Uzbekistan state world languages university translation faculty the english applied translation department

I’m ordering you that you should not leave me now!
I beg you to forgive me!
The difference between the English and Uzbek language lies in the fact that Uzbek speakers have a wider choice of possible lexical-syntactic realizations of request than English speakers.
2) Embedded Orders with a Tentative Verb (e.g. hope, believe, think, wonder, wonder (Eng) and умид қилмоқ, ишонмоқ, ўйламоқ, ҳайрон бўлмоқ, ҳайратланмоқ (Uzbek), for instance:
I hope that you will come to our party.
I wonder if I could use your car tonight.
Умид қиламанки сиз бизнинг зиёфатимизга келасиз.
Бугун кечга машинангизни олиб турсам нима дейсиз.
Hedged Performatives
According to Fraser (1975), Hedged Performatives have the general form of requests realized by means of explicit performatives. However, they differ from the corresponding performative sentences in that they contain some modal verbs (e.g. must, will, would, have to or verbs expressing intention (e.g. want to, wish to, would like to, be going to, which modify the illocutionary verb denoting the requestive intent. S may employ the Hedged Performative in order to soften the illocutionary force of a given request, as in the following examples:
I would like to ask you to move your car.
I want to ask you a few questions.
I must / have to ask you to leave the room now.
Obligation Statements
When employing Obligation Statements, S either exerts his or her own authority, or refers to some external authority (e.g. institution, law, etc.) in order to persuade H to perform a desired action. Modal verbs used in this type of request are:
must, have to, should, ought to. The examples are:
You should / ought to move your car.
You’ll have to move your car (or you’ll pay a fine).
You must move your car (because I want you to).
The degree of the illocutionary force of such requests depends on the verb of obligation. The illocutionary force of the verbs should / ought to weaker than the enumerated verbs of obligation. The strength of the illocutionary force of these requests lies in the usage of obligation verbs, stating explicitly who the performer of the required action is to be and the type of request.
Want Statements
Want Statement “expresses the speaker’s desire that the event denoted in the proposition come about”. Want Statements “assist the speaker in asserting those desires whose fulfillment depends on the hearer’s decision.” The core of this type of request involves the use of the verbs need, want, for instance:
I’ll need this book very badly.
I want you to meet me tomorrow at five.
In such requestive forms illocutionary force is relatively strong and Want Statements
are normally impolite when used in their unmodified form.
Here the illocutionary force may be further modified by the type of verb used (want and хоҳламоқ – both possess a stronger illocutionary force, while need and керак, зарур, шарт have a weaker one, its grammatical form.
Suggestory Formulae
Suggestory Formulae “enable the Speaker to suggest very cautiously some action but s/he either cannot or does not want to press the hearer to have it performed”. When applying these formulae, S checks H’s cooperativeness by asking whether any conditions exist that may stop H from performing a requested action.
Suggestory Formulae in English often begin with why not…/ why don’t… expressions, for instance:
What about/ How about going to the cinema tonight?
Why don’t you phone her?
Why not play bridge tonight?
And the Uzbek examples are:
Бугун кинога боришга нима дейсиз?
Нега унга телефон қилмаслик керак?
As can be observed, Suggestory Formulae can be realized by means of either referring to the interlocutors or remaining impersonal; the latter leads to the illocutionary force being very weak. The Hearer-oriented perspective of these requests indicates the absence of authority (they seem to be merely suggestions), and thus in the case of non-compliance, S does not lose his or her face.
Suggestory Formulae are likely to be used in informal situations, mainly among friends, which explain a rather low frequency of occurrence of the formal address terms.
Query Preparatory
Requests expressed by means of the Query Preparatory contain “reference to a preparatory condition for the feasibility of the Request, typically one of ability, willingness, or possibility, as conventionalized in the given language.”
In many cases, S questions, rather than states, the presence of the chosen preparatory condition. Query Preparatory strategy is presented with reference to willingness, availability, ability and possibility conditions and also courtesy, general, intention, and permission questions.
a) Willingness Questions – concern H’s good will to carry out the desired act. They are Hearer-oriented, where S conveys to H that compliance is not taken for granted. The verbs of willingness can appear in the Future Simple, Simple Present Tense or Present Conditional in English and in corresponding tenses. The most polite Willingness Questions with the lowest illocutionary force are thought to be realized in the conditional form.
Consider the following examples:
Will you do the washing today?
Won’t you give me a hand after dinner?
Would you show me the way to the station, please?
Strong Hints
Strong Hints, contain “partial reference to objects or elements needed for the implementation of the act (directly pragmatically implying the act)”. The examples are:
You’ve left the kitchen in a right mess.
Strong Hints require less interpretational effort than Mild Hints.
Mild Hints
As far as Mild Hints are concerned, these are “utterances that make no reference to the request proper (or any elements) but are interpretable through the context as requests (indirectly pragmatically implying the act)”:
Consider these examples:
I’m a nun. (in response to the persistent boy)
We don’t want any crowding here (a request to move the car)