Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 351–383 | Cite as

Imperatives and modals

  • Paul Portner
Article

Abstract

Imperatives may be interpreted with many subvarieties of directive force, for example as orders, invitations, or pieces of advice. I argue that the range of meanings that imperatives can convey should be identified with the variety of interpretations that are possible for non-dynamic root modals (what I call ‘priority modals’), including deontic, bouletic, and teleological readings. This paper presents an analysis of the relationship between imperatives and priority modals in discourse which asserts that, just as declaratives contribute to the Common Ground and thus provide information relevant to the interpretation of epistemic modals in subsequent discourse, imperatives contribute to another component of the discourse context, the addressee’s To-Do List, which serves as a contextual resource for the interpretation of priority modals. This analysis predicts that the interpretation of imperatives and modals in discourse is constrained in surprising ways; these predictions are borne out.

Keywords

Imperatives Modality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bennett J. (2003). Philosophical guide to conditionals. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhatt R. (1998). Obligation and possession. In Harley H. (ed). Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect. Cambridge, MA, MITWPL.Google Scholar
  3. Brennan V. (1993). Root and epistemic modal auxiliary verbs. Amherst, GLSAGoogle Scholar
  4. Davies E. (1986). The English imperative. London, Croom HelmGoogle Scholar
  5. Drubig, H. (2001). On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. Ms. University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  6. Feldman F. (1986). Doing the best we can. Dortrecht, ReidelGoogle Scholar
  7. Ginzburg J. (1995a). Resolving questions, part I. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(5): 459–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ginzburg J. (1995b). Resolving questions, part II. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(6): 567–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hacquard, V. (2006). Aspects of modality. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  10. Halliday M. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6, 322–361Google Scholar
  11. Han, C.-H. (1998). The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in Universal Grammar. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  12. Han C.-H. (1999). Deontic modality, lexical aspect and the semantics of imperatives. In Linguistics in the morning calm 4. Seoul, Hanshin PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackendoff R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass., MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaplan D. (1989). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds). Themes from Kaplan. New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 481-563Google Scholar
  15. Kratzer A. (1977). What “must” and “can” must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1): 337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kratzer A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In: Eikmeyer H.-J., Rieser H. (eds). Words, worlds, and contexts. Berlin, de Gruyter, pp. 38-74Google Scholar
  17. Lascarides, A., & Asher, N. (2003). Imperatives in dialogue. In P. Kuehnlein, H. Rieser, & H. Zeevat (Eds.), The semanatics and pragmatics of dialogue for the new millenium. Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis D.K. (1979). A problem about permission. In: Saarinen E., Hilpinen R., Niiniluoto I., Hintikka M.P. (eds). Essays in honour of Jaakko Hintikka. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 163-175Google Scholar
  19. Lyons J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Ninan D. (2005). Two puzzles about deontic necessity. In: Gajewski J., Hacquard V., Nickel B., Yalcin S. (eds). New work on modality, Vol. 51 of MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA, MITWPL, pp. 149-178Google Scholar
  21. Pak, M. (2004). Sentence types in Korean. Ms., Georgetown University. May be downloaded at http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/portnerp/nsfsite/nsfframeset.htm
  22. Pak, M., Portner, P., & Zanuttini, R. (2004). Deriving Clause Types: Focusing on Korean. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of Korea 2004, Yonsei Institute of Language and Information Studies (pp. 359–368). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  23. Pak, M., Portner, P., & Zanuttini, R. (2006). What Korean promissives tell us about jussive clause types. Ms., Georgetown University. May be downloaded at http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/portnerp/nsfsite/nsfframeset.htm
  24. Palmer F. (2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Papafragou A. (2006). Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua 116, 1688–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Platzack C., Rosengren I. (1994). On the subject of imperatives. A minimalist account of the imperative pronoun and negated imperatives. Sprache und Pragmatik 34, 26–67Google Scholar
  27. Poletto, C., & Zanuttini, R. (2003). Making imperatives: Evidence from Central Rhaetoromance. In C. Tortora (Ed.), The syntax of Italian dialects (pp. 175–206). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Portner P. (2003). The temporal semantics and modal pragmatics of the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy 26, 459–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Portner, P. (2004). The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In K. Watanabe & R. B. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14. Cornell University Linguistics Department: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Portner, P. (2007). Beyond the common ground: The semantics and pragmatics of epistemic modals. In K.-A. Kim & J.-Y. Yoon (Eds.), The perspectives of linguistics in the 21st century.Google Scholar
  31. Portner, P. (to appear). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Potsdam, E. (1996). Syntactic issues in English imperatives. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  33. Potts, C. (2003). Keeping world and will apart: A discourse-based semantics for imperatives. Talk delivered at the NYU Syntax/Semantics Lecture Series, October 17, 2003.Google Scholar
  34. Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J.-H. Toon & A. Kathol (Eds.), Papers in semantics, OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 49. Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  35. Roberts, C. (2004). Context in dynamic interpretation. In Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Ross, J. R. (1969). Auxiliaries as main verbs. In W. Todd (Ed.), Studies in philosophical linguistics (series 1). Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press.Google Scholar
  37. Schlenker P. (2003). A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26, 29–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmerling S. (1975). Imperative subject deletion and some related matters. Linguistic Inquiry 6(3): 501–511Google Scholar
  39. Schwager, M. (2005). Permitting permissions. In J. Gervain (Ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth ESSLLI Student Session.Google Scholar
  40. Schwager, M. (2007). Conditionalized imperatives. In C. Tancredi, M. Kanazawa, I. Imani, & K. Kusumoto (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 16. Cornell University Linguistics Department: CLC Publications. http://research.nii.ac.jp/salt16/proceedings.html
  41. Segerberg K. (1990). Validity and satisfaction in imperative logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 31(2): 203–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shim, J., Lee, K., & Lee, C. (1977). Introduction to semantics. Chipmun-dang.Google Scholar
  43. Stalnaker R. (1974). Pragmatic presupposition. In: Munitz M., Unger P. (eds). Semantics and philosophy. New York, New York University Press, pp. 197-213Google Scholar
  44. Stalnaker R. (1978). Assertion. In: Cole P. (ed). Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York, Academic Press, pp. 315-332Google Scholar
  45. Swanson, E. (2006). Something “might” might mean. Ms., University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  46. von Fintel, K. (2003). Epistemic modals and conditionals revisited. Handout of a talk presented at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Dec. 12, 2003. http://web.mit.edu/fintel/www/umass-handout.pdf
  47. Wilson D., Sperber D. (1988). Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In: Dancy J., Moravcsik J., Taylor C. (eds). Human agency: Language, duty and value. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, pp. 77-101Google Scholar
  48. Wurmbrand S. (1999). Modal verbs must be raising verbs. In: Bird S., Carnie A., Haugen J., Norquest P. (eds). The Proceedings of WCCFL 18. Somerville, MA, Cascadilla, pp. 599-612Google Scholar
  49. Zanuttini, R. (2004). Understanding the restrictions on imperative subjects. Paper presented at the X Giornata di Dialettologia, University of Padua, June 24, 2004. http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/portnerp/nsfsite/nsfframeset.htm Imperatives and modals

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations