Lecture
the characterization of an utterance in terms of the action performed by means of it is called the illocutionary force of the utterance. Illocutionary forces correspond to illocutionary modalities.
J. Austin [Austin 1962] drew the attention of philosophers – and later linguists – to the fact that in making an utterance a person sometimes does not merely describe a certain state of affairs, but performs a specific action – a speech act: asking, requesting, promising, thanking, warning, threatening, and so on. In speech act theory (see [Austin 1962]; [Searle 1969] and the brief overview in [Lyons 1977: 725–786]; [Paducheva 1985: 16–47]; [Demyankov 1986])
The grammars of different languages distinguish three sentence types according to the communicative goal set by the speaker: declarative (otherwise – assertive) sentences, directive (imperative) sentences and interrogative sentences, see [Grammar 1960: 353–367], as well as [Lyons 1977: 745–753]; [Palmer 1986: 23–32]; on imperatives – [Khrakovsky, Volodin 1986]. Accordingly, there are three illocutionary sentence types and three grammatical illocutionary modalities – assertive, directive and interrogative. Grammatical – meaning obligatory: every proposition either falls within the scope of one of these three illocutionary modalities, or has zero illocutionarity – as happens with a syntactically subordinate proposition, see section 3.
The indicative mood stands in opposition to the subjunctive along the line of objective modality (see section 2) and to the imperative – along the illocutionary line. Within the first opposition it expresses the meaning of reality, within the second – assertiveness (otherwise – assertivity).
Illocutionary modality, like objective modality, is grammatically obligatory. In this it differs from subjective modality – which is not obligatory (although it was called grammatical above, since it has syntactic reflexes, see section 1.1). Thus, in the sentence Vasya, it seems, lives in Moscow there is a subjective modality of uncertainty, while in the sentence Vasya lives in Moscow it is simply absent, rather than being zero.
Objective modality is essentially linked to illocutionary modality: outside the context of an assertion a proposition has no truth value, i.e. neither real nor irreal objective modality (an exception being the real modality of a proposition in the context of a factive predicate: I am glad that Vasya lives in Moscow). It is precisely this argument in favor of including illocutionary distinctions within the conceptual sphere of modality that is presented in [Palmer 1986: 32]. Assertive illocutionarity (i.e. assertivity) is a necessary condition for a proposition with a verb in the indicative to be correlated with reality, i.e. to denote a situation of the real world. (See in [Lyons 1977: 750] and [Church 1960: 357] on the assertion operator which, according to Frege, is necessary in order to show that a proposition is being asserted rather than merely introduced for consideration.) A proposition within a directive or interrogative illocutionary modality has neutral objective modality, i.e. it is not characterized in terms of truth (see sections 1.1 and 2.3).
So, there are three grammatical illocutionary sentence types: assertives, imperatives, interrogatives; in a subordinate syntactic position a proposition may have zero illocutionarity – this is the case when independent illocutionary force is absent. At the formal level, the opposition between the assertive and the imperative is expressed by the morphological form of the verb: the indicative form simultaneously expresses assertivity (just as, for example, the person, number and tense form of the verb simultaneously expresses finiteness, being opposed to the forms of the participle and gerund). Interrogativity is expressed by interrogative pronouns, the particle li, word order and prosody. Zero illocutionarity is expressed by the syntactic context that removes illocutionarity.
In [Peshkovsky 1928/2001: 392] exclamative sentences are singled out as a separate illocutionary type. Some exclamative sentences use special exclamative constructions (of the type What a voice she has! People are so inattentive!), cf. on exclamatives [Zevakhina 2011]. Under the three-way grammatical division, sentences with exclamative constructions are treated in the same way as, for example, sentences with a verb in the optative meaning of the subjunctive mood (of the type If only spring were here now!) – as having a subjective modality of one type or another. Thus, from the point of view of grammatical illocutionarity, an exclamative sentence appears as declarative, interrogative or directive, but including one or another marker of subjective modality.
Exclamative constructions have their own syntax (an example from [Zevakhina 2011]: How extraordinarily good she looks! is acceptable, whereas *How very good she looks! – is not), but semantically they fall entirely within the sphere of subjective modality.
On the basis of each of the three grammatical illocutionary types, individual illocutions can be built, i.e. sentences intended for one or another speech act, see [Paducheva 1996: 297–320]. In this connection, transitions from the assertive type to the interrogative are possible; from the interrogative to the directive and the assertive.
A declarative sentence with a verb in the indicative mood is intended for use in the context of the speech act of assertion, usually – of reporting information:
(58) It is cold in the room.
However, this illocutionary force is not expressed unambiguously by the semantics of the indicative. Thus, sentence (58) may be used as a separate utterance – as an assertion, or it may be part of a complex sentence, see (60), in which case it is not asserted – the speaker bears no responsibility for its truth, and the illocutionary force of the proposition is zero. The particle right builds an interrogative sentence on the basis of sentence (58), in which the speaker expresses a wish to hear confirmation of their opinion (cf. on so-called tag-questions in [Wierzbicka 1987]):
(59) It is cold in the room, right?
An unambiguous illocutionary marker characterizes a sentence as a complete utterance intended for use in a particular speech act. A sentence with an unambiguously expressed illocutionary modality is usually syntactically non-subordinable, i.e. it cannot be a component part of a more complex sentence. (In English terminology, syntactic non-subordinability corresponds to the term main clause phenomenon, see [Green 1996]; [Paducheva 1996: 297]. See on main clause phenomena from a typological perspective [Aelbrecht et al. 2012]). Thus, sentence (59) is structurally intended for the role of a separate utterance and cannot be part of another sentence. In (60) the clause (59) does not constitute a syntactic component: the scope of the particle right is no longer the clause it is cold in the room – (60) is understood as ‘is it true that Ivan is saying this?’:
(60) Ivan says it is cold in the room, right?
There are a number of constructions in which the idea is expressed, in one way or another, that a given utterance is to be understood ironically, i.e., in a meaning opposite to the literal one (see [Paducheva 1996: 304]):
(61) Something to envy! Found something to be glad about! As if he needed to get married! You don’t understand much! As if he’ll wait for you! As if I’d go! Big deal, a court councilor! (N. V. Gogol)
Such an utterance has an expressive coloring and is syntactically unembeddable – in a hypotactic context the ironic meaning is lost, i.e., the illocutionary force of the irony disappears:
(62) But memory again and again confirms that there is something to envy. [S. A. Semyonov. A Preliminary Grave (1924)]
Sentences (59) and (61) are unembeddable because they unambiguously express a designation for a specific speech act – embeddedness in a dialogic context, see the considerations on this in [Arutyunova 1999: 409].
Sentences (63) and (64) are unembeddable because they express the speech act of reproach:
(63) What did he need that motorcycle for!
(64) What did he need to get married for!
On the basis of the assertive type, the speech act (i.e., illocution) of threat is built (see on it [Letuchy 2007]), see (65). The sentence becomes, owing to its structure, unembeddable, but by its grammatical illocutionary type remains assertive:
(65) I’ll make you dance!
However, an unambiguous illocutionary purpose is not the only source of unembeddability: unembeddability can also be the consequence of another, unambiguously expressed modality – the subjective one, see section 4.4.2.
The theory of speech acts began with the performative sentences discovered by J. Austin – sentences with performative verbs, such as to ask, to demand, to promise, to predict, to advise, to permit (primarily – in the first-person present-tense form). See on performative sentences in Russian [Paducheva 1985: 31–37]; [Apresyan 1986]. These are sentences that are declarative in form but possess the property that the utterance made with their participation does not describe the corresponding action, but is equivalent to its actual performance. Thus, the utterance I promise you I’ll come at seven already is a promise; I ask you to come at seven – is a request, I advise you to come at seven – is advice, and so on.
It was already clear about an utterance with a verb in the imperative that it is not simply a report of information, but a specific speech action – a directive. J. Austin’s discovery consisted in the fact that a speech action can also be performed by means of a sentence that is declarative in form – if it contains a performative verb in a certain form. But not only that. Performatives enormously expanded linguists’ understanding of which actions can be accomplished by means of speech; that is, of how many such actions there really are.
Here are some classes of performative verbs (and, correspondingly, classes of speech actions) identified in [Austin 1962: 150].
I. Declaratives, i.e., verbs of assertion: to assert, to deny, to emphasize, to inform, to answer, to object, to agree, to refuse, to call/name, to declare, to ask (a question), and others; to warn apparently also belongs here.
II. Directives, i.e., verbs of inducement, for example: to ask, to propose, to demand, to order, to advise.
III. Commissives, i.e., verbs of obligation, for example: to invite, to promise, to offer <e.g., one’s hand and heart>, to guarantee, to swear – they allow one to construct utterances that commit the speaker to something.
IV. Behabitives, for example: to apologize, to congratulate, to thank, to sympathize, to greet, to protest, to bless, to condemn, to wish, to curse, – which denote acts of social behavior.
V. Exercitives, for example: to appoint, to sentence, to recall <e.g., an ambassador>, to dismiss, to grant <e.g., a dormitory>, to dissolve, to enroll, to expel, to condemn <to a term>, to abolish, to vote. An utterance with an exercitive can be an action only if the subject (the speaker) is vested with the corresponding authority. For example, I declare the meeting open! is appropriate only in the mouth of the chairperson.
So, a performative utterance – is a specific speech act (i.e., a speech action), and the verb in it is an indicator of illocutionary modality. A performative verb (performative) – is a lexical illocutionary indicator; however, performativity falls within the sphere of grammatical modality, since performatives display certain semantic-syntactic reflexes. In a certain sense the performative is similar to the imperative: the imperative, which unambiguously expresses the illocutionary force of an independent utterance, is syntactically unembeddable (see Imperative / section 3.3), while a performative sentence, although embeddable, loses its specific character in the embedded position. Thus, the sentence I promise not to do this – is a promise: the speaker takes on an obligation; whereas in the context I said that I promise not to do this the pragmatics of the obligation is lost.
Another feature of a performative utterance is that it is self-verifying – true by the very fact of its being uttered. Unlike the imperative or the interrogative, which have a neutral objective modality, a performative utterance is automatically verified as true. Performativity constitutes a special sphere of illocutionary modality, on which see the article Speech Acts.
Each performative verb corresponds to a speech act (of a certain type), and in many cases this speech act can be expressed not only by the given verb, but also by a multitude of other means. Each speech act – is a separate illocutionary force, i.e., a separate illocutionary modality. There are very many speech acts; their description goes beyond the scope of grammar (for more detail on their types see the article Speech Acts). Below, as an illustration, three speech acts belonging to the directive class are presented – the request (section 3.3.2.1), the offer (section 3.3.2.2), and the demand (also – the order/command, section 3.3.2.3).
J. Searle [Searle 1969] describes speech acts through felicity conditions (cf. truth conditions, to which the semantics of a sentence is reduced in logically oriented theories of semantics, for example, in formal semantics, [Partee 2010]). Below, the semantics of speech acts is presented in the format adopted in [Wierzbicka 1991: 197–254]. In describing the means of expressing directive speech acts in Russian, the textbook [Lysakova, Veselovskaya 2008] was used; see [Khrakovsky, Volodin 1986].
3.3.2.1. The speech act of request
Interpretation
I ask you to do X =
I say: I want you to do X;
this is good for me;
I say this because I want you to do X;
I believe: you are not obliged to do X;
I do not know whether you will do X or not.
Means of expression
1. The verb in the imperative mood; the imperative form usually expresses a request, typically in combination with some «politeness marker» – otherwise there is no way to distinguish a request, for example, from a demand (at least, without the involvement of intonation):
(66) Пожалуйста (будьте добры / если Вас не затруднит), дайте me this book!
2a. A general interrogative construction with a perfective future-tense verb in the 2nd person, with or without negation; with the particle ли or without it; a ли-question is used in the meaning of a request only in the negative form, but even in a question without ли the negative form is preferable:
(67) You недашь me this book for two days? You дашь me this book for two days?
(68) Недашьли you me this book for two days?
2b. A general interrogative construction with the modal verb мочь in the indicative or subjunctive mood, with or without negation, + infinitive:
(69) You не можетедать me this book? Can you дать me this book?
(70) You не могли быдать me this book? Could you дать me this book?
In the subjunctive mood a different word order is more natural:
(71) Not могли бы you дать me this book?
Again, a ли-question unambiguously expresses a request in the negative form of the verb, whereas in the positive form it may remain a question:
(72) Not можетели you дать me this book?
3a. A construction with the verb просить in the present tense, 1st person, or with the noun просьба + infinitive, or a construction with чтобы, or a perfective verb in the imperative:
(73) I прошу you дать me this book / чтобы you дали me this book / дайте me this book.
(74) I have a просьба for you: дайте me this book / not дадите ли me this book.
(75) In the letter просьба to indicate: «Конкурс – сюжеты в облаках». [«Наука и жизнь» (2008)]
The imperfective verb просить and the perfective попросить are not equivalent; попросить in the indicative mood expresses not so much a request as a demand (on demands see section 3.3.2.3):
(76) I попрошу you to stay.
Alongside the verb просить, the synonymous expression обращаться с просьбой can be used:
(77) I обращаюсь to you спросьбой дать me this book.
(78) I обращаюсь to you с просьбой: дайте / not дадите ли me this book.
The pronouns, both 1st and 2nd person, can as a rule be omitted.
3b. A construction with the verbs просить and попросить in the subjunctive mood + infinitive, or a construction with чтобы, or a perfective verb in the imperative:
(79) I (по)просил would you дать / чтобы you дали me this book!
3c. Constructions with the verbs хотеть, хотеться in the indicative and subjunctive mood + попросить + infinitive, or a construction with чтобы, or a perfective verb in the imperative:
(80) I хочу (хотел бы) попросить you дать me this book! / чтобы you дали me this book!
(81) To me хочется (хотелось бы) попросить you дать me this book! / чтобы you дали me this book!
4a. Constructions with the verbs разрешить, позволить in the imperative + infinitive:
(82) Разрешите / позвольте me взять this book!
4b. Interrogative constructions with разрешить, позволить, мочь, можно + infinitive (usually perfective) or a future-tense verb:
(83) You (не) разрешите me взять this book?
(84) I могу / Могу ли I / Не могу ли I / взять this book?
(85) Можно me взять this book?
(86) Можно I возьму this book?
Constructions with the verb разрешить and its synonyms express a request for permission to do something. An ordinary question can serve as a request for permission: Я пойду? = ‘can I leave?’
As is known, speech acts differ in the set of admissible reactions. Thus, a possible reaction to a request for permission is granting, which can be accomplished in many ways – with the verb разрешить, with the verb мочь in the meaning of deontic possibility (see section 4.1.1), and also idiomatically: Валяй; Давай; Конечно; Пожалуйста; Да ради Бога. On the other hand, a reaction to a request can be a refusal, which can likewise be expressed in various ways, in particular by such illocutions as Обойдешься! Перебьешься! Отстань! Отвали! (see [Кустова 2012]). A request differs from a demand (see section 3.3.2.3) in that the addressee's refusal to fulfill the request does not entail negative consequences for them.
The participation of interrogative constructions in the expression of a request correlates with the component ‘I don't know whether you will do X or not’ in the interpretation of the speech act of request, cf. the absence of interrogative constructions among the ways of formulating the speech act of an order.
Introductory politeness markers in Russian are compatible only with a request expressed by the imperative, although in English, for example, they are also possible in the context of interrogative constructions, cf. Will you, please, open the window and *Ты не откроешь, пожалуйста, окно? However, before long Можете мне, пожалуйста… will apparently also become the Russian norm.
3.3.2.2. The speech act of offer
Толкование
Я предлагаю Вам сделать Х =
I induce you to perform action X, which is in your interest;
or you together with me to perform action X, which is in your interest;
or am ready to perform action X myself, which is in your interest.
According to [Wierzbicka 1991], the semantics of the illocutionary force offer includes the semantic component ‘I think you may want to do X or for me to do X (together with you / for you)’.
Способы выражения
1a. A construction with the verb предлагать, предложить in the indicative mood and with the noun предложение + infinitive or чтобы:
(87) I offer you посмотреть this film / чтобы you посмотрели this film.
(88) I have for you a предложениепосмотреть this film.
1b. A construction with the verb предложить in the subjunctive mood:
(89) I бы предложил you посмотреть this film / чтобы you посмотрели this film.
1c. Constructions with the verb предложить in the context of хотеть, хотеться, мочь in the indicative or subjunctive mood:
(90) I хочу предложить you посмотреть this film / чтобы you посмотрели this film.
(91) I хотел бы предложить you посмотреть this film.
(92) To me хочется предложить you посмотреть this film.
(93) To me хотелось бы предложить you посмотреть this film.
(94) I могу предложить you посмотреть this film.
(95) I мог бы предложить you посмотреть this film.
2. Constructions with the modal verb мочь in the 1st person and with the predicative можно – in the indicative and subjunctive mood:
(96) I могу you проводить.
(97) I мог бы you проводить.
(98) Можновыпить beer.
(99) Можно было бы выпить beer.
3a. The verb in the imperative mood; a construction with давай, давайте, forms of the 1st person present and future tense in the hortative meaning, and with the special form of joint action in -те (see 1st person imperative):
(100) Садитесь, please! Попробуйте some vareniki!
(101) Давайтепойдем mushroom picking!
(102) Пойдем(те) tomorrow mushroom picking; Пойдем-ка tomorrow mushroom picking.
3b . Construction with the verb in the plural past tense in a special meaning:
(103) Let’s go mushroom-picking tomorrow!
4. Interrogative construction with the infinitive or with want (in the 2nd person present indicative or in the subjunctive mood) + infinitive + by (would) or a verb in the future tense:
(104) Shall I see you home? Perhaps I should see you home?
(105) How about I see you home?
(106) How do you feel about having a beer?
(107) What about having a beer?
(108) Wouldn’t you like a drink of beer? Would you like a drink of beer?
(109) Why not have a beer?
(110) Wouldn’t you like to go for a ride in a boat? Would you like to go for a ride in a boat?
[show note]
The speech act of proposal allows the speaker to be among the possible performers of the action: this is what distinguishes a proposal, for example, from a wish or advice – which cannot include the speaker. Thus, the subjunctive mood in the examples below expresses a wish or advice – but not a proposal:
(113) You should give that book to your brother!
(114) You shouldn’t go, Vanek, into the army!
A proposal can be answered with the speech act of agreement, which is expressed by the words: Deal! Works for me! Let’s do it! Good! All right! Perhaps. The word thanks, as is well known, can mean both agreement, ‘thanks, yes’, and refusal, ‘thanks, no’. This reaction is impossible in response to other directive speech acts – for example, to a request.
3.3.2.3. The speech act of demand / order
Interpretation
I demand that you do X =
I say: I want you to do X;
I believe that you are therefore obliged to do X and that you will do it.
As a rule, this speech act is realized in a situation where the speaker and the addressee are in a «superior» – «subordinate» relationship.
Means of expression
1. A verb in the imperative and the construction with let’s(you all):
(115) Vacate the premises immediately!
(116) Let’s not break the rules!
(117) Don’t you dare go out of the house!
The word let’s(you all) disguises a demand as a proposal (see section 3.3.2.2 on this).
2. A verb in the indicative mood in the present, future, or past tense:
(118) You are leaving from here!
(119) You will hand this letter to the director.
(120) Get out of here!
3. A verb in the subjunctive mood with that:
(121) Let everyone be in place!
4. A verb in the infinitive:
(122) Everyone be silent!
Constructions with the verbs demand, order are illocutionary markers only in performative contexts:
(123) I demand that an examination be conducted.
Attention is drawn to the asymmetry between possibility and obligation: can and may are widely used in the sphere of illocutionary modality, while words such as must, obliged, should, need to, necessary, as well as their negations, are not markers of illocutionary modality, only of subjective – deontic modality, see section 4 about them.
Thus, every performative verb corresponds to a speech act. But the converse is not true: not every speech act corresponds to a performative verb. Thus, a threat cannot be expressed in the form I threaten: it is expressed by a host of other means, including idiomatic ones, for example: Just you wait! You’d better watch out! You’ll remember me! You’ll be sorry! You’ll pay for this! (see [Kustova 2012]).
Performative use is impossible for the verbs to boast, to reproach, to hint, to put down, to cut down (although the corresponding speech acts undoubtedly exist). Performative use of verbs of this kind would amount to «illocutionary suicide» on the part of the speaker, see [Vendler 1976].
For a systematic description of directive speech acts, see the article Speech Acts.
I. The imperative, as already mentioned (section 1.1), is distinguished, against the background of other grammatical markers of illocutionary force, by syntactic non-subordinability: an imperative sentence is unambiguously intended to function as an independent utterance. It is telling that the future tense form, which can also express a directive (124), is permissible in a subordinate clause, see (125a), whereas the imperative cannot occupy such a position, see (125b):
(124) Farewell for now, manage on your own, and then come and tell me how the trip went. [N. S. Leskov. Nowhere to Go (1864)]
(125) a. – We won’t get anywhere, because you’re going to leave my room right now! Did you hear me? I don’t want to see you! (K. Evangelin. Samira) – b. ???We won’t get anywhere, because leave my room right now!
On the subordinating construction with the imperative in conditional and concessive-conditional meaning, see the article Imperative.
II. It should be kept in mind that the imperative, in its basic directive meaning, presupposes the addressee’s ability to control the action. Therefore, in the context of mental verbs, which are stative and do not denote a fully controllable action, the imperative is interpreted primarily as expressing permission: other varieties of directive meaning turn out to be unavailable to it in this case (the imperfective imperative is assigned a special permissive meaning in this context, see [Bulygina, Shmelev 1997: 153–154]).
(126) Think whatever you want = ‘you may think’; Understand it however you like = ‘you may understand’
But the imperative of a stative verb can also express a request, cf. its compatibility with please in (128):
(127) Consider that I’ve forgotten everything completely = ‘I ask you to consider’
(128) But, so as not to seem ungrateful, I will treat you to my travel rum, and, please, consider me square with you. [M. V. Avdeev. Tamarin (1851)]
On the other hand, one can interpret these imperatives as expressing not illocutionary but subjective modality (Yu. D. Apresyan, personal communication), for example, seeing the modality of possibility in (129)–(130), and of necessity in (131)–(132):
(129) I didn’t mean to offend you, honestly! If you like, consider <= you may consider> that I was joking. – And were you joking? [M. Petrosyan. The House in Which... (2009)]
(130) – Then consider <= you may consider> that you got lucky. Because the master of life is still the same – the energetic one. He’ll look at a thousand like you, take you… [«The Fifth Dimension» (2003)]
(131) <…> be glad <= you should be glad> that you’re still alive. [A. Slapovsky. My Dream Did Not Come True (1999)]
(132) Don’t be surprised <= you shouldn’t be surprised> that it’s early. You understand, things happen. [A. N. Arbuzov. Years of Wandering (1954)]
However, from the indefinite directive force expressed by the imperative form, it is often impossible to identify any definite subjective modality:
(133) I wanted to tell you… Back then I humiliated myself in front of you, in the park… Well, consider that it never happened. I put you out of my mind. [V. Aksyonov. It’s Time, My Friend, It’s Time (1963)]
An imperative sentence may include markers of subjective modality – particles and parenthetical words: zhe (indeed), da… zhe (do), nu (come on), nu… zhe (come on then), davay (let’s), -ka (a softening particle), please, for God’s sake, see [Khrakovsky, Volodin 1986: 176–194].
The illocutionary modality of a question is expressed by: a) an interrogative pronoun; this is a specific question, and b) the particle li and interrogative intonation; this is a general question.
Within speech act theory [Searle 1969] the speech act of a question is characterized through felicity conditions: the speaker does not know the answer; the speaker is interested in learning the answer. The speaker's goal is to induce the addressee to give the answer.
In a degenerate case, a question may be addressed by the speaker to himself. In that case the utterance loses the illocutionary modality of a question; what remains is the subjective modality of interest in the answer, see [Lyons 1977: 756] on the various meanings that the question Is this a good movie? can have depending on whether it is addressed by the speaker to the addressee or to himself.
The illocutionary modality of a question is compatible with different markers of subjective modality; in particular, the context of a question allows for an opposition of moods. Not only the indicative is possible, but also the subjunctive – in one of two meanings: in the meaning of conditionality (see section 2.1), as in (134), and in the meaning of softening categoricalness – in the context of verbs expressing possibility, necessity, desirability (see section 2.4.2), as in (135), (136).
(134) Well, since there is an order, that means it's none of my business! Otherwise, would I really have gone? What am I, a bandit or something? [Yu. O. Dombrovsky. The Keeper of Antiquities (1964)] = ‘would I really have gone, if there had been no order?’
(135) – Even skyscrapers fall there like in the movies. – And how would you have liked it? – For real. [K. Surikova. Do You Know Tolya from Zhukovka? (2003)]
(136) Or did you want it to be me burning up there in the forest right now? Huh? Would you have wanted that? Tell me, Seryoga? [A. Gelasimov. The Year of Deception (2003)]
In (137) the subjunctive expresses the subjective modality of possibility – a meaning scarcely admissible in the context of affirmative illocutionary force:
(137) – I shouldn't have passed all this on to headquarters, – Gurov remarked dreamily. – I knew it would end like this… – But where else? Where else would you have passed it?! – the general exclaimed, growing heated. – Do you know a place where they would have received you with open arms? Ah, so you brought us compromising materials? [N. Leonov, A. Makeev. The Grandmaster of Detection (2003)] = ‘could have passed on’
Interrogative illocutionary force is also compatible with other attitudes of the speaker. For example, surely not expresses a question and the speaker's doubt about an affirmative answer, see on разве and неужели in [Bulygina, Shmelev 1987].
A sentence interrogative in form has the illocutionary force of a question only in the context of an autonomous utterance. An interrogative sentence within a complex sentence is understood as an indirect question, cf. Who are you? (a question) and I know who you are (who you are – an indirect question). On how the semantics of a question changes in different types of subordinate contexts, see [Shatunovsky 2012].
On the basis of the interrogative sentence, various kinds of indirect speech acts are built, see [Searle 1975]. The syntactic structure of a question can be used to express a request and a suggestion (but not a demand!), see section 3.3 and the famous example:
(138) Could you pass me the salt?
See examples based on [Wierzbicka 1991]:
(139) Why paint the house purple? = ‘don't’, disapproval
(140) How dare you be rude to me? [G. Vladimov. Big Ore (1961)] – strict disapproval, cf. English How dare you?
(141) Why don't you go to the doctor? = ‘you should go’, advice
Other examples of questions expressing inducement (from [Paducheva 1985: 46]):
(142) Will you leave already? How much longer are you going to stand here? Will you ever shut up?
A question with how can express bewilderment:
(143) <...> a shadow of bewilderment flickered in his clear and naive eyes: as if to say, how could you not manage such a trifle yourself? [«Vokrug Sveta» (1990)]
A specific (wh-) question can express a negative assertion:
(144) Who on earth needs him? = ‘nobody needs him’
(145) Well, what could happen to him? = ‘nothing will happen to him’
Sentence (146) is a reaction of disagreement based on a general (yes/no) question:
(146) Him, smart?
An interrogative construction can be understood as exclamatory (i.e. expressive), likewise negative:
(147) Some scholar he is! = ‘no scholar at all’, i.e. ’a very poor one’
(148) And what business is that of yours? = ‘it's none of your business’
In (149) the interrogative pronoun is used in the meaning of universality, in (150) – in the meaning of multiplicity:
(149) Who hasn't he asked! = ‘he has asked everyone’
(150) How many times have I told you? = ‘I've told you many times’
Interrogative illocutionary modality is compatible with markers of subjective modality. On particles and parenthetical words within an interrogative sentence, in its various types, see [Levontina 2014]. A separate problem is evidential markers within a question. Thus, in (151) очевидно [‘evidently’] cannot be replaced by the seemingly synonymous явно [‘clearly’]:
(151) I haven't seen you before! You're evidently new to our crowd? – Yes, – answered Igor. [M. Milovanov. Vanity Market (2000)]
For more on the question, see the article Interrogative Constructions.
There are exceptions to the rule about the syntactic non-subordinability of sentences with an unambiguous marker of illocutionary modality (see section 3.2). Thus, in example (152) (from [Paducheva 1985: 46]) the conjunction so that expresses a causal connection between the propositional content of the first sentence (absence of bread) and the illocutionary modality of the request expressed by the imperative in the second; thereby clauses with the imperative, in certain special cases, do turn out to be subordinable after all:
(152) There's no bread either, so stop by the bakery.
The conjunctions while, if, so that, since (on the conjunction раз see [Iordanskaja 1988]) are able to enter into a connection with the illocutionary modality of inducement and of a question:
(153) Since you tame fierce beasts, try coping with my wife». [V. Zapashny. Risk. Struggle. Love (1998-2004)]; Since you're sure I'm lying, why are you calling? [Inka (2004)]; Since you don't understand Russian, maybe I should sing to you in Hebrew? [A. Belozerov. The Seagull (2001)]
(154) Zoinka, before I forget, are you free tomorrow? [E. Shim. Kids from Our Courtyard (1976)]
(155) If you're so smart, why don't you have any money?
The same applies to the conjunction a to ["or else"] (example from [Paducheva 1985: 46]):
(156) Where's Ivan, because the higher-ups were asking about him.
According to [Levontina 2013], a distinctive feature of the causal meaning of the conjunction a to is that it is used predominantly in a context where the speaker justifies his own speech act. Moreover, correlation with the illocutionary component (rather than with the propositional content of the utterance) is characteristic of causal conjunctions in general. Example from [Vinogradov 1975]:
(157) – What, is there a breeze in the alley? – Yes, because the leaves are trembling = ‘I assert this, because <I see that> the leaves are trembling’
In Krylov's fable «The Wolf and the Lamb», the wolf, in response to the lamb's irrefutable arguments, says So I'm lying?, which means ‘is it on this basis that you claim I'm lying?’ Here the scope of the causal conjunction includes a marker of affirmative illocutionary modality, while the conjunction itself has interrogative illocutionary force – as in the why-type retorts described in [Arutyunova 1970].
On Russian illocutionary conjunctions see [Iordanskaja 1992]; [Sannikov 2008]; on illocutionary пока [‘while/bye’] – in [Iordanskaja, Mel’čuk 2009]. In [Apresyan et al. 2010: 209–226] it is proposed to treat sentences with illocutionary modality in a subordinate position as elliptical.
See the special article Illocutionary Use of Conjunctions.
Comments