Skip to main content

Restricting and Embedding Imperatives

  • Conference paper
Logic, Language and Meaning

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6042))

  • 1770 Accesses

Abstract

We use imperatives to refute a naïve analysis of update potentials (force-operators attaching to sentences), arguing for a dynamic analysis of imperative force as restrictable, directed, and embeddable. We propose a dynamic, non-modal analysis of conditional imperatives, as a counterpoint to static, modal analyses (e.g., Schwager [16]). Our analysis retains Kratzer’s [8] analysis of if-clauses as restrictors of some operator (with Schwager), but avoids typing it as a generalized quantifier over worlds (against her), instead as a dynamic force operator (cf. Portner [13, 14]; Potts [15]). Arguments for a restrictor treatment (but against a quantificational treatment) are mustered, and we propose a novel analysis of update on conditional imperatives (and an independently motivated revision of the standard ordering-semantics for root modals that makes use of it). Finally, we argue that imperative force is embeddable under an operation much like dynamic conjunction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Asher, N., Lascarides, A.: Indirect Speech Acts. Synthese 128, 183–228 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Charlow, N.: Directives. Ms (2009a)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Charlow, N.: What we know and what to do. Ms (2009b)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M.: Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. Diss., ILLC (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Han, C.: The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in universal grammar. Ph.D. Diss. University of Pennsylvania (1998), http://www.sfu.ca/~chunghye/papers/dissertation.pdf

  6. Hawthorne, J., Stanley, J.: Knowledge and action. The Journal of Philosophy 105, 571–590 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kolodny, N., MacFarlane, J.: Ifs and oughts. Ms (2009), http://johnmacfarlane.net/ifs-and-oughts.pdf

  8. Kratzer, A.: The notional category of modality. In: Eikmeyer, H., Rieser, H. (eds.) Words, Worlds, and Contexts, pp. 38–74. De Gruyter, Berlin (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Krifka, M.: Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9, 1–40 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Krifka, M.: Semantics below and above speech acts. Talk delivered at Stanford (2004) http://amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/Talks/StanfordLecture2004.pdf

  11. Lewis, D.: General semantics. Synthese 22, 18–67 (1970)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Mastop, R.: What can you do? Ph.D. Diss., ILLC (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Portner, P.: The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In: Watanabe, K., Young, R. (eds.) Proceedings of SALT 14. CLC Publications (2004) http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mJlZGQ4N/

  14. Portner, P.: Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics 15, 351–383 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Potts, C.: Keeping world and will apart: A discourse-based semantics for imperatives. NYU Syntax/Semantics Lecture Series (2003) http://people.umass.edu/potts/talks/potts-nyu-handout.pdf

  16. Schwager, M.: Conditionalized imperatives. In: Gibson, M., Howell, J. (eds.) Proceedings of SALT 16. CLC Publications (2006) http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~scheiner/papers/schwagerFEB07.pdf

  17. Stenius, E.: Mood and language game. Synthese 17, 254–274 (1967) doi:10.1007/BF00485030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Weirich, P.: Decision when desires are uncertain. In: Bradie, M., Sayre, K. (eds.) Reason and Decision, pp. 69–75. Bowling Green State UP (1982)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Charlow, N. (2010). Restricting and Embedding Imperatives. In: Aloni, M., Bastiaanse, H., de Jager, T., Schulz, K. (eds) Logic, Language and Meaning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6042. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_23

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-14286-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-14287-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics