Tatiana Larina
Directness vs. Indirectness
in Russian and English Communicative Cultures
Series A: General & Theoretical Papers
ISSN 1435-6473
Essen: LAUD 2006
Paper No. 647
Universität Duisburg-Essen
Tatiana Larina
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (Russia)
Directness and Indirectness
in Russian and English Communicative Cultures
Copyright by the author
2006
Series A
General and Theoretical
Paper No. 647
Reproduced by LAUD
Linguistic Agency
University of Duisburg-Essen
FB Geisteswissenschaften
Universitätsstr. 12
D- 45117 Essen
Order LAUD-papers online: http://www.linse.uni-due.de/linse/laud/index.html
Or contact: [email protected]
Tatiana Larina
Directness vs. Indirectness
in Russian and English Communicative Cultures
Introduction
The main problems in intercultural communication stem from the fact that people do not
only speak different languages, but use them in different ways according to specific social
and linguistic norms, values, and socio-cultural conventions. In addition, perception of
polite behaviour varies across cultures. Consequently, culture-specific communicative
strategies dictate a different choice of language means applied in identical situations.
Success in intercultural communication depends greatly on the understanding of
communicative intentions of interlocutors and the pragmatic meaning of their utterances
which can differ from their semantic meaning and have different illocutionary force.
The goal of my paper is to demonstrate the difference in directness vs. indirectness in
Russian and English communicative cultures (in particular, in requests, commands, and
invitations) and its influence on ethnic communicative styles. I will analyze socio-cultural
differences to show that in intercultural communication politeness does not always require
indirectness while directness does not always presuppose impoliteness.
I agree with A. Wierzbicka (1991), that the terms directness and indirectness are
hardly appropriate for cross-cultural research and are often confusing. Nevertheless, I
suppose they may be used in intercultural analysis when two cultures are compared.
1. The Intercultural Aspect of Politeness
Interpersonal communication is the most sensitive area of intercultural communication.
Linguistic knowledge (i.e. knowledge of linguistic forms: lexis and syntax) is not enough
for successful communication, as politeness formulas tend to be literally untranslatable,
even though they may seem similar. They often have different pragmatic meanings and can
be easily misunderstood. But what is most essential is that politeness is not a set of etiquette
formulas. Politeness is a system of culture-specific and highly ritualised communicative
strategies which maximise harmonious interaction and minimise the possibility of a conflict.
It is a system of communicative strategies which are not fully shared by different cultures.
As numerous cross-cultural studies have shown, politeness despite its universal
character is a culture-specific phenomenon (Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989; BlumKulka 1992, Wierzbicka 1985, 1991, 1987; Watts, Ide and Enlich 1992; Triandis 1994,
Watts 2003, Pizziconi 2003, Hickey and Stewart 2005 and others). Differences in politeness
systems reflect differences in social relationships and are determined by culture-specific
1
values. S. Blum-Kulka notes that “systems of politeness manifest a culturally filtered
interpretation of interaction.” (Blum-Kulka 1991: 270).
People from different cultures do not always share ideas as to what is polite and what
is not. The same verbal or non-verbal act being polite in one culture may be perceived as
inappropriate or even rude in another culture. R. Watts (Watts 2003: 14) claims that even
the lexemes polite and politeness may vary in meaning and connotations associated with
them. The results of my analysis of understanding politeness by Russian and English
speakers (see Larina 2004) corroborate this statement.
Being polite in another culture requires skills in using culture-specific strategies that
might differ from those in your own culture and consequently require modification of verbal
and non-verbal behaviour. Analyzing how English is used by Russian speakers, J. Thomas
notes that “while having an excellent ‘linguistic command’ of the language, they often
unwittingly appear discourteous or domineering” (Thomas 1984: 227). And she has wellgrounded reasons for this claim. Russians are often perceived by westerners, especially by
the British, as impolite people since they often sound over-assertive, argumentative, and
even aggressive. They ask private questions, they like to give advice and may even criticize
and reprimand strangers. But from the Russian point of view such conduct is not considered
as impolite. To explain this difference we have to undertake an analysis of social
relationships and cultural values.
As A. Wierzbicka (1985: 145) claims, linguistic differences are due to “aspects of
culture much deeper than mere norms of politeness” and are associated with cultural
differences. The understanding of cultural differences which influence communicative
behaviour is a necessary part of intercultural communicative competence. Politeness is tied
up with the most basic principles of socio-cultural organization and interpersonal
relationships within social groups and should be viewed in the context of Social distance
and Power distance which are considered the main dimensions of cultures (see Hofstede
1980, 1991).
2. English and Russian Social Relationships and Cultural Values
Social distance (D) and Power distance (P) usually go together: more individualist cultures
are characterized by lower P distance index, those which are more collectivist, have a higher
P distance index. In these terms English and Russian cultures maintain the following
differences: English culture is individualist with low Power distance, while Russian culture
is collectivist with a higher Power distance. In other words, the scale of Social distance (D)
(horizontal relations) is longer in English culture since the scale of Power distance (P),
reflecting the vertical hierarchical relations is longer in the Russian system than in the
English one.
In different cultures the notion of ‘distance’ also varies. As A. Wierzbicka notes, “in
Anglo-Saxon culture distance is a positive cultural value, associated with respect for
2
autonomy of the individual. By contrast, in Polish it is associated with hostility and
alienation” (Wierzbicka 1985: 156). The same could be said about Russian culture in which
distance is often perceived as indifference. Russians usually ignore those who they do not
know. When they get acquainted they prefer to reduce the distance.
Social distance in English culture becomes prominent in the zone of privacy, which
envelops every person irrespective of his/her age or status. It is one of the most important
cultural values which regulates social relationships. J. Paxman (Paxman 1999) calls it “one
of the defining characteristics of the English”, “one of the country’s informing principles”
and claims that “the importance of privacy informs the entire organization of the country,
from the assumptions on which laws are based, to the buildings in which the English live”
(Paxman 1999: 117-118). Moreover, it is vivid in communication and explains a lot of
peculiarities of English verbal and non-verbal behaviour.
I completely agree with the researchers who claim that if there is a word for a
particular concept in a language, then that concept is very important for the culture. H.
Triandis (Triandis 1994) states that “For important values all cultures have one word. When
you see that many words are needed to express an idea in one language while only one word
is used in another, you can bet that the idea is indigenous to the one-word culture” (Triandis
1994: 6).
‘Privacy’ is an essential English notion and is defined as “being alone or undisturbed;
the right to this freedom from intrusion or publiс attention” (OPED 2000: 641). A truly
comparable word for it doesn’t exist in other European languages (French, Italian, Spanish,
or Polish). Neither does one find it in Russian. In different contexts it can be translated in
different ways. As a cultural concept it can be interpreted as personal autonomy. The note
Private (No admittance) on doors is translated into Russian as Strangers are forbidden to
enter (Postoronnim vhod vospreschion). Privacy can be viewed as a zone where nobody is
allowed to intrude. The value of privacy in English culture and the lack of it in Russian
explain a lot of characteristics peculiar to both politeness systems, as well as to their
communicative styles.
3. Negative Politeness in English and Russian
In the process of communication people use different strategies. P. Brown and S. Levinson
(Brown & Levinson 1987) distinguish between positive and negative politeness strategies.
They look upon positive politeness as ‘approach-based’ and negative politeness as
‘avoidance-based’ (Brown & Levinson 1987: 75). While positive politeness strategies (or
strategies of involvement) are aimed at minimizing Social distance, negative politeness
strategies (or strategies of independence) are used to keep ritual distance from the Hearer
and in this way to demonstrate the Speaker’s respect for the Hearer’s right to privacy. P.
Brown and S. Levinson call negative politeness the ‘heart of respective behavior’ (Brown &
Levinson 1987: 129). It corresponds to rituals of avoidance.
3
Human interaction presupposes involvement with other participants and demonstration
of our involvement to them; on the other hand we need to maintain some degree of
independence from other participants and show them that we respect their independence
(Scollon & Scollon 2001: 46). This is a universal mechanism of human interactions. Both
aspects of communication work together. But they work differently. The extent to which
interlocutors use these strategies depends on their culture and values, on the type of
relationships which dominate in a particular society, and on the concept of self.
In British culture perceived as essentially an avoidance-based, negatively oriented
culture (Stewart 2005:117), negative politeness is the most elaborate and the most
conventionalized set of linguistic strategies for Face Threatening Act (FTA) redress. These
strategies are aimed at minimizing the imposition on the Hearer. One of the main strategies
of independence is to be conventionally indirect, which means the use of phrases and
sentences that have contextually unambiguous meanings different from their literal
meaning. P. Brown and S. Levinson claim that the indirect speech acts perform politeness
functions. They are universal and are probably constructed in essentially similar ways in all
languages (Brown & Levinson 1987: 142).
Comparative analyses of English and Russian communicative behaviour in such
speech acts as Request, Advice, and even Command and Invitation show that though some
of the negative politeness strategies introduced by Brown and Levinson do exist in Russian
communication, they are much less important and frequent as in English. Moreover, in
many situations where they are conventional in English context, in Russian they are
perceived as inappropriate.
R. Fasold (Fasold 1990) refers to Speech Acts (SA) in which the Speaker (S) wants the
Hearer (H) to do something as ‘hazardous communicative activities’ (Fasold 1990: 58). He
explains that if you give someone an order or make a request, you expect that s/he would be
willing to do something. Typically, it means you think that either you are in a sufficiently
superior social position for the other person to be obliged to carry out the order or request,
or that the solidarity uniting you is sufficient for that person to be willing to act for your
benefit (s.p.). If your assessment is wrong and the H does not accept your social superiority
or fails to acknowledge the right amount of solidarity between you, s/he might openly refuse
to carry out the order or fulfill the request. This explanation shows that the level of threat
depends on the level of Power distance and Solidarity between the S and the H. This is
extremely significant for our comparative analysis.
Hypotheses
1. Since the Social Distance between the interlocutors in Russian communication is
shorter than in English and thus the level of Solidarity is higher, people do not
need a complex system of strategies to minimize the imposition since it is often
not perceived as a threat.
4
2. Since the Power Distance in Russian communication is greater than in English, in
a variety of situations the Speaker has more authority to make a request or give an
order to those who are socially inferior. S/he feels free to do it in a more direct
form than would be appropriate in communication in English yet it is taken for
granted by the Hearer in Russian communication.
4. Directness vs. Indirectness and Imposition
Intercultural comparisons disprove the claim about the universality of indirectness. R. Watts
writes that non-Russian commentators of the social behavior of Russians note a high degree
of unmitigated directness in various SA types, which contradicts the English tendency
towards showing distance, reserve and formality (Watts 2003: 15). Russian culture is not
exceptional in preferring more directness in so called face-threatening acts. This tendency
has been noted in Greek, Israeli, Cypriot communication and elsewhere (see Sifianou 1992,
Blum-Kulka and Kasper 1989, Terkourafi 2005 and others).
While analyzing directness vs. indirectness it is necessary to be aware of the fact that
this characteristic refers to the form of the utterance, its structure and language. However,
there is no direct link between directness of the form and directness of its pragmatic
meaning; in other words, between directness and imposition. On the pragmatic level, direct
utterances (those which are formed by imperatives) do not always sound imposing. They
may be softened by intonation, and context which includes numerous extra-linguistic
features, such as the interlocutors’ age, social position, the relationship between them, the
place of interaction and other factors which reduce assertiveness. Above all, directness is
determined by the conventions of the culture.
Communicative problems occur when a foreign Speaker understands the form of the
utterance and its linguistic meaning but is unaware of its pragmatic meaning. Giving an
example of a pragmalinguistic failure, J. Thomas makes an interesting observation: “Thus
can you X? is a highly conventionalized politeness form in British English, likely to be
interpreted by native speakers as a request to do X, rather than a question as to one’s ability
to do X. In other languages, French and Russian, for example, the opposite is true.
Similarly, the utterance X, would you like to read? which in an English classroom would be
a highly conventionalized polite request / directive to do so, in a Russian classroom often
elicited the response no, I wouldn’t (from students who had no intention of being rude, but
who genuinely thought that their preferences were being consulted)” (Thomas 1983: 101).
Similar misunderstandings can occur at workplace. An English businessman
complained about his Russian secretary being very slow and inefficient. She needed several
reminders to do each job. But, actually, her sluggishness is not so surprising since she was
told Could you possibly type these letters or Could I possibly trouble you to take a moment
to do it. Russian speakers do not perceive such utterances as instructions to do something
immediately but rather as very soft requests they can attend to when they have time
5
available. They infer that taking care of such requests can be postponed. Misunderstandings
of this sort occur because indirect questions are not perceived as a norm if the Hearer is
supposed to carry out the act and has no other option. In such situations Russian speakers
fail to grasp the pragmatic meaning of the utterances as they differ from their literal
meanings. In Russian context the situations discussed above require direct requests. They
sound natural and quite polite.
In intercultural communication it is important not to consider indirectness as the main
means of softening the imposition. In languages other than English various linguistic
(lexical and grammatical) devices serve this purpose. In Russian culture, for example, an
imperative modified by please (pozhaluysta) does not sound as demanding and imposing as
in English. In Russian please seems to have a stronger pragmatic meaning than in English
and it easily converts directives into requestives. In spoken language, especially when adults
talk to children pozhaluysta is referred to as a magic word (volshebnoye slovo). It serves to
encourage a child to be polite. If asking for something a child uses ‘the magic word’ s/he
will never be refused. If children forget to add please to their request, they are often
reminded by the question And where is the magic word? (A gde volshebnoye slovo?). Thus
the Russian model Give me that book please (Day mne tu knigu, pozhaluysta) is percieved
as a request but not as a command.
Another important means of softening the imperative are forms of address. They play
an important part in interpersonal communication because they contain information about a
given language, indicate the social status of the interlocutors and the type of relations
between them, in particular the degree of intimacy, social and status distance etc.
The Russian language offers a greater variety of forms of address than English. Firstly,
it has T/V distinction. The polite vy (vous) pronoun and verb forms used with it also modify
the imperative and make it sound more polite. Secondly, among various forms of address
the Russian language uses a patronymic name which follows the first name (Vladimir
Ivanovich/Maria Victorovna). Such combined forms of address (given name and
patronymic) sound less formal and distant than honorific names (Gospodin Nikitin/
Gospozha Nikitina which correspond to Mr./Mrs. Nikitin) but more formal and respectful
than a bare first name (Vladimir / Maria). Besides, there are a lot of diminutive names
(Volodia/Voloden’ka / Masha/Mashen’ka etc.) used while addressing children, close friends,
and family members. They are also acceptable at workplace when talking to peers, inferiors
and younger colleagues. Thus it is considered appropriate for a boss to use an imperative
utterance addressing his/her middle-aged secretary Maria Vladimirovna, napechatayte,
pozhaluysta, eti pis’ma (literal translation - Maria Vladimirovna, type those letters please).
Addressing a younger secretary, the manager might say Mashen’ka (diminutive of Maria),
napechatayte, pozhaluysta, eti pis’ma (Mashen’ka, type those letters please). Despite the
use of the imperative verb, these utterances do not sound as commanding in Russian as in
English. They are perceived as a softened command or even as a polite request.
6
Not only proper names but also many Russian nouns have diminutive forms. They
express intimacy and affection and when used in imperative sentences, they reduce the
imposition and make the utterance sound soft and polite: Dochen’ka, prinesi mne,
pozhaluysta, stakanchik vodichki. On the pragmatic level this utterance, which is translated
literally as Daughter [diminutive], bring me a glass [diminutive] of water [diminutive]
please is not so direct and imposing as in English and can be compared with such an
English model as Honey, could you bring me a glass of water, please.
Besides the linguistic and pragmatic differences in the structure and perception of
imperative utterances we have discussed earlier, there is another important distinction
between Russian and English impositive acts. Due to cultural differences such SA as
Request, Offer, Invitation, Advice and even Criticism and Reprimand are not as facethreatening and imposing in Russian as they are in British culture. This has to be taken into
account when communicative intentions of Russian speakers are interpreted.
One of the reasons why Russians are perceived imposing is their willingness to give
advice to anyone, including strangers, even without being asked for it. The English proverb
Give not counsel or salt till you are asked is considered by Russians to be rather odd.
Children seem to be the most frequent recipients of ‘wisdom’. They are recommended not
to read in the public transport since this is bad for the eyes. On a frosty day they are
instructed by passers by to put on caps that should protect them from catching a cold. It is
common for shoppers to give advice to each other as to which brands are preferable. Giving
advice to clients is considered one of the professional duties of shop assistants. Russian
people receiving advice do not feel that it is violation of their privacy, rather they interpret it
as an act of good will and a sign of friendliness, and solidarity. Advice is perceived as an
involvement speech act rather than a face-threatening act in Russian communication.
Offers and invitations are other vivid examples of how differently imposition is
viewed in English and Russian communicative cultures. An invitation urges the invitee to
accept rather than leaving him/her a comfortable way of rejecting it. Such English
invitations as It would be nice to have tea together, but I am sure you are very busy (an
example of English politeness strategies given by Scollon and Scollon 2001: 51) or I was
wondering if you would like to come over to me for a meal this Saturday evening. I know it’s
a fairy short notice. So please don’t worry if you have other plans for the Russian speaker
would be most ambiguous and can be perceived as insincere. When I tell my Russian
students that the first of the examples I have just quoted comes from a book on intercultural
communication while the second one is from my own experience, they laugh and wonder
whether I could accept such a ‘strange’ invitation. When they learn that I did, they can’t
help expressing surprise and try to persuade me that my interlocutor did not really mean to
invite me and would have been much happier if I had not accepted the invitation. In Russian
context direct invitations would be more appropriate as the Speaker is expected to
demonstrate a sincere desire to see the Hearer.
7
Scholars note that there are some instances, when the imperative is polite in English.
But these are rather limited. The imperative may be used when it is implied that the H will
benefit from the suggested action, and the S is confident s/he will enjoy the action. It is
used, for example, in well-wishing (Have a lovely day / Have a nice time / Enjoy your weekend / Take care and others) or when a host invites his/her guest to enter and have a seat, or
encourages him/her to have some more food or drink: Come in / Sit down / Have some more
salad / Have some more wine / Have another chocolate / Have a cigarette etc. In these
situations the S can afford to put pressure on the H. Leech points out that this indicates his
sincerity in having the H accept the offer or invitation (Leech 1983:109).
Interestingly, this is the main reason why Russians prefer imperatives when inviting.
The more pressing the invitation, the more sincere it sounds. When encouraging a guest to
have some more food or drink, Russian communicators are also more pressing, perhaps
because hospitality and modesty are among the most important cultural values. It should be
noted that there are cultures where the guest is supposed to refuse the offer of food or drink
at least three times before s/he accepts it.
5. Directness / Indirectness and Politeness Strategies
The most striking difference between English and Russian politeness systems is revealed in
the use of imperatives. Restrictions on the use of this form in English have been noticed by
many linguists (see, e.g., Sifianou 1992, Aijmer 1996, Leech and Svartvik 1994, Tsui 1994,
etc.) and can be illustrated only by means of comparative analysis. A. Wierzbicka, who has
paid a lot of attention to this specific trait of English communication, argues that in English
the imperative is mostly used in commands and orders (Wierzbicka 1991: 30). My data
demonstrate that the tendency to avoid it extends even further, and to some extent applies to
commands too.
According to my data, English people tend to avoid using imperatives in all SAs with
pragmatic meaning I want you to do it. They try to diminish and soften their imposition and
show their respect of other people’s autonomy (privacy). It does not matter whether the H is
obliged to comply with the S (as in command), whether the action is of benefit to the
Speaker (request) or to the Hearer (invitation). The English prefer indirect utterances whose
pragmatic meaning may sound ambiguous to Russian speakers. In some situations they can
be understood by Russians as genuine questions. A case in point are teachers’ directives
such as Would you like to read or Can I ask you to write down your answers? In other
situations they may be perceived as insincerity and even a mockery. This would be the case
with the following invitations: Would you like to come over? and Just wondering, if you’d
like to come over on Saturday. If you have other plans please don’t worry.
In Russian communication the strategy referred to as be conventionally indirect
(Brown & Levinson 1987) is less typical, and indirect utterances are less common. They are
mostly used in formal communication. In various situations it is conventional and
8
acceptable for Russians to approach the H directly. Directness in this case does not mean
impoliteness. Besides indirectness there are other markers of politeness (vous form,
patronymics, diminutives etc.).
5.1 Directives or Requestives
Though the strategy be conventionally indirect is also used in Russian communication,
some English requests expressed indirectly sound rather odd to Russian speakers. Thus for
the utterance Could you help me please? we can easily find indirect equivalents in Russian
(though there is no complete equivalence as Russian questions are negative and sound as
Couldn’t you help me? – Ne mogli by vy mne pomoch? or Won’t you help me?– Vy mne ne
pomozhete?). The English requests Can I ask you to write down your answers? (a teacher to
the pupils) / Would you kindly stop smoking please? (a bus driver to a passenger) perplex
and amuse Russian speakers since indirectness is perceived as inappropriate in those
situations.
A comparative analysis reveals that Russian speakers tend to avoid indirect utterances
in the situations, which due to the power of the Speaker or other contextual characteristics
do not offer any contextual or pragmatic option for the Hearer but to perform the action. In
the intercultural perspective it is necessary to distinguish between semantic and pragmatic
options. The semantic option refers to the form of the phrase and its semantic meaning,
while the pragmatic option refers to pragmatic (contextual) meaning. These different types
of options do not necessarily coincide. Applied in intercultural studies, the comparative
approach can provide us with a more precise distinction between directives and requestives:
a directive is an SA which leaves no pragmatic option to the H who is obliged to comply
with the S; a requestive is an SA which offers the H a pragmatic option either to perform the
act or not.
The examples provided earlier Can I ask you to write down your answers? (a teacher
to students), Would you kindly stop smoking please (a bus driver to a passenger) should be
considered directives. Although formally a question as a linguistic model always contains
an option as the response to it can be either a positive or a negative answer, these utterances
do not offer any pragmatic option and should be viewed as directives equivalent to Write
down your answers, please / Stop smoking, please. Despite formal and semantic differences
between the utterances that we have discussed, they are all directives, though the contextual
meaning of the indirect utterances (questions) differs from their literal meaning.
At the same time direct utterances with no semantic option should not necessarily be
viewed as directives. Give me that book please or Help me with the translation please
(addressed to a friend) can be considered as requestives (similarly to the following
utterances: Would you give me that book please? or Could you help me with the
translation?). We can classify these utterances as requestives because in these situations the
9
H has an option not to do the act and may say something like Sorry, I’am using it now or
I’m afraid I’m very busy at the moment.
Whether the Speaker is willing to disguise or soften the imposition by offering a
semantic (formal) option for directives and requestives or whether s/he finds it unnecessary,
depends on the culture. My analysis shows that while English speakers tend to use indirect
utterances not only in requestives but in directives too, Russian speakers avoid using
indirect forms in directives but find them quite appropriate in requestives. This allows us to
suggest that politeness does not necessarily mean giving options, but giving options is to a
great extent culture-dependent.
5.2 English / Russian Requestives
The Request is considered to be one of the most threatening SA as it is performed in the
interest of the Speaker and, normally, at the expense of the Hearer. In Russian
communication it can be expressed both by direct (imperative) and indirect (question)
utterances, but imperative sentences are preferable. As it has been noted an Imperative
modified by please (pozhaluysta) does not sound as demanding and imposing as in English.
In Russian please seems to have a stronger pragmatic meaning than in English and easily
transforms directives to requestives. Thus the Russian model Give me that book, please
(Day mne tu knigu, pozhaluysta) should be characterized as a request but not as a command.
In Russian communication, an imperative modified by please is the most frequent
form employed to make a request. Indirect utterances (Could you give me that book, please)
are also possible but, as they sound more formal and distant, they are considered to be more
appropriate for a high register of communication and mostly appear on the formal level.
They are hardly ever used in interactions between equals (friends, students); neither they are
used by those who have more power (parents talking to children, teachers addressing
students, etc.).
The most frequent form of request in English is a question with a modal verb
(Can you/Could you/Would you). According to the data summarized by E. Rintell, they are
typical of all levels of deference: high (71. 95 %), middle (84.5%), and low (62.5%)
(Rintell 1981). By contrast, direct utterances (I need and imperative) are not at all
appropriate on a high-deference level (0%), and are infrequent on other levels: 3.1% (middeference) and 34.4% (low-deference). According to the data of CCSARP, in Australian
English indirect utterances account for 84.2% while direct utterances for 9.8% only (BlumKulka, House, and Kasper 1989).
Russian researchers give similar data for British English: question models – 91. 9 %,
imperatives – 3.1%. As for the Russian language on average imperatives are used in Russian
19 times more often in comparison with English (58.35% and 3.1%) (summarized data from
Egorova 1995). In an elementary request among friends, an imperative is the only
appropriate form (100%) in Russian.
10
For formulating requests the English language offers a set of elaborate models with
numerous hedges, modifiers and downtoners which dissociate the H from the act and
minimize the imposition: Do you think you could possibly do X, please?/I was just
wondering whether you could possibly do X or I was thinking maybe you wouldn’t mind
doing X. Such formulas do not exist in Russian as Russian speakers never minimize their
imposition to such an extent. Such models are perceived by Russian speakers as too
elaborate, ambiguous, and obscure.
Note that in order to be more polite Russian speakers may intensify their request
instead of softening it. Literarily such utterances can be rendered as Be so kind, give me that
book please (Bud’ dobr, day mne tu knigu, pozhaluysta) or even Be so kind, give me that
book please. I am asking you very much (Bud’ dobr, day mne tu knigu, pozhaluysta. Ya
tebia ochen’ proshu). This example shows that while an explicit performative sounds too
intrusive in English, and English speakers tend to avoid it, as “in many circumstances it
seems to imply an unequal power relationship or a particular set of rights on the part of the
Speaker” (Thomas 1995: 48), Russians on the contrary intensify their requests by adding
very much (ochen’). In Russian communication explicit performatives are not perceived as
intrusive and it is quite appropriate to say I ask you…, I invite you…, I advise you…, I wish
you…, I congratulate you… and so on.
The English language has a more elaborate system of requestive utterances in
comparison with Russian. However, the main differences between the two languages in this
respect emerge not so much in the set of forms but in the choice of linguistic forms and
strategies for formulating a request. We can conclude, therefore, that an attempt to reduce
the imposing nature of a request is much more typical of English communication than of
Russian. Russians prefer more structurally direct requests than the English, who tend to
choose structurally indirect constructions and make a bigger effort to minimize their
imposition.
5.3 English / Russian Directives
In English communication, directives are expressed not only by the utterances which
provide neither a pragmatic nor a semantic option (imperatives), but also by those which
offer a semantic option (interrogatives or declaratives) but not a pragmatic option. A. Tsui
claims (Tsui 1994) that a directive that does not give the addressee any option but to comply
is even more face-threatening than a requestive and points out that forms which typically
realize requestives are often used instead of those which typically realize directives (Tsui
1994: 109). This can be illustrated by the following example: May I see your ticket please.
11
Some other examples from English communication:
Ex. 1.1. Can I draw your attention to this table? (lecturer to the students).
Ex. 2.1. Can you give me a few minutes? (supervisor to the student).
Ex. 3.1. Can I have 5 slices of that ham? (customer to the shop-assistant).
Ex. 4.1. Could I have a bottle of champagne and two glasses right away delivered to room
2001 (visitor of the hotel to the waiter).
Ex. 5.1. Would you mind popping down to the shop? (mother to her son).
Ex. 6.1. Would you like to pop your head back? (hairdresser to the client),
Ex. 7.1. Will you kindly open your bag? (at the customs).
Ex. 8.1. I’d like to ask the horns measure four (conductor to the musicians).
Ex. 9.1.Would the following students please contact the department secretary about the
examination (on the notice board).
