Maket 2011:Layout 1.qxd


Directive Speech Acts: a Cross-Cultural Study

Astghik Chubaryan
Lilit Sargsyan

Yerevan State University

T here are different modes of linguistic interaction between people. They dependon the feelings and intentions the interlocutors have at the moment of speech as
well as on the fact who they are – both as individuals and as representatives of a partic-
ular cultural group/discourse community. Hence, every language makes available to the
user the same basic set of speech acts, such as requesting, apologizing, declaring, and
promising, with the exception of certain culture-specific ritualized acts such as baptizing,
doubling at bridge, and excommunicating. Thus, if the English language permits such
basic everyday acts as requesting, ordering, advising, suggesting, and warning, Armenian
will too. 

The main aim of the given paper is to give a comprehensive treatment of directive
speech acts as culture-bound phenomena, namely from the point of view of different cul-
tural values and norms, such as, for instance, intimacy vs. distance, directness vs. indi-
rectness, politeness and courtesy vs. impoliteness, etc.

Intimacy implies an especially close personal relationship between the speaker and
the addressee; and it is a well-known fact that English isn’t particularly rich in devices
to convey that. As Wierzbicka justly puts it (2003:47), the very absence of an intimate
T-form of address, which sets English apart from many other languages (French:
tu/vous; Russian: òû/âû; Armenian: ¹áõ/¹áõù, etc.), is a reflex of the same attitude.
In fact, Anglo-Saxon culture seems to give preference to an utterly different value, i.e.
distance. Thus, for instance, as compared to Armenian culture, where distance is
viewed in the negative light, in Anglo-Saxon culture non-sexual body contact is heav-
ily restricted: people seldom touch, kiss or hug one another, even hand-shaking is
rather rare. They also keep at a considerable distance from each other. This culturally
expected psychological distance between individuals testifies to the general need for
psychological and physical privacy. It is these culture-specific values of distance and
privacy that underlie a typically Anglo-Saxon cultural tradition, namely the emphasis
on the rights and autonomy of every individual and the respect for everybody’s self-
determination. This is the reason why, despite the fact that the English language pro-
vides its speakers with explicit, direct ways for achieving communicative ends, the
Anglo-Saxon speakers seem to prefer indirect ways. Unlike the Armenian culture, in
the Anglo-Saxon culture directness is normally thought to bring to open confronta-
tion, which indeed will disrupt social harmony. In other words, it is this Anglo-Saxon
cultural assumption, commonly associated with the requirements of politeness, that
underlies the heavy restrictions on the use of the imperative in English directive
speech acts. Unlike English, in Armenian the bare imperative is used on a much wider
scale.

However paradoxical it may seem, English warnings found on medicine labels are

Armenian Folia Anglistika Culture Studies

128



normally in the imperative, whereas in Armenian, warnings found on medicine labels are
expressed by the infinitive form of the verb. Thus, for instance:

Keep out of the reach of children.
ä³Ñ»É »ñ»Ë³Ý»ñÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ ³Ýѳë³Ý»ÉÇ ï»ÕáõÙ:
Do not use the product after the expiry date.
âû·ï³·áñÍ»É ¹»ÕÇ åÇï³Ý»ÉÇáõÃÛ³Ý Å³ÙÏ»ïÁ Éñ³Ý³Éáõó Ñ»ïá:

Now, how is this phenomenon to be accounted for? In fact, warnings of this type,
just as advertisements and recipes, are public speech acts; first, they are anonymous,
and, second, they are not directed at a particular addressee, but rather at an imaginary
addressee. Therefore, the danger of being impolite does not arise, and the imperative is
widely used without being offensive. 

As for Armenian, the infinitive is used for almost the same reason as the impera-
tive in English, i.e. the speech act is not directed to a particular person, but what is
said in the warning concerns anybody who will buy the product. Thus, we witness
how two different cultures and two different languages approach one and the same
problem. 

Likewise, in Armenian, side by side with the imperative, forms with the verb in the
indicative mood are used to issue orders and commands. Below are two such examples
taken from the Armenian soap opera “Anna”:

êñ³ÝÇó Ñ»ïá Ùáé³ÝáõÙ »ë μ³ñ»Ï³Ù³Ï³Ý ϳåÇ Ù³ëÇÝ, ³Ù»Ý
ûñ ·³ÉÇë »ë ·áñÍÇ áõ ÇñÇÏáõÝÁ áõÃÇÝ ·ÝáõÙ »ë: ä³±ñ½ ³:

ø³ñïáõÕ³ñáõÑáõÝ ³ëáõÙ »ë` ¿ë ÇÝýáñÙ³óÇ³Ý ³ÝÙÇç³å»ë
áõÕ³ñÏáõÙ ³ ö³ñǽ:

In this connection, it is to be noted that the commonly accepted and normally expect-
ed form for orders and commands both in English and Armenian is the imperative.
However, unlike English, in Armenian we often find orders and commands expressed by
means of a second-person predicate in the present indicative. Now, how is this phenome-
non to be accounted for? In fact, the use of a given mood is congruent with the mentioned
culture-specific attitudes. Namely, the imperative mood presupposes a possible future
action on the part of the addressee. Hence the Anglo-Saxon speaker makes use of the
imperative mood when issuing orders and commands, thus imposing his/her will on the
addressee by trying to get the latter do what is in his/her (i.e. the speaker’s) best interest.
However, at the same time the English speaker leaves it to the addressee to decide
whether to comply with the order or not. In contrast, the indicative mood, especially with
the verbs in the past and present tenses, represents things as facts of life. Hence, when
the Armenian speaker makes use of the indicative mood when issuing orders and com-
mands, he/she represents the proposition of the utterance as a fact, namely as something
that is already being implemented, without taking much care of the addressee’s disposi-
tion, i.e. whether the latter will actually comply with the order or not. Such kind of orders

Armenian Folia AnglistikaCulture Studies

129



imply even a higher degree of imposition than the ones expressed in the imperative
mood. 

Though essentially the same in terms of syntactic structure, the Armenian speech
act of advice is different from its English counterpart. The latter seems to be more ten-
tative, which is accounted for by different cultural values; namely, the Anglo-Saxon
culture discourages interference in other people’s affairs, hence the general tendency
in English to reduce the use of the explicit performative formula with the verb advise
as much as possible. On the other hand, the Armenian culture encourages intimacy, so
interference is often viewed positively as a way of showing concern for the other per-
son. Armenian speakers often find it appropriate to make it explicit that they are
advising, hence the frequent use of the explicit performative formula ËáñÑáõñ¹ »Ù
ï³ÉÇë (I advise) or ËáñÑáõñ¹ Ïï³ÛÇ (I would advise) in the Armenian speech act
of advice. 

By the way, the illocutionary point of the Armenian speech act of advice is often dif-
ficult to distinguish from that of warning. To elucidate the point, let us present the seman-
tic structure of the English concept codified in the word warn:

warn
I say: If you do X, something bad may happen to you.
I think: If you know it, you may not do X.
I say this, because I want you to know it.

In Armenian the concept of warning is expressed by the word (ݳ˳)½·áõß³óÝ»É,
which, however, differs from the English warn: it implies an assumption that (1) the
speaker has authority over the addressee, (2) the speaker intends to protect the addressee
from evil, (3) the speaker has some good feelings towards the addressee. Now, in all the
three cases the semantic structure of the Armenian speech act of warning could be pre-
sented by the following formula:

(ݳ˳)½·áõß³óÝ»É
I say: If you do X, something bad may happen to you.
I think: If you know it, you will not do X.
I say this, because I don’t want you to do X.

Now, if we compare the first component of the Armenian speech act of warning with
that of English, we shall see that in both languages the given speech act is issued to warn
the addressee against something bad. However, when we come to the second and the third
components of warning, which, in fact, reveal the speaker’s attitude to the addressee, we
shall see a considerable difference between the corresponding acts in the two languages:
the English speaker acknowledges the addressee’s right for autonomy and self-determina-
tion, leaving it to the addressee to choose what is in his best interest or what course of
action to take after he has been warned. This particular attitude is best revealed in the use
of the modal verb may (If you know it, you may not do X). In contrast, the Armenian speak-

Armenian Folia Anglistika Culture Studies

130



er feels it his duty or even his right to persuade the addressee to act in such a way as to
avoid something bad mentioned in the warning. In this way the Armenian speaker simply
tries to impose his will on the addressee. This attitude is best revealed in the use of the
modal verb will (If you know it, you will not do X). In this characteristically Armenian
behaviour we witness such culture-specific features as intimacy, on the one hand, and
interference in other people’s affairs on the other. Such an approach on the part of the
Armenian speaker may be explained in two possible ways: either the speaker is really con-
cerned about the addressee and feels responsible for him, or the speaker feels he has
authority over the addressee and wants to get the latter do what is in his (i.e. the speak-
er’s) best interest. In the former case the illocutionary force of the Armenian speech act of
warning is often difficult to distinguish from that of advice, whereas if the latter case is
true, we already deal with the speech act of threatening. By the way, just as in English, in
Armenian too the illocutionary force of the speech act of warning is often difficult to dis-
tinguish from that of threatening. What makes things even more complicated is that the
performative formula ݳ˳½·áõß³óÝáõÙ »Ù is often used in Armenian to issue threats
rather than warnings, which is accounted for by the lack of a performative formula with
the verb ëå³éÝ³É in Armenian and the verb threaten in English correspondingly. The
point is that the concept encoded in the English verb threaten and the corresponding
Armenian verb ëå³éÝ³É is associated with something negative, hence the universal
avoidance of its use. 

As for the speech act of suggesting, if in English it is often difficult to distinguish
from advice, in Armenian such a problem hardly ever arises, for the Armenian speech act
of suggesting is mostly of the inclusive-we type and is easily recognized by the specific
forms in which it is expressed. To elucidate the point, let us adduce the following exam-
ples, taken from different Armenian TV series: 

¶Ý³Ýù ÑÇí³Ý¹³Ýáó, ÃáÕ Ý³ÛÇ, ³ëÇ` ÇÝ㠳ݻÝù: (“Angels’ School”)
¸» »Ï»°ù ËÙ»Ýù Çñ³ ϻݳóÁ: (“Revenger”)
ƱÝã ϳë»ë, ÙÇ Ñ³ï ëáõñ× ãËÙ»±Ýù: (“Anna”)

Now, it is easy to see that the first two examples, which represent the commonest
grammatical-syntactic means of expressing suggestions in Armenian, correspond to one
of the commonest English forms used to perform the speech act of suggesting, namely
the Let’s do X form. The third example reveals another illocutionary force indicating
device for the Armenian speech act of suggesting, which corresponds to the English con-
structions of the type Let’s do X, shall we?, What about doing X?, How about doing X?,
Why not do X?. Observation along this line shows that Armenian speakers very rarely use
constructions corresponding to the English Why don’t you do X? when making sugges-
tions, for this type of construction tends to be perceived in Armenian as a direct question
rather than a suggestion. Hence, what makes constructions of the given type be interpret-
ed as suggestions is rather the context and the speech situation. 

To conclude, the basic position we have taken in this article is that the differences
between English and Armenian in the sphere of the so-called “indirect” speech acts

Armenian Folia AnglistikaCulture Studies

131



are motivated to a considerable degree by differences in cultural norms and cultural
assumptions as well as by different hierarchies of cultural values; the general
mechanisms themselves are culture-specific. The choices embodied in individual
languages reflect not only “natural logic”, and not only a combination of “natural
logic” with historical accidents. They also reflect “cultural logic”. Thus, what has
been discussed within the frames of the given paper asserts the value of investigation
of speech acts in illuminating social language interactions and in helping to be
rational and choose the course of action which most effectively and at least cost
attains the desired end, no matter what our culture-conditioned attitudes, values and
purposes are.

References:

1. Austin, J.L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Austin, J.L. (1971) Performative-Constative. // The Philosophy of Language.

J.R.Searle (Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Bach, K. & Harnish, R.M. (1979) Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts.

Cambridge: MIT Press.
4. Kramsch, C. (1998) Language and Culture. // Oxford Introductions to Language

Study. / Ed. by H.G.Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Sadock, J.M. (1974) Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York:

Academic Press.
6. Searle, J.R. (1998) Mind, Language, Society: Philosophy in the Real World. New

York: Basic Books.
7. Searle, J.R. (1969) Speech Acts – an Essay in the Philosophy of Language.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. (1980) Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. /  Ed. by J.R. Searle, F.Kiefer, M.Bierwisch.

Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.
9. Wierzbicka, A. (2003) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human

Interaction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
10. Yule, G. (1996) Pragmatics. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

àõÕÕáñ¹áÕ ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³Ïï»ñ. ÙÇçÙß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ í»ñÉáõÍáõÃÛáõÝ

È»½í³Ï³Ý ѳÕáñ¹³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÁ Ù³ñ¹Ï³ÛÇÝ ÷áËÝ»ñ·áñÍáõÃÛ³Ý ÑÇÙÝ³Ï³Ý Ó-
¨» ñÇó Ù»ÏÝ ¿: ²Ù»Ý ûñ Ù»Ýù Çñ³Ï³Ý³óÝáõÙ »Ýù μ³½Ù³ÃÇí ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³Ïï»ñ`
÷áñÓ»Éáí ÙÇ³Å³Ù³Ý³Ï Ù»ÏÝ³μ³ Ý»É ÙÛáõëÝ»ñÇ ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³Ïï»ñÁ. ³ñ¹Ûáù
Ýñ³Ýù ³é³ç³ñÏá±õÙ »Ý, ËáñÑá±õñ¹ ï³ÉÇë, ݳ˳½·áõß³óÝá±õÙ, û± ëå³éÝáõÙ:
ÊݹÇñÝ ¿°É ³í»ÉÇ ¿ μ³ñ¹³ ÝáõÙ, »ñμ ·áñÍ áõÝ»Ýù ³ÛÉ Ùß³ÏáõÛÃÇ Ý»ñϳ۳óáõóãÇ
Ñ»ï: гïϳå»ë 21-ñ¹ ¹³ ñáõÙ, »ñμ ·Éáμ³ É³óÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝóóáõÙ ÙÇçÙß³Ïáõó-
ÛÇÝ Ï³å»ñÇ ÁݹɳÛÝÙ³Ý ³Ï³Ý³ï»ëÝ áõ Ù³ëݳÏÇóÝ »Ýù, ϳñ¨áñíáõÙ ¿ ÙÇçÙß³-

Armenian Folia Anglistika Culture Studies

132



ÏáõóÛÇÝ ·áñÍ³μ³ ÝáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»ñÁ: ²ÛëåÇëáí` Ù»ñ ѻﳽáïáõÃÛáõÝÁ ÙÇ ÷áñÓ ¿`
ѳٻٳï»Éáõ áõÕÕáñ¹áÕ ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³Ïï»ñÁ ³Ý·Éáë³ùëáÝ³Ï³Ý ¨ ѳÛϳϳÝ
Ùß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ ÝáñÙ»ñÇ Ñ³Ù³ï»ùëïáõÙ: Ø»ñ ϳï³ñ³Í áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛ³Ý ³ñ¹-
ÛáõÝùÝ»ñÁ ÃáõÛÉ »Ý ï³ÉÇë åݹ»É, áñ í»ñáÝßÛ³É ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³Ïï»ñÇ ï³ñμ» ñáõÃ-
ÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ѳۻñ»ÝáõÙ ¨ ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝáõÙ å³Ûٳݳíáñí³Í »Ý ïíÛ³É É»½í³Ùß³ÏáõÛ-
ÃáõÙ ³ñÙ³ï³íáñí³Í Ùß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ ³ñÅ»ùÝ»ñÇ ÝϳïÙ³Ùμ ·áÛáõÃÛáõÝ áõÝ»óáÕ
ï³ñμ»ñ í»ñ³μ»ñÙáõÝùÝ»ñáí:  

Armenian Folia AnglistikaCulture Studies

133