A Semantic Map for Imperative-Hortatives

Auwera, Johan van der; Dobrushina, Nina; Goussev, Valentin

doi:10.1057/9780230524637_3

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This gives us the core sense of the turn as directive -it directs the recipient in some way (to do something such as hold a tortilla with both hands while eating it, or desist in doing something such as playing with leftover egg). Linguists would describe the directions to desist as 'prohibitive' (van der Auwera et al, 2008).…”

Section: Directivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite the published version.This item was submitted to Loughborough's Institutional Repository (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) by the author and is made available under the following Creative Commons Licence conditions.For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ Representing Reality, which attempted to provide a systematic overview, integration and contingencies as a resource of the speaker rather than of the recipient. In a sense the entitlement claimed is 'to tell' rather than 'to ask'. In sequences involving multiple / repeated directives, non-compliance led to upgraded (more entitled and less contingent) directives. The difference in the entitlement claimed, the response options available and the trajectory of multiple requests/directives suggests participants orient to requests and directives as different actions, rather than more or less forceful formulations of the same.

show abstract

Section: Directivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the preceding discussion suggests, the volitional mood paradigm is 'fractured': we find somewhat different, but related, meanings for specific cells in the paradigm. This makes it difficult to claim that a volitional mood paradigm is 'deficient', since such deficiency is not exceptional: the imperative hierarchy formulated in van der Auwera et al (2004), for instance, predicts that cross-linguistically different person-number combinations may be associated with different forms, or indeed, with no forms at all. Thus, in South Slavic we find a somewhat sparse but typical inflected paradigm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Volitional Mood in South Slavic with a Focus on Bulgarian

Popova

Spencer

2020

linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we survey some of the inflected and periphrastic volitional mood paradigms in South Slavic with a focus on Bulgarian data. Our review confirms typological observations in the literature that volitional mood paradigms tend to ‘fracture’, in that the cross-categorisation with different person/number features leads to systematic associations with different meanings and, typologically, frequent associations with different forms. This makes it difficult to argue that non-existent inflected forms are gaps in the inflected paradigm. Because of this periphrastic volitional mood forms that exist alongside inflected forms have to be seen as independent (syntactic) paradigms, rather than forms that fill missing cells in inflected paradigms, i.e. the product of feature intersection. Like more canonical periphrases, however, syntactic volitional mood forms are non-compositional and exhibit an organisation akin to the content-form paradigm organisation of inflected paradigms developed in certain inferential-realizational approaches to morphology. Following some recent formalisations, we suggest a tentative analysis of the most productive periphrastic volitional mood forms in Bulgarian based on the assumption that their properties are constrained partially by the morphology and partially in the syntax.

show abstract

“…However, whereas many languages do in fact have special inflectional forms for some of these categories, it is not clear whether there is a single language with a full paradigm for all of them. On the other hand, there seem to be some implicational connections between the existence of some of these categories in a language with a true morphological imperative, being the crosslinguistically most unmarked category, as proposed in van der Auwera et al (2004).…”

Section: Volume Imentioning

confidence: 93%