Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10142/610717
Title:
When terminology matters : The imperative as a comparative concept
Authors:
Jary, Mark; Kissine, Mikhail
Abstract:
The imperative should be thought of as a comparative concept, defined as a sentence type whose only prototypical function is the performance of the whole range of directive speech acts. Furthermore, for a non-­‐second-­‐person form to count as an imperative it must be homogenous with the second-­‐person form, thereby allowing true imperative paradigms to be distinguished from those that recruit alternative structures. This definition of the imperative sentence type allows more accurate crosslinguistic analysis of imperative paradigms, and provides principled grounds for distinguishing between imperative and so-­‐called ‘hortative’ and ‘jussive’ forms. It also helps to clarify the irrealis — or better — potential status of imperatives, and suggests an explanation for the crosslinguistic variability in the non-­‐directive occurrence of imperatives in good wishes.
Affiliation:
University of Roehampton; LaDisco, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Citation:
When terminology matters : The imperative as a comparative concept. Linguistics. Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages 119–148
Publisher:
De Gruyter
Journal:
Linguistics
Issue Date:
6-Jan-2016
DOI:
10.1515/ling-2015-0039
Type:
Article
Language:
en
Description:
Accepted Date: 2015; Version: Author Manuscript / Post-Print; Exceptions: None
ISSN:
0024-3949
Appears in Collections:
Department of Media, Culture and Language Collection

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorJary, Marken
dc.contributor.authorKissine, Mikhailen
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-25T15:05:46Zen
dc.date.available2016-05-25T15:05:46Zen
dc.date.issued2016-01-06en
dc.identifier.citationWhen terminology matters : The imperative as a comparative concept. Linguistics. Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages 119–148en
dc.identifier.issn0024-3949en
dc.identifier.doi10.1515/ling-2015-0039en
dc.descriptionAccepted Date: 2015; Version: Author Manuscript / Post-Print; Exceptions: Noneen
dc.description.abstractThe imperative should be thought of as a comparative concept, defined as a sentence type whose only prototypical function is the performance of the whole range of directive speech acts. Furthermore, for a non-­‐second-­‐person form to count as an imperative it must be homogenous with the second-­‐person form, thereby allowing true imperative paradigms to be distinguished from those that recruit alternative structures. This definition of the imperative sentence type allows more accurate crosslinguistic analysis of imperative paradigms, and provides principled grounds for distinguishing between imperative and so-­‐called ‘hortative’ and ‘jussive’ forms. It also helps to clarify the irrealis — or better — potential status of imperatives, and suggests an explanation for the crosslinguistic variability in the non-­‐directive occurrence of imperatives in good wishes.en
dc.description.provenanceApproved for entry into archive by Anne Pietsch (a.pietsch@roehampton.ac.uk) on 2016-05-25T15:05:45Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Linguisticsfinal.pdf: 412611 bytes, checksum: 71403e69db8edca012b041b593255aec (MD5)en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2016-05-25T15:05:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Linguisticsfinal.pdf: 412611 bytes, checksum: 71403e69db8edca012b041b593255aec (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-01-06en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherDe Gruyteren
dc.titleWhen terminology matters : The imperative as a comparative concepten
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Roehampton; LaDisco, Université Libre de Bruxellesen
dc.identifier.journalLinguisticsen
All Items in RURR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.