Maket 2012 1-2:Layout 1.qxd


Whimperatives across English, Armenian and Russian

Cultures

Lusine Madoyan
Yerevan State University

T he main aim of the present paper is the study of “whimperatives” and their illocu-tionary forces in modern English and across different cultures. We want to show
that different cultures find expression in different systems of speech acts, and that different
types of speech acts become entrenched, and, to some extent, codified in different languages.
An attempt will also be made to give a brief outline of different whimperative constructions
in modern English discourse, and the way they are translated and used in other languages.

Whimperatives are commands or requests phrased as polite or indirect questions (also
wh- imperative). As defined by R. McDermott, a “whimperative” is a command stated in
a question form, such as, “Why don’t you close the door?” (Mcdermott 1977:25)

English interrogative subjunctives are restricted to requests with only four backshift-
ed modals: 

1. (a) Would you mail this for me? (c) Might he be there by now?
(b) Could you do me a favour? (d) Should I write to him?

(Dr.Keith Allan 1994:77)

These interrogativeutterances are notably tentative, which accounts for their use in
polite contexts.In modern English there are a great number of whimperative construc-
tions, the most frequently used of which are of the following types:

Will you...? , Would you...? , Can you...? , Could you...? Can’t you...? etc.
Whimperative constructions have been extensively and meticulously studied by A.

Wierzbicka who gives the following main ideas as an outline of a new direction in the
study of linguistic interaction:

(i) In different societies, and different communities, people speak differently.
(ii)  These differences in ways of speaking are profound and systematic.
(iii) These differences reflect different cultural values, or at least different hierarchies

of values.
(iv) Different ways of speaking, different communicative styles can be explained and

made sense of, in   terms of independently established cultural values and cultural prior-
ities (Wierzbicka 1991:69).

Wierzbicka also states that the ways of speaking are by no means clear in terms of
values such as “directness”,“indirectness”, “solidarity”, “spontaneity”, “sincerity”,
“social harmony”, “cordiality”, “self-assertion”, “intimacy” and “self-expression”. Since
they do not have the same meaning in all cultures, they are used with quite different and
even mutually incompatible meanings, and can create confusion, moreover, some lan-
guages do not even have corresponding words for all these terms, e.g. there is no word
for “self-assertion” in Japanese, Italian, French, Polish or Russian (cf. 1991). Hence, a
strong methodological case is made for the use of universally reliant semantic constructs

Armenian Folia AnglistikaCulture Studies

119



that can be translated in all languages, such as “say”, “think”, “want”, “know”,
“good”,“bad”, “people”, “someone”, “something”, “this”, “no”. Goddard and Wierzbicka
(1994) reason that this universal metalanguage is useful both for a semantic analysis and
for a formulation of cultural scripts that “can capture culture-specific attitudes, assump-
tions and norms in precise and culture-independent terms”. For example, Wierzbicka
(1991) contrasts the attitude of Anglo-American and Japanese cultures to “self-assertion”
and conceives the following underlying conceptual structures:

Japanese culture don’t say: “I want this”, “I don’t want this”
Anglo-American do say: “I want this”, “I don’t want this”
Japanese culture don’t say: “I would/wouldn’t like (want) this”
Anglo-American do say: “I would/wouldn’t like (want) this”
Japanese culture don’t say: “I think this/I don’t think this”
Anglo-American culture do say: “I think this/I don’t think this”

The attitude of reserve or restraint, which represents a key value in Japanese culture,
cannot be applied to Anglo-American culture, just as the notion of “self-assertion” has no
corresponding value in the other culture.

Thus, the analysis comes to prove that Japanese speakers are discouraged from say-
ing clearly what they want, whereas Anglo-American speakers are encouraged to do so.
On top of this, Japanese culture places a taboo on asking other people directly what they
want. A similar contrast between Japanese and Anglo-American culture exists with
regard to the clear and unequivocal expression of personal opinions (Wierzbicka
1991:74).

A. Wierzbicka uses the different interactional norms to account for the differences in
linguistic structures characteristically engaged in the two cultures. Thus self-assertion is
generally encouraged in Anglo-American culture as long as this does not threaten person-
al autonomy, i.e. negative face. Thus, one is allowed to say “I want this”, but not “I want
you to do this”.

