Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 (2004a2004b). 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Achiba, M.
    2003Learning to Request in a Second Language. A Study of Child Interlanguage Pragmatics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853596131
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596131 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander, R.
    2006Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Grammar with Sociolinguistic Commentary. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin, J.
    1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bach, K. and Harnish, R. H.
    1979Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barić, E. , Lončarić, M. , Malić, D. , Pavešić, S. , Peti, M. , Zečević, V. and Znika, M.
    1997Hrvatska gramatika, 4th ed.Zagreb: Grafički zavod Hrvatske.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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 Affairs67: 253–280. 10.1093/pa/gss044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gss044 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bayley, P.
    (ed) 2004Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/dapsac.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2004 Introduction: the Whys and Wherefores of Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse. InCross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, P. Bayley (ed), 1–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/dapsac.10.01bay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.01bay [Google Scholar]
  9. Bellinger, D. and Gleason, J. B.
    1982 Sex Differences in Parental Directives to Young Children. Sex Roles8: 1123–1139. 10.1007/BF00290968
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00290968 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bengio, O.
    1998Saddam’s Word: the Political Discourse in Iraq. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195114393.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195114393.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Birner, B. J.
    2013Introduction to Pragmatics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Blum-Kulka, Sh.
    1987 Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different?Journal of Pragmatics, 11: 131–146. 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90192‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5 [Google Scholar]
  13. Blum-Kulka, Sh. , House, J. and Kasper, G.
    (eds) 1989aCross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1989b The CCSARP Coding Manual. InCross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, Sh. Blum-Kulka , J. House and G. Kasper (eds), 273–295. Norwood: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Blum-Kulka, Sh. and Olshtain, E.
    1984 Requests and Apologies: a Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realisation Patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics5, 196–213. 10.1093/applin/5.3.196
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196 [Google Scholar]
  16. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C.
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  17. Browne, W. and Alt, Th.
    2004A 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]
  18. Bull, P. and Wells, P.
    2012 Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology31(1): 30–48. 10.1177/0261927X11425034
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X11425034 [Google Scholar]
  19. Chilton, P.
    2004Analysing Political Discourse, Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  20. Culpeper, J. and Archer, D.
    2008 Requests and Directness in Early Modern English Trial Proceedings and Play Texts, 1640–1760. InSpeech Acts in the History of English, A. H. Jucker and I. Taavitsainen (eds), 45–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/pbns.176.05cul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.176.05cul [Google Scholar]
  21. Del Campo Martínez, N.
    2013Illocutionary Constructions in English: Cognitive Motivation and Linguistic Realization. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ervin-Tripp, S.
    1976 Is Sybil there? The Structure of Some American English Directives. Language in Society5: 25–66. 10.1017/S0047404500006849
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006849 [Google Scholar]
  23. Flöck, I.
    2016Requests in American and British English: a Contrastive Multi-Method Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/pbns.265
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.265 [Google Scholar]
  24. Fukushima, S.
    2000Requests and Culture. Politeness in British English and Japanese. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Harris, S.
    2001 Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse. Discourse and Society12(4): 451–472. 10.1177/0957926501012004003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012004003 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jones, K.
    1992 A Question of Context: Directive Use at a Morris Team Meeting. Language in Society21: 427–445. 10.1017/S0047404500015517
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500015517 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lakoff, T. R.
    1989 The Limits of Politeness: Therapeutic and Courtroom Discourse. Multilingua8(2/3): 101–129. 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2‑3.101
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.101 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lee, D.
    1987 The Semantics of Just. Journal of Pragmatics11: 377–398. 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90138‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90138-X [Google Scholar]
  29. Leech, G.
    2014The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Márquez Reiter, R.
    2000Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: a Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/pbns.83
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.83 [Google Scholar]
  31. McGee, D.
    2017Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand., 4th ed.Auckland: Oratia Books. Oratia Media Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Murphy, J.
    2015 Revisiting the Apology as a Speech Act: the Case of Parliamentary Apologies. Journal of Language and Politics14(2): 175–204. 10.1075/jlp.14.2.01mur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.14.2.01mur [Google Scholar]
  33. Ogiermann, E.
    2009 Politeness and In-Directness Across Cultures: a Comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian Requests. Journal of Politeness Research5: 189–216. 10.1515/JPLR.2009.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2009.011 [Google Scholar]
  34. Popović, Lj.
    2005 Komunikativne funkcije proste rečenice. InSintaksa 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]
  35. Pranjković, I. and Badurina, L.
    2012 Načini izražavanja imperativnosti. InBosanskohercegovački 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]
  36. Pufahl Bax, I.
    1986 How to assign work in an office: a comparison of spoken and written directives in American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10: 673–692. 10.1016/0378‑2166(86)90146‑310.1016/0378‑2166(86)90146‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(86)90146-3 [Google Scholar]
  37. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. and Svartvik, J.
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Reeves, F.
    1984British Racial Discourse: a Study of British Political Discourse About Race and Race-Related Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Rue, Y. and Quiao, Zh. G.
    2008Request Strategies: a Comparative Study in Mandarin Chinese and Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/pbns.177
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.177 [Google Scholar]
  40. Searle, J. R.
    1969Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  41. 1979Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  42. Spencer-Oatey, H.
    2008 Face, (Im)Politeness and Rapport. InCulturally Speaking Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, H. Spencer-Oatey (ed), 11–48. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Stanojčić, Ž. and Popović, Lj.
    1992Gramatika srpskoga jezika, 2nd ed.Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Tanasić, S.
    1984 O imperativu u savremenom srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Književni jezik13(1): 15–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Thomas, J.
    1995Meaning in Interaction. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Trosborg, A.
    1995aInterlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Vol.7. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110885286
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885286 [Google Scholar]
  47. 1995b Statutes and Contracts: an Analysis of Legal Speech Acts in the English Language of the Law. Journal of Pragmatics23: 31–53. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00034‑C
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00034-C [Google Scholar]
  48. Urban, M.
    2010Cultures of Power in Post-Communist Russia: an Analysis of Elite Political Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511761904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761904 [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Dijk, T. A.
    2008Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑07299‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-07299-3 [Google Scholar]
  50. Vine, B.
    2004aGetting Things Done at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/pbns.124
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.124 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2004b Modal Verbs in New Zealand English Directives. Nordic Journal of English Studies3(3): 204–220. 10.35360/njes.6310.35360/njes.63
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.63 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error