The function of non-canonical imperatives in the languages of Europe

mind passing me the salt”, or a statement “you are going to show up at the rehearsal
tomorrow” is used in lieu of a direct order (this last example, future declarative instead of an
imperative, is found around the world in expression of commands), one is dealing with
indirect speech acts.
Searle (1975) approaches the phenomenon of direct and indirect speech acts by casting
the direct use as the literal use of the speech act and the indirect use as the non-literal use.
Additionally, Searle argues that the literal act is backgrounded or secondary, while the nonliteral
act is primary. In his own words: “When one of these sentences is uttered with the
primary illocutionary point 1 of a directive, the literal illocutionary act is also performed”
(1975: 70). Thus, if an indirect command is made through a direct statement, both a literal
statement “you will scour the pots” and a non-literal command, (“scour the pots!”) is made.
How these indirect speech acts correspond to imperatives requires further explanation,
and social register is an integral part of how, why and when, and most importantly, to whom
imperatives are used. After all, as Searle wrote (1975: 64): “In directives, politeness is the
chief motivation for indirectness”.
Ervin-Tripp (1976) suggests that the usage of interrogative requests is useful as it allows
the listeners to provide grounds by which compliance to the proposed command would be
rendered impossible. This element of politeness is given further depth when set in the social
hierarchy, and as per Ervin-Tripp’s study, where she found that when directed upwards in the
social register, framing a request was preferably done by polite modals, such as may, could or
would (an employee asking his superior: “may I have the salt, please”), whereas imperatives
or modals of necessity like need or must have were more common when going the other way
(such as a surgeon telling his assistant: “I need suction on the aortic valve”).
Ergo, whether we use direct commands or indirect requests depend on the addressee and
the forms of these directives 2 are reflected differently in various languages. One’s peerage to
the addressee is of significant importance. To directly command a superior would seem
presumptuous and insolent, possibly jeopardizing one’s social position, and conversely to
treat a familiar peer as though he or she was a non-peer or addressing them through a formal
filter would come across as cold and distancing and so one must be mindful of breaches of
this conduct, no matter if it is through poor choice of words or the incorrect imperative form.
1 The illocutionary point is the purpose or aim of the speech act.
2 Directives make up the type of speech acts intended to elicit action.
3