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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asher, N., Lascarides, A.: Indirect Speech Acts. Synthese 128, 183–228 (2001)
Charlow, N.: Directives. Ms (2009a)
Charlow, N.: What we know and what to do. Ms (2009b)
Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M.: Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. Diss., ILLC (1984)
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
Hawthorne, J., Stanley, J.: Knowledge and action. The Journal of Philosophy 105, 571–590 (2008)
Kolodny, N., MacFarlane, J.: Ifs and oughts. Ms (2009), http://johnmacfarlane.net/ifs-and-oughts.pdf
Kratzer, A.: The notional category of modality. In: Eikmeyer, H., Rieser, H. (eds.) Words, Worlds, and Contexts, pp. 38–74. De Gruyter, Berlin (1981)
Krifka, M.: Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9, 1–40 (2001)
Krifka, M.: Semantics below and above speech acts. Talk delivered at Stanford (2004) http://amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/Talks/StanfordLecture2004.pdf
Lewis, D.: General semantics. Synthese 22, 18–67 (1970)
Mastop, R.: What can you do? Ph.D. Diss., ILLC (2005)
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/
Portner, P.: Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics 15, 351–383 (2007)
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
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
Stenius, E.: Mood and language game. Synthese 17, 254–274 (1967) doi:10.1007/BF00485030
Weirich, P.: Decision when desires are uncertain. In: Bradie, M., Sayre, K. (eds.) Reason and Decision, pp. 69–75. Bowling Green State UP (1982)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)