The function of non-canonical imperatives in the languages of Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

formal grounds, which is demonstratively invalid). Whether some of its forms correspond to those of certain moods (predominantly the subjunctive) or not, the imperative is a speech act since the purpose of making an imperative utterance is to elicit action (this would be the canonical use of it) rather than convey or request information. The unique limitations imposed on imperatives as well as the few features that it may have in exclusion compared to other speech acts makes calling it a mood highly dubious. The reason behind why we call first and third person and impersonal forms imperatives to begin with is because they adhere to the same principles, to the same restrictive framework as canonical imperatives do. For instance, the subjunctive in Spanish may form the first person plural imperative, but it may not, as opposed to the subjunctive in subordinate clauses (where it complements the expression of doubt in the main clause, to name but one function) be posed in the imperfect or future subjunctive and retain the same function at a temporal variation. The reason why we call them non-canonical is because where all languages have the ability to directly command someone through the second person imperatives, the first and third person forms, where they exist, do not generally allow for this canonical function. So lastly, I would close by remarking that irrespectively of one’s term for these non-canonical, these first and third person and impersonal imperatives, whether jussive, hortative or by any other name, they are for all intents and purposes imperatives. 36
References Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth. 2009. Modalität: Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: University Press. Austin, John L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words, second edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press (First published 1962). Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1978. Universals in language usage: politeness phenomenon. In Esther N. Goody (ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, 59-310. Cambridge: University Press. Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: University Press. Bybee, Joan and Fleischman, Suzanne. 1995. Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Erelt, Mati. 2002. Does Estonian have the jussive Linguistica Uralica XXXVIII(2): 110-117 Erelt, Mati and Metslang, Helle. 2004. Grammar and pragmatics: Changes in the paradigm of the Estonian imperative. Linguistica Uralica XL (3): 161-178 Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1976. Is Sybil there The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5: 25-66. Falk, Johan; Sjölin, Kerstin and Lerate, Luis. 2010. Modern Spansk Grammatik. Liber Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, Volume I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, Volume II. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in Public. New York: Basic Books. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Göksel, Aslı and Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London and New York: Routledge. Hakulinen, Auli et al. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Holmberg, Per O.; Klum, Arne and Girod, Roger. 2011. Modern Fransk Grammatik. Liber 37
Page 1 and 2: UPPSALA UNIVERSITY Bachelor’s The
Page 3 and 4: Abbreviations 1INF First infinite I
Page 5 and 6: 1. Background and purpose The imper
Page 7 and 8: mind passing me the salt”, or a s
Page 9 and 10: There is a depth in using language
Page 11 and 12: optative paradigm (called the jussi
Page 13 and 14: Now, what I found were tendencies i
Page 15 and 16: Irish: Labhraím leis anois. Labhra
Page 17 and 18: Table 3.2: the differences between
Page 19 and 20: So how do non-canonical imperatives
Page 21 and 22: imperative. French is further dissi
Page 23 and 24: 4.2 The hortative functionality of
Page 25 and 26: Irish: Ithim bia! Ithim bia eat/1SG
Page 27 and 28: Table 5.2 Sentence types in Irish D
Page 29 and 30: This function arguably is more impe
Page 31 and 32: Table 5.4: Forms of the imperative
Page 33 and 34: Finnish: (Hän) kysyköön kysymyks
Page 35 and 36: and requests for permission are not
Page 37 and 38: Russian (courtesy of Hansen in Roth
Page 39: Resignation and admission of the sp

The function of non-canonical imperatives in the languages of Europe

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?