Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 39:3 (2015) ► pp.555–593

Subject versus addressee in Dogon imperatives and hortatives

| University of Michigan
| Institute of Linguistics (Moscow)

Indicative sentences in Dogon have a subject of S/A type identifiable by convergent criteria. However, Dogon imperatives diverge from English in lacking full-fledged referential subjects. Specifically, covert imperative actors (“subjects”) cannot bind transpersonal reflexive pronominals the way indicative subjects do. Instead, Dogon imperative verbs morphologically index addressee number. Dogon hortatives have both overt first-person plural subjects and imperative-like second-person addressees. We must therefore tease apart (referential) subjecthood and addresseehood. Crosslinguistic comparisons (Basque allocutives, Russian transpersonal reflexives) bring out similarities and differences. A cultural focus on immediate observation as opposed to projected result, also observed in action verb semantics, may be behind the Dogon difference.

Keywords: allocutive, ethical dative, subject, reflexive, Dogon, transpersonal, addressee, referentiality, imperative, hortative, impersonal
Published online: 29 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.3.02hea
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2010 Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alcázar, Asier & Mario Saltarelli
2014 The syntax of imperatives (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1962 The Menomini language. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman
1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 253–76. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W
1979 Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrushina N.R
2003 Imperative deictic reduction. In Pirkko Suihkonen & Bernard Comrie (eds.), International Symposium on Deictic Systems and Quantification in Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia, collection of papers, 66–83. Izhevsk, Russia: Udmurt State University/Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Dept. of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Downes, William
1977 The imperative and pragmatics. Journal of Linguistics 13(1). 77–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, Bruce
1969 Vocatives and third-person imperatives in English. Papers in Linguistics 11. 570–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drogosz, Anna
2005 The conceptual distinction between Polish markers of reflexivity: siebie and się . Acta Neophilologica 71. 108–118.Google Scholar
2012 English and Polish: Two faces of the reflexivity. In Agata Rozumko & Dorota Szymaniuk (eds.), Directions in English-Polish contrastive research, 21–38. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda
2006 Subjects and universal grammar: An explanatory theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1968 The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul
1972 Social context and semantic feature: The Russian pronominal usage. In John Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 270–300. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Gusev, V
2013 Tipologiya imperativa [“Typology of imperatives”]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Lillian
2012 Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and composition of the left periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2011 On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 151. 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey & Laura McPherson
2011 Cognitive set and lexicalization strategy in Dogon action verbs. Anthropological Linguistics 51(1). 38–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Tonosyntax and reference restriction in Dogon NPs. Language 89(2). 265–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward
1976 Toward a universal definition of subject. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Khokhlova, Liudmilla
1998 Some notes on reflexivization in Russian and Hindi. In Khokhlova & Atul Daswani (eds.), Vaagbhaaratii: Proceedings of the International Conference on South Asian Languages , 88–103. Moscow: Moscow University Publications.
Kiparsky, Paul
2001 Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 1111. 315–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knyazev, Yuri & Vladimir Nedyalkov
1985 Refleksivnye konstrukcii v slavyanskih yazykah [“Reflexive constructions in Slavic languages”]. In Nedyalkov (ed.). Refleksivnye glagoly v indojevropejskih yazykah [“Reflexive verbs in Indo-European languages”], 29–39. Kalinin: KGU.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siegmund
2007 Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Tim Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 11, 276–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruspe, Nicole
2004 A grammar of Semele (Cambridge Grammatical Descriptions). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lafon, René
1959 Place de la 2ème personne du singulier dans la conjugaison basque. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 541. 103–29.Google Scholar
Medová, Lucie
2009 Reflexive clitics in the Slavic and Romance languages: A comparative view from an antipassive perspective. Princeton: Princeton University dissertation.Google Scholar
Moreau, J.-L
1972 La corrélation du sujet et de l’objet en finnois. Études finno-ougriennes 81. 193–202.Google Scholar
Ntahokaja, Jean-Baptiste
1994 Grammaire structurale du kirundi. Bujumbura: Université du Burundi – ACCT.Google Scholar
Rebuschi, Georges
1980 Autour des formes allocutives du basque. Iker-1, 307–22. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia.Google Scholar
Rennison, John
1997 Koromfe (Routledge Descriptive Grammars). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold
1974 Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1930 Southern Paiute language: A Shoshonean language. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 65(1).Google Scholar
Schadeberg, Thilo
1977 Der Kohortativ “Dual” und Plural in den Bantusprachen. In Wolfgang Voigt (ed.), XIX. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 28. September bis 4. Oktober 1975 in Freiburg im Breisgau: Vorträge. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement 3(2). 1502–1507. [URL]Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan
1982 How imperatives are special, and how they aren’t. Chicago Linguistic Society, Parasession on nondeclaratives, 202–18.Google Scholar
Tabakowska, E
2003 Those notorious Polish reflexive pronouns: A plea for middle voice. Glossos 41. [URL]Google Scholar
Thorne, J.P
1966 English imperative sentences. Journal of Linguistics 2(1). 69–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toldova, Svetlana
2011 Tipologija konstrukcij s vozvratnym mestoimeniem seb’a [“Typology of constructions with reflexive pronoun seb’a ”]. Read at Conference on Constructional and Lexical Semantic Approaches to Russian, Saint Petersburg.
Van Valin, Robert & Randy LaPolla
1997 Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaele
2008 Encoding the addressee in the syntax: Evidence from English imperatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 261. 185–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaele, Miok Pak & Paul Portner
2012 A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(4). 1231–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Hantgan, Abbie
2020. Dogon reported discourse markers: The Ben Tey quotative topicalizer. Folia Linguistica 54:3 ► pp. 581 ff. DOI logo
Heath, Jeffrey
2016. Type-ology or typ-ology?. Linguistic Typology 20:3 DOI logo
2019. Caught in the middle. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 34:1 ► pp. 126 ff. DOI logo
Heath, Jeffrey & Vadim Dyachkov
2022. Dogon pseudo-subjects with or without true subjects. Studies in Language DOI logo
Kim, Ahrim & Iksoo Kwon
2020. Hortatives, imperatives, and the directive speech-act continuum: A usage-based approach to the Korean -ca hortative construction. Lingua 245 ► pp. 102928 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 february 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.