Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:57:10.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The imperative and pragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

William Downes
William Downes
Affiliation:
School of English and American Studies, University of East Anglia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article is a tentative exploration of the following question. In an account of the imperative construction in English, what should be accounted for in the syntax or semantics and what in the pragmatics?1 In the literature, we find descriptions of an imperative construction with certain specific syntactic properties. For example, there is a subjectless form and also a form with a second person pronominal subject and corresponding to both there are second person pro- nominal forms in reflexive and tag counterparts. Abstract underlying structures, in this case a you subject, which subsequently may be deleted by IMPERATIVE or EQUI, are postulated to explain these properties (Postal, 1964; Katz & Postal, 1964: 75; McCawley, 1968). My question is: if we postulate a general pragmatic theory, that is, a theory of the use of utterances in context (separate from but related to theories about the syntactic or semantic properties of sentences), how many of the properties of the imperative can be explained in such terms instead of in the syntax or semantics? My conclusion is that the proposed abstract structures are syntactically and semantically unmotivated and unnecessary for pragmatic interpretation. Each property that the abstract elements explain is better explained either as a non-arbitrary property of main clause infinitives when they are used to utter commands (non-arbitrary in that the facts could not be otherwise), or inherent properties of main clause infinitives in all their uses. In the former case at least, they are facts about men in situations, not about syntax. Thus, syntax and semantics require only a single level of representation and there is no imperative transformation.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1977 , pp. 77 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis of linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1967). Imperatives in English. In To honour Roman Jakobson, I. The Hague: Mouton. 335–362.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. & Thorne, J. (1969). The semantics of modal verbs. JL 5. 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1972). Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In Chomsky, N., Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton. 62–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1972a). Some empirical issues in the theory of Transformational Grammar. In Chomsky, N., Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton. 120–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In McKinney, J. & Tiryakian, E. A. (eds), Theoretical sociology. New York: Appleton. 338–366.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. & Lakoff, G. (1971). Conversational postulates. Chicago Linguistic Society 7. Chicago. 63–84.Google Scholar
Green, G. M. (1975). How to get people to do things with words: the whimperative question. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (eds), Syntax and semantics, 3. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1968). Logic and conversation. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Pt 2. JL 3. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. D. (1971) The sentence in written English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1975). The meaning of questions. Lg 51. 1–31.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. M. (1964). An integrated theory of linguistic descrptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1970). Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1971). Two kinds of presupposition in natural language. In Fillmore, C. & Langendoen, D. T. (eds), Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 44–52.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Rules for ritual insults. In Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 297–353.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds),Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 232–296.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1971a).Presupposition and relative well-formedness. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds), Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 329–340.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1972). Language in context. Lg 48. 907–927.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1966). Review of Katz J. J. & Postal P. M., An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. JL 2. 119–126.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1968). The role and semantics in a grammar. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 124–169.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1971) Where do noun phrases come from? In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds),Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 217–231.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1964). Underlying and superficial linguistic structure. In Reibel, D. & Schane, S. (eds), Modern studies in English. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.; Prentice-Hall. 19–37.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1970). On declative sentences. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn. 222–272.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. (1974). Towards a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. (1975). The form of language. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. In R., Turner (ed.), Ethnomethodology, Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1974). 233–264.Google Scholar
Schmerling, S. (1975). Imperative subject deletion and some related matters. Lin 3. 501–511.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. (1972). Autonomous versus semantic syntax. In P., Seuren (ed.), Semantic syntax. London: Oxford University Press, (1974). 96–122.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skalnaker, R. C. (1972). Pragmatics. In Davidson, D. & Harman, J. (eds.), Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R., Schaeter, P. & Partee, B. H. (1973). The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Thorne, J. P. (1966). English imperative sentences. JL 2. 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, R. (1970). Words, utterances and activities. In R., Turner (ed.), Ethnomethodology. Harmondsworth: Penguin, (1974). 197–215.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (1975). Presuppositions and non-truth-conditional semantics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wooton, A. (1975). Dilemmas of discourse. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar