2010, p.201). What is expressed grammatically in some languages, can be semantic in nature in others. At the same time, even OPEN ACCESS
26 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 2/2018 in those languages where there is no special grammatical marker to distinguish directives, native speakers identify them as separate speech acts. In the following examples, the verbs have the same (imperative) mood, while the narrative comments show that these speech acts are perceived differently, i.e. as areminder, agreement, advice: (1) Ne xadzi basanož— ty ž kašljaeš,— stroha nahadvae mama. (In English: “Do not walk barefoot— you are coughing”, the mother reminds strictly). (2) Aj, ne xadzi,— axvotna pahadziŭsja palicaj. (In English: “Well, do not go”, the policeman agreed willingly). (3) Dyk tuzajsja! Pišy, xadzi— ne spi ŭ šapku!— zlosna raiŭ jamu Karpjuk. (In English: “Do something! Write, do the agents— think fast”, Karpiuk angrily advised him). According to van der Auwera et al, imperatives are said to “have to do with the expression of awish of the speaker about afuture state of affairs” and to “convey an appeal to the addressee(s) to help make the future state of affairs true.“ (Auwera, Dobrushina, & Goussev, 2013). Van Olmen criticizes such adefinition because advice and permission, which also use the imperative for their manifestation, do not contain the desire of the speaker for the addressee to carry out the specified action. Yes, go ahead and close the window. Close the window if you are cold (Olmen & Heinold, 2017, p.6). To my mind the problematic point here is the overlapping of the imperative’s pragmatic function and its grammatical form. A.Aikhenvald, who is more cautious in defining the imperative, writes that “an imperative gets an addressee to act. […] The idea of an ‘imperative’ is acommand” (Aikhenvald, 2010, p.1). Dissecting the term imperative, it is possible to single out key notions that in spite of all the variability of definitions are shared by most authors and are crucial for defining it. They are: directivity/command, causality, desire/will. Let us look at them in detail. In the definitions of the imperative, the majority of researchers use such terms as “will”, “desire”, “volition” and “want” on the one hand, and “motivation” or “causation” on the other. For the imperative situation to take place, one needs acertain desire of aspeaker and his/her willingness to fulfill that initial desire, and it turns out that it is possible to talk about two desires or adouble desire: the desire itself and the desire to ensure that the action takes place. It is an important observation which helps to clarify situations when the speaker orders something against his/her will/ desire, i.e. the contents of the directive is not in keeping with his/her wishes. (4) Athough he actually did not like the idea of leaving her in his care for some unknown reason. “Yoochun, take care of her while Iam away. He ordered unwillingly. (5) Adzin raz mjane vyklikaŭ načalnik atrada dy kaža: “Zbirajsja ŭ ŠYZA”. Ja jamu— za što? А ёn halavoj uharu kivae dy šèpča: “Jany zahadali”. (In English: Once the ofOPEN ACCESS
VOLHA HAPEYEVA 27 ficer called and said: Get ready to go to the penal isolation ward”. Iasked him, what for? And he turned his head up and whispered, “They ordered”). In spite of its second name ‘command mood’, the imperative form does not always necessarily mean command (ibid., 2010, p.1). Give me your coat— serves as an invitation rather than acommand. At the same time commands can be expressed without imperatives. This asymmetry has become the research point for the study conducted and analyzed further in the current paper. The imperative is traditionally included in the grammar as acomponent of the category of mood. In the Belarusian Grammar of 1985, the imperative is defined as something that “expresses acall to action (request, order, wish, etc.)“ (Biryla & Šuba, 1985, p.158). One of the key moments is the fact that the order is directed towards another person. For the Belarusian language, five forms are singled out: two simple forms for the 2nd person singular and plural, bjažy (sg. ‘run’), bjažyce (pl. or polite ‘run’), as well as the form of ajoint action: synthetic (zazirnem ‘let us look into’, hadzemce ‘let us come’, hljan’ma ‘let us have alook’) and analytical (davaj(ce) čytac ‘let’s read’), and two complex forms of the 3rd person singular and plural (njaxaj dumae ‘let him think’, xaj spjavajuc’ ‘let them sing’) (ibid., 1985, p.158). Number Person 1st 2nd 3rd Sg. —bjažy xaj/njaxaj bjažyc Pl. / Hon. synthetic.f. analytic.f. hadzem(ce) davaj(ce) čytac bjažyce xaj/njaxaj bjahuc Table 1:Imperative forms according to the traditional Belarusian grammar. However, there are certain restrictions regarding the use of the imperative forms, i.e. verbs with the meaning of apurposeless action or condition (važyc ‘weigh’, vyhljadac’ ‘look like’, značyc’ ‘mean’, etc.), modal verbs (mahčy ‘can’, xacec’ ‘want’), verbs denoting actions of inanimate objects (zmjaščac’ ‘contain’, bulkac’ ‘gurgle’), impersonal verbs (marozic’ ‘to frost’, paryc’ ‘to soar’, etc.) do not take the imperative form (ibid., 1985, p.161), which testifies to the relationship of grammar and semantics, and indicates certain limitations on the use of imperative forms. Thus, it is possible to single out two main approaches to the issue of how to deal with the imperative semantics: according to the first, “indirect” uses are included in the imperative paradigm, which significantly expands the imperative semantics; the second approach eliminates non-standard uses from the category of the imperative on the grounds that they bear adifferent meaning, which narrows down the imperative semantics. It is evident that the grammatical approach alone would not be sufficiently consistent here, which is why the pragmatic aspect is often used when speaking of directives. OPEN ACCESS
28 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 2/2018 3. EXPERIMENT The existence of different directive strategies which are employed by speakers to convey commanding semantics have led to the idea of providing experimental support for the assumption that the commanding force is different for different directives. The aim of this pilot experiment was to uncover the hierarchy of the directives and to find apossible correlation between the commanding force and the morphological structure. The experiments conducted on the material of imperative semantics and structures are not numerous (although there are several studies that can be mentioned, e.g. Kaufmann and Poschmann (2013) or Kuehnast (2010)). The experiment Ipropose in this paper deals with the so-called language competence of the native speakers and its aim is to define how respondents evaluate the commanding force of several different directive strategies. 3.1 METHOD To establish acorrelation between the form and meaning expressing imperativeness, alinguistic experiment was designed and carried out to see how native speakers evaluate the imperative semantics expressed by different linguist forms. The imperative meaning can be transferred by means of imperative proper, declarative sentences, certain performative verbs with the meaning of command/order, etc. 3.2. PARTICIPANTS Thirsty-seven native speakers of Belarusian took part in the experiment, of which 26 were female and 11 were male. The participants’ ages ranged from 29 to 58, and all were specialists with abackground in the humanities. 3.3. MATERIALS There were five sentences presented in the test: a. Ja zahadvaju tabe skazac jamu ŭsju praŭdu. (In English: Iorder you to tell him the truth). b. Ja xaču, kab ty skazaŭ jamu ŭsju praŭdu. (In English: Iwant you to tell him the truth). c. Skazac usju praŭdu! (In English: To tell the truth!). d. Skažy jamu ŭsju praŭdu! (In English: Tell him the truth). e. Ty skažaš jamu ŭsju praŭdu! (In English: You will tell him the truth). The meaning of all the sentences can be reduced to the formula speaker Amakes addressee B carry out the action OPEN ACCESS
VOLHA HAPEYEVA 29 The sentences present five different directive strategies. Sentence (a) contains the performative verb загадваць ‘to order’; sentence (b) uses the optative verb xacec’ ‘to want’; sentence (c) employs infinitive of the notional verb; sentence (d) uses the imperative form of the notional verb; sentence (e) takes up the notional verb in the future tense form. Imperatives when functioning as commands are supposed to be pronounced with acertain intonation, which can be indicated by an exclamation mark in the written form. Due to the fact that the imperative form is polysemantic in terms of types of speech acts, intonation can help in distinguishing arequest or wish from acommand or order. “However, it remains an open question how exactly intonation interacts with the imperative convention, and how the observed interpretations are derived on the basis of intonation, the effect of imperatives on the context, their content, and contextual conditions” (Sunwoo & Condoravdi, 2018, p.214). 3.4. PROCEDURE The test was designed using Google Forms and was sent to the respondents by e-mail, or in the form of alink to their accounts in social networks. The respondents received the following task: “Please rate the following sentences from 1 to 5 as from the most commanding and least polite (rating 1) to the least commanding and the most polite (rating 5)”. Respondents could choose only one mark for one sentence. The page with the sentences had the following format (see Figure 1). Figure 1:Example of the text sheet.2 3.5. RESULTS The results of the study are presented in the corresponding diagrams (1–5).3 2 Translation note: the text at the ends of the scales read ‘Extremely commanding tone, not polite at all’ and ‘Not acommanding tone at all, avery polite one’. 3 The data will be provided on demand via e-mail. OPEN ACCESS
30 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 2/2018 Diagram 1:Respondents’ reactions to phrase (a) ‘Iorder you to tell him the truth’. Diagram 2:Respondents’ reactions to phrase (b) ‘Iwant you to tell him the truth’. Diagram 3:Respondents’ reactions to phrase (c) ‘To tell the truth!’ 48,6 35,2 10,8 2,7 2,7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 12345 %Ja zahadvaju tabe skazac jamu ŭsju praŭdu. 2,7 10,8 16,3 40,5 29,7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 12345 %Ja xaču, kab ty skazaŭ jamu ŭsju praŭdu. 62,2 21,6 10,8 0 5,4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1 2 3 4 5 %Skazac usju praŭdu! 5,4 5,4 21,7 37,8 29,7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 12345 %Skažy jamu ŭsju praŭdu! 35,2 27 27 10,8 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 12345 % Ty skažaš jamu ŭsju praŭdu! 48,6 35,2 10,8 2,7 2,7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 12345 %Ja zahadvaju tabe skazac jamu ŭsju praŭdu. 2,7 10,8 16,3 40,5 29,7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 12345 %Ja xaču, kab ty skazaŭ jamu ŭsju praŭdu. 62,2 21,6 10,8 0 5,4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1 2 3 4 5 %Skazac usju praŭdu! 5,4 5,4 21,7 37,8 29,7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 12345 %Skažy jamu ŭsju praŭdu! 35,2 27 27 10,8 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 12345 % Ty skažaš jamu ŭsju praŭdu! 48,6 35,2 10,8 2,7 2,7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 12345 %Ja zahadvaju tabe skazac jamu ŭsju praŭdu. 2,7 10,8 16,3 40,5 29,7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 12345 %Ja xaču, kab ty skazaŭ jamu ŭsju praŭdu. 62,2 21,6 10,8 0 5,4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1 2 3 4 5 %Skazac usju praŭdu! 5,4 5,4 21,7 37,8 29,7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 12345 %Skažy jamu ŭsju praŭdu! 35,2 27 27 10,8 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 12345 % Ty skažaš jamu ŭsju praŭdu! OPEN ACCESS
VOLHA HAPEYEVA 31 Some notes on the diagrams: (%) represents the percentage of respondents with the given answer, figures 1–5 is the scale of intensity, where 1 corresponds to the most commanding and least polite expression and 5 the least commanding and most polite one. In order to confirm the hypothesis that there is adifference in the rating depending on the type of sentence, the data array consisting of two variables— the type of statement and the assessment— was analyzed. The sample size comprised 185 cases (37people, each evaluated 5 sentences). Diagram 4:Respondents’ reactions to phrase (d) ‘Tell him the truth!’ Diagram 5:Respondents’ reactions to phrase (e) ‘You will tell him the truth!’ 48,6 35,2 10,8 2,7 2,7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 12345 %Ja zahadvaju tabe skazac jamu ŭsju praŭdu. 2,7 10,8 16,3 40,5 29,7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 12345 %Ja xaču, kab ty skazaŭ jamu ŭsju praŭdu. 62,2 21,6 10,8 0 5,4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1 2 3 4 5 %Skazac usju praŭdu! 5,4 5,4 21,7 37,8 29,7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 12345 %Skažy jamu ŭsju praŭdu! 35,2 27 27 10,8 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 12345 % Ty skažaš jamu ŭsju praŭdu! 48,6 35,2 10,8 2,7 2,7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 12345 %Ja zahadvaju tabe skazac jamu ŭsju praŭdu. 2,7 10,8 16,3 40,5 29,7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 12345 %Ja xaču, kab ty skazaŭ jamu ŭsju praŭdu. 62,2 21,6 10,8 0 5,4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1 2 3 4 5 %Skazac usju praŭdu! 5,4 5,4 21,7 37,8 29,7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 12345 %Skažy jamu ŭsju praŭdu! 35,2 27 27 10,8 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 12345 % Ty skažaš jamu ŭsju praŭdu! OPEN ACCESS
32 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY 2/2018 type Total Ja zahadvaju tabe skazac jamu ŭsju praŭdu. Ja xaču, kab ty skazaŭ jamu ŭsju praŭdu. Skazac usju praŭdu! Skažy jamu ŭsju praŭdu! Ty skažaš jamu ŭsju praŭdu! value 1.00 48.64% 2.70% 59.46% 8.11% 35.14% 30.81% 2.00 32.43% 13.51% 21.62% 5.41% 27.03% 20.00% 3.00 10.81% 16.22% 10.81% 21.62% 27.03% 17.30% 4.00 5.40% 37.84% 37.84% 10.81% 18.38% 5.00 2.70% 29.73% 8.11% 27.03% 13.51% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Table 2:Contingency table. We analyzed the contingency tables and calculated the Chi-square, which equaled 90,185. Value df. Asymp. Sig (2-sided) Pearson‘s chi-square 90.158a16 .000 Likelihood ration 106.052 16 .000 Linear-by-linear association .585 1 0.444 N of valid cases 185 Table 3:Chi-square tests. a In 0 (.0%) cells have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5,00. The hypothesis that different grammatical forms result in adifferent evaluation of commanding power was confirmed at the probability level of 95%. The majority of respondents (62.2%) gave the rating 1 to the phrase Skazac usju praŭdu (In English: To tell the truth!) which employs the infinitive form in adirective meaning. The second most popular answer (48.6% of respondents) was the phrase which uses the performative verb Ja zahadvaju tabe skazac jamu ŭsju praŭdu (in English: Iorder you to tell him the truth). The third place (35.2%) is occupied by the phrase with the verb in future tense form Ty skažaš jamu ŭsju praŭdu! (In English: You will tell him the truth!). If we should sum up the 1and 2-point ratings on the scale, the results would be as follows: 83.8%— Skazac usju praŭdu! (In English: ‘To tell the truth!) 83.8%— Ja zahadvaju tabe skazac jamu ŭsju praŭdu. (In English: Iorder you to tell him the truth). 62.2%— Ty skažaš jamu ŭsju praŭdu! (In English: You will tell him the truth). 13.5%— Ja xaču, kab ty skazaŭ jamu ŭsju praŭdu. (In English: Iwant you to tell him the truth). 10.8%— Skažy jamu ŭsju praŭdu! (In English: Tell him the truth). OPEN ACCESS