Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Imperatives and modals

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Imperatives may be interpreted with many subvarieties of directive force, for example as orders, invitations, or pieces of advice. I argue that the range of meanings that imperatives can convey should be identified with the variety of interpretations that are possible for non-dynamic root modals (what I call ‘priority modals’), including deontic, bouletic, and teleological readings. This paper presents an analysis of the relationship between imperatives and priority modals in discourse which asserts that, just as declaratives contribute to the Common Ground and thus provide information relevant to the interpretation of epistemic modals in subsequent discourse, imperatives contribute to another component of the discourse context, the addressee’s To-Do List, which serves as a contextual resource for the interpretation of priority modals. This analysis predicts that the interpretation of imperatives and modals in discourse is constrained in surprising ways; these predictions are borne out.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bennett J. (2003). Philosophical guide to conditionals. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt R. (1998). Obligation and possession. In Harley H. (ed). Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect. Cambridge, MA, MITWPL.

  • Brennan V. (1993). Root and epistemic modal auxiliary verbs. Amherst, GLSA

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies E. (1986). The English imperative. London, Croom Helm

    Google Scholar 

  • Drubig, H. (2001). On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. Ms. University of Tübingen.

  • Feldman F. (1986). Doing the best we can. Dortrecht, Reidel

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg J. (1995a). Resolving questions, part I. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(5): 459–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg J. (1995b). Resolving questions, part II. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(6): 567–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacquard, V. (2006). Aspects of modality. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.

  • Halliday M. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6, 322–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, C.-H. (1998). The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in Universal Grammar. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Han C.-H. (1999). Deontic modality, lexical aspect and the semantics of imperatives. In Linguistics in the morning calm 4. Seoul, Hanshin Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D. (1989). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds). Themes from Kaplan. New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 481-563

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (1977). What “must” and “can” must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1): 337–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In: Eikmeyer H.-J., Rieser H. (eds). Words, worlds, and contexts. Berlin, de Gruyter, pp. 38-74

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascarides, A., & Asher, N. (2003). Imperatives in dialogue. In P. Kuehnlein, H. Rieser, & H. Zeevat (Eds.), The semanatics and pragmatics of dialogue for the new millenium. Philadelphia: Benjamins.

  • Lewis D.K. (1979). A problem about permission. In: Saarinen E., Hilpinen R., Niiniluoto I., Hintikka M.P. (eds). Essays in honour of Jaakko Hintikka. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 163-175

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ninan D. (2005). Two puzzles about deontic necessity. In: Gajewski J., Hacquard V., Nickel B., Yalcin S. (eds). New work on modality, Vol. 51 of MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA, MITWPL, pp. 149-178

    Google Scholar 

  • Pak, M. (2004). Sentence types in Korean. Ms., Georgetown University. May be downloaded at http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/portnerp/nsfsite/nsfframeset.htm

  • Pak, M., Portner, P., & Zanuttini, R. (2004). Deriving Clause Types: Focusing on Korean. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of Korea 2004, Yonsei Institute of Language and Information Studies (pp. 359–368). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.

  • Pak, M., Portner, P., & Zanuttini, R. (2006). What Korean promissives tell us about jussive clause types. Ms., Georgetown University. May be downloaded at http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/portnerp/nsfsite/nsfframeset.htm

  • Palmer F. (2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Papafragou A. (2006). Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua 116, 1688–1702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platzack C., Rosengren I. (1994). On the subject of imperatives. A minimalist account of the imperative pronoun and negated imperatives. Sprache und Pragmatik 34, 26–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Poletto, C., & Zanuttini, R. (2003). Making imperatives: Evidence from Central Rhaetoromance. In C. Tortora (Ed.), The syntax of Italian dialects (pp. 175–206). Oxford University Press.

  • Portner P. (2003). The temporal semantics and modal pragmatics of the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy 26, 459–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portner, P. (2004). The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In K. Watanabe & R. B. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14. Cornell University Linguistics Department: CLC Publications.

  • Portner, P. (2007). Beyond the common ground: The semantics and pragmatics of epistemic modals. In K.-A. Kim & J.-Y. Yoon (Eds.), The perspectives of linguistics in the 21st century.

  • Portner, P. (to appear). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Potsdam, E. (1996). Syntactic issues in English imperatives. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California at Santa Cruz.

  • Potts, C. (2003). Keeping world and will apart: A discourse-based semantics for imperatives. Talk delivered at the NYU Syntax/Semantics Lecture Series, October 17, 2003.

  • Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J.-H. Toon & A. Kathol (Eds.), Papers in semantics, OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 49. Columbus: The Ohio State University.

  • Roberts, C. (2004). Context in dynamic interpretation. In Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.

  • Ross, J. R. (1969). Auxiliaries as main verbs. In W. Todd (Ed.), Studies in philosophical linguistics (series 1). Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press.

  • Schlenker P. (2003). A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26, 29–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmerling S. (1975). Imperative subject deletion and some related matters. Linguistic Inquiry 6(3): 501–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwager, M. (2005). Permitting permissions. In J. Gervain (Ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth ESSLLI Student Session.

  • Schwager, M. (2007). Conditionalized imperatives. In C. Tancredi, M. Kanazawa, I. Imani, & K. Kusumoto (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 16. Cornell University Linguistics Department: CLC Publications. http://research.nii.ac.jp/salt16/proceedings.html

  • Segerberg K. (1990). Validity and satisfaction in imperative logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 31(2): 203–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shim, J., Lee, K., & Lee, C. (1977). Introduction to semantics. Chipmun-dang.

  • Stalnaker R. (1974). Pragmatic presupposition. In: Munitz M., Unger P. (eds). Semantics and philosophy. New York, New York University Press, pp. 197-213

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R. (1978). Assertion. In: Cole P. (ed). Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York, Academic Press, pp. 315-332

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, E. (2006). Something “might” might mean. Ms., University of Michigan.

  • von Fintel, K. (2003). Epistemic modals and conditionals revisited. Handout of a talk presented at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Dec. 12, 2003. http://web.mit.edu/fintel/www/umass-handout.pdf

  • Wilson D., Sperber D. (1988). Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In: Dancy J., Moravcsik J., Taylor C. (eds). Human agency: Language, duty and value. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, pp. 77-101

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurmbrand S. (1999). Modal verbs must be raising verbs. In: Bird S., Carnie A., Haugen J., Norquest P. (eds). The Proceedings of WCCFL 18. Somerville, MA, Cascadilla, pp. 599-612

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanuttini, R. (2004). Understanding the restrictions on imperative subjects. Paper presented at the X Giornata di Dialettologia, University of Padua, June 24, 2004. http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/portnerp/nsfsite/nsfframeset.htm Imperatives and modals

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 20057, USA

    Paul Portner

Authors
  1. Paul Portner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Portner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Portner, P. Imperatives and modals. Nat Lang Semantics 15, 351–383 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9022-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9022-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation