Chapter published in:
Imperatives and Directive StrategiesEdited by Daniël Van Olmen and Simone Heinold
[Studies in Language Companion Series 184] 2017
► pp. 79–110
Rhetorical imperatives
Reasons to reasoning
Ana Bravo | University of Murcia
Rhetorical imperatives are formal imperatives that convey an assertion of the opposite polarity. As assertions, they can be judged to be true or false. As morphological imperatives, they reject embedding and have verb-subject word order. Rhetorical imperatives involve a widening of the domain operator, responsible both for the generic interpretation of the subject pronoun tú ‘you (singular)’ and for the licensing of negative polarity items. A speaker uses a rhetorical imperative to make the addressee aware of the impossibility of putting into action the content of p. This supports the theories that analyze imperatives as inherently conveying directive force. Finally, it is argued that rhetorical imperatives may result from the grammaticalization of a non-directive imperative-like conditional.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The syntax and the semantics of regular imperatives
- 2.1Grammatical properties
- 2.2Semantic properties
- 2.3On the relationship between imperatives and modals
- 3.Grammatical properties of RIs
- 3.1The subject
- 3.2The verb
- 3.3Negative polarity items
- 3.4RIs and regular imperatives
- 4.Semantic properties of RIs
- 4.1Assertoric potential and polarity
- 4.2Some consequences of being assertions (and not commands)
- 4.3The absence of directivity
- 4.4RIs as reasons for reasoning
- 4.5RIs as modalized assertions
- 5.RIs as a widening of the domain operation
- 5.1The widening of the domain operation
- 5.2On the reference of the subject pronoun
- 6.Conclusions
-
Abbreviations -
Acknowledgements -
Notes -
References
Published online: 11 April 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.184.03bra
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.184.03bra
References
Aranovich, Raúl
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, William
Condoravdi, Cleo & Lauer, Sven
2012 Imperatives: Meaning and illocutionary force. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9, Christopher Piñón (ed.), 37–58. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss9 (25 June 2015).
CREA [Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual]
Real Academia Española. http://www.rae.es
Evans, Nicholas
Fortuin, Egbert
Grano, Thomas
2011 Mental action and event structure in the semantics of try
. In Proceedings of the 21st Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, Neil Ashton, Anca Chereches & David Lutz (eds), 426–443. http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/view/21.426 (28 September 2014).
Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier
Hacquard, Valentine
Han, Chung-Hye
Kitagawa, Chisato & Lehrer, Adrienne
Kratzer, Angelika
Malamud, Sophia A
Medeiros, David J
Pérez-Saldanya, Manuel & Hualde, José I
Portner, Paul
Rigau, Gemma
Rivero, María Luisa
Rizzi, Luigi
van der Auwera, Johan, Dobrushina, Nina & Goussev, Valentin
2013 Imperative-hortative systems. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/72 (4 March 2014).
van der Wurff, Wim
Vicente, Luis
2010 Past counterfactuality in Spanish imperatives. Paper presented at the
20th Colloquium in Generative Grammar
, Barcelona, March. http://www.luisvicente.net/linguistics/cgg20.pdf (25 June 2015)
von Fintel, Kai
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Holvoet, Axel
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 march 2022. 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.