Advertisement

Imperatives under coordination

  • Ezra Keshet
  • David J. Medeiros
Article
  • 150 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Imperatives Semantics Syntax 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Abusch, Dorit. 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (1): 1–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  3. van der Auwera, Johan. 1986. On conditionals! eds. Elizabeth Traugott, Alice ter Meulen, Judith Snitzer Reilly, and Charles A. Ferguson, 197–214. Google Scholar
  4. Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, and Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68 (3): 255–278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1): 48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Beukema, Frits, and Peter Coopmans. 1989. A government-binding perspective on the imperative in English. Journal of Linguistics 25 (02): 417–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. The imperative in English. To Honor Roman Jakobson 1: 335–362. Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam. 1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  12. Clark, Billy. 1993. Relevance and “pseudo-imperatives”. Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (1): 79–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Culicover, Peter. 1972. Om-sentences: On the derivation of sentences with systematically unspecifiable interpretations. Foundations of language 8 (2): 199–236. Google Scholar
  14. Culicover, Peter, and Ray Jackendoff. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28 (2): 195–217. Google Scholar
  15. Davies, Eirlys E. 1979. Some restrictions on conditional imperatives. Linguistics 17: 1039–1054. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies, Eirlys E. 1986. The English imperative. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  17. den Dikken, Marcel. 1992. Empty operator movement in Dutch imperatives. Language and Cognition 2 (5): 1–64. Google Scholar
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1995a. Resolving questions, i. Linguistics and Philosophy 18 (5): 459–527. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1995b. Resolving questions, ii. Linguistics and Philosophy 18 (6): 567–609. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Mertin Stokhof. 1984. Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD diss., University of Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  25. Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of modality. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  26. Hamblin, C. L. 1987. Imperatives. London: Basil Blackwell. Google Scholar
  27. Han, Chung-hye. 2000. The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in Universal Grammar. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  28. Iatridou, Sabine. 2008. De modo imperativo. Ms., EALING Lecture Notes. Google Scholar
  29. Isac, Daniela. 2015. The morphosyntax of imperatives. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jary, Mark, and Mikhail Kissine. 2014. Imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Jensen, Britta. 2003. Syntax and semantics of imperative subjects. Nordlyd 31: 150–164. Google Scholar
  33. Jespersen, Otto. 1909. Syntax. Vol. 4 of A modern English grammar on historical principles. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. Google Scholar
  34. Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. Google Scholar
  35. Kadmon, Nirit. 1987. On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts. Google Scholar
  36. Katz, Graham, Paul Portner, and Aynat Rubinstein. 2012. Ordering combination for modal comparison. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 22, 488–507. Google Scholar
  37. Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2012. Interpreting imperatives. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keshet, Ezra. 2012. Focus on conditional conjunction. Journal of Semantics 30 (2): 211–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, eds. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 651–656. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  40. Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40 (2): 187–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and conditionals: New and revised perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krifka, Manfred. 2004a. Conjunction and disjunction of imperatives. Talk at Workshop Mood and (In)Subordination, ZAS Berlin. Google Scholar
  43. 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.
  44. 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
  45. Medeiros, David J. 2013. Formal approaches to the syntax and semantics of imperatives. PhD diss., University of Michigan. Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Medeiros, David J. 2015. Embedded ancient greek imperatives: A feature transfer analysis. Syntax 18 (2): 124–156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oikonomou, Despina. 2016. Covert modals in root contexts. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. Portner, Paul. 2011. Verbal mood. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning 2: 1262–1291. Google Scholar
  52. Potsdam, Eric. 2007. Analyzing word order in the English imperative. In Imperative clauses in generative grammar, ed. Wim van der Wurff, 251–272. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. http://www.R-project.org.
  54. Rivero, Maria Luisa, and Arhonto Terzi. 1995. Imperatives, v-movement and logical mood. Journal of Linguistics 31 (2): 301–332. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roberts, Craige. 1989. Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (6): 683–721. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5 (6): 1–69.  https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Rooy, Robert. 2003. Questioning to resolve decision problems. Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (6): 727. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Russell, Benjamin. 2007. Imperatives in conditional conjunction. Natural Language Semantics 15 (2): 131–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schwager, Magdalena. 2006. Interpreting imperatives. PhD diss., University of Frankfurt am Main. Google Scholar
  60. Schwager, Magdalena. 2010. Modality and speech acts: Troubled by German ruhig. In Logic, language and meaning, 416–425. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scontras, Greg, and Edward Gibson. 2011. A quantitative investigation of the imperative-and-declarative construction in English. Language 84 (4): 817–829. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Searle, John R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5 (1): 1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sprouse, Jon. 2011. A validation of amazon mechanical turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior research methods 43 (1): 155–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.
  65. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997. Negation and clausal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  66. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2008. Encoding the addressee in the syntax: Evidence from English imperative subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 185–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zanuttini, Raffaella, Miok Pak, and Paul Portner. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 1231–1274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.California State UniversityNorthridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations