Imperativeness in between Grammatical Givens and Communicative Politeness

Main Article Content

Nikolina Palašić
Tihana Zbašnik

Abstract

The paper focuses on the relation between imperatives and imperativeness, that is, between the imperative as a grammatical mood with a defined form and its assigned function, on the one hand, and imperativeness as a communicative value that can manifest itself through different morphosyntactic forms, on the other. In this sense, the function of imperatives is analysed in the context of the theory of speech acts. The analysis reveals that different imperative forms can be classified as different types of speech acts based on their various communicative roles. The theory of politeness dictates that directness, which is a basic feature of imperatives, should be avoided in polite communication. This is why we also focus on other morphosyntactic forms whose form indicates a reduced level of directness, but whose content still has the characteristics of imperatives.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Palašić, N., & Zbašnik, T. (2018). Imperativeness in between Grammatical Givens and Communicative Politeness. Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne, (13), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.14746/pss.2017.13.11
Section
JĘZYK

References

  1. Austin, J.L. (2014). Kako djelovati riječima. Prev. A. Milanko. Zagreb: Disput.
  2. Brown, P., Levinson S.C. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4.
  3. Broz, I. (1885). Prilozi za sintaksu jezika hrvatskoga. U: Rad JAZU, knj. LXXVI. Zagreb: JAZU, str. 1–69.
  4. Burkhardt, A. (1990). Speech Act Theory – the decline of a paradigm. U: Speech Acts, Meaning and Intentions. Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Searle. Ur. A. Burkhardt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, str. 91–128.
  5. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110859485.91
  6. Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer.
  7. Dolinina, I. (2001). The imperativ paradigm: meaning and forms. U: Typology of imperative constructions. Ur. V.S. Khrakovskij, München: Lincom Europas, str. 501–509.
  8. Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on Politeness. „Journal of Pragmatics”, vol. 14, br. 3, str. 219–236. file:///C:/Users/Nikolina/Downloads/Perspectives_on_politeness.pdf. 22.09.2017.
  9. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Essays on face-to-face bahavior. New York: Pantheon Books.
  10. Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
  11. Kádár, D., Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge: University Press.
  12. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717
  13. Katnić-Bakaršić, M. (2012). Između diskursa moći i moći diskursa. Zagreb: Zoro.
  14. Lakoff, R.T., Ide, S. (2005). Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  15. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.139
  16. Leech, G.N. (1983). The Pragmatics of Politeness. London–New York: Longman.
  17. Marot, D. (2005). Uljudnost u verbalnoj i neverbalnoj komunikaciji, „Fluminensia. Časopis za filološka istraživanja”, god. 17, br. 1, str. 53–70.
  18. Palašić, N. (2015). Odnos rečeničnoga modusa i implikatura. „Fluminensia. Časopis za filološka istraživanja”, god. 27, br. 2, str. 31–43.
  19. Pranjković, I. (2013). Gramatička značenja. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.
  20. Pranjković, I., Badurina, L. (2012). Načini izražavanja imperativnosti. U: Bosanskohercegovački slavistički kongres I. Zbornik radova, knjiga 1 (Lingvistika). Ur. M. Omerović, Sarajevo: Slavistički komitet, str. 619–628.
  21. Schmerling, S. (1982). How imperatives are special and how they aren’t. U: Papers from the Parasession on Nondeclarative. Ur. R. Schneider, K. Tuite, R. Chametzky. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Societystr, str. 201–218.
  22. Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  23. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
  24. Searle, J.R. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts. U: Syntax and semantics, vol. 3. Ur. C. Morgan. New York: Academic Press, str. 59–82.
  25. Searle, J.R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: University Press.
  26. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213
  27. Schilling, U. (1999). Kommunikative Basisstrategien des Aufforderns. Eine kontrastive Analyse gesprochener Sprache im Deutschen und im Japanischen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
  28. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110952216
  29. Silić, J., Pranjković, I. (2005). Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika za gimnazije i visoka učilišta. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
  30. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction. An introduction to pragmatics. London–New York: Routledge.
  31. Wunderlich, D. (1976). Studien zur Sprechakttheorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
  32. Zimmermann, W. (1988). Fragehandlungen und Frageverben. Ein Beitrag zur Vermittlug von Pragmatik, Grammatiktheorie und Lexikographie. Nürnberg: Verlag Palm Enke Erlangen.