In their contrastive description of case studies of discourse, Wierzbicka (1991) and
Goddard and Wierzbicka (1997) construct cultural scripts of discourse preferences in
Japanese, Chinese, Hebrew, Polish, Italian, as well as Black English and White English,
Japanese, Polish and Malay. We can conclude that while an Anglo-American may appear
direct or blunt to a Japanese interlocutor, the former may label an Israeli as blunt and
direct. This preoccupation with the avoidance of such relative and vaguely defined terms
as “direct”, “blunt”, etc. in the contrastive characterisation of speech patterns across cul-
tures provides us with a more valid general picture of differences in speech habits.

This fact explains the ubiquity of the so-called whimperatives- “interrogative direc-
tives” -in English, (e.g. Would you do X?, Will you do?, Could you do X?, Can you do
X?, Why don’t you do X?, combining the two components in recognition of the
addressee’s right to freedom from imposition) which is a culture-specific norm for avoid-
ing face-threatening acts. W. K. Hünig states that even if A. Wierzbicka´s formulations
seem simplistic or naive at first sight, it has to be acknowledged that she offers a method

Armenian Folia Anglistika Culture Studies

120



of speaking about differences and analyzing them in a non-circular and culture-free “lan-
guage”. This is a major step forward in the vast area of cross-cultural semantics and prag-
matics (Hünig1998). What A. Wierzbicka does not provide is a framework that takes into
account a more global perspective and recognizes that different cultures practice differ-
ent ways of speaking. Such a wider framework is provided by Dell Hymes, who
describes speech acts in a global model of communication, i.e. in the context of their
material and psychological setting such as the communicative purpose of the communi-
cation, the key how to interpret the acts, the instrumental means available, the norms of
interaction and the genres (Hymes 2004).

The use of the so-called whimperatives, extremely common in English culture, is
almost unheard of in other European languages (Wierzbicka, Gruyter 2003). A request
like “Would you mind opening the window” (perhaps watered down even further with a
side-order of “it’s a bit cold in here”) would, if you attempted to render it into a language
like Polish, sound quite bizarre — at best it would come across as an inquiry as to
whether the addressee is capable of opening the window, but certainly not as a request.

As B. Comrie points out, Russian does not use the Will you or Can you patterns in the
way English does, and the same applies to the Would you pattern:

“…in English one polite way of getting someone to do something is by asking a
yes/no question using either some form of “will” or some form of “can”. In other lan-
guages, that’s not conventionalized. If you tried it in Russian, the reaction would be
“What’s this guy trying to do?” (Comrie 1984:282)

Thus, we may say that people speak differently in different societies and communi-
ties not only because they speak different languages, but also because they use language
differently. These differences reflect different cultural values, or at least different hierar-
chies of values. This often leads to a communication failure among individuals and social
groups. By studying different cultural traditions manifesting themselves in different ways
of speaking, we can improve our ability to communicate with others more effectively and
to interact with others more fruitfully.

There exist a number of differences between English and other languages in the area
of speech acts, which are linked with different cultural norms and cultural assumptions.
The results of our research show that English, as different from Armenian and Russian,
places heavy restrictions on the use of direct speech acts (especially, direct orders, etc.),
and makes an intensive use of indirect speech acts, i.e. whimperatives and other construc-
tions. Features of English are shown to be language specific and due to specific cultural
norms and cultural traditions. Linguistic differences are shown to be associated with cul-
tural values such as individualism and respect for personal autonomy in the case of
English, and cordiality and collectivism in the case of Armenian and Russian.

The heavy restrictions on the use of the imperative in English and the wide range of
interrogative forms in performing acts other than questions constitute striking linguistic
reflexes of the Anglo-Saxon socio-cultural attitude. In English the imperative is mostly
used in commands and in orders. Other kinds of directives (i.e. of speech acts through
which the speaker attempts to cause the addressee to do something) tend to avoid the
imperative or to combine it with an interrogative and/or a conditional form.

Armenian Folia AnglistikaCulture Studies

121



In Armenian the use of interrogative forms outside the domain of questions is very
limited, and since the interrogative form is not culturally valued as a means of perform-
ing directives, there has been, so to speak, no cultural need to develop special interroga-
tive devices for performing speech acts other than questions, and in particular, for per-
forming directives.

