1. Introduction

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

[1][2]

2. Research methods and principles

This time, directive expressions were reviewed in a single translation

[3][4]

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

[5]

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

[6][7][8][9]

3. Main results

(1)

Серебряков.

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。

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

(2)

Астров. (Работнику.) 

すまないが、ウオトカを一杯。

(3)

Войницкий.

ワーニャ　。……どうも僕は耳が悪くなったようだ。。

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)

Соня.

ソーニャ　。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）。ワーニャ伯父さん！　…！　！…伯父さんはいい人ね、あたしたちを、可哀そうだと思って。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).

ソーニャ　（さえぎって）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！…！…。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)

Елена Андреевна.

= 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。一たんお話がすんだら、もうそれっきり、。

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)

4. Discussion

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

エレーナ　そんなに人の顔を。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.

エレーナ　そんなふうに人を――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.

ヴォイニーツカヤ夫人　ジャン、アレクサンドルに。

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.

5. Conclusion

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.

The additional file for this article can be found as follows: