Cover not available

Article In: Pragmatics: Online-First Articles

Who benefits from an imperative?

Assessment of directives on a benefit scale

ORCiD logo with link | University of Tübingen
 | Charles University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
The distribution of benefits associated with a projected future action has been considered important in determining the type of directive expressed by an imperative. However, there has been little research on how speakers perceive the beneficiary of future action in imperatives and how these perceptions are influenced by the linguistic forms in the imperative utterance. This article reports on an experiment on Czech that tests whether the distinction between imperatives benefiting the speaker and imperatives benefiting the addressee is valid and whether it is influenced by the grammatical person of a modal verb expressing a rationale for the imperative. The results show that imperatives preceded by a first-person modal are judged as benefiting the speaker and imperatives preceded by a second-person modal as benefiting the addressee. The study thus demonstrates how the exact same imperative can be linguistically manipulated to be interpreted as benefiting either the speaker or the addressee.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical preliminaries
    • 2.1Distribution of benefits in imperatives
    • 2.2The effects of linguistic structure
    • 2.3Research aims and hypotheses
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Materials and design
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Quantitative analysis
    • 4.2Variation in individual items
  • 5.Discussion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Author queries
  • References
References (36)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2017. “Epilogue. Imperatives — The Language of Immediate Action”. In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 411–423. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Běličová, Helena. 1998. Nástin porovnávací morfologie spisovných jazyků slovanských. Praha: Karolinum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman. 1960. “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” In Style in Language, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, 253–276. New York: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage. 2014. “Benefactors and Beneficiaries. Benefactive Status and Stance in the Management of Offers and Requests.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, Studies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 51–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. “What Does Grammar Tell Us about Action?” Pragmatics 24 (3): 623–647.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, Jetske Klatter, Gijs Mulder, and Tijn Schmitz. 2016. “Imperatives and Politeness in Dutch.” In Linguistics in the Netherlands, ed. by Jenny Audring, and Sander Lestrade, 41–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dominicy, Marc, and Nathalie Franken. 2002. “Speech Acts and Relevance Theory.” In Essays in Speech Act Theory, ed. by Daniel Vanderveken, and Susumo Kubo, 263–283. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. 1976. “Is Sybil There? The Structure of Some American English Directives.” Language in Society 51: 25–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Filimonova, Elena. 2005. “Clusivity Cross-linguistically: Common Trends and Possible Patterns.” In: Clusivity: Typology and Case Studies of Inclusive-Exclusive Distinction, ed. by Elena Filimonova, 399–424. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton A. 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hernandez, Perez Lorena, and Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco. 2002. “Grounding, Semantic Motivation, and Conceptual Interaction in Indirect Directive Speech acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 259–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huntley, Martin. 1984. “The Semantics of English Imperatives.” Linguistics and Philosophy 71: 103–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A., and Charles E. Townsend. 2000. Czech. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jary, Mark, and Mikhail Kissine. 2014. Imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff, Rune H. B. Christensen. 2017. “lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models.” Journal of Statistical Software 82 (13): 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lüdecke, Daniel. 2018. “ggeffects: Tidy Data Frames of Marginal Effects from Regression Models.” Journal of Open Source Software 3 (26): 772. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2005. “The Emergence of Grammar from Perspective.” In Language Acquisition, Change and Emergence: Essays in Evolutionary Linguistics, ed. by James Minett, and William Wang, 1–58. City University of HK Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Naughton, James. 2005. Czech: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Navarro, Danielle. 2015. Learning Statistics with R: A Tutorial for Psychology Students and Other Beginners (Version 0.6). Sydney: University of New South Wales.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nekvapil, Jiří, and Jiří Václav Neustupný. 2005. “Politeness in the Czech Republic: Distance, Levels of Expressions, Management and Intercultural Contact.” In Politeness in Europe, ed. by Leo Hickey, and Mirand Stewart, 247–262. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2007. “Imperatives and Modals.” Natural Language Semantics 151: 351–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. “The Semantics of Imperatives within a Theory of Clause Types.” In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XIV, ed. by Robert Young, 235–252. Ithaca: Cornell University. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Posit team. 2023. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software, PBC. Boston, MA. 〈[URL]〉.
Rossi, Giovanni. 2017. “Secondary and Deviant Uses of the Imperative for Requesting in Italian.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 103–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2024. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. 〈[URL]〉.
Thompson, Sandra, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. “The Clause as a Locus of Grammar and Interaction.” Discourse Studies 71: 481–505. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thornburg, Linda, and Klaus-Uwe Panther. 1997. “Speech Act Metonymies.” In Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Wolf-Andreas Lierbert, Gisela Redeker, and Linda Waugh, 205–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Olmen, Daniel, and Simone Heinold. 2017. “Imperatives and Directive Strategies from a Functional-Typological Perspective: An Introduction.” In Imperatives and Directive Strategies, ed. by Daniel van Olmen, and Simone. Heinold, 1–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickham, Hadley, Mara Averick, Jennifer Bryan, et al. 2019. “Welcome to the tidyverse.” Journal of Open Source Software 4 (43): 1686. 〈 〉.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 1988. “Mood and the Analysis of Non-declarative Sentences.” In Human agency: Language, Duty and Value, ed. by Jonathan Dancy, Julius Moravczik, and Christopher Taylor, 77–101. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehr, Jérémy, and Florian Schwarz. 2018. PennController for Internet Based Experiments (IBEX). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue