Imperatives under coordination
Imperatives in conjoined sentences have presented a puzzle for theories which associate directive force with all imperatives. For example, in a conjunction like Ignore your homework and you’ll fail the class, the first, imperative conjunct may describe an undesirable action, which is incompatible with normal imperative directive force. Despite this apparent counterexample, this paper presents new empirical evidence of directive force in all conjoined imperatives. Even cases with undesirable imperative actions still direct the addressee to perform a related action (such as not ignoring their homework). Under this new analysis, directive force sometimes applies to the entire Imperative-and-Declarative conjunction, rather than narrowly to the first, imperative clause. Robust diagnostics are deployed to delineate the precise class of conditional Imperative-and-Declarative conjunctions, distinguishing such cases from those whose first clauses do not actually include an imperative. Additional diagnostics separate conjunctions whose imperative force applies narrowly to the first conjunct from those where it applies to the entire conjunction. Finally, the analysis of this construction motivates a simplified theory of imperatives more generally.
KeywordsImperatives Semantics Syntax
We gratefully acknowledge the feedback of two anonymous reviewers and associate editor Kyle Johnson. We also thank audiences for their feedback at GLOW, LSA, WCCFL, the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Michigan. We gained valuable insights from discussions with Magdalena Kaufmann, Sharon Klein, and Paul Portner, and crucial speaker judgments from Kenneth Luna, Dennis Ott, Paul Petzschmann, Ana Sánchez-Muñoz, Jutta Schamp, and Florian Schwarz.
- Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
- van der Auwera, Johan. 1986. On conditionals! eds. Elizabeth Traugott, Alice ter Meulen, Judith Snitzer Reilly, and Charles A. Ferguson, 197–214. Google Scholar
- Bennis, Hans. 2006. Agreement, pro, and imperatives. In Arguments and agreement, eds. Peter Ackema, Patrick Brandt, Maaike Schoorlemmer, and Fred Weerman, 101–123. Google Scholar
- Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. The imperative in English. To Honor Roman Jakobson 1: 335–362. Google Scholar
- Chomsky, Noam. 1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
- Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
- Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
- Culicover, Peter. 1972. Om-sentences: On the derivation of sentences with systematically unspecifiable interpretations. Foundations of language 8 (2): 199–236. Google Scholar
- Culicover, Peter, and Ray Jackendoff. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28 (2): 195–217. Google Scholar
- Davies, Eirlys E. 1986. The English imperative. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
- den Dikken, Marcel. 1992. Empty operator movement in Dutch imperatives. Language and Cognition 2 (5): 1–64. Google Scholar
- von Fintel, Kai, and Sabine Iatridou. 2009. LSA 220 Class Notes: Covert Modals? One particular case. Available at http://web.mit.edu/fintel/lsa220-class-6-handout.pdf. Accessed 20 August 2018.
- von Fintel, Kai, and Sabine Iatridou. 2010. What is in a Mediterranean imperative? Talk delivered at the 2nd Mediterranean Syntax Meeting, Athens, Greece. Google Scholar
- von Fintel, Kai, and Sabine Iatridou. 2017. A modest proposal for the meaning of imperatives. In Modality across syntactic categories, eds. Ana Arregui, Maria Rivero, and Andres Salanova, 288–319. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
- Franke, Michael. 2005. Pseudo-imperatives. Master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam Institute for Logic, Language and Computation. Available at http://www.home.uni-osnabrueck.de/michfranke/Papers/Pseudo-Imperatives-Thesis.pdf. Accessed 20 August 2018.
- Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Mertin Stokhof. 1984. Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD diss., University of Amsterdam. Google Scholar
- Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of modality. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
- Hamblin, C. L. 1987. Imperatives. London: Basil Blackwell. Google Scholar
- Han, Chung-hye. 2000. The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in Universal Grammar. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
- Iatridou, Sabine. 2008. De modo imperativo. Ms., EALING Lecture Notes. Google Scholar
- Jayez, Jacques, and Mathilde Dargnat. 2009. One more step and you’ll get pseudo-imperatives right. In Sinn und bedeutung 13, eds. Arndt Riester and Torgrim Solstad. Google Scholar
- Jensen, Britta. 2003. Syntax and semantics of imperative subjects. Nordlyd 31: 150–164. Google Scholar
- Jespersen, Otto. 1909. Syntax. Vol. 4 of A modern English grammar on historical principles. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. Google Scholar
- Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. Google Scholar
- Kadmon, Nirit. 1987. On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts. Google Scholar
- Katz, Graham, Paul Portner, and Aynat Rubinstein. 2012. Ordering combination for modal comparison. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 22, 488–507. Google Scholar
- Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, eds. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 651–656. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
- Krifka, Manfred. 2004a. Conjunction and disjunction of imperatives. Talk at Workshop Mood and (In)Subordination, ZAS Berlin. Google Scholar
- Krifka, Manfred. 2004b. Semantics below and above speech acts. Ms., Humboldt University. Available at http://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/Talks/StanfordLecture2004.pdf. Accessed 20 August 2018.
- Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Bruun Brockhoff, and Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen. 2015. lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 2.0. Google Scholar
- Medeiros, David J. 2013. Formal approaches to the syntax and semantics of imperatives. PhD diss., University of Michigan. Google Scholar
- Medeiros, David J. 2014. A weak necessity semantics for morphological imperatives. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 44, eds. Jyoti Iyer and Leland Kusmer, Vol. 2, 15–26. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
- Oikonomou, Despina. 2016. Covert modals in root contexts. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
- Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. in honor of Joseph E. Emonds, eds. Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy K. Wilkins, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Poletto, Cecilia, and Raffaella Zanuttini. 2003. Making imperatives: Evidence from central Rhaetoromance. In The syntax of Italian dialects, ed. Christina Tortora, 175–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
- Portner, Paul. 2011. Verbal mood. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning 2: 1262–1291. Google Scholar
- R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. http://www.R-project.org.
- Schwager, Magdalena. 2006. Interpreting imperatives. PhD diss., University of Frankfurt am Main. Google Scholar
- Starr, William B. 2011. A preference semantics for imperatives. Ms., to appear in Semantics and Pragmatics. http://williamstarr.net/research/a_preference_semantics_for_imperatives.pdf.
- Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997. Negation and clausal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar