Cover not available

In:Finiteness and Nominalization
Edited by Claudine Chamoreau and Zarina Estrada-Fernández
[Typological Studies in Language 113] 2016
► pp. 243–268

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

On non-finiteness and canonical imperatives

 | University of Cologne
Published online: 23 June 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.113.10hei
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.
References (54)
References
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2008. The Manambu Language of East Sepik, Papua New Guinea. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Imperatives and Commands [Oxford Studies in Linguistic Theory]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1965[1934]. Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: Fischer. Reprint of Jena: Fischer.: Fischer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Childs, G. Tucker. 1995. A Grammar of Kisi, a Southern Atlantic Language [Mouton Grammar Library 16]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol. 2: Grammatical Topics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald & Bourcier, Daniele. 1980. Les mots du discours. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faraclas, Nick. 1996. Nigerian Pidgin. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Floricic, Franck & Molinu, Lucia. 2012. Romance monosyllabic imperatives and markedness. Ms.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Johnston, E. 2005. A Grammar of Mina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara. 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 395-413. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14(3): 383-398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York NY: MacMillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statements: Linguistics and Poetics. New York NY: T.A. Sebeok.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4): 848-893. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kavalova, Yordanka. 2007. And-parenthetical clauses. In Parentheticals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 106], Nicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds), 145-172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153-185.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey. 2000. Turkish Grammar, 2nd edn. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morris, Henry Francis & Kirwan, Brian Edmond. 1957. A Runyankore Grammar. Nairobi: Eagle Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newman, Paul. 2000. The Hausa Language: An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Osumi, Midori. 1995. Tinrin Grammar. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rivero, María & Terzi, Arhonto. 1995. Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood. Journal of Linguistics 31: 301-332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511-580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Theticity. In Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe, Giuliano Bernini & Marcia Schwartz, 255-308. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Takahashi, Hidemitsu. 2005. Imperatives in subordinate clauses. Annual Report on Cultural Science 117: 45-87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Imperatives in concessive clauses: compatibility between constructions. <[URL]>
Veselinova, Ljuba N. 2006. Suppletion in Verb Paradigms: Bits and Pieces of the Puzzle. [Typological Studies in Language 67]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1963. Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb. Celtica 6: 1-49.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wehr, Barbara. 2000. Zur Beschreibung der Syntax des franais parlé (mit einem Exkurs zu “thetisch” und “kategorisch”). In Diskursanalyse: Untersuchungen zum gesprochenen Französisch, Barbara Wehr & Helga Thomaßen (eds), 239-289. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay. 1997. Introduction to Typology: The Unity and Diversity of Language. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90(1-2): 1-25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella & Portner, Paul. 2003. Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language 79(1): 39-81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Mwinlaaru, Isaac N.
2025. What is finiteness in Dagaare?. Journal of World Languages 11:1 ► pp. 218 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Fangqiong Zhan
2024. Review of Bernd Heine, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva and Haiping Long. 2021. The Rise of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, xi+308 pp. ISBN 978-1-108-83385-1. Russian Journal of Linguistics 28:4 ► pp. 1000 ff. DOI logo
Ranger, Graham
2023. Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T. and Long, H., The Rise of Discourse Markers. CogniTextes 24 DOI logo
Kaltenböck, Gunther
2020. Formulaic language and Discourse Grammar. In Grammar and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 70], ► pp. 233 ff. DOI logo
Heine, Bernd
2018. Are there two different ways of approaching grammaticalization?. In New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 202], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Heine, Bernd
2023. The Grammar of Interactives, DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Dualistic approaches to the analysis of forms and structures in languages. In Grammar and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 70], ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue