Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 21:1 (2021) ► pp.28–57

Parliamentary directives in New Zealand and Bosnia and Herzegovina

A contrastive study

ORCID logo
The main aim of the present paper is to compare the realization patterns of directive speech acts produced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives of New Zealand and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The paper focuses on head acts only, disregarding modification. Head acts are analyzed and compared in terms of their explicitness and implicitness, as defined in the framework proposed by Vine (2004a, 2004b). Overall results show that explicit head acts were dominant in both data sets. Furthermore, significant differences were noticed in terms of the findings for certain sub-forms of the explicit head acts, such as the imperative form, which is more frequent in parliamentary directives in Serbian, as are performative verbs. Modal verbs were typical of the parliamentary directives in English. The results are discussed in the context of the findings of previous relevant studies.
Keywords: parliamentary directives, New Zealand, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Bosnian/Croatian/English/Serbian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Terminological issues
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Data collection
    • 3.2Data analysis
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Explicit head acts
      • 4.1.1Imperative sentences
        • 4.1.1.1Second-person imperatives
        • 4.1.1.2Third-person imperatives
        • 4.1.1.3First-person imperatives
        • 4.1.1.4Imperative sub-forms: Summary and discussion
      • 4.1.2Declarative sentences
        • 4.1.2.1Declarative sentences with performative verbs as main verbs
        • 4.1.2.2Declarative sentences with modal verbs
        • 4.1.2.3Other declarative sentences
        • 4.1.2.4Declarative sub-forms: Summary and discussion
      • 4.1.3Interrogative sentences
        • 4.1.3.1Interrogative sub-form: Summary
    • 4.2Implicit head acts
      • 4.2.1Partial head act
        • 4.2.1.1No agent or action
        • 4.2.1.2No action
        • 4.2.1.3Other fragments
      • 4.2.2Focus on others
        • 4.2.2.1Focus on beneficiary’s wishes or desires/needs
        • 4.2.2.2Focus on addressee’s need or addressee’s breach
        • 4.2.2.3Focus on object or item
      • 4.2.3Implicit head acts: Summary and discussion
  • 5.General discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19001.bak
References (51)
References
Achiba, M. 2003. Learning to Request in a Second Language. A Study of Child Interlanguage Pragmatics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexander, R. 2006. Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Grammar with Sociolinguistic Commentary. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K. and Harnish, R. H. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barić, E., Lončarić, M., Malić, D., Pavešić, S., Peti, M., Zečević, V. and Znika, M. 1997. Hrvatska gramatika, 4th ed. Zagreb: Grafički zavod Hrvatske.Google Scholar
Bates, S., Kerr, P., Byrne, Ch. and Stanley, L. 2014. Questions to the Prime Minister: A Comparative Study of PMQs from Thatcher to Cameron. Parliamentary Affairs 671: 253–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayley, P. (ed). 2004. Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Introduction: the Whys and Wherefores of Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, P. Bayley (ed), 1–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bellinger, D. and Gleason, J. B. 1982. Sex Differences in Parental Directives to Young Children. Sex Roles 81: 1123–1139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bengio, O. 1998. Saddam’s Word: the Political Discourse in Iraq. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birner, B. J. 2013. Introduction to Pragmatics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Sh. 1987. Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 111: 131–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Sh., House, J. and Kasper, G. (eds). 1989a. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
1989b. The CCSARP Coding Manual. In Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, Sh. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper (eds), 273–295. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Sh. and Olshtain, E. 1984. Requests and Apologies: a Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realisation Patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 51, 196–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Browne, W. and Alt, Th. 2004. A Handbook of Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian. Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Slavic and East European Language Research Center (SEELRC).Google Scholar
Bull, P. and Wells, P. 2012. Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31(1): 30–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse, Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Archer, D. 2008. Requests and Directness in Early Modern English Trial Proceedings and Play Texts, 1640–1760. In Speech Acts in the History of English, A. H. Jucker and I. Taavitsainen (eds), 45–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Del Campo Martínez, N. 2013. Illocutionary Constructions in English: Cognitive Motivation and Linguistic Realization. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1976. Is Sybil there? The Structure of Some American English Directives. Language in Society 51: 25–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flöck, I. 2016. Requests in American and British English: a Contrastive Multi-Method Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukushima, S. 2000. Requests and Culture. Politeness in British English and Japanese. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Harris, S. 2001. Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse. Discourse and Society 12(4): 451–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, K. 1992. A Question of Context: Directive Use at a Morris Team Meeting. Language in Society 211: 427–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, T. R. 1989. The Limits of Politeness: Therapeutic and Courtroom Discourse. Multilingua 8(2/3): 101–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. 1987. The Semantics of Just. Journal of Pragmatics 111: 377–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. 2000. Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: a Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGee, D. 2017. Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand., 4th ed. Auckland: Oratia Books. Oratia Media Ltd.Google Scholar
Murphy, J. 2015. Revisiting the Apology as a Speech Act: the Case of Parliamentary Apologies. Journal of Language and Politics 14(2): 175–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogiermann, E. 2009. Politeness and In-Directness Across Cultures: a Comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian Requests. Journal of Politeness Research 51: 189–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Popović, Lj. 2005. Komunikativne funkcije proste rečenice. In Sintaksa savremenoga srpskog jezika. Prosta rečenica, P. Piper, I. Antonić, V. Ružić, S. Tanasić, Lj. Popović, B. Tošović (eds), 983–1061. Beograd: Institut za srpski jezik SANU, Beogradska knjiga i Matica srpska.Google Scholar
Pranjković, I. and Badurina, L. 2012. Načini izražavanja imperativnosti. In Bosanskohercegovački slavistički kongres I: Zbornik radova (knjiga 1), J. Baotić, S. Halilović, J. Jurić-Kappel, M. Katnić-Bakaršić and S. Mønnesland (eds), 619–627. Sarajevo: Slavistički komitet.Google Scholar
Pufahl Bax, I. 1986. How to assign work in an office: a comparison of spoken and written directives in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 101: 673–692. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reeves, F. 1984. British Racial Discourse: a Study of British Political Discourse About Race and Race-Related Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rue, Y. and Quiao, Zh. G. 2008. Request Strategies: a Comparative Study in Mandarin Chinese and Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. 2008. Face, (Im)Politeness and Rapport. In Culturally Speaking Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, H. Spencer-Oatey (ed), 11–48. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Stanojčić, Ž. and Popović, Lj. 1992. Gramatika srpskoga jezika, 2nd ed. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.Google Scholar
Tanasić, S. 1984. O imperativu u savremenom srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Književni jezik 13(1): 15–26.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Trosborg, A. 1995a. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Vol. 71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995b. Statutes and Contracts: an Analysis of Legal Speech Acts in the English Language of the Law. Journal of Pragmatics 231: 31–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Urban, M. 2010. Cultures of Power in Post-Communist Russia: an Analysis of Elite Political Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. 2008. Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vine, B. 2004a. Getting Things Done at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004b. Modal Verbs in New Zealand English Directives. Nordic Journal of English Studies 3(3): 204–220. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar