РЕЧЕВОЙ ПОРТРЕТ ПО ДАННЫМ ГРАММАТИКИ (ВОЗМОЖНОСТИ АНАЛИЗА ИЛЛОКУТИВНЫХ ШАБЛОНОВ ПО ПЕРЕВОДНОМУ КОРПУСУ)

This short empirical study came to be as a spinoff from a larger project aiming at a complex outlook on expressive means for speech acts between the pair of languages such as Russian and Japanese. As a part of that greater perspective I undertook a series of sectoral comparisons in separate speech act categories, based on (rather) compact bilingual corpora — a method essential from the point of view of grasping the intentions of a Speaker (as a basic access to judging the illocutionary force

This time, directive expressions were reviewed in a single translation

What the interpreter to a language richer in nuance like Japanese would be forced to do in these circumstances is a very thorough work in "filling up" such pragmasemantic features of the speech (communication) situation as would influence the choice of a relevant variant and therefore should be reflected in the translation in order to achieve the standard of acceptability

Now, even while processing data from the bilingual corpus it becomes empirically obvious that some pervasive patterns exist in construction distribution, mainly by two parametres — speech situations as such (e.g. demanding vs. imploring) and the personalities of the characters. While the former has been studied and described to a significant extent, below I undertake some observations on the latter point. I will not substantiate here the basic semantics of individual forms, referring to previous achievements in this task

(1) Serebryakov, an aged patriarch, retired professor, mainly (12 out of 26 cases) addresses the whole audience, largely relying on formal, distant requests (SHITE KUDASAI) as well as indirect imperatives — SHITE ITADAKITAI, SHITE ITADAKOO, SHITE KUDASARANAI KA, the former lightly strewn with adverbs DOOZO. Towards his wife he is strictly personal with SHITE (O)KURE (3), implying personal benefit from A’s action; not a hint of personal warmness transpires through zero use of "facilitative" adverbials. Same goes with his daughter, whom he twice directs with a bare vocative. A simpler form O-SHI is directed to the aged nursemaid. Contrarily, obsolete SHITE KURETAMAE (with the same nuance for personally benefitting S), sounding powerful but slightly ironic, is chosen for his grappling with uncle Vanya, his adversary in the central conflict of the play:

Серебряков. Пусть идут спать, но и ты уходи. = セレブリャコーフ　ああ、勝手に行って寝るがいい。だが君も行ってくれたまえ。

All in all, his directive usage pictures Serebryakov as a cold utilitarian treating other as means to his ends, intolerant of opposition.

(2) Astrov, generally perceived as Chekhov’s favoured character and even his alter ego, differentiates his patterns with each A. His ambiguity vis-à-vis Uncly Vanya is noticeable in the distinction between straightforward and almost rude SHITAMAE (4) and SHITE KURE in the episode when he is struggling to retrieve his fial of posion, complete with a range of superficially (but of course artificially!) milder suggestives as SUREBA II, HANTAI SHINAI, and a cordial NAI KA? YOKANE? when the two men are setting out to share a drink. Likewise ambivalent is his stance to Elena he is lusting for: half of the time he is formal SHITE KUDASAI (6) and even up to a rather prim O0SHI KUDASAI/ NEGAETARA, scantily adding in more strength from adverbials as O-NEGAI DAKARA, otherwise dismissive with SHITE (4), SHINASAI (TOMO) and plenty of indirect acts in SURU NE? SHITARA DOO? ATTA MONO KA. With Sonya, he is obviously awkward, hedging directives with SHITE MORAOO KA, SURU TO SHIYOO (two actors instead of one), SHITE ITADAKU TO (conditional), distancing her with formal adverbial MOSHI YOKATTARA (verbalized preliminary condition, marking weakness of S’s grounds for request). Astrov’s treatment of Telegin, a family hanger-on (SHIRO (especially with the irritated iteration marker TTARA)), and of the factory worker who was sent for him (TANOMU, the plain but rather respectful performative) are classical of unedited high-class-to-lower-class-condescension. A similar pattern to the latter is discovered in Russian -ka in informal imperatives:

Астров. (Работнику.) Вот что, притащи-ка мне, любезный, рюмку водки, в самом деле. = すまないが、ウオトカを一杯たのむよ。

(3) Unce Vanya demands things most frquently from Elena, the object of his passion, and his attitude also remains unstable — 5 cases out of 20 it’s the formal SHITE KUDASAI, four SHINASAI including 3 rather defying SHITE GORAN NASAI, but otherwise it is also the utmost rudeness in SHIRO+TTEBA (marking impatience with non-reacting A), SHITARA (rude suggestion), NANI… SURU KA. On the other hand, almost all (7 out of 8) addresses to Doctor Astrov are pleading SHITE KURE, twice with the impatient addendum TTARA. In the heat of the argument with Serebryakov Vanya is pointedly rude, using defying SHITE GORAN NASAI, YAMERU NO DA NA and twice even SHITA — an ultimate way to ignore A’s considerations but putting the demand in past tense:

Войницкий. Постой... Мне кажется, что мне изменяет мой слух. Повтори, что ты сказал. = ワーニャ　ちょっと待った。……どうも僕は耳が悪くなったようだ。もう一ぺん言ってください。 (note how he swiftly reverts to neutral SHITE KUDASAI pattern as soon as the urgent business of turn-taking is done with, but then he still doesn’t opt for SHITE KUDASAI in the first case, a much politer version, all of which is very telling on his stance in this exchange)

Telegin again deserves nothing from Vanya but the rude SHIRO, which serves to mark his inferior status. Uncle Vanya appears all the less socially apt for minimal modification of his directives, just plainly stating them with none of the intricate hedging or mitigating tactics.

(4) Sonya is also quite selective in directive patterns for her As. Untoward her Uncle she is pretty straight, varying in degrees of ingratiating in SHITE NE, SHITE CHOODAI NE or a more pushy SHINASAI (NE), 6 out of 16 appealing to the common knowledge by using NE particle. Actually, her maneuvering Vanya to return the medicine is a masterpiece example of shifting speech tactics within a single speech event as a necessary online repair for unworking devices, which get modified again and again until the desired action at lase takes place. Also in Russian Sonya manifests carious tricks such as adding a vocative or a word of praise to the basic perfective imperative, but in Japanese the escalation in the pressure involves a replacement of the imperative construction:

Соня. Отдай. Зачем ты нас пугаешь? (Нежно.) Отдай, дядя Ваня!...Отдай! Дорогой, славный дядя, милый, отдай! Ты добрый, ты пожалеешь нас и отдашь… Войницкий (достает из стола баночку и подает ее Астрову). На, возьми! (Соне.) = ソーニャ　お出しなさい。なぜそう、わたしたちをおどかしてばかりいらっしゃるの？（優しく）ね、お出しなさいね。ワーニャ伯父さん！　…さ、出してちょうだい！　ね伯父さん、お願い、いい子だから出してちょうだい！…伯父さんはいい人ね、あたしたちを、可哀そうだと思って出してちょうだい。ワーニャ　（テーブルの抽斗から壜を出して、アーストロフに渡す）さ、持っていきたまえ！　

With Elena, Sonya is more poised, half of the times expressing herself indirectly, including potentialis. Most lenient she is, predictably, with Astrov, the apple of her eye, — using indirect speech acts (10) when not hedging imperatives with adverbials (4), especially the pleading O-NEGAI DA KARA. Here again she (or rather, the translator) excels in flexible substitution of one speech tactics by another in order to achieve the desired effect — more and more relying on illocutionary adjectives pointing to S’s position or appealing to moral benefits (but still, remains within rather close bounds of the same S’s image, or mode, not remotely throwing about unrelated strategies in a way that would sound hysterical):

Соня (мешает ему). Нет, прошу вас, умоляю, не пейте больше. Астров. Отчего? Соня. Это так не идет к вам! … О, не делайте этого, умоляю вас!... Не надо, не надо, умоляю, заклинаю вас. Астров (протягивает ей руку). Не буду больше пить. = ソーニャ　（さえぎって）いけません、どうぞお願いですから、もうあがらないで。アーストロフ　なぜです。ソーニャ　まるであなたに似つかないことですもの！…ね、そんなまねはなさらないで、お願いですわ！…いけないわ、いけませんわ、後生です、お願いですわ。アーストロフ　（片手を差出して）もう飲みますまい。

More often than anyone, she uses indicative as an indirect speech act (6 times out of 9 — as a critique requiring response by action). With the nursemaid the young landlady is benevolent but firm (SHITE O-KURE NA, SHITARA II NONI NA), see especially the uncharacteristic manly (=proprietorial) NA, also towards Telegin in O-SHI NASAI NA.

(5) Elena in this given translation is by far the champion of stereotyped sly-young-mistress verbality. Much as her directives would vary between As, she is the only one addressing multiple characters by the demanding, though cozy, SHITE CHOODAI. At that, with Vanya, her admirer, she adds in 4 instances of peremptory O-SHI NASAI, with Astrov this veers to 5 SHIYOO (NE) — involving A into orbit of the suggested action and creating complicity (note how future indicative is used in Russian for a similar, but separate effect of claiming S’s control over joint action, so in Japanese Elena may be sounding more submissive if not simply more intriguing):

Елена Андреевна. Дело касается одной молодой особы. Мы будем говорить, как честные люди, как приятели, без обиняков. Поговорим и забудем, о чем была речь. = じつはね、ある若い女の人のことなんですの。お互い正直に、お友達として、あけすけにお話ししましょうね。一たんお話がすんだら、もうそれっきり、忘れてしまいましょうね。

With Sonya this is stretched further to the 3 enthusiastic SHIYOO (JANAI KA), while with the elderly husband the informal but rather dispassionate SHITE/ SHINAIDE dominates. Elena makes use of abundant indirect speech acts, again differentiating them between coolly generalized SURU TO II, SURU MON JANAI with Vanya, rather submissive and dainty questions-requests like SHITE ITADAKENAI KA with Astrov, reasoning and reassuring SHIYOO KASHIRA, ITSU MADE SURU NO with Sonya she is set on patronizing, and reverent but irritated pleadings like GOSHOO DA KARA (=for eternity’s sake) against her ancient spouse’s whims. All of which, of course, is not enough to make Elena a complete caricature of an intriguing, manipulative one, but it does add substantially to that effect.

(6) Minor characters, who are given few chances to speak up, are nonetheless distinct in their directives. Marina, the nursemaid, is either offering (mostly by the indirect way of inquiring) or passing on generalized judgments as the upper limit to what she is allowed to profess. Telegin is quite demure, and mostly pleading with his O-SHI (YO), aiding himself with some hedges. Least garrulous of all, the idealist babushka, Maria Vasilievna, is relentlessly bossing her child by SURU NO DA/JANAI, while even to the aged professor (who calls her an old idiot behind her back) is somewhat overbearing with that SHITE KUDASAI ever so slightly modified by YO.

What we have witnessed is a distinct individuation in the use of illocutionary devices between character. It has been shown that such distinctions correlate closely to the pragmatic features of the given exchanges and to the posture of each character in the play. No claim, naturally, is made to have covered the entire scope of speech behavior that is reflected in a much broader set of markers and resides in more subtly promoted strategies. But the directive imperative may well be acknowledged an important litmus paper in judging what S conceives of himself and how she interacts with others, simply due to the most interaction-based and urgent nature of communication that the directives serve. In that sense, tentative characteristics for the Ss may be believed to grasp the key elements in their communication and speech identities.

Now, would it be grounded enough to assume the interpreter set these character-unit repetitions and patterns on purpose, levelling them out so as to achieve better dramatic effects? Hardly indeed. Rather, driven by a severe deficit in exact equivalents between two remote language communities, and a rather skimpy background information that a text of a play generally is only able to offer, he is using whatever means available to produce a precise image of each character, and to that end he reverted to speech patterns as would be appropriate for a certain type of person, or behavior, using standard patterns of communication in target language. To that extent, the translated text is trustworthy as a large-scale unintentional questionnaire, and valuable as a source of information on the pragmasemantics of the target language.

Of course, the Ss find themselves in situations that vary widely, but nonetheless they remain within bounds of their stereotypical images, almost never transgressing the borders drawn by power and gender, and further guided by their knowledge, real-time stances, intentions and strategies towards their As.

In the translation used, gender marking appears significantly more vivid and even exaggerated due to its greater role in Japanese communication, see the contrast with some very plain grammar in the original (female S addressing male A, for whom, furthermore, she is developing a soft spot):

Елена Андреевна. …Нe смотрите на меня так, я этого не люблю. = エレーナ　そんなに人の顔を見るものじゃなくてよ。あたしそんなこと嫌い。

Again, gender speech behavior is finely tuned to each A, see another, plainer form (only the particle WA remains as a gender marker) when the same S addresses a female A:

Елена Андреевна. Не надо смотреть так — тебе это не идет. エレーナ　そんなふうに人を見るものじゃないわ――あんたにも似合わない。

Here the translator follows the general pattern in communication habits of an individual, differentiating within a certain range of acceptable options. Compare it to a similarly inhibitive utterance from a mother to her son, utterly devoid of gender traces:

Мария Васильевна. Жан, не противоречь Александру. = ヴォイニーツカヤ夫人　ジャン、アレクサンドルに逆らうんじゃありません。

Another example here is the apparently intentional (for the translator) shift to the masculine NA in Sonya’s treatment of her inferiors (never before Astrov!), which does not imply that she could be expected to utter anything close to the KURETAMAE in the older men’s lines. Deductible from here, a finite set, or sum, of such features, including those non-traceable to the aforementioned societal categories, would yield roughly a sum of communicative tactics (and strategies derivable) for a set S, equal to her linguistic self-identity.

Besides and beyond linguistic implications of the data presented, techniques and observations put forward here can be used for a strictly data-based analysis of the dynamics of communication, including, and foremostly driving at, interactions in real life for which this piece of analyzed drama remains but a limited exercise. Before arriving there, it goes without saving, it is yet necessary to overcome the natural, and obvious, shortcomings of the present study, arousing from the limitations of looking at only a single translated version (which in itself, for the achieved conclusions, was quite a workload). It could be noted, however, that apart from the question of equivalence any translated version would serve as a valuable set of data as long as its author would succeed in bringing out a consistent, even if permissibly subjective, speech identities of the characters, registering and conveying current pragmatic potentials in relevant expressive patterns.