Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 305–340

Imperatives as semantic primitives

Open Access
Research Article

Abstract

This paper concerns the formal semantic analysis of imperative sentences. It is argued that such an analysis cannot be deferred to the semantics of propositions, under any of the three commonly adopted strategies: the performative analysis, the sentence radical approach to propositions, and the (nondeclarative) mood-as-operator approach. Whereas the first two are conceptually problematic, the third faces empirical problems: various complex imperatives should be analysed in terms of semantic operators over simple imperatives. One particularly striking case is the Dutch pluperfect imperative. It is argued that this construction should be analysed as a genuine counterfactual imperative. On the constructive side, in the last part of the paper a formal semantic analysis of imperatives is presented, in the framework of Update Semantics. On this analysis, imperatives are sui generis semantic entities, on a par with propositions. The analysis also includes an account of the counterfactual imperatives.

Keywords

Imperatives Philosophy of language Update semantics Counterfactuals Free choice 

References

  1. Aloni, M. (2005). Utility and implicatures of imperatives. In Proceedings of DIALOR’05, Loria, Nancy, France.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J. L. (1956/1979). Performative utterances. Transcript of a talk for B.B.C. radio. In J. O. Urmson & G. J. Warnock (Eds.), Philosophical papers (3rd ed., pp. 233–252). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bach K. (1975) Performatives are statements too. Philosophical Studies 28: 229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beardsley E.L. (1944) Imperative sentences in relation to indicatives. Philosophical Review 53: 175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belnap N. (1990) Declaratives are not enough. Philosophical Studies 59(1): 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennis H. (2006) Agreement, pro and imperatives. In: Ackema P., Brandt P., Schoorlemmer M., Weerman F. (eds) Arguments and agreement. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 101–127Google Scholar
  7. Beukema F., Coopmans P. (1989) A government-binding perspective on the imperative in English. Journal of Linguistics 25: 417–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolinger D. (1977) Meaning and form. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandom R. (1994) Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Chomsky N. (1975) The logical structure of linguistic theory. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Condoravdi C. (2002) Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and modals for the past. In: Beaver D., Kaufmann S., Clark B., Casillas L. (eds) The construction of meaning. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 59–88Google Scholar
  12. Davidson D. (1979) Moods and performances. In: Margalit A. (eds) Meaning and use. Springer, Berlin, pp 9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidson D. (1999) The centrality of truth. In: Peregrin J. (eds) Truth and its nature (if any). Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 105–115Google Scholar
  14. Frege G. (1879) Begriffsschrift. Halle a. S., L. NebertGoogle Scholar
  15. Frege G. (1918) Der Gedanke Eine logische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 2: 58–77Google Scholar
  16. Geurts B. (2005) Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13: 383–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Groenendijk J. (1999) The logic of interrogation: Classical version. In: Matthews T., Strolovitch D. (eds) Proceedings of SALT IX. CLC Publications, Santa CruzGoogle Scholar
  18. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  19. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1): 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1997) Questions. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier/MIT Press, Amsterdam/Cambridge MA, pp 1055–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haeseryn, W., Romijn K., Geerts G., de Rooij J., & van den Toorn M. (eds) (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoffuitgevers/Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
  22. Hamblin C.L. (1971) Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37: 130–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamblin C.L. (1987) Imperatives. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Han, C. (1998). The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in universal grammar. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  25. Han, C. (1999). Deontic modality, lexical aspect and the semantics of imperatives. In Linguistics in Morning Calm 4. Seoul: Hanshin PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  26. Hare R.M. (1949) Imperative sentences. Mind 58: 21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hausser R. (1978) Surface compositionality and the semantics of mood manuscript. München, Wilhelm FinkGoogle Scholar
  28. Heim, I. (1982) The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  29. Hofstadter A., McKinsey J. (1939) On the logic of imperatives. Philosophy of Science 6: 446–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huntley M. (1984) The semantics of English imperatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 103–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jorgensen J. (1938) Imperatives and logic. Erkenntnis 7: 288–298Google Scholar
  32. Kamp H. (1973) Free choice permission. Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society 74: 57–74Google Scholar
  33. Kamp H. (1979) Semantics versus pragmatics. In: Guenther F., Schmidt S.J. (eds) Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  34. Kamp H. (1981) A theory of truth and semantic representation. In: Groenendijk J., Janssen T., Stokhof M. (eds) Formal methods in the study of language. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, pp 277–322Google Scholar
  35. Katz J.J. (1977) Propositional structure and illocutionary force. The Harvester Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Katz J.J., Postal P.M. (1964) An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  37. Kenny A.J. (1963) Practical inference. Analysis 26(3): 65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lakoff G. (1972) Linguistics and natural logic. In: Harman D.D.G. (eds) Semantics of natural language. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  39. Lewis D.K. (1972) General semantics. In: Davidson D., Harman G. (eds) Semantics of natural language. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 169–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewis D.K. (1979) Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs 13(4): 455–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mally E. (1926) Grundgesetze des Sollens Elemente der Logik des Willens. Graz, Leuschner & LubenskyGoogle Scholar
  42. Mastop, R. (2005). What can you do? Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  43. McGinn C. (1977) Semantics for nonindicative sentences. Philosophical Studies 32: 301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nauze, F. D. (2008). Modality in typological perspective. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  45. Ninan D. (2005) Two puzzles about deontic necessity. In: Gajewski J., Hacquard V., Nickel B., Yalcin S. (eds) New work on modality. Cambridge MA, MITWPL 51Google Scholar
  46. Platzack C., Rosengren I. (1998) On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1(3): 177–224Google Scholar
  47. Portner P. (1997) The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5: 167–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Portner, P. (2005). The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In K. Watanabe & R. B. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (Vol 14). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  49. Price H. (1994) Semantic minimalism and the Frege point. In: Tsohatzidis S.L. (eds) Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives. Routledge, London, pp 132–155Google Scholar
  50. Ross A. (1941) Imperatives and logic. Theoria 25(7): 53–71Google Scholar
  51. Ross J.R. (1970) On declarative sentences. In: Jacobs R.A., Rosenbaum P.S. (eds) Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham MA: Ginn, pp 222–272Google Scholar
  52. Schmerling S.F. (1975) Imperative subject deletion and some related matters. Linguistic Inquiry 6: 501–510Google Scholar
  53. Schmerling S.F. (1982) How imperatives are special and how they aren’t. In: Schneider R., Tuite K., Chametzky R. (eds) Papers from the parasession on nondeclaratives. Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, pp 93–106Google Scholar
  54. Schwager, M. (2006). Interpreting imperatives. Ph.D. thesis, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  55. Searle J.R. (1969) Speech acts. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Stalnaker R.C. (1970) Pragmatics. Synthese 22(1–2): 272–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stenius E. (1967) Mood and language-game. Synthese 17: 254–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stowell T. (1982) On tense in infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561–670Google Scholar
  59. van der Torre, L., & Tan, Y. H. (1998). An update semantics for deontic reasoning. In Proceedings of DEON’98 (pp. 409–426)Google Scholar
  60. van der Auwera J., Dobrushina N., Goussev V. (2003) A semantic map for imperative-hortatives. In: Willems D., Colleman T., Defrancq B. (eds) Points of comparison in linguistics: From morphology to discourse. Basingstoke, Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  61. van der Does J., Groeneveld W., Veltman F. (1997) An update on “might”. Journal of Logic Language and Information, 6(4): 361–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Veltman F. (1996) Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25: 221–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Veltman F. (2005) Making counterfactual assumptions. Journal of Semantics 22: 159–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. von Wright G.H. (1957) Logical studies. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  65. von Wright G.H. (1971) Explanation and understanding. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. von Wright, G. H. (1996). Is there a logic of norms? In Six essays in philosophical logic (pp. 35–54). Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.Google Scholar
  67. Wittgenstein L. (1953) Philosophische Untersuchungen. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  68. Wolf H. (2003) Imperatieven in de verleden tijd. Taal & Tongval 55: 168–187Google Scholar
  69. Zarnic B (2002) Dynamic semantics, imperative logic and propositional attitudes. Uppsala prints and preprints in philosophy, Uppsala UniversitetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations