Imperatives exhibit cross-linguistically a wide range of structures, which makes it difficult to generalize about them or to propose a structural definition that would apply to all or at least to most of them. This article is concerned with canonical imperatives, that is, information units that have an (implicit) second person singular subject referent as a hearer (or reader or signee) and express commands or requests directed at the hearer. Canonical imperatives have been called extragrammatical or extrasyntactical forms; they resemble nominalized verb forms in being non-finite. But non-finiteness appears to possess a different quality here from what it has, for example, in participial, infinitival, or other non-finite verb forms or clause types. Building on recent work on Discourse Grammar (Kaltenböck et al. 2011, Heine et al. 2013), the article attempts to account for this difference by looking at the role that imperatives play in structuring discourse.
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. “I think” – an English modal particle. In Modality in Germanic Languages. Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Toril Swan & Olaf Jansen-Westvik (eds), 1-47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2008. The Manambu Language of East Sepik, Papua New Guinea. Oxford: OUP.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and Commands [Oxford Studies in Linguistic Theory]. Oxford: OUP.
Arroyo, José Luis Blas. 2011. From politeness to discourse marking: The process of pragmaticalization of muy bien in vernacular Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 855-874.
Auer, Peter & Günthner, Susanne. 2005. Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung? In Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen [Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen 9], Torsten Leuschner, Tanja Mortelmans & Sarah De Groodt (eds), 335-362. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Johnston, E. 2005. A Grammar of Mina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Frank-Job, Barbara. 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 395-413. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14(3): 383-398.
Furkó, Bálint Péter. 2005. The Pragmatic Marker-discourse Marker Dichotomy Reconsidered: The Case of well and of course. PhD dissertation, Debreceni Egyetem, Bölcsészettudományi Kar, Debrecen.
Givón, T. 2011. Finiteness and nominalization. Ms, University of Oregon and White Cloud Ranch, Ignacio.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. Parenthetical adverbials: The radical orphanage approach. In
Aspects of Modern Linguistics: Papers Presented to Masatomo Ukaji on His 60th Birthday
, Shuki Chiba, Akira Ogawa, Yasuaki Fuiwara, Norio Yamada, Osamu Koma & Takao Yagi (eds), 232-254. Tokyo: Kaitakushi.
Han, Chung-Hye. 1998. The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1998. The semantic status of discourse markers. Lingua 104(3-4): 235-260.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther & Long, Haiping. 2013. An outline of Discourse Grammar. In Reflections on Functionalism in Linguistics, Shannon Bischoff & Carmen Jeny (eds), 175-233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heine, Bernd & König, Christa. Forthcoming. The !Xun Language: A Dialect Grammar of Northern Khoisan [Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung]. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: OUP.
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York NY: MacMillan.
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statements: Linguistics and Poetics. New York NY: T.A. Sebeok.
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4): 848-893.
Kibrik, Aleksandr E., Kodzasov, Sandro V., Muravyova, Irina A. & Kurebito, Megumi. 2004. Language and Folklore of the Alutor People [Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim]. Suita: Faculty of Informatics, Osaka Gakuin University.
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153-185.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP.
Morris, Henry Francis & Kirwan, Brian Edmond. 1957. A Runyankore Grammar. Nairobi: Eagle Press.
Newman, Paul. 2000. The Hausa Language: An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
Osumi, Midori. 1995. Tinrin Grammar. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Rivero, María & Terzi, Arhonto. 1995. Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood. Journal of Linguistics 31: 301-332.
Rouchota, Villy. 1998. Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers. In Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57], Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds), 97-126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sadock, Jerold M. & Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Clause Structure, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 155-196. Cambridge: CUP.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511-580.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 2006. Theticity. In Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe, Giuliano Bernini & Marcia Schwartz, 255-308. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CUP.
Takahashi, Hidemitsu. 2005. Imperatives in subordinate clauses. Annual Report on Cultural Science 117: 45-87.
Takahashi, Hidemitsu. 2008. Imperatives in concessive clauses: compatibility between constructions. <[URL]>
Watkins, Calvert. 1963. Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb. Celtica 6: 1-49.
Wehr, Barbara. 2000. Zur Beschreibung der Syntax des franais parlé (mit einem Exkurs zu “thetisch” und “kategorisch”). In Diskursanalyse: Untersuchungen zum gesprochenen Französisch, Barbara Wehr & Helga Thomaßen (eds), 239-289. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Whaley, Lindsay. 1997. Introduction to Typology: The Unity and Diversity of Language. London: Sage.
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90(1-2): 1-25.
Zanuttini, Raffaella & Portner, Paul. 2003. Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language 79(1): 39-81.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Mwinlaaru, Isaac N.
2024. What is finiteness in Dagaare?. Journal of World Languages
Van Olmen, Daniël
2024. Specialization and finiteness (a)symmetry in imperative negation: with a comparison to standard negation. Linguistic Typology 28:2 ► pp. 205 ff.
Heine, Bernd
2023. The Grammar of Interactives,
Ranger, Graham
2023. Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T. and Long, H., The Rise of Discourse Markers. CogniTextes 24
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 november 2024. 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.