Ex. 10.1. If you would like to follow me, we’ll be going in through the main entrance (guide
to tourists).
In all these examples, thanks to his/her status or situation the S has some power over the H
or rights to give him/her commands/instructions. It is obvious that the H (or Hearers) is not
given any option and is supposed to comply with the S. Nevertheless, the S tries to soften
his/her command by formulating it in such a way as to provide at least an illusion of an
option.
For Russians such utterances sound rather odd and can be misunderstood. Russian
directives are commonly expressed by a bare imperative, as utterances with semantic option
are not common in the situations, which do not provide any pragmatic option. In all these
contexts Russian speakers would use a bare imperative. The imperative could be modified
by the word please (pozhaluysta) which, as has been already mentioned, easily transforms
directives into requestives. In Russian the above phrases could be translated literally as
follows:
Ex. 1.2. Pay attention to this table (please).
Ex. 2.2. Wait a few minutes (please).
Ex. 3.2. Give me 5 slices of that ham (please).
Ex. 4.2. Bring a bottle of champagne and two glasses to room 2201(please).
Ex. 5.2. Pop down to the shop (please).
Ex. 6.2. Pop your head back (please).
Ex. 7.2. Open your bag (please).
Ex. 8.2. Play measure four (please).
Ex. 9.2. Contact the department secretary about the examination.
Ex. 10.2. Now let’s go in through the main entrance.
These examples confirm J. Thomas’ observation that “polite usage in Russian permits many
more direct imperatives than does English”. She also points out that “transferred into
12
English, such direct imperatives seem ‘brusque and discourteous’” (Thomas 1983: 102).
Power distance is typical of directives in all the situations when the S has some authority
over the H. This and a higher level of solidarity allow the Russian S to be more direct and
demanding. Such speech behavior is taken for granted and at the same time does not sound
impolite.
5.4. English / Russian Invitations
The general pragmatic meaning ‘I want you to do that’ is not only characteristic of
directives, but to some extent of invitations as well. Comparative analysis of this SA reveals
the same features. English speakers tend to invite indirectly, often giving the H an option to
reject an invitation, or at least they use formulas with semantic options as in examples
11. 1 – 14.1:
Ex. 11.1. I’m having a birthday party. Would you like to come?
Ex. 12.1. Just wondering, if you’d like to come over on Saturday. I’m having a small door at
my birthday.
Ex. 13.1. It would be nice to have tea together, but I am sure you are very busy (the latter
example is from Scollon and Scollon 2001: 50).
Ex. 14.1. I was wondering if you would like to come over to me for a meal this Saturday
evening. If you have other plans, please don’t worry.
Russians do not use this politeness strategy, they express their intention in a direct way and
prefer imperatives. The usual Russian rendition of the above invitations could be translated
literally as follows:
Ex.14.2. Come to my birthday party.
Ex.15.2. I’m having a birthday party on Saturday. I’d like you to come (I am waiting for
you).
Ex.17.2. Let’s go out for tea. Do you want to?
Ex.18.2. Please, come to me for a meal this Saturday, will you? I’d be very glad to see you.
The Speaker may offer options related to the time of the encounter but not to the fact of
coming (If you can’t come at 7, come later. We will be waiting for you or Come when you
can etc.)
As a result English polite invitations (especially in Ex. 13.1. and Ex. 14.1.) would
sound rather impolite and even offensive to a Russian speaker. Since giving options in these
situations is inappropriate and could be interpreted as evidence of the Speaker’s insincerity,
rather than a demonstration of his/her respect for the Hearer, an indirect invitation may
trigger a negative response. Note that Russian interlocutors would rather intensify their
pressure on the H than give him/her options and soften the imposition in the situations that
we have analysed. Thus instead of saying It would be nice to have tea together, but I am
13
sure you are very busy (Ex. 13.1.), which sounds more than strange to Russian speakers,
they could say Let’s go out for coffee. Stop working. Relax. It’s time to have a break.
6. Data
The arguments presented in the previous sections have been confirmed by my empirical
research (for more detail, see Larina 2003, 2005). The data for analysis were drawn from the
discourse questionnaire presented to the subjects in the form of short dialogues with gaps to
be filled in. The questionnaire consisted of 4 situations requiring commands, and 4
situations requiring invitations. They were filled in by 80 English and 80 Russian
informants (mostly students and teachers), who were asked to complete the dialogues in the
way which seemed most natural to them.
For directives the following situations have been chosen:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A policeman wants the driver to move up his/her car.
A teacher wants the students in class to open their books.
A customer wants the waiter to bring the menu.
A mother wants her son to go shopping.
In the framework of Russian culture I consider all these situations to be directives
(commands) because they do not offer any pragmatic option to the Hearer who is supposed
to do what the Speaker says.
The results of the experiment have confirmed that in the situations in which the H is
supposed to perform an act, Russian speakers prefer direct utterances while the English tend
to conceal their intention, using the formulas with semantic options: Would you mind
moving your cart, please? / Would you please open your textbook? / Could I see the menu,
please? / Could you possibly go to the shop?
The data give interesting socio-cultural information and indicate how English /
Russian speakers look upon their interlocutors and how much power they give them. The
results show that the Russian teacher has much more power than the English one. Though
the English teacher uses imperatives quite often (52%), his/her Russian counterpart does not
use any other formulas but imperatives (100%). S/he is not supposed to give any options
(even formal) to the students. Direct style of communication dominates.
In the family the asymmetrical type of relations also prevails. Russian mothers use
indirect utterances 4.6 times less frequently than English mothers. The imperative model
softened by please (pozhaluysta) is the most appropriate one in this situation (80%): Go
shopping please (Skhodi, pozhaluysta, v magazin). Contrary to this, English speakers prefer
interrogative utterances in this situation (92%). This serves as a marker of respect for
personal autonomy of the children: Will you run down to the shop, please?/Would you go
down to the shop for me?/Could you possibly go to the shop?/Would you mind popping
down to the shop?
14
Interesting differences are observed in situation # 2. The data show that English
customers do not use imperatives addressing the waiter while Russian clients do it quite
often (60%) demonstrating Power distance between them. Bring the menu, please
(Prinesite, pozhaluysta, menu) is the most typical formula. On the other hand, it is important
to point out that besides the word please (pozhaluysta), the directive is modified by the vy
(vous)-form which is expressed in the verb (prinesi-te) and shows respect.
Another significant difference concerns the structure of interrogative utterances which
are also used in this situation by Russian speakers. In contrast to conventionalized English
utterances (Could I have the menu, please?/May I see the menu please?) which are Speakerbased, Russian formulas are mostly Hearer-oriented (Could you bring us the menu please?),
as the point-of-you distancing strategy is not typical for the Russian system of politeness.
English speakers, on the contrary, use it quite often to dissociate the Hearer from the
discourse in order to minimize their imposition.
For invitations I chose the following four situations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
You invite your friend to your birthday party.
You invite your friend to come round to your place.
Your mother or grandmother invites you to come round to dinner.
You and your friends are going on an excursion and you invite your new
colleague (classmate) to join you.
The results obtained from the questionnaire confirmed my observations of the differences in
the strategies used by English and Russian speakers in this SA. When formulating
invitations, English speakers use Hearer-oriented interrogative models enquiring if the H is
interested in accepting the invitation and giving him/her an option: Would you like to
come?/Can you come?/Are you free to come?/Do you want to come? etc.
Russian speakers, on the contrary, use a lot of Speaker-based formulas, especially in
situation # 1, in which they may be as frequent as 56%: I invite you/I want to invite you/I’d
like to invite you/I want you to come and even I expect you (to come)/I’ll be waiting for you
which are more direct than performative formulas as they eliminate any objections even
hypothetical ones. The H is just presented with a fait accompli: U menia den’ rozhdeniya v
voskresenye. Ya tebia zhdu (I’m having a birthday party on Sunday. I expect you to come or
I will be waiting for you).
Besides declarative models, imperatives are widely used in Russian invitations: in
situation #1 they can reach 24% (Come to my birthday party/I’m having a birthday party
next Saturday. Come), and in situations # 2 and # 3 over 70% of Russian subjects used
imperative constructions. These invitations could be translated literally as follows: Come to
my place today to have tea./Come to my place. I have not seen you for a long time/I have
cooked a nice dinner. Come./I have tasty dinner today. Drop in.
In order to sound more polite English speakers tend to use different strategies
modifying their imposition. They use indirect Hearer-oriented constructions, interrogative
15
models, indirect questions with I wonder, past tense (I was wondering), modifiers (just),
conditionals (Would you like to come/Could you come).
Russian speakers invite directly. They use strategies that intensify their imposition
eliminating any option and thus express their strong desire to see the Hearer. Actually, it is
difficult to say whether in Russian culture invitation should be perceived as imposition. I
suggest that for Russian speakers an invitation is a desirable act and it can be viewed as
something positive. They have no doubt that the H would accept it with eagerness and
would be happy to come. They invite persistently using performative (even explicit ones)
and declarative models, which are Speaker-based. In addition, they use imperatives and
intensifiers: I invite you (Ya tebia priglashayu)/Come by all means (Prihodi obiazatel’no),
No objections are accepted (Vozrazheniya ne prinimayutsia). All of these are possible ways
of expressing a strong wish to see the H.
Only in situation # 4 in which the distance between the interlocutors is larger than in
other examples, Russian speakers tend to use interrogative invitations, asking if the H is
interested in being invited: We are going on an excursion, do you want to join us? (My
edem na ekskursiyu. Ty hochesh poehat’ s nami?). This feature can be regarded as another
confirmation of the fact that negative politeness is strongly associated with the level of
distance between interlocutors. In this situation Russian speakers in the survey that I
conducted did not use the direct imperative; instead 32% of the subjects used we-form
constructions starting with Let’s (Let’s go on an excursion together. – Davayte poedem
vmeste na ekskursiyu / Poedemte s nami na ekskursiyu) which can also be viewed as a direct
form of inducement.
7. Summary
When we participate in intercultural communication we should bear in mind that directness
does not necessarily imply impoliteness. Russian culture is a case in point. In many contexts
direct utterances are socially appropriate and preferable. Besides indirectness, the Russian
language has a wide repertoire of linguistic means to soften imposition. The speakers’
choice of directness instead of indirectness can be triggered by the asymmetry of sociocultural relationships (Social and Power distance), differences in cultural values reflected in
the way people use the language in their interaction, and by differences in politeness
systems. Although politeness is a universal category, it is a culture-specific phenomenon
and has different ways of expression.
The comparative analysis conducted on the basis of ethnographic observations,
questionnaires, and interviews shows that following the principle of non-interference,
English speakers tend to avoid direct utterances in all SAs with the pragmatic meaning ‘I
want you to do that’. Brought up in an individualist culture, English respondents value
privacy, individual autonomy, and their cultural norms require a more distant system of
behaviour. SAs that can be generalized by the formula I want you to do that are considered
16
face-threatening. Elaborate negative strategies and preference for conventional indirectness
are typical not only on formal occasions, but also prevail in everyday encounters. English
communicators tend to use indirect formulas with semantic options in all SAs, including
directives, where no functional options are available.