Thus, we may say that specific differences between languages in the area of indirect
speech acts are motivated, to a considerable degree, by differences in cultural norms and
cultural assumptions.

To understand the linguistic and cultural differences mentioned above, we have ana-
lyzed some examples of whimperative constructions in English and their translations into
Armenian and Russian taken from fiction. First we shall study whimperativeswhich are
framed like questions but have the illocutionary force of:

suggestion
“Wouldn’t you like to be a star?”(p. 29)

- Вы хотите стать звездой?
- Кто же не хочет? (стр. 220)
- Ուզո՞ւմ եք աստղ դառնալ:
- Իսկ ո՞վ չի ուզում: (էջ 23)

Here we deal with a suggestion and the answer of the hearer confirms this interpreta-
tion, because once again it makes clear that the speaker  did not expect a yes/no response
but rather wanted an action to be done (here, an agreement to be signed).

“What d’you say to a battle of pop to celebrate?” he said. (p. 42)
- Как вы смотрите, не открыть ли нам бутылочку шампанского, чтобы

отметить это событие? - спросил он. (стр. 234)
- Ինչ եք ասում, մի շիշ շամպայնով չնշե՞նք,- առաջարկեց նա: (էջ 38)
It is worth mentioning that  the word “said” in this example is translated into Russian

as “asked” which is typical for questions (as the syntactic form of the English variant is
that of a question), while the Armenian translator uses the word “suggest” which indi-
cates the illocutionary force of the given utterance.

“Why the hell don’t you get a charwoman in?” (p. 46)
- Почему вы не пригласите поденщицу, чтобы она здесь убрала? (стр. 238)
- Տե՛ր աստված, կարծես խոզանոց լինի: Ինչո՞ւ աղախին չես պահում: ( էջ 43)
This example is quite interesting because the translators of both languages have con-

sidered it necessary to supplement their translations with additional information. If we
look at the Russian translation, we can see that it gives a word for word translation, and
provides us with some explanation “so as she could clean up the mass”. Similarly, in the
Armenian variant we come across the following additional information “Oh my God, it’s
like a pigsty”, which is not given in the original variant. Besides, in this example the
more common whimperative construction why don’t you is replaced with a stronger and
more idiomatic variant why the hell don’t you, which makes the utterance sound more
like reproach or rebuke than suggestion. 

“Your cigarette’s gone out. Won’t you have another?” (p. 154)

Armenian Folia Anglistika Culture Studies

122



- Ваша сигарета погасла. Возьмите другую. (стр. 349)
- Ձեր սիգարեթը հանգել է: Մեկ ուրիշը վերցրե°ք: (էջ 168)
Here the Russian and Armenian variants sound as direct suggestions or even orders,

whereas the same semantic component is expressed in English with the help of the indi-
rect question, i.e. whimperative construction won’t you do x.

“Well, why don’t you go and have a look-see?” (p. 156)
- Что ж, пойди и посмотри. (стр. 352)
- Թոմն ասում է արժե գնալ տեսնել: (էջ 171)
In this example the Russian translation gives a straightforward (bold-on-record) sug-

gestion while the Armenian translation would sound as: Tom says it’s worth seeing, so
here again the semantic component I suggest you go and see it is present.

“Why don’t you talk it over with someone more of your own age?”(p. 211)
- Почему бы тебе не обсудить все эти вещи с кем-нибудь из ровесников? (стр. 408)
- Ինչո՞ւ չես ուզում այդ ամենի մասին խոսել քո տարիքի որևէ մեկի, օրինակ

Թոմի հետ: (էջ 235)
In this example the translator of the Armenian variant introduces the word “want”

into the sentence, thus adding some additional overtones and shades of meanings to the
utterance, which unfold the following semantic components: the hearer does not want to
do X, the speaker reproaches him for that and suggests doing X. 

“D’you want me to say good night to you in the passage? I’ll just come in for a
minute?” (p. 53)

- Ты хочешь, чтобы я пожелал тебе доброй ночи в коридоре? Может, я зайду
к тебе на минуту? (стр. 245)

- Ուզում ես քեզ բարի գիշեր մաղթեմ միջանցքո՞ւմ: Միայն մեկ րոպեով ներս
կմտնեմ,- ասաց Մայքլը: (էջ 51)

The Russian variant of this example clearly expresses the illocutionary force of sug-
gestion with the help of the word “maybe” (Может), whereas the Armenian translation
sounds closer to the original English variant.

invitation
“I suppose you wouldn’t come to tea with me one day, would you?” (p. 82)
- Вы, наверное, не захотите выпить со мной чашечку чаю как-нибудь на днях?

(стр. 276)
- Հավանաբար մոտ օրերս չեք կարողանա գալ ինձ մոտ թեյելու, այնպես

չէ՞:  (էջ 86)
In this example the Armenian and the English variants are both tag-questions in their

form, whereas the Russian is not. We would also like to draw your attention on the fact
that in the Russian translation the part “you wouldn’t come to tea” is translated as “you
wouldn’t like to drink tea” and in Armenian as “you couldn’t come to me for tea”. In our
opinion the illocutionary force indicators are made more apparent and obvious by the
Armenian and Russian translators.

“Julia says, will you come and dine on Sunday?” (p. 167)
- Джулия  спрашивает, не придешь ли ты к нам пообедать в воскресенье. (стр. 363) 
- Ջուլիան հարցնում է կիրակի օրը կգա՞ս ճաշի: (էջ 184)

Armenian Folia AnglistikaCulture Studies

123



In this example we deal with an invitation dressed up as a question. The English word
“says” is translated into both languages as “asks”. In choosing a particular verb (request, ask,
suggest, or whatever) the reporter imposes a certain interpretation on the original utterance,
and can choose one of a number of interpretations compatible with the force signaled by Will
you do x. In doing so, the reporter adds to what is encoded in the construction itself. This is,
then, where the “interminacy” lies: in the range of possible interpretations, which can be sig-
naled by a range of reporting verbs. But the force of Will you do x is quite determinate.

request, permission
“Can I come in, mummy?” (p. 146)

- Можно войти, мамочка? (стр. 340)
- Կարելի՞ է, մա°մա: (էջ 159)
This is a classic example of a whimperative, i.e. a request (asking for permission)

dressed up as a question.
“Can you grudge me the happiness it gives me to get you out of a hole?”(p. 104)
- Неужели тебе трудно доставить мне удовольствия и позволить вызволить

тебя из беды? (стр. 298)
- Ինչո՞ւ չես ուզում երջանկացնել ինձ` թույլ տալով, որ քեզ դուրս քաշեմ նեղ

դրությունից: (էջ 111)
If we translate the Armenian variant back into English, it is more likely to sound as

“why don’t you grudge me…”, so we may conclude that in cases like this the two whim-
perative constructions can you and why don’t you might be interchangeable. 

order, reproach
“Why the devil don’t you answer when I speak to you?” (p. 124)

- Черт подери, ты почему не отвечаешь, когда я с тобой говорю? (стр. 319)
- Ինչո՞ւ չես պատասխանում, գրողը տանի, երբ խոսում եմ քեզ հետ: (էջ 135) 
In this example we have an indirect   speech act (reproach) with the implied meaning

of order (answer, when I speak to you!),and again the insertion Why the devil makes the
utterance stronger.

“How can you say a thing like that? The fool.The blasted fool.” (p. 143)
(<Как ты можешь так сказать? Дурак. Несчастный дурак!>) (стр. 338)
- Ինչպե՞ս կարող ես նման բան ասել: Ապո՛ւշ: Անիծյա՛լ ապուշ: (էջ 156)
The implied meaning is – do not say such a thing! It is worth mentioning that this

example is taken from the heroine’s monologue, and the addressee does not hear the
speaker. Nevertheless, since the utterance is intended to have some imposition on the
“hearer”, it can be regarded as a whimperative. 

Below we present a table which displays clearly how many times the whimperative
constructions of English have been translated into Russian and Armenian in the same
way, and how many times the translators have proposed a translation which is different
from the original construction.

Armenian Folia Anglistika Culture Studies

124



We would also like to draw your attention on the fact that tag questions which are so
common in English are very rarely used in Russian. Thus we may conclude that the
Armenian and English variants coincide more often.

