Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2016
Edited by Jenny Audring and Sander Lestrade
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 33] 2016
► pp. 41–53
Imperatives and politeness in Dutch
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 21 December 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.33.04hoo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.33.04hoo
Abstract
Imperatives are usually thought of as direct and therefore impolite. However, imperatives such as Have some coffee, Enjoy your holiday, or Sleep well are not considered impolite. The reason seems to be that these imperatives refer to actions that are beneficial to the hearer only. We make a distinction between two types of imperatives, those referring to actions that are beneficial to the speaker and those that are beneficial to the hearer. We have conducted an experiment in order to examine the relation between the two types of imperatives and how they are perceived by speakers of Dutch. The results show that there is indeed a significant difference in interpretation between the two types of imperatives in Dutch. In addition, we have tested the effects of adding a politeness marker alsjeblieft ‘please’ or discourse particles to the imperatives.
Keywords: imperative, politeness, requests, experiment, discourse particles
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Three hypotheses on the interpretation of imperatives in Dutch
- 2.1Speaker’s versus hearer’s interest
- 2.2Adding the politeness marker alsjeblieft ‘please’ to imperatives
- 2.3Adding discourse particles to imperatives in Dutch
- 3.The experiment
- 3.1Methodology
- 3.1.1Participants
- 3.1.2Materials
- 3.1.3Pretest
- 3.1.4Design
- 3.1.5Procedure
- 3.1.6Data analysis
- 3.2Results
- 3.3Discussion
- 3.1Methodology
- 4.Conclusion
- Acknowledgments
References
References (25)
Blum-Kulka, S. 1987. “Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different?” Journal of Pragmatics 111.131–146.
Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1978. “Universals in language use: politeness phenomena”. Questions and politeness. Strategies in social interaction ed. by E.N. Goody, 56–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curl, T. S. & P. Drew. 2008. “Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 411.129–153.
de Haan, Sies. 1992. “‘Vul de bon in en win een reis!’ Over imperatieven in reclameteksten”. De kunst van de grammatica. Artikelen aangeboden aan Frida Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst bij haar afscheid als hoogleraar Taalkunde van het hedendaags Nederlands aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam ed. by E.G. Schermer-Vermeer, W.G. Klooster & A.F. Florijn, 95–109. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1976. “Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives”. Language in Society 51.25–66.
Fortuin, E. & R. Boogaart. 2009. “Imperative as conditional: From constructional to compositional semantics”. Cognitive Linguistics 201.641–673.
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation”. Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts ed. by P. Cole & J. L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan. <[URL]> (5 June 2016).
Hogeweg, L., E. McCready & G. Winterstein. 2012. “Formal approaches to discourse particles and modal adverbs”. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung: International Journal for Language Data Processing. 35/36.5–10.
Kirsner, Robert S. 2003. “On the interaction of the Dutch pragmatic particles hoor and hè with the imperative and Infinitivus Pro Imperativo”. LOT Occasional Series 11.59–96. Utrecht: LOT Publications.
Mulder, Gijs. 1998. Indirecte en directe directieven in het Spaans: een analytisch en empirisch onderzoek naar taalhandelingen in het Spaans. (University of Amsterdam, PhD dissertation) Den Haag: Holland Academic Graphics.
Rossi, G. 2012. “Bilateral and unilateral requests: the use of imperatives and Mi X? interrogatives in Italian”. Discourse processes 491.426–458.
Sato, S. 2008. “Use of ‘please’ in American and New Zealand English”. Journal of Pragmatics 401.1249–1278.
Searle, John R. 1975. “Indirect speech acts”. Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts ed. by P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.
Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Perevozchikova, Tatiana
Sadowski, Sebastian, Helen de Hoop & Laura Meijburg
Mulder, Gijs & Patricia Sánchez Carrasco
de Hoop, Helen & Gijs Mulder
2022. Claiming common ground with utterance-final particle hoor in Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands 39 ► pp. 88 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 2025. 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.