In a collectivist Russian culture it is uncommon to be vigilant in guarding one’s
personal space. People are more available to each other, which implies reduced Social
distance. Therefore, negative strategies are less typical of Russian communication; treating
the Hearer in a direct way is sociably acceptable and in some situations is a preferred
strategy. In Russian, when the S wants the H to do something, s/he expresses this wish more
directly. The general closeness of interpersonal relations allows that. It is due to the
collectivist nature of cultural values that the structure of such speech acts as Invitation,
Advice, and Offer can hardly be considered as imposition, rather as positive acts of
involvement. Request is also a less face-threatening act in Russian than in English.
Another reason for the observed cultural differences is Power distance which is greater
in Russian communication. In asymmetrical situations (parents – children, teachers – pupils
etc.) this allows speakers having power and rights to be more direct. In English
communication superiors treat subordinates as equals emphasizing the cultural value of
equality.
Communicative strategies dictate the choice of language means. Imperative utterances
which are widely used in Russian communication do not indicate speakers’ impoliteness.
Polite usage in Russian does not exclude direct imperatives while in English it does.
Culture-specific politeness strategies and linguistic means used for their realization
shape distinctive communicative styles. My data challenge the assertion that English
communicative style is direct (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey 1990). I suggest that in
interpersonal communication English style is indirect and implicit compared with Russian.
It can be called Hearer-oriented and form-oriented. English speakers put the main emphasis
on the form of the utterance and on softening the imposition, while Russian interlocutors are
more concerned with the meaning than with the form. They express their intention in a more
direct way. Russian style of interpersonal communication is more direct and explicit
compared with English and can be called message-oriented.
These differences confirm that British communicative culture tends to be avoidancebased and distance oriented. They also prove that Russian culture is involvement-based and
solidarity oriented.
17
Bibliography
Aijmer, Karin (1996). Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity.
London & New York: Longman.
Blum-Kulka, Shosana (1992). The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In:
Richard J. Watts; Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlih (eds.), Politeness in language.
Studies in history, theory and practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 255 – 280.
Blum-Kulka, Shosana; House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriel (eds.) (1989). Cross-cultural
pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, Shosana and House, Juliane (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation in
requestive behaviour. In: Blum-Kulka, Shosana; House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriel
(eds.) (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex, pp. 123-154.
Brown, Penelope and. Levinson, Stephen D. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in
language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Egorova, Marina (1995). Kontrastivmo-pragmaticheskiy analiz sposobov realizaciyi
pros’by: soposnavleniye britanskoy, amerikanskoy y russkoy tradiciyi. PhD thesis.
Voronezh.
Fasold, Ralph (1990). The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gudykunst, William and Ting-Toomey, Stella (1990). Culture and Interpersonal
Communication. Sage Series. Interpersonal communication. 8. Sage Publications,
Hickey, Leo and Miranda Stewart (eds.) (2005), Politeness in Europe. Multilingual
Matters LTD.
Hofstede, Geert H. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in WorkRelated Values, Beverly Hills CA; Sage Publications.
Hofstede, Geert H. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill Book Company (UK) Limited.
Kasper, Gabriele (1990). Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues. Journal of
Pragmatics 14, pp. 193-218.
Larina, Tatiana V. (2003). Kategoriya vezhlivosti v angliyskoy y russkoy kommunikativnyh
kul’turah. Moskva: RUDN.
Larina, Tatiana V. (2004). Concept vezhlivost’ v kommunikativnom soznaniyi russkih y
anglichan. In Szypielewicz, Ludmila (ed.) Człoviek Świadomość Komunikacja
Internet. Warszawa, pp. 284-293.
Larina, Tatiana V. (2005). Cultural Values and Negative Politeness in English and Russian.
Respectus Philologicus, 8 (13), ISSN 1392-8295, pp. 25-39.
Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, Geoffry and Svartvik, Jan (1994). Communicative Grammar of English. Second
edition. London and New York: Longman.
OPED - Oxford Popular English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 2000.
18
Paxman, Jeremy (1999). The English: A Portrait of a People. Penguin Group.
Pizziconi, Barbara (2003). Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language.
Journal of Pragmatics, 35, pp. 1471 – 1506.
Rintell, Ellen (1981). Sociolinguistic variation and pragmatic ability: a look at learners. In
Journal of the Sociology of Language. 27. The Hague, pp. 11 -33.
Scollon, Ron and Scollon, Suzanne (2001). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse
Approach. Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Sifianou, Maria (1992). Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Srewart, Miranda (2005). Politeness in Britain:‘It’s Only a Suggestion’. In: Leo Hickey and
Miranda Stewart (eds.), Politeness in Europe. Multilingual Matters LTD, pp. 116 –
129.
Terkourafi, Marina (2005). A Coffee or a small Coffe? In: Leo Hickey and Miranda Stewart
(eds.), Politeness in Europe. Multilingual Matters LTD, pp. 277 – 291.
Thomas, Jenny (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, pp. 91-112.
Thomas, Jenny (1984). Cross-Cultural Discourse as ‘Unequal Encounter’: Towards
Pragmatic Analysis. Applied Linguistics 5 (3), pp. 226 – 235.
Thomas, Jenny (1995). Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London and
New York: Longman.
Triandis, Harry (1994). Culture and Social Behavior. McGraw-Hill series in social
phsycology. McGraw-Hill Inc.
Tsui, Amy B.M. (1994). English Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Watts, Richard J. (1992). Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: reconsidering
claims for universality. In: Politeness in Language: studies in its History, Theory and
Practice. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 43 – 69.
Watts, Richard; Ide, Sachiko and Enlich, Konrad (eds.)1992. Politeness in Language:
studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Watts, Richard J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: CUP.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1985). Different Cultures, different languages, different speech acts. In
Journal of Pragmatics, 9.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1991). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction.
Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1997). Understanding cultures through their key words: English,
Russian, Polish and Japanese. N.Y. – London: Oxford University Press.
19