In conclusion, we would like to state that when translating works of verbal art many
translators try to stick to the original expressions. In doing so they use many clichés,
expressions and constructions in the translations which are not so typical of the target
language. This is done in order to retain the literary style of the author and the work itself.

This is one of the reasons why the results of our research show more coincidence
between the original (English) and the translated variants (Russian and Armenian) than
there actually is. Thus we might come to a misleading assumption that whimperatives are
equally common for the three languages, whereas investigations of speech practice used
in everyday communication show that on the conversational level the English use much
more indirect speech acts, especially whimperatives than Russians or Armenians do. 

Thus, the analysis of different types of whimperative constructions and their use in
different cultures enables us to show the close connection between the study of language
structure (grammar) and the study of language use (pragmatics).

References:

1. Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge: CUP. 

2. Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.
3. Searle, J.R. (1975) A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. // Language, Mind, and

Knowledge. / Ed. by K. Günderson. Vol. 7. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.

4. Searle, J.R. (1975) Indirect Speech Acts. / Ed. by Cole and Morgan. Syntax and
Semantics. Reprinted in Searle (1979). New York: Academic Press. 

5. Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP. 
6. Wierzbicka, A. (1985) Different Cultures, Different Languages, Different Speech

Acts: Polish vs. English. // Journal of Pragmatics. N 9.
7. Wierzbicka, A. (1991), (2001) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human

Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sources of Data:

1. Maugham, W.S. (1980) Theatre. New York: Collier & Son.
2. Maugham, W.S. (1985) Tatron. / Tr. from English into Armenian by J. Hovhannisyan.

Yerevan: Sovetakan grogh.
3. Maugham, W.S. (1983) Teatr. / Tr. from English into Russian by N. Man, G.

Ostrovskaya. M.: Pravda.

Armenian Folia AnglistikaCulture Studies

125



Wh-áí ëÏëíáÕ Ññ³Ù³Û³Ï³Ý ݳ˳¹³ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ï³ñμ»ñ Ùß³ÏáõÛÃÝ»ñáõÙ

Wh-áí ëÏëíáÕ Ññ³Ù³Û³Ï³Ý ݳ˳¹³ ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÝ ³ñï³Ñ³ÛïáõÙ »Ý Ññ³-
Ù³Ý Ï³Ù Ëݹñ³Ýù, ë³Ï³ÛÝ áõÝ»Ý ù³Õ³ù³í³ñÇ Ï³Ù ³ÝáõÕÕ³ÏÇ Ñ³ñó»ñÇ ß³-
ñ³ÑÛáõë³Ï³Ý ³é³ÝÓݳѳïÏáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ: 

êáõÛÝ Ñá¹í³ÍÇ Ýå³ï³ÏÝ ¿ áõëáõÙݳëÇñ»É Ññ³Ù³Û³Ï³Ý ݳ˳¹³ ëáõÃÛáõÝ-
Ý»ñÇ ³Ûë ïÇåÁ ¨ Ýñ³Ýó ÇÉáÏáõïÇí ·áñͳéáõÛÃÁ ųٳݳϳÏÇó ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝáõÙ,
ѳۻñ»ÝáõÙ ¨ éáõë»ñ»ÝáõÙ: Ðá¹í³ÍáõÙ ÷áñÓ ¿ ³ñí»É Ý»ñϳ۳óÝ»É É»½í³Ï³Ý ³Ûë
ÛáõñûñÇÝ³Ï Ï³éáõÛóÝ»ñÇ Ñ³Ù³éáï Ýϳñ³·ÇñÁ ¨, ½áõ·³ Ñ»éÝ»ñ ³ÝóϳóÝ»Éáí
í»ñáÝßÛ³É É»½áõÝ»ñÇ ÙÇç¨, å³ñ½³ μ³ Ý»É, û ïíÛ³É Ï³éáõÛóÝ ÇÝãå»ë ¿ óñ·Ù³Ý-
íáõÙ ¨ ÏÇñ³éíáõÙ ï³ñμ»ñ Ùß³ÏáõÛÃÝ»ñáõÙ:

Armenian Folia Anglistika Culture Studies

126