Advertisement

Studia Logica

, Volume 100, Issue 4, pp 879–905 | Cite as

Imperatives: a Judgemental Analysis

  • Chris FoxEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper proposes a framework for formalising intuitions about the behaviour of imperative commands. It seeks to capture notions of satisfaction and coherence. Rules are proposed to express key aspects of the general logical behaviour of imperative constructions. A key objective is for the framework to allow patterns of behaviour to be described while avoiding making any commitments about how commands, and their satisfaction criteria, are to be interpreted. We consider the status of some conundrums of imperative logic in the context of this proposal.

Keywords

Imperatives Satisfaction Consistency Coherence Paradoxes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alchourrón Carlos E., Bulygin Eugenio: Normative Systems. Springer- Verlag, Wien (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson Alan Ross: A reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. Mind 67, 100–103 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asher Nicholas, Bonevac Daniel: Free choice permission is strong permission. Synthese 145(3), 303–323 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bach Kent: Actions are not events. Mind 89(353), 114–120 (1980) New seriesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barker Chris: Free choice permission as resource-sensitive reasoning. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(10), 1–38 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beardsley Elizabeth Lane: Imperative sentences in relation to indicatives. Philosophical Review 53(2), 175–185 (1944)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castañeda, Hector Neri, Thinking and Doing, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht and Boston, 1975.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Charlow, Nate, Restricting and embedding imperatives, in M. Aloni, and K. Schulz, (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, vol. 6042 of LNAI, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 223–233.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark Billy: Relevance and “pseudo-imperatives”. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 79–121 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dignum Frank, John-Jules Ch. Meyer, Wieringa Roel: Free choice and contextually permitted actions. Studia Logica 57(1), 193–220 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fox, Chris, Obligations, permissions and transgressions: an alternative approach to deontic reasoning, in Proceedings of the Tenth Symposium on Logic and Language, Theoretical Linguistics Program, ELTE, Balatonszemes, Budapest, Hungary, 2009, pp. 81–88.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franke, Michael, How and how not to employ discourse relations to account for pseudo-imperatives, in P. Dekker, and . Franke, (eds.), Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 2005, pp. 83–88.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franke Michael: Pseudo-Imperatives, Master’s thesis, Institute for Logic. University of Amsterdam, Language and Computation (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ginzburg Jonathan, Sag Ivan: Interrogative Investigations. CSLI, Stanford (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hage, Jaap C., Studies in Legal Logic, chap. 6: What is a Norm?, Springer, Berlin, 2005, p. 173ff.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamblin Charles L.: Imperatives. Blackwell, Oxford (1987)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Han Chung-hye: The structure and interpretation of imperatives: mood and force in universal grammar, Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. Garland, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Han, Chung-Hye, Imperatives, in C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner, (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Mouton de Gruyter, 2011, pp. 1785–1804.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hare Richard Mervyn: Imperative sentences. Mind LVIII, 21–39 (1949) Also in [21]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hare Richard Mervyn: Some alleged differences between imperatives and indicatives. Mind LXXVI:303, 309–326 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hare, Richard Mervyn, Practical Inferences, Macmillan, 1971.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huntley Martin: The semantics of English imperatives. Journal of Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 103–133 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jackson Frank: On the semantics and logic of obligation. Mind 94, 177–195 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jørgensen, Jørgen, Imperatives and logic, Erkenntnis 7:288–296, 1937–38.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kamp Hans: Free choice permission. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 74, 57–74 (1973)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kamp, Hans, Semantics versus pragmatics, in F. Guenthner, and S. J. Schmidt, (eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Language, Synthese Language Library, D. Reidel, 1979, pp. 255–287.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaufmann, Stefan, and Magdalena Schwager, A unified analysis of conditional imperatives, in E. Cormany, S. Ito, and D. Lutz, (eds.), Proceedings of the Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT) 19, eLanguage, 2011, pp. 239–265. Conference held 3rd–5th April 2009 at The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Klein Daniel B., O’Flaherty Brendan: A game-theoretic rendering of promises and threats. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 21, 295–314 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Krifka, Manfred, Semantics below and above speech acts, Talk held at Stanford University, 2004. http://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3z/Talks/StanfordLecture2004.pdf
  30. 30.
    Lappin Shalom: On the pragmatics of mood. Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 559–578 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lascarides Alex, Nicholas Asher, Imperatives in dialogue, in P. Kühnlein, H. Rieser, and H. Zeevat, (eds.), The Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue for the New Millenium, Benjamins, 2004, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lewis, David, General semantics, in D. Davidson, and G. Harman, (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel-Dordrecht, 1972, pp. 169–218.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mastop, Rosja, What can you do? — Imperative Mood in Semantic Theory, Ph.D. thesis, Universtity of Amsterdam, 2005.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    McCarthy, John, and Patrick J. Hayes, Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence, in B. Meltzer, and D. Michie, (eds.), Machine Intelligence, vol. 4, Edinburgh University Press, 1969, pp. 463–502.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pérez-Ramírez, Miguel, and Chris Fox, An axiomatisation of imperatives using Hoare logic, in H. Bunt, I. van der Sluis, and R. Morante, (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-5), Tilburg, Netherlands, 2003, pp. 303–320.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Piwek, Paul, Imperatives, commitment and action: Towards a constraint-based model, LDV Forum: GLDV-Journal for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology, Special Issue on Communicating Agents, 17:1-2, 2000. ISSN 0175–1336.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Portner, Paul, The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types, in K. Watanabe, and R. B. Young, (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14, CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY, 2005. Paper presented at SALT 14, 14th–16th March 2004.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Portner, Paul, Permission and choice, manuscript available online from semanticsarchive.net, 2010.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ross Alf: Imperatives and logic. Theoria 7, 53–71 (1941) Republished as [40]Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ross Alf: Imperatives and logic. Philosophy of Science 11, 30–46 (1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Russell Benjamin: Imperatives in conditional conjunction. Natural Language Semantics 15(2), 131–166 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schmerling Susan F.: How imperatives are special and how they aren’t. In: Schneider, R., Tuite, K., Chametzky, R. (eds.) Papers from the Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) Para-Session on Nondeclaratives, pp. 93–106. University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistics Society (1982)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schwager, Magdelena, Interpreting imperatives, Ph.D. thesis, University of Frankfurt-Main, 2006. Under revision for the Springer series “Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy”.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Scontras Gregory, Gibson Edward: A quantitative investigation of the imperative-and-declarative construction in English. Language 87(4), 817–829 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Segerberg Krister: Validity and satisfaction in imperative. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 31(2), 203–211 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stenius Erik: Mood and the language game. Synthese 17, 254–274 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Turner, Raymond, Computable Models, Springer, 2009.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    van Eijck Jan: Making things happen. Studia Logica 66(1), 41–58 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    von Fintel, Kai, and Sabine Iatridou, Morphology, syntax, and semantics of modals, Lecture notes for the Linguistics Society of America (LSA) summer institute at Berkeley, 2009.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wyner, Adam Zachary, Violations and Fulfillments in the Formal Representation of Contracts, Ph.D. thesis, King’s College London, 2008.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zanuttini Raffaella: Encoding the addressee in the syntax: evidence from english imperative subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(1), 185–218 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zimmermann Thomas Ede: Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8, 255–290 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of EssexEssexUK

Personalised recommendations