Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar: Studies in honour of Frits Beukema (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 103)

Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today ...

Author: Wim Van Der Wurff

326 downloads 964 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

Series Editors Werner Abraham

Elly van Gelderen

University of Vienna

Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Cedric Boeckx

Ian Roberts

Harvard University

Cambridge University

Guglielmo Cinque

Ken Saﬁr

University of Venice

Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ

Günther Grewendorf

Lisa deMena Travis

J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt

McGill University

Liliane Haegeman

Sten Vikner

University of Lille, France

University of Aarhus

Hubert Haider

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart

University of Salzburg

University of Groningen

Christer Platzack University of Lund

Volume 103 Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar Studies in honour of Frits Beukema Edited by Wim van der Wurﬀ

Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar Studies in honour of Frits Beukema

Edited by

Wim van der Wurﬀ Newcastle University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Imperative clauses in generative grammar : studies in honour of Frits Beukema / edited by Wim van der Wurﬀ. p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166–0829 ; v. 103) Includes index. 1. Grammar, Comparative and general--imperative. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general--Clauses. 3. Generative grammar. I. Beukema, F. H. (Frits H.) II. Wurﬀ, Wim van der. P281.I48 2007 415’´.0182--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 3367 7 (Hb; alk. paper)

2007003848

© 2007 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microﬁlm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

List of contributors Imperative clauses in generative grammar: An introduction Wim van der Wurff On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and German Sjef Barbiers

 



Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives Hans Bennis



Clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives Marcel den Dikken and Mariví Blasco



Topics in imperatives Hilda Koopman



Embedded imperatives Christer Platzack



How to say no and don’t: Negative imperatives in Romance and Germanic Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff



Analysing word order in the English imperative Eric Potsdam



On participial imperatives Johan Rooryck and Gertjan Postma



‘Inverted’ imperatives Laura Rupp



Pronominal clitics and imperatives in South Slavic Olga Mišeska Tomid



Index of languages



Index of names



Index of terms



List of contributors

Sjef Barbiers Meertens Instituut Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences P.O. Box 94264 NL-1090 GG Amsterdam The Netherlands [email protected] Hans Bennis Meertens Instituut Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences P.O. Box 94264 NL-1090 GG Amsterdam The Netherlands [email protected]

Hilda Koopman Linguistics Department UCLA 3125 Campbell Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 USA [email protected] Christer Platzack Institutionen för nordiska språk Lunds universitet Helgonabacken 14 SE-223 62 Lund Sweden [email protected]

Mariví Blasco Department of Foreign Languages Iona College 715 North Avenue New Rochelle, NY 10801 USA [email protected]

Gertjan Postma Meertens Instituut Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences P.O. Box 94264 NL-1090 GG Amsterdam The Netherlands [email protected]

Marcel den Dikken Linguistics Program CUNY Graduate Center 365 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10016-4309 USA [email protected]

Eric Potsdam Program in Linguistics University of Florida P.O. Box 115454 Gainesville, Florida 32611-5454 USA [email protected]

 List of contributors

Johan Rooryck Leiden University Center for Linguistics LUCL P.O. Box 9515 NL-2300 RA Leiden The Netherlands [email protected]

Olga Mišeska Tomid Leiden University Center for Linguistics LUCL P.O. Box 9515 NL-2300 RA Leiden The Netherlands [email protected]

Laura Rupp Department of English Language and Culture Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam De Boelelaan 1105 NL-1081 HV Amsterdam The Netherlands [email protected]

Wim van der Wurff School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU United Kingdom [email protected]

Imperative clauses in generative grammar An introduction

Wim van der Wurff Newcastle University

.

The study of imperatives

Studying imperative clauses within the generative framework should, in principle, be a rewarding undertaking. This is because such clauses instantiate various phenomena which directly relate to some of the core concerns that generative inquiry has addressed over the years. In English imperatives, for example, we come across main clause empty subjects, case-marked subjects in the absence of a verb overtly showing tense or agreement, empty objects with definite reference, do-support in negative and emphatic clauses even when the verb is be or auxiliary have, variable positioning of subjects (with a strong preference for subject-auxiliary inversion in negative clauses) and in certain dialectal varieties systematic inversion of the subject and the lexical verb (whose pronominal object can separate it from the subject). Altogether, one might think, this sounds like a rich field to explore. However, it is not always easy to analyse (or even find) these riches, since imperatives have a further property that is somewhat disconcerting. Specifically, the imperative verb tends to be a form that is ‘unmarked or minimally marked’ (Palmer 1986: 29) and the imperative clause as a whole is ‘an especially poorly elaborated clause type formally’ (Schmerling 1982: 212). Hence, it sometimes seems there is little that can be learned from studying these short verbal forms and the short clauses that they occur in. This is true not only of English, which tends to have little grammatical marking anyway, but also of languages that otherwise show conspicuous amounts of visible morphology. In Latin, for example, the usual elaborate marking of verbs for tense, mood, aspect, person and number is reduced to zero in the case of the imperatives in (1a–c) (Baldi 1999: 405). (1)

a.

b.

Dic! say.. ‘Say (it)! Duc! lead.. ‘Lead (them)!’

(from verbal root dīc- ‘say’)

(from verbal root dūc- ‘lead’)



Wim van der Wurff

c.

Fac! do.. ‘Do (it)!’

(from verbal root fac- ‘make/do’)

It is probably for this reason that scant attention is paid to the imperative in most of the major landmarks of the linguistic literature, both in generative and other frameworks. Yet, in more encyclopaedically oriented works some discussion of the imperative is often included and separate articles dealing with the imperative have been – and continue to be – published at a regular rate. The imperative also appears to hold some fascination for Ph.D. students: at least 25 theses have been written about it since the mid-1960s.1 In what follows, I will first discuss some early generative work on imperatives, since it was there that many topics and interests were identified that still occupy a central place in the study of imperatives (Section 2). This will be followed by a review of more recent studies, which in this case means work carried out in the 1980s and later. The topics covered will be the imperative as a clause type (Section 3), the nature of the subject of imperatives (Section 4), the properties of the imperative verb itself (Section 5), the behaviour of negative imperatives (Section 6) and constituent order in imperative clauses (Section 7). At the relevant points, it will also be shown how the articles in the present volume address some of the questions that have played an important role in imperative inquiry. As will become clear, the new approaches or new answers that are proposed in turn point at possible avenues for future work, which it is indeed hoped this introduction and the following papers will stimulate.

. .

Early generative approaches to imperatives A grand picture in the making

In generative work on imperatives conducted over the years, it is not difficult to find signs of the times. Thus, early work such as Chomsky (1955: 691–694), Lees and Klima (1963: 22), Lees (1964) and Postal (1964: 253–255) emphasises that . Ph.D. work carried out in the 1960s and 70s yielded Bakker (1966), Millward (1971), Wobst (1972), Moutafakis (1975), Vairel-Carron (1975), Voelz (1977), Ukaji (1978), Piperek (1980); the 1980s produced Al-Daifallah (1984), Egbe (1985), Davies (1986), De Rycker (1990), Zhang (1990); the 1990s gave Risselada (1993), Späth (1996), Gysi (1997), Potsdam (1998), Rupp (1999), Han (2000a) and Rahardi (2000); and at least five imperative Ph.D.’s have so far been completed in the twenty-first century (Moon 2001, Jensen 2003a, Diehl 2004, Baum 2005, Mastop 2005). Separate chapters or sections on the imperative also appear in several further Ph.D.’s, such as Clark (1991), Zanuttini (1991), Manning (1996), Fortuin (2001), Pirvulescu (2002) and Zeijlstra (2004). (Where such theses have subsequently been published without much alteration, the reference is to the published version).

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

syntactic analysis reveals the absence of a subject in imperatives to be only apparent. It is argued that, at a more abstract level, this subject is you, which at some point is (optionally) deleted. Its presence leaves traces in syntactic phenomena like reflexivisation, as shown in (2). (2)

a. You protect yourself! b. * You protect himself!

Similarly, the idea was explored in early work that the abstract representation of imperative clauses contains not only a subject but also a (modal) auxiliary, which is later deleted. The auxiliary was thought to be will, since this would account for the future time reference of imperatives and for the fact that sentences like (3), sometimes called peremptory declaratives, can function as directives. (3)

You will give back the money you’ve stolen.

Assumption of an underlying you and will also seemed to yield the prospect of assimilating tag questions following imperatives, as in (4), to tag questions in declaratives like (5). (4) (5)

Stop it, will you? You will not mind, will you?

Here, clearly, the argumentation reflects the early generative concern to establish that language is full of so-far unnoticed syntactic phenomena that are rulegoverned and susceptible to analysis in terms of underlying phrase markers that get converted into surface structures by means of transformational operations.2 Around the time of publication of Chomsky’s Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, as the nature of the relevant operations and the relations between them became the focus of inquiry, an important question was whether imperatives obey the principle that transformations do not change meaning. This is at least in doubt if the imperative in (2a) is derived from exactly the same underlying structure as

. What the argumentation also reflects is a somewhat language-particular perspective on imperative facts. Thus, the postulation of an underlying will in sentences like (2a) and (4) makes the analysis inapplicable to languages in which the imperative has a form distinct from the infinitive; but there appears to have been no realisation at the time of the need to take on board cross-linguistic variability in imperatives. Even Stockwell, Bowen and Martin (1965: 230–231), who explicitly contrast the imperatives of Spanish and English, seem oblivious to the potential problem. Immediately after describing the various endings of Spanish imperative verbs, they advance the tag-question argument for an underlying will in English. On the other hand, recent developments (see Section 5) have transformed will-deletion into a serious analysis of the infinitival imperatives attested in various languages. It is therefore not necessary to agree with Bosque (1980: 417), who claims that the ‘will-deletion rule’ is ‘a possibility that makes little sense in any language other than English.’





Wim van der Wurff

the declarative in (6), the difference lying only in the transformations that they undergo (in particular, you deletion and Aux deletion applying in imperatives but not declaratives). (6)

You will protect yourself.

Katz and Postal (1964: 74–79) solve this problem by positing an I(MP) morpheme that is present in the underlying structure of imperative clauses and that expresses RIM meaning (i.e. whatever verbs like Request, Insist, deMand etc., as indexed by this acronym, have by way of shared meaning). The IMP morpheme accounts for the paraphrase relation holding between (2a) and (7), which have shared RIM meaning, for the ambiguity of sentences like (3), which can either have or lack IMP, and for the shared semantic anomaly of utterances like (8) and (9), in which a non-volitional V is selected by an element with RIM meaning. (7) (8) (9)

I urge you to protect yourself. *Want more money! *I request you to want more money.

Katz and Postal are at some pains, however, to argue that the existence of the abstract IMP morpheme can be justified entirely on the basis of syntactic arguments. It will be needed, for example, to formulate the generalisations responsible for the ungrammaticality of (10)–(13). (10) (11) (12) (13)

*Maybe drive the car! (restrictions involving sentence adverbials) *Hardly touch your food! (restrictions involving ‘negative preverbs’) *I’ll give you a dollar and come here! (restrictions on co-ordination) *He said that drink the beer! (ban on embedded imperatives)

Imperatives were thus shown to fit into a model of grammar in which semantic interpretation operates exclusively on underlying structure. In the generative semantics approach that developed around the same time, this idea became even more prominent, inspiring analyses of imperatives in which they were viewed as being dominated by a performative clause with the meaning ‘I command/request you’, just as declaratives and interrogatives were thought to be dominated by clauses meaning, roughly, ‘I tell you’ and ‘I ask you’ (McCawley 1968: 155–161; Sadock 1969, 1970, 1974; Ross 1970; the idea is mentioned – but not further pursued – by Katz and Postal 1964: 149 n.9; its roots lie in Austin 1962: 32).3 In Sadock (1970: 223), for example, the structure of a sentence like (14a) is represented as in (14b), where the higher S is an imperative ‘hypersentence’ containing an abstract verb ‘impere’.

. As Hamblin (1987: 97) points out, the view of the imperative as being dominated by a declarative (of the performative type) can be contrasted with an earlier (semantic) analysis that had all declaratives dominated by an imperative, i.e. Know that… (Russell 1940: 26–27).

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

(14)

a. b.

Give me a drink! [ [speaker] ‘impere’ [addressee] [ [addressee] give [speaker] a drink]]

Justification for this type of structure was sought in both syntax and semantics. Most of the syntactic arguments applied not to imperatives but to declaratives, and many centred on the behaviour of reflexives and other elements marked for person. A sentence like (15a), for example, was thought to reveal the hidden presence of a first person argument in a higher clause (i.e. the I subject of the performative clause, shown in the approximate underlying structure (15b)), which could act as a binder for myself. (15)

a. b.

As for myself, I wasn’t invited. I am telling you that, as for myself, I wasn’t invited.

An argument specifically relating to imperatives (first advanced by McCawley 1968: 156) was that a structure as in (14b) allowed assimilation of subject deletion in imperative clauses to Equi NP deletion as in (16). In both cases, the deletion was triggered by a higher coreferential NP. (16)

I order you [you to give me a drink]

In Sadock (1970), the performative analysis of imperatives was taken a step further by also applying it to sentences like (17), in which a question appears to have the same pragmatic function as an imperative.4 (17)

Will you stop now?

Sadock proposes to analyse sentences like (17) as consisting of two coordinated hypersentences, roughly equivalent to I ask you whether you will stop now and I command you that you stop now. Conjunction reduction was invoked for the derivation leading to the surface form. Further attempts to obtain a closer correspondence between underlying structure and pragmatic function can be found in Sadock (1974: 139–146) and Ascoli (1978), who consider several non-command uses of imperatives. These include conditional use (18), wish use (19) and instruction use (20). For each of these ‘pseudo-imperatives’, a different underlying performative matrix clause was proposed; (18)–(20) show Ascoli’s formulations.5 (18) (19) (20)

Say one word and I will kick you. Sleep well! Shake well before using.

(I DARE YOU - S) (I WISH - S) (I RECOMMEND -S)

. Sadock (1970: 237 n.1) explains how he coined the label ‘whimperative’ for these question imperatives, saying that ‘Grimm’s law was allowed to apply to the first morpheme for decorum’s sake’. . Sadock’s formulations are more complex; for sentences like (18), for example, he suggests an underlying structure along the following lines: ‘The fact that saying one word will cause me to kick you causes that I order you not to say one word.’





Wim van der Wurff

The overall result of these various ideas and suggestions was that transformational analysis seemed to hold the promise of providing insight into a whole range of sentence types that could have imperative and imperative-like functions. These included straightforward commands as in (2a), tagged commands as in (4), peremptory declaratives as in (3), explicit performatives as in (7), question imperatives as in (17) and the kind of non-command imperatives seen in (18)–(20). .

The grand picture being shredded

However, further work revealed that this impressive grand picture did not stand up too well when its details were examined more closely.6 Problems were soon identified with the assumption that there was an underlying will in imperatives, which would remain visible in peremptory declaratives (You will be silent now) and also surface in tags (Be silent now, will you?). The problem of how to make sure that you deletion did not apply unless there had also been will deletion (*Will close the door!) remained unsolved (Luelsdorff 1977: 66). No convincing proposals were made either to specify how exactly will comes to appear in the imperative tag. It was usually assumed that this was done through a copying operation, with subsequent deletion of you and will in the imperative clause itself. However, Arbini (1969) showed that the lack of contradictoriness between (21a) and (21b) would make this difficult, since it would lead to the surprising conclusion that positive and negative imperatives have the same meaning. (21)

a. b.

Give me that plate, will you. Give me that plate, won’t you.

Moreover, if there is an underlying will in all imperatives, it is somewhat surprising to find that imperatives allow tags with the modals would, can and could as well (Be quiet, would you/can you/could you) (Bolinger 1967: 337–338) and that negation of imperatives should require the insertion of do (*Not say that!/*Will not say that!) (Long 1966: 207).7 It was also pointed out that will in an imperative . That there might be a problem of this type was already noted in Sadock (1969), which is actually an extended exposition and defence of the hypersentence approach. While Sadock supplies rather general (semantic) arguments for this approach, he acknowledges that Ross (1970) (distributed already in 1968) provides more precise syntactic evidence from English, but then points out that Ross ‘presents no real analysis’ of the relevant data and ‘always avoids a discussion of the nature of the phenomena’ (Sadock 1969: 365 n. 27). The sentence in (15a) is a good example: without discussion of principles of binding, merely citing (15a) cannot really count as convincing evidence for or against anything. . Sadock (1970: 229–230) offers a solution to some of these problems, by deriving tagged imperatives from imperative-like questions like (17), which indeed allow all of will/would/can/ could, with or without not. According to Sadock, sentences like (21a,b) would be due to some type of movement affecting the subject and modal. However, as pointed out by Bouton (1982: 27–28), this leaves unexplained tagged imperatives like Do (not) tell them, will you, You behave

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

tag has volitional meaning rather than a straightforward future meaning, casting doubt on the idea that the future meaning of imperatives is directly reflected in (or caused by) the presence of an underlying will (Bolinger 1967: 337–338). Finally, the idea that imperatives always have future meaning was questioned on the basis of examples like (22), which appears to have present meaning, and (23), which appears to refer to an act in the past (albeit an unverified past) (Downes 1977: 86).8 (22) (23)

Be thinking nice thoughts about me! Don’t have hit your head! (Parent upon hearing a crash in the back room)

Several problems were also found to attach to the performative analysis of imperatives. One concerned the deletion of the performative clause. Even in work first proposing the performative analysis (Sadock 1969: 356–357 and Ross 1970: 249), it was acknowledged that there were questions about the proper formulation of this rule (which would have to delete the subject, the performative verb, the indirect object, but not the complement clause). No headway was made on this point in the following years.9 Another difficulty concerned the assimilation of you deletion in imperatives to Equi NP deletion, as shown in (16). This too appears to be an idea easier proposed than implemented, since it faces problems relating to the obligatory nature of Equi vs. the non-obligatory deletion of imperative subjects (with German polite imperatives actually prohibiting the deletion of the subject Sie) and to the existence of number agreement in imperatives but not infinitives in languages like German and French (Schmerling 1975). Moreover, the performative analysis seems to provide no explanation for certain word order facts

yourself, will you and No-one say a word, will you. See below for general problems with Sadock’s analysis of imperative-like questions as real imperatives. . As Schmerling (1982: 214 n.3) and others have pointed out, for some reason, examples referring to the past, with have, tend to be negative and thus feature don’t (see also the further examples in Bolinger 1967: 349–251). A similar preference for negation in passive imperatives in English is noted by Bolinger (1967: 347–348), who gives examples like *Be taken to church by your sister! versus Don’t be frightened by anything he says!. However, as Bolinger points out, it is semantic or pragmatic rather than syntactic factors that are responsible for this distributional pattern. Assuming a simple directive meaning for the imperative (see 2.5), passive imperatives would not be expected to be frequent, due to absence of an agentive subject. But where some kind of directive nevertheless makes semantic-pragmatic sense, passive imperatives are possible (as witness Bolinger’s Oh come on, be taken in just once – it is not going to hurt you; Kreidler’s 1967: 110, Be envied by everyone!; Ukaji’s 1978: 72–79 examples from early Modern English texts; and Bergh’s 1975 examples from Latin). Since a negative imperative Don’t be V-ed can have the agentive meaning ‘take care that you are not V-ed/resist being V-ed’, it is often more plausible than its positive counterpart. . Sadock (1974) labels the performative elements ‘abstract’ – but the problem remains, now taking the form of questions about the conditions under which certain elements of the clause can be non-overt.





Wim van der Wurff

peculiar to imperatives, such as the consistent subject-verb inversion found in German imperatives with an overt subject (not found in other embedded clauses in the language) and the obligatory enclisis of an object pronoun in French (positive) imperatives like Faites-le ‘do.. it’ (a word order not found in any other French clauses at all). Nor does the analysis help us understand why languages such as Spanish, Italian and Classical Arabic do not allow the simple imperative to be negated and instead resort to the use of a negated subjunctive or some other form in order to express negative commands (Schmerling 1975). The range of imperative facts for which the performative analysis claimed explanatory value shrank further when it was shown that, as far as syntactic behaviour is concerned, peremptory declaratives like (3) and question imperatives like (17) are best regarded as simply being declaratives and interrogatives respectively. Downes (1977) demonstrated in detail that their interpretation in actual utterances is entirely a matter of pragmatics, showing the kind of sensitivity to contextual effects (including the speaker’s and hearer’s beliefs) well known to be characteristic of pragmatic but not syntactic phenomena.10 Similarly, Holmberg (1979) showed that certain properties shared by simple imperatives and question imperatives, formerly thought to be evidence of a shared underlying structure, can in fact be found in other speech acts with directive force as well. Thus, the oddity of (24) and (25), with a non-agentive predicate, is paralleled by the oddity of (26). (24) (25) (26)

?Understand

his lectures! you understand his lectures, please? (i.e. with a request reading) ?You’d better understand his lectures. ?Can

The variety of different structures conventionally or potentially usable as directives is very wide (see the lists in Searle 1975 and especially Pride 1973, who finds an ‘apparently astronomical range of options’, p. 66) and it cannot be realistically claimed that all of them are also syntactically imperatives. Furthermore, the claim by Sadock (1970) that questions such as (17) are ambiguous between a real question reading and an imperative reading was also demolished: while undoubtedly ambiguous expressions can, in certain contexts, be repeated without causing redundancy or contradiction, as shown in (27), this is not the case for (28), as (29) shows (Holmberg 1979: 234–235). (27) (28) (29)

John kicked the bucket without kicking the bucket. Can you close the door? ?If you can close the door, can you close it?

Arguments like these (aided by unresolved debates, as between Sadock 1970 and Green 1975, about the proper form of the performative hypersentences to be . A sketch of the early pragmatic approach to imperatives, and comparison with the syntactic approach of the time, is given in Aarts (1979). Many of the early pragmatic explorations can be found in Cole and Morgan (1975).

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

postulated for (3) and (17)) meant that the empirical coverage of the performative analysis was further reduced. At the same time, attention was drawn to the impossibility of neatly separating command and non-command uses of the imperative (such as the wishes and recommendations of (19)–(20)). In particular, the idea that addition of do was only possible with true commands was shown to be incorrect. Rather, do was argued to convey emphatic affirmation, which is particularly natural in contexts containing an (implied) prior negative; though (30) is odd, (31) is fine (Bolinger 1974). (30) (31)

?Do

be glad! Do be glad at least that she didn’t ask for alimony!

Through such more detailed examination of the data, the grand performative picture, in which all manner of imperative sentences had seemed to fit so beautifully, with some simple criteria sufficing to distinguish the various types, was gradually being torn to rags.11 .

More modest proposals

Subsequent – and also some earlier – work on the imperative was more modest in scope: it refrained from trying to draw in more and more imperative-like phenomena on the basis of perceived similarities in meaning or surface form and instead attempted to provide more detailed analyses of narrower domains of facts. Thus, building on Aspects, some headway was made on the precise formulation and ordering of the various transformational rules that operated in the derivation of simple imperative sentences in English. In Stockwell, Schachter and Partee (1973: 633–671), some eight rules relevant to imperatives are carefully discussed, their structural descriptions, conditions and changes are formulated and their proper order is established. Stockwell et al. retain the IMP morpheme of Katz and Postal (1964) but, mainly on the basis of semantic considerations, relabel it as SJC (Subjunctive), which behaves as an abstract affixal modal. Its presence expresses the similarity between simple imperatives and subjunctives like be in (32), which Stockwell et al. take to be embedded imperatives.12 (32)

He moved that the governor be recalled.

At the same time, Stockwell et al. deny that declaratives and interrogatives with potential directive force, such as (3), (7), and (17), have imperative syntax and . A later commentator on the hypersentence idea observes that ‘the syntactic theory on which this was based is no longer fashionable and it need not be taken too seriously’ (Palmer 1986: 171). . This idea crops up elsewhere as well; see, for example, the more traditionally oriented discussion in Long (1966), who identifies ‘desire’ or ‘urging’ as the element of meaning shared by imperatives and subjunctives.





Wim van der Wurff

they exclude from consideration non-command uses of the imperative, such as (18)–(20). They discuss two possible derivations of imperatives containing a tag, as in (4), but argue that both are unsatisfactory and then leave it at that. They also do not attempt to provide derivations for vocative phrases, as in (33), or let’s sentences, as in (34). (33) (34)

Come here, John! Let’s go.

Their approach thus illustrates well the practice of focusing on a limited set of data that can be more or less well understood, analysing these in detail (in this case, proposing exact formulations for the transformational rules involved in their derivation) and setting aside for later study phenomena felt to be more unclear or problematic.13 Some of the transformations operating in the imperative clause discussed by Stockwell, Schachter and Partee (1973: 633–671), such as reflexivisation and you deletion (in this order) also feature in Culicover (1976: 147–153, 172–174), a shorter and more streamlined presentation of roughly the same material. Culicover, however, suggests (i) that there is no need for an abstract IMP or SJC morpheme in imperatives, its work being done by the fact that imperatives lack an AUX node (note that this entails a complete withdrawal from the performative attempt to directly encode as many aspects of meaning as possible in the level of underlying syntax – all that Culicover requires is some formal difference between imperatives and other clause types, so that rules like you deletion do not overapply); and (ii) that do in imperatives is not inserted by the same rule as inserts do in declaratives – this second point being based on the unique occurrence of do in imperative clauses with have and be, as in (23), repeated here as (35), and (36). (35) (36)

Don’t have hit your head! (parent upon hearing a crash in the back room).14 Do be here when the band begins to play!

. A further example of detailed work on a restricted set of imperative data is Ukaji (1978), a study of imperatives in a corpus of early Modern English texts. It provides a rich collection of descriptive material, clear presentation of the significant generalisations that can be made and a careful account of the transformational rules that need to be assumed. His adoption of the performative framework makes Ukaji vulnerable to the criticisms mentioned above (though he notes that overt performatives are very common in his data), but he does not shirk the task of providing detailed analyses of the data and explicitly notes several of the problems discussed above. . Culicover actually gives the example Don’t have a piece of pizza with your beer! but this is not very revealing since lexical have usually takes do also in declaratives. It is true that auxiliary have is very rare in imperatives (Davies 1986: 16–17) but once a proper context is imagined, it is acceptable; Bolinger (1967: 349–351) gives some further examples.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

By contrast, Stockwell, Schachter and Partee (1973: 660) deal with these facts by positing a rule deleting the modal SJC, which will leave not stranded and thus trigger application of the ordinary rule of do support; a similar proposal can be found in Sadock (1974: 107), where it is will that is deleted (or moved, in the case of tagged imperatives). The difference in approach – attributing the facts of (35)–(36) either to some difference between do(n’t) in imperatives and elsewhere or to some difference between have/be in imperatives and elsewhere – crops up in later work too. As will become clear in 7.1, it can be convincingly demonstrated that the second approach is the correct one. .

Views on subjects, vocatives and tags

A further point that was investigated in some detail in early work was the nature of the subject of imperative clauses and its relation to vocative phrases. In Thorne (1966) it was suggested that an imperative subject always has the feature [+vocative] and a structure as in (37) was attributed to it. (37)

[NP [def. art [VOC you] the][N]]

Here, very much as in the analysis of pronouns by Postal (1966), you is (part of) the determiner. Various deletions take place to yield subjects like you, you children or everybody, somebody (which would occupy the N position), as in (38). (38)

You (children)/somebody/everybody come here!

If the N position in (37) is filled by an ordinary noun and you is deleted, the result will be sentences such as (39), in which the deletions also trigger a specific stress and intonation pattern. (39)

Boys, stop!

Thorne (1966) is in effect here equating imperative subjects with vocatives. But, as Stockwell, Schachter and Partee (1973: 640–647) point out, the intonational differences are problematic. Besides, the somewhat tortuous machinery needed to yield the basic facts leads to several wrong predictions (Downing 1969: 588–589 and Downes 1977: 82) A different account is therefore proposed by Downing (1969), who adopts a performative analysis in which vocative and subject are distinct elements, but vocatives must meet a requirement of coreference with the imperative subject. The imperative subject itself must refer to a subset of the indirect object of the performative verb, so that there can be sentences like (40), in which you1 is plural but your and you2 are singular. (40)

[I request you1 that] one of you1 lend me your car, will you2.

If the reference of the imperative subject is identical to that of the higher indirect object, there is obligatory pronominalisation to you. This explains the difference in acceptability between (41), in which pronominalisation should have applied, and





Wim van der Wurff

(42), in which the reference sets of the imperative subjects are properly included in the reference set of the higher object. (41) (42)

?John

scatter the files. John scatter the files, Bill ransack the desk, Mary watch the door.

Ukaji (1978: 123) takes a similar approach but modifies Downing’s proper inclusion relation to one of intersection, so that (inclusive) we in early Modern English imperatives like (43) will also be covered by it.15 (43)

Then sit we down and let us all consult.

Ukaji (1978: 128) also points out that, in his material, imperative subjects like somebody, everybody and all are often followed by of you, making explicit their essentially second-person nature. Kreidler (1967: 109) in fact posits an underlying of you for all apparently third-person subjects, but Downing (1969: 582), Stockwell, Schachter and Partee (1973) and Downes (1977: 82) note that this does not work well in the case of sentences like (42). Moreover, Bolinger (1967: 336) points out that third-person reflexives as in (44) are possible, suggesting that imperative subjects can be third person grammatically. (44)

Everybody cover themselves!

Since imperative clauses in English usually lack an overt subject, the question could also arise whether they have an underlying subject at all. Virtually all the work reviewed above agrees on saying that, in one form or another, there is an underlying you which subsequently gets deleted (in the performative analysis, there are even two you’s that get deleted). However, Downes (1977) proposes that the imperative subject can be absent altogether. The proper interpretation will follow from the fact that the subject always refers to the addressee (or, to use Levenston’s 1969: 39 formulation, ‘to whom it may concern’). Hence, no overt or underlying you subject is needed. There can of course be an overt subject, but its selection always serves some conversational purpose (for example, identification of the addressee, as in You boys be quiet! or interactional modulation, as in Don’t you try to be clever!). Moreover, Downes points out that the overt subject does not have to be you but can be any NP that is able to refer to the addressee. Hence imperative subjects like you, somebody, everybody, anybody who knows the answer, those in favour, the boy in the corner, and even nobody (among you) are fine, but not a certain girl, my ambassador to you, or the woman who was most influential in Cromwell’s time. If a grammatically third-person subject is used, it can bind a third-person anaphor, as in (44). However, the addressee – as a contextually given though not linguistically

. This suggestion would also provide a natural account of sentences like Don’t you and your brothers try to stop me, without having to assume that the – possibly absent – brothers are among the addressees.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

expressed second person entity – is also able to bind an anaphor, making (45) possible as well. (45)

Everybody cover yourselves!

Some attention was also paid in early work to questions about the nature of the subject in let imperatives. Ukaji (1978: 119–121) proposes that they have an underlying you subject, but Seppänen (1977) points out that there are actually two types of let imperatives, one being the regular imperative of the lexical verb let ‘allow’, as in (46), and one being ‘optative’, as in (47). The first has an underlying you but in the second type, it is the NP following let that appears to be the subject. (46) (47)

Let me/him/us go, won’t you. Let us/let’s help him, shan’t we.

Seppänen cites examples like (47) with various kinds of subjects (Let him have mercy on me, Let this not be misunderstood, Let there be no misunderstanding, Don’t let anyone fool himself ) but states that the subject par excellence is us and that the unique contraction let’s characterises the only ‘optative’ use of let that is truly part of colloquial English.16 When it comes to the question what grammatical category let in (47) belongs to, Seppänen (1977) argues that it is a modal, pointing at the parallels with may used in wishes (May the best man win), such as inverted position, lack of inflection and complementation by a bare infinitive. He notes that the behaviour of let under negation and emphasis is variable (Let’s not go there ~ Don’t let’s go there; L them go there ~ D let them go there) but classifying let as a lexical verb or an invariant particle would not explain these unexpected patterns either. Tag clauses following imperatives are investigated in detail by Bouton (1982). His approach is to determine the effect of the polarity of the imperative clause and the intonation of the tag (fall, rise, high rise) on the possible choices of auxiliaries in the tag, the polarity and tense of the tag and the nature of the subject in the imperative clause and in the tag (which is not restricted to you, as in Push the chairs back, will everyone?). He finds, for example, that a negative imperative clause with a high-rise tag allows positive will/would but not can/could, only you as a tag subject and any kind of subject in the imperative clause, as shown in (48).17 (48)

(You/everyone) don’t talk now, will/would/*won’t/*wouldn’t/*can(‘t)/ *could(n’t)you/*everyone. [HIGH RISE]

. Seppänen (1977) gives Let me say it again as an example of the optative, but does not comment on the use of let me~lemme, which is certainly a true feature of colloquial English. Collins (2004: 311), in a modern corpus study of let imperatives, notes the high frequency of this usage but categorises it as being like (46). . Bouton (1982: 30) also points out that all and only such combinations of a negative imperative with a high-rise tag convey that the addressee should desist from what they are doing at the moment of speech (i.e. it has inhibitive meaning). The sentence in (48) cannot be a request to be silent at some point in the future (i.e. it does not have prohibitive meaning).





Wim van der Wurff

These facts are accounted for by means of a system in which there are ordered transformations and the tag question is present at deep structure – as is an element corresponding to the tag’s intonation pattern: it will be needed, amongst others, for constraining the subject deletion rule. .

Conditional imperatives and matters of meaning

A recalcitrant imperative phenomenon that received some further early attention was the conditional use of imperatives, as in (18) and (49). (49)

Make one mistake and there’ll be trouble.

To begin with, Bolinger (1967: 340–346) argued that some cases similar to (49) were not imperatives but actual conditionals, in which if and the subject pronoun have been clipped and the word and is ‘parasitic’. However, an attempt to formulate a more precise analysis incorporating this idea (Lawler 1975) encountered a host of perplexing problems and ended with the suggestion that the entire derivational model of grammar should be abandoned. That sentences like (49) cannot be straightforwardly derived from if-conditionals is also the conclusion drawn by Davies (1979). She argues that conditional imperatives are more restricted than if-conditionals in two unexpected respects. The former are possible only if the validity of the speech act performed by the second clause is dependent on the condition in the first clause being fulfilled. This explains the contrast between (50)–(51), which contain respectively a conclusion and a suggestion that are valid if their conditions are fulfilled, and (52), which makes an assertion whose validity (as opposed to its relevance) cannot be said to depend on fulfilment of the condition. (50) (51) (52)

Think that and you’re fool. Find yourself at a loose end and there’s always the television. *Find any money, and John is looking for some he lost.

A second difference is that, unlike if-conditionals, conditional imperatives may not refer to a state of affairs that is or might be real; they can refer only to an eventuality. Hence (53), which refers to a (present) reality, is odd but (54), which refers to a (future) eventuality, is fine. Although not all speakers are very happy with them, the same distinction applies to past conditions: (55) refers to a past reality and is odd, but (56) refers to a past irrealis and is fine. The sentence in (57), grammatical for some speakers, might also be thought to refer to a past reality and hence pose a problem for this approach, but Davies (1979) explains it by saying that its meaning is iterative or generic so there is no reference to a specific moment.18

. Davies’ discussion at this point vacillates between specificity and reality. Actually, both seem to be needed. The condition could be reformulated as follows: fulfilment of the condition should not hold at a specific reference point that is part of reality.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

(53) (54) (55) (56) (57)

?Like

Stilton, and you’ll love my soufflé. Like the film tonight and you’ll enjoy the sequel too. ?Go out yesterday and you should have called me. Turn up yesterday and you would have been sent home. Give him £1 and he was happy.

Needless to say, little light is shed on these intricate facts by an analysis of (conditional) imperatives which postulates an underlying you and will which are later deleted, or by a performative analysis as in note 5. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that (56) and (57) appear to feature something looking like an imperative in a context that is clearly past tense. However, whether conditional imperatives should really be considered to be imperatives remains an open question. This is so especially because some languages allow the use of a (morphologically recognisable) imperative in a context where it cannot reasonably be assimilated to other uses of the imperative. In Frisian, for example, there are two such constructions, both having an imperative following the word en ‘and’. In one of them, illustrated by (58), there is a preceding clause with an infinitive and the imperative clause seems functionally equivalent to a conjoined infinitival clause. In the other type, (59), the imperatival clause, including the word en ‘and’, appears to function as a complement (Tiersma 1985: 131–132). (58)

Hy sil wol ris by dy komme en nim myn pepieren wer mei. he will probably once by you come. and take. my papers again with ‘He will probably come by your place one day and take my papers with him again.’

(59)

Jelle tocht der net oan en knip syn hier ôf. Jelle thought there not of and cut. his hair off ‘Jelle didn’t consider cutting his hair.’

A convincing historical scenario by which these unexpected uses of the imperative could have arisen is sketched by van der Meer (1975). Basically, his argument is that the relevant sentences used to have an infinitive, which in cases like (58) was at some point reanalysed as an imperative. Empirical evidence for this claim comes from Old and Middle Frisian, which appear to have had not imperatives but infinitives in these contexts. As example (60) shows, such a conjoined infinitival clause often had verb-first word order, even though elsewhere an infinitival clause would usually be verb-final. (60)

datter […] hier […] scolde commen ende brengen syn need schyn. that-he here should come. and bring. his legal impediment ‘that he had to come here and state the reason for his absence’ (van der Meer 1975: 25)

As a result of sound changes making many Frisian infinitives identical in form to the imperative (some indeed had already coalesced in Old Frisian), sentences





Wim van der Wurff

like (60) would become susceptible to a reanalysis whereby the original infinitive form in the conjoined clause was reinterpreted as an imperative form. Besides the formal identity, another factor facilitating this reanalysis was that imperatives characteristically had verb-first word order. Once (58) had come into being in this way, this type of en-clause also spread to other contexts having an infinitival clause, as in (59) and similar examples. An intermediate step in this may have been a further reanalysis of (58) whereby it acquired final meaning, implying a change in the nature of en ‘and’ when preceding an imperative. That sentences like (58) and (59) exist in Frisian is therefore a matter of historical contingency and it is not necessary to assume that, deep down, they express some kind of imperative meaning.19 Rather, the imperative form in Frisian seems to have been involved in a long-term process whereby, in specific contexts, it acquired properties normally associated with the infinitive. It may be surprising that this should be possible (i.e. that learners of Frisian are able to acquire a system where a clause expressing infinitival meaning can feature a morphologically imperative form and corresponding word order) but it appears to be a fact. Note that this analysis points the way to a possible method for distinguishing uses of the imperative that correlate directly with its meaning from uses which do not: if it can be shown that a specific use is cross-linguistically rare and always arises through historical contingency, that use is not a likely guide to the central meaning of the imperative. This, however, is not a method followed in most early generative work when it comes to the question what meaning is to be attributed to the imperative. It was shown above that most studies postulate a relatively concrete and specific meaning for the imperative as a grammatical category (such as the RIM meaning of Katz and Postal 1964 or the performative ‘impere’ meaning of Sadock 1969). This is also the case in some of the philosophical literature on the imperative; Stenius (1967: 268, 272–273), for example, identifies the essential meaning of the imperative as an instruction to make a certain state of affairs true (cf. Lyons 1977: 263). This leaves other uses of the imperative (like wishes, recommendations, suggestions etc.) unaccounted for, even though they seem to be cross-linguistically very common. Additional meanings can of course be proposed (as Sadock 1974 and Ascoli 1978 do for the uses in (18)–(20) and others) but the result will be that the imperative cannot be regarded a unified category.

. The same can be said of the following Swedish construction: Sluta drick kaffe! stop. drink. coffee, i.e. ‘Stop drinking coffee!’ (Wratil 2000: 77 n. 8). The second imperative here is part of a complement clause, thus resembling the Frisian case in (59). However, this use of the imperative form appears to be more restricted in Swedish, being found only after matrix verbs that themselves are imperative. The general phenomenon is reminiscent of the English try and V construction – if V here is also imperative in form, the well-known restriction to the base form of try could perhaps be derived.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

Some researchers therefore propose a more abstract and general meaning. Downes (1977: 78) suggests that all the imperative does is predicate a hypothetical act of a contextually specifiable subject (compare Bolinger 1967, who makes similar claims for the category of subject-infinitive clauses, of which he consider the imperative to be a subtype). Under Downes’ analysis, whether an imperative clause will be used as a command, a wish, an instruction, a permission, or a conditional construction (which itself could convey a request, promise, threat, or warning) will depend not on its syntax or semantics but on Searlean felicity conditions and Gricean maxims.20 A result of this analysis is that imperatives might in principle refer to situations holding at the present or even, pace Lyons (1977: 259), in the past: as long as their truth has not been verified, they are in the realm of the hypothetical. Examples supporting this idea were given in (22) and (23), referring to an unverified present and past respectively. A proposal that allows both concrete and abstract interpretations is made by Wachtel (1979). He suggests that an imperative clause should be viewed as being a reply to the (hypothetical) question What shall I do now?, with deletion of all predictable material. This would explain such features of imperatives as the characteristic absence of subjects, auxiliaries and tense marking. It would also provide an account for the cross-linguistic prevalence of the use of the bare verbal stem as a (second person singular) imperative (see the examples in (1)). Where verbs do have some imperative inflection, Wachtel shows that the ending is usually no more than a stem vowel which also appears in other verbal forms. However, the question supposedly triggering the use of the imperative, even if hypothetical, should presumably have some pragmatic plausibility and that is not always the case (for example in cases like Mind the step! or Stop bothering me!). The proposal also does not account well for the possibility of past and present imperatives, or their limitation to unverified situations. Moreover, Wachtel’s account suggests that the deletion process can target affixal material, something clearly forbidden in many languages. .

Early generative approaches: an overall assessment

As this discussion of early generative work on the imperative has made clear, imperatives were looked at from the perspective of the typical concerns of the period, which included the desire to demonstrate the existence of non-overt elements, the feasibility of formulating precise syntactic structures and rules (to be motivated by syntactic arguments), the presence of rule ordering and the locus of semantic interpretation in underlying structure (which might include performative elements

. In a sense, in English even the identification of a subjectless clause with a bare verb as being an imperative is based entirely on contextual clues. See Bowman (1963) for an early argument to this effect, using corpus data.





Wim van der Wurff

not visible on the surface). In such early work, it was shown that various properties of imperatives were indeed amenable to an analysis in these terms. However, a weakness of most of the work (notable exceptions being Schmerling 1975 and Wachtel 1979) is the disregard of cross-linguistic data and a consequent tendency to make too much of surface facts in English that might well be coincidental. As the following sections will make clear, this characteristic slowly disappears in generative work on the imperative after the 1970s. At the same time, such studies continue to reflect contemporary general endeavours. Thus, the 1980s brought the first precise work on determining the nature (PRO, pro, or variable) of empty categories in imperative clauses (see Sections 4 and 7), the early 1990s brought functional projections like NegP and Mood&ModalityP into the picture (see Sections 3, 6 and 7) and since the mid-1990s, there has been minimalist-style work on features and checking in imperative clauses (Sections 3, 6 and 7). With the resultant growth in well analysed data coming from different languages, it also became possible to ask to what extent facts in imperative clauses follow from general and universal principles and to what extent stipulative statements, about imperatives in specific languages or as a general category, need to be made.

. .

The imperative as a clause type Imperatives in relation to other clause types

Early work generally paid little attention to the question of how the imperative fitted into the larger system of verbal or clausal categories. But from the early 1980s onwards, several proposals were made in this area. One approach taken was to view the imperative as a mood, following the traditional categorisation of verb forms on the basis of morphological paradigms arranged by use/meaning. This is the perspective taken by Huntley (1980, 1982, 1984), who groups the imperative with the subjunctive and the infinitive, contrasting them with the indicative. Like Stockwell, Schachter and Partee (1973), Huntley views the subjunctive as an embedded imperative. A common property (also shared by the infinitive) is that they cannot have tense or a modal, since they lack an indexical reference to the world. They therefore have no truth value (Huntley 1980: 299–302, 1982: 103–104, 1984: 122). More commonly, the focus is on the imperative as a clause type, which is contrasted with declaratives and interrogatives. This approach is found in Lyons (1977), who sketches the general semantic properties of the three clause types. As he and also Huddleston (1984: 352) point out, the imperative needs to be viewed as a syntactic category, as opposed to the category ‘directive’, which is a meaning-based one. Declaratives and interrogatives can have directive meaning, yet this does not make them imperatives – note that this premise represents a denial of the basic thesis underlying much work in the 1960s and early 1970s, as discussed in 2.1.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

The exact morphosyntactic properties of the imperative clause type receive attention in Sadock and Zwicky (1985), one of the first studies systematically taking into account cross-linguistic imperative data (taken from a sample of 23 languages). They point out that on the basis of their data the three clause types appear to be universal and mutually exclusive: every language has a designated imperative clause type and combinations like interrogative imperatives do not exist, as (61) shows. (61)

*Give it to me?! (as an interrogative and imperative at the same time)

Non-trivial support for this comes from German Wh-imperatives (not to be confused with Sadock’s whimperatives – see note 4). In this construction, described and analysed by Reis and Rosengren (1992), an otherwise undoubted imperative is headed by a Wh-phrase. However, the gap corresponding to the Wh-element must always be in an embedded clause, as shown by the contrast between the grammatical (62a) versus the ungrammatical (62b). (62)

a.

Weni sag mir doch mal gleich, dass du ti besucht hast! who tell me ADV ADV right-now that you t visited have ‘Come on, tell me right now who you have visited!’ b. *Weni sag mir ti doch mal gleich! who tell me t ADV ADV right-now ‘Come on; who, tell me right now!’

The ungrammaticality of (62b) is due to the clash between its imperative clause type and the presence of a Wh-phrase as an immediate constituent, which is only compatible with an interrogative clause type. In (62a), this problem does not arise, since the main clause is imperative and it is only the embedded clause that is interrogative. Such combinations are fully possible, as shown in English (63a,b), where an imperative matrix clause contains an interrogative complement clause and a declarative one respectively. (63)

a. b.

Tell me who you have visited! Tell me that it is not true!

This raises the question how the Wh-word wen can end up in front of the imperative matrix clause in (62a) – Reis and Rosengren’s (1992) elegant account of this is discussed in 7.2. In 2.5, we saw that Bolinger (1967) and some other early investigators of the imperative pointed out similarities between imperatives and what they called infinitival main clauses. A more precise account along these lines is proposed by Akmajian (1984). For him, it is specifically the exclamative clause type (e.g. John say that?! [I don’t believe it]) that imperatives should be compared with. Among the shared characteristics that he discusses are the absence of an AUX node (resulting in the absence of tense and modals), as in (64a,b), the intonational prominence of the overt subject, as in (65a,b), the absence of sentential adverbs like probably, as





Wim van der Wurff

in (66a,b), the incompatibility of an overt subject with a fronted topic (due to their being in competition for intonational prominence), as in (67a,b), and the irrealis meaning of both imperatives and exclamatives. (64) (65) (66) (67)

a. b. a. b. a. b. a. b.

IMP EXCL IMP EXCL IMP EXCL IMP EXCL

*Will/must give him the money!/*Gave him the money! *John will/must say that!?/*John said that!? *You give him the money! [with unstressed you] *John say that!? [with unstressed John] *Probably give him the money! *John probably say that!? *The money, you give him! *That, John say!?

Akmajian’s (1984) conclusion is that imperatives and exclamatives have the same syntax, but differ in their pragmatics. This case, he suggests, illustrates what is in effect the normal situation: one form can have more than one meaning, where the form in question can be not only a lexical item but also a clause type. A potential problem for this view, pointed out by Akmajian himself, is that exclamatives but not imperatives disallow the use of emphatic do and are negated by means of just the word not. His solution is to consider the use of do (not) in imperatives a ‘local fact’, i.e. an idiosyncratic property of English imperatives. This is certainly not an appealing move, though we saw in 2.3 that it was made also in other analyses of the English imperative. .

The architecture of the imperative clause

When it comes to the internal architecture of the imperative clause type, one possibility is that it has the same structure as other clause types, i.e. that it is an IP (or AgrSP/TP, if the exploded IP structure of Pollock 1989 and much subsequent work is adopted) contained in a CP (or ForceP/TopP/FocP/FinP, if Rizzi’s 1997 expanded CP structure is adopted). Such a structure is defended in detail, at least for the imperative in English, by Potsdam (1998, this volume). His perspective is that the syntax of imperatives resembles that of interrogatives, in particular that there can be subject-auxiliary inversion representing I0-to-C0 movement, as in (68). (68)

[CP Don’ti [IP you ti leave me here!]]

The decisive facts have to do with negation and the position of the subject, and will be discussed in 7.1, but at this point it is relevant to note that Potsdam’s conclusion is that imperative clause structure overall is quite unexceptional. For Potsdam and many others (e.g. Rooryck 1992, Rivero 1994a, b, Rivero and Terzi 1995, Zanuttini 1997, Platzack and Rosengren 1998, Han 1999, 2000a), the view that imperative clauses are CPs accords well with the idea that there is a designated position high in the clause in which the imperative nature of the clause is represented. Usually, this is done by positing an IMP feature located in the head

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

C0 (or the head Force0 of ForceP, in Rizzi’s 1997 system). This could be regarded as a mere restatement of Katz and Postal’s (1964) idea that imperative clauses have an IMP element, discussed in 2.1. In its modern reincarnation, however, assignment of this IMP to a particular position is more precise and principled than it was in the 1960s (it concerns the head of the highest clausal projection, rather than a position ‘at the beginning of the sentence’) and it plays a role in the process of feature checking that has become prominent in the minimalist program. Thus, Platzack and Rosengren (1998) suggest that the IMP feature in Force0 attracts the imperative verb, which has a corresponding IMP feature.21 In all Germanic languages except English, the IMP feature is strong, hence their imperative clauses are typically verb-initial. Although imperative clauses are often held to be CPs, this does not imply that such CPs necessarily contain all the same functional projections as are found in declarative and interrogative clauses. In fact, a common view is that imperative clauses are defective – in particular, they are often held to lack at least the projection TP (Zanuttini 1991, Platzack and Rosengren 1998, Rupp 1999, Han 1999, 2000a,b, Zeijlstra 2004; the earliest expression of the idea is found in Beukema and Coopmans 1989). The primary motivation for this is that imperatives are usually thought not to exhibit tense contrasts – disregarding person differentiation, they tend to have only one form and, given the nature of imperative meaning, its time reference is always to the future. For the many languages that are like this, positing a TP-less structure for imperatives seems intuitively plausible. As we shall see in 6.2, this plausible analysis has also been seized on to provide an account of the behaviour of imperatives under negation. Further support for it from an unexpected source is identified by den Dikken and Blasco (this volume): they show that certain puzzling word order facts in Spanish and Hungarian can be elegantly accounted for if a TP-less structure is assumed (see 7.3). However, the case for a TP-less imperative cannot yet be regarded as proven. In 5.2, we shall see that there are some languages in which the imperative verb exceptionally does have different tense forms, creating a presumption that they might have a TP. Furthermore, Jensen (2004) has argued on semantic grounds that all imperative clauses have a TP and that the head of this TP is in fact what makes a clause imperative rather than declarative. Specifically, she argues that imperative T0 conveys that at the time of utterance (Tu) the speaker enjoins the addressee to make it the case that event e is brought about. In other words, she suggests that we should tease apart the two events (and two event times) that every imperative utterance bears in itself: an event of ordering/directing/enjoining (situated . As Platzack and Rosengren (1998) point out, this feature of the imperative verb makes it distinct from verbs in declarative and interrogative clauses, which do not have a feature DECL or INT. The system thus neatly captures two basic properties of imperatives: they form a distinctive clause type and they feature a distinctive verb form (the traditional ‘imperative mood’).





Wim van der Wurff

at utterance time Tu, i.e. anchored in the here and now) and an event that the speaker wants to be realised by the addressee (situated at event time Te, which logic dictates comes after Tu).22 Jensen thus maintains that temporal information is an inherent part of imperative meaning and that it would counterproductive to assume that such clauses have no TP. As she points out, such an assumption would also create problems for the interpretation of all other temporal information that the imperative clause might contain, in the form of time adverbials. Whether or not this reasoning is accepted, absence of TP is not the only possible method of implementing the idea that imperative clauses are somehow defective and impoverished. Some researchers have proposed that other functional projections are (also) absent from imperatives. Thus, Platzack and Rosengren (1998), who adopt Rizzi’s (1997) expanded CP-system, propose that imperatives lack not only TP but also MoodP and FinP. In their system, all of FinP, MoodP and TP are characterised by the presence of a feature [finite] and together they are responsible for locating the event described in the clause to a world (our world or a different world) and anchoring it to a time and a space. Since the imperative is not so located or anchored (it does not describe an event but sets a norm), all these three interlocking projections are absent. Apart from the possible absence of such clause-internal projections, it has also been suggested that imperative clauses are not even CPs. This idea has been defended mainly with reference to facts from English, as in Zhang (1993) and Rupp (1999, this volume). The guiding notion behind it is that imperative clauses do not resemble interrogatives in their possibilities for movement, i.e. that (68) presents a misleading picture of imperative clause structure. The facts invoked to support this come from subject positions and negation, and will be discussed in 7.1. A possible problem for the idea of CP-less imperatives is that there is no longer a natural position to characterise the imperative nature of the clause and thus no possibility to derive from it any further syntactic properties of imperatives (unless we follow Jensen 2004, who locates the imperative character of the clause in T0, which also contains a feature specifying the second person addressee). .

Imperatives in subordinate clauses

One further syntactic property of imperative clauses, noted in many studies, is that they typically cannot be embedded. Thus Katz and Postal (1964: 78) refer to ‘the fact that imperatives do not occur as the constituent elements for embedding transformations’. Similarly, Sadock and Zwicky (1985: 174) state that, ‘imperatives […] tend not to occur as dependent clauses’ and that, ‘[i]n languages with distinct . Note how Jensen’s analysis again highlights the performative element in imperatives, which had been more or less lost sight of since the 1970s (2.1 and 2.2). Her account can be seen as a semantic reworking of the syntactic hypersentence idea.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

imperative morphology, the imperative is excluded from dependent clauses.’ Writing specifically about English, Huddleston (1984: 55, 363) tells us that ‘imperatives cannot occur embedded inside a larger clause’, with the consequence that ‘the imperative clause type is restricted to main clauses.’ The same sentiment is voiced by Palmer (1986: 113): ‘[T]he imperative does not occur in English (and most languages) in a subordinate clause’.23 A first question that the statements above raise is whether they are empirically correct.24 At first sight, it seems relatively easy to find subordinate imperatives. Pace Sadock (1969: 316) they are found in particular in (non-restrictive or appositive) relatives, as in Latin (69a) and Ancient Greek (69b). (69)

a.

b.

multas ad res perutiles Xenophontis libri sunt; quos legite studiose many for things very-useful Xenophon’s books are which read.. carefully ‘Xenophon’s books, which you should read carefully, are most useful for many things.’ (Cicero, Cat. M. 59; Hopper and Traugott 1993: 175) kratêres eisin […] ôn krat’ erepson mixing-bowls are … whose brims crown..2 ‘There are mixing bowls, whose brims you must crown.’ (Soph. Oed. Tyr. 473; Rivero and Terzi 1995: 316 n.5)

Further Latin examples like (69a) are given in Kühner, Stegmann and Thierfelder (1955: 309) and further Greek ones like (69b) in Smyth and Messing (1956: 411). Goodwin (1897: 87), writing about Greek, suggests that imperative relatives are also possible in English, saying, ‘The English may use a relative with the imperative, as in which do at your peril’. While this particular fragment sounds somewhat odd, there are a fair number of attested cases from earlier stages of the language and they indeed also occur in certain styles of present-day writing. Ukaji (1978: 114–117) gives a dozen sentences like (70) from the Elizabethan period, while cases like (71) will be familiar to all readers of modern scholarly texts. Note that the examples all feature non-restrictive relative clauses.25 . An exception is routinely made for imperatives in direct speech reports, as in He said: ‘Go away!’. In studies of speech reporting, such as Bolkestein (1990) and Yamaguchi (1994), the imperative is also classified as one of the ‘unrepeatable’ or ‘unreportable’ entities that can only be reported directly, not indirectly (others are vocatives, interjections and the anaphoric negator and affirmator ‘no’ and ‘yes’). .

In answering this question, I partly draw on material in van der Wurff (2004).

. The receptivity of non-restrictive relative clauses to non-declaratives is also noted by Davison (1975: 175–176). She cites interrogatives such as, That man, whose name could I ask you again, looks exactly like my uncle and provides the following example with a let-construction: John, who let me tell you is a sterling fellow, has just been elected dog catcher. But from the ungrammaticality of examples like *The answer, which return, was in my desk last night, she concludes that regular imperatives are not allowed. She rules them out by stipulating that relatives do not





Wim van der Wurff

(70) (71)

Thursday next is Saint Iames day, against which time prepare thy selfe to goe with me to the faire (T. Deloney, c.1600, The Gentle Craft 207.31–33) Space has sadly precluded any discussion of Wittgenstein’s positive views on epistemology, for which see Wittgenstein (1969a). (British National Corpus: J. Dancy, Introduction to contemporary epistemology, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992, 1425).

That it should be non-restrictive relative clauses that sometimes allow imperatives is not entirely surprising. It has been demonstrated that such relatives exhibit certain properties suggesting they are not subordinate but coordinate or paratactic. To be precise, it seems as if constituents inside a non-restrictive clause are not c-commanded by elements of the higher clause. An overview of some relevant properties is given by Alexiadou, Law, Meinunger and Wilder (2000: 30–34). They include the impossibility of binding a pronoun by a quantifier in the higher clause, as in (72a), and the absence of parasitic gaps licensed by a real gap in the higher clause, as in (72b).26 Drawing on Depraetere (1996), we can add to these the impossibility in non-restrictive relative clauses of using tense relatively rather than absolutely, as in (72c) – this too is usually taken to depend on some form of syntactic dependence, in this case on a verb of saying (Hornstein 1990). (72)

a. *Everyonei likes Mary, who hei met there. (cf. Everyonei likes the people who hei met there.) b. *A man who Bill, who knows pg, admires t, came in. (cf. A man who everyone who knows pg, admires t, came in.) c. *?In 2050, people will say they have to clean up the mess, which we have made. (cf. In 2050, people will say they have to clean up the mess which we have made.) [talking about a mess not yet in existence, which the speaker wants to stop us from creating]

allow imperative subject deletion. However, her imperative example would be just as bad with an overt subject and the data in the text suggest that other (subjectless) examples are possible in English and more widely in some other languages. . The authors mention as a further relevant property the lack of licensing of a negative polarity item inside a non-restrictive clause by negation in the higher clause, as in: *John didn’t like Bill, who anyone met. However, the exact significance of this fact is not so clear. On the one hand, as Eric Potsdam (p.c) points out, the restrictive variant, *John did not like the man who anyone met, is also impossible. It is true that some contrasting pairs can be constructed (e.g. *John didn’t like these presents, which anyone had given him vs. John did not like the presents that anyone had given him) but the best restrictive examples (e.g. These are not things that anybody should ever be saying or Peter never approved of what anyone said) have an indefinite head and can therefore not be made non-restrictive. A further difficulty is that non-restrictive relatives are not so good in negative contexts in general (Smith 1964), which makes it hard to deduce anything useful about a negative polarity item that they may happen to contain. No such complications arise for the diagnostics in (72a,b,c), so the argument in the main text is not affected.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

The absence of c-command, or more generally syntactic dependence, puts nonrestrictive relatives on an equal footing with root clauses and with respect to the admissibility of imperatives, this is also what the facts seem to suggest. Changing our vantage point, we can then also use imperatives as a probe into relative syntax. The point that can be made is that, given the root nature of imperatives, the existence of (69)–(71) rules out hypothesised structures for these sentences in which the relative clause is at all points of the derivation dominated by the matrix clause. As the review in de Vries (2002: 181–231) shows, there are at least a dozen different analyses of appositive relatives and several of them do not meet this criterion. One of these, as it happens, is the analysis that de Vries (2002: 218–227) himself proposes. He suggests that a non-restrictive relative clause (RC) is a DP co-ordinated with the head DP, forming a ConjP, as in (73). (73)

[ConjP [DP1 ] [ Conj [DP2 RC ]]]

To account for the facts in (72a,b), i.e. for the impossibility of having a bound variable or a parasitic gap inside the relative clause, de Vries (2002: 227) appeals to the Across-the-Board (ATB) constraint: if DP2 in (73) is accessed by some outside element, DP1 should be accessed in the same way. However, use of an imperative is not dependent on access by an outside element (in fact, imperatives resist this), so ATB is irrelevant for them. What might be a relevant coordination effect is that an imperative in a second coordinate requires an imperative first coordinate as well, as already pointed out by Katz and Postal (1964: 78). Hence the structure in (73), quite apart from failing to express the RC’s external root character, may wrongly predict that it cannot contain an imperative because of its internal structure. The only conclusion can be that the existence of sentences like (69)–(71) creates a severe problem for the structure of non-restrictive relative clauses represented in (73). There is a further clause type that, like non-restrictive relatives, yields apparent subordinated imperatives which on closer inspection turn out to have strong root characteristics. They are reason clauses. An English example with an imperative is (74). (74)

“It’s weird,” says Cassy Morris, 15-year-old narrator of one of tonight’s premiered productions, Gas and Air, a half-hour film about glue-sniffing, teenage pregnancy and – because don’t for a minute think it’s worthy or relentlessly bleak – a “slice of summer in the city, a bit of bliss” (M. Wainwright, “Society: Movies and Shakers”, The Guardian, 19/11/03, p.2)

As is well known, reason clauses can function as adjuncts, expressing direct causation of the event referred to in the sentence, but also as disjuncts, stating a justification for the current speech act. In the second type, we find the same apparent lack of c-command by elements in the matrix clause as in non-restrictive relatives, suggesting they too are root constructions at some level of representation. Thus,





Wim van der Wurff

the context given in example (75a) forces an adjunct reading for the reason clause, in which case he can be a bound variable. In the disjunct case (75b), this is impossible, suggesting the reason clause is not dominated by the matrix clause. (75)

a. b.

[Why are they not here?] Everyonei went home at 9 because hei was tired. [How do you know what happened?] Everyonei went home, because he*i/j told me so.

So far, then, we have seen two subordinate contexts in which imperatives are possible, but both contexts have on independent grounds turned out to have certain root properties. In unambiguously subordinate territory, such as complement clauses, imperatives indeed seem harder to find. A possible account for why this is the case is offered by Platzack and Rosengren (1998). They argue that, in order for an element (whether DP or clause) to be embedded, it needs to be a referring expression. Imperative clauses, lacking FinP (see 3.2), do not have the anchoring in time and space that is necessary for them to be able to refer and that is why they do not occur in embedded positions. Yet, some unexpected cases of embedded imperatives do exist. Among the examples sometimes cited is (76). This is from Ancient Greek but Palmer (1986: 113) notes that it is the only attested instance in the language and may represent some form of language play. More secure examples of complemental imperatives can be found in Slovene, as discussed by Sheppard and Golden (2002). Example (77a) features a complement to a verb while (77b) has a complement to a noun. (76)

(77)

Oísth’ hó dráson you.know what do..2 ‘Do you know what to do?’ (Ar. Av. 54; Palmer 1986: 113) a. Peter vztraja, da pridi jutri. Peter insists that come..2 tomorrow ‘Peter insists that you must come tomorrow.’ (Sheppard and Golden 2002: 251) b. Zakaj te moj nasvet, da bodi pameten, tako jezi? why you. my advice that be..2 sensible so angers ‘Why does my advice that you must be sensible make you so angry?’ (Sheppard and Golden 2002: 251)

Since the phenomenon clearly exists, the question arises what formal factors make it possible. Platzack (this volume) offers a possible answer, couched within the minimalist model of feature checking and taking the embedded imperatives attested in the Old Scandinavian languages as an example. He provides an account both of the reason why such structures are usually impossible and of the properties that languages must have in order to circumvent the relevant principles. Briefly, the guiding idea behind Platzack’s analysis is that the C0 of the embedded CP, which in the Scandinavian examples is always the complement of a verbum

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

dicendi, carries a [declarative] feature. In the usual case, the complement clause would contain a verb with a matching [declarative] feature and this verb would move up to at least AspP. It would there check the [aspect] feature and it would also enter into a checking relation with C0 [declarative]. If the verb has an [IMP] feature, however, this would result in a mismatch. Therefore, AspP should not have an EPP feature attracting the verb. The result of EPP being absent will be that 1. the verb does not move all the way up to AspP, so no fatal mismatch occurs; 2. the [aspect] feature has to be checked by the subject, resulting in consistent initial position of an overt subject in these embedded imperatives; and 3. certain types of object may move further up than the verb, resulting in OV order. These results are indeed confirmed: embedded imperatives do occur, they have initial subjects and there are indeed specific types of OV order in the Old Scandinavian languages. When embedded imperatives disappear from these languages, so do the OV orders. Whether this account can be generalised to other languages having subordinate imperative clauses needs to be established; but it makes the kinds of strong and testable claims that should allow such further work to yield results. .

Reinterpretation of imperative clauses

Despite the occurrence of examples in some languages, imperatives in complement clauses appear to be extremely rare. Where they do occur, they may well be liable to a process of reinterpretation, whereby an imperative is reanalysed as a subjunctive or other modally marked form. Thus, while the Old Scandinavian examples analysed by Platzack (this volume), which appear to be restricted to verbal complements, could be real imperatives, the Slovene examples cited by Sheppard and Golden (2002), which are not so restricted, may be subjunctival in nature. In (77a,b), then, there would not actually be an imperative ‘come!/be!’ but a verbal form meaning ‘you must come/be’ – this may seem no more than a slight semantic difference but, as Platzack and Rosengren (1998) put it, it involves the difference between setting a norm and stating a norm. This difference in meaning also has syntactic consequences, especially when it comes to embeddability. Although the details of such a reanalysis (in particular, its trigger and consequences) would have to be further corroborated before it could be said to provide a satisfactory account of the exceptional cases in (76) and (77), it would accord well with the crosslinguistic facts: the imperative clause is prototypically the highest functional projection (this includes direct speech reports); there is some variability in whether non-restrictive relatives and reason clauses also have this status; outside these contexts, imperatives are highly marked and liable to change, through a process of reanalysis to a subjunctive or modally modulated form. Several such processes appear to have taken place in Russian, which Fortuin (2001) shows has an array of constructions with imperative verbs in which the notion of injunction or directiveness is fairly tenuous. Fortuin (2001) does not





Wim van der Wurff

present historical data showing the development, but he makes clear that some uses are now somewhat old-fashioned or otherwise restricted, which can be taken to be a sign of fairly rapid reinterpretation, extension and decline. One of the more stable uses appears to be the conditional-imperative clauses already introduced in 2.5. A sustained attempt to argue that, in English at least, such clauses are regular imperatives can be found in Clark (1993a), but there are reasons to doubt the final conclusion. Clark’s basic premise, adopted from Wilson and Sperber (1988), is that the imperative presents a state of affairs as being both potential and desirable. In sentences like (78), the state of affairs in the first clause is desirable to the speaker (i.e. it describes what the speaker wishes for). The conditional interpretation is not part of the imperative meaning of that first clause but follows from the coordination of the two clauses, given the principle of relevance. Sentence (79) is no different, except that there the state of affairs of the first clause is presented as being desirable to the hearer (i.e. it is the hearer that seems to be wanting to come closer). (78) (79)

Come closer and I’ll give you £10. Come any closer and I’ll shoot you.

The same account can be given for conditional imperatives featuring the coordinator or, such as (80). It should be noted, however, that such cases do not appear to allow an interpretation where the state of affairs is desirable to the hearer: no counterpart to (79), i.e. no sentence like (81), seems to be possible. (80) (81)

Be off or I’ll push you downstairs. another word or I’ll give you a pound.

?Say

Besides this wrinkle, Clark (1993a) also has to admit that certain conditional imperatives do not allow an interpretation in terms of desirability at all. They are examples like (82). (82)

Catch the flu and you’ll be ill for weeks.

Here the eventuality of catching the flu is not presented as being wanted by or for anyone. These cases, Clark suggests, are not imperatives but neither are they conditionals – his proposal is that they represent a separate sentence type. Further differences between regular imperatives and conditional imperatives (of the and–type) are pointed out by Han (2000a: 161–204). Conditional imperatives resist being negated (?Don’t eat greens and you’ll fall ill); they do not allow emphatic/insistent DO (?Do come closer and I’ll give you £10); the range of overt subject types they can take is narrower than in ordinary imperatives (?Someone move and I’ll shoot); a non-overt subject can receive a generic interpretation, as in (82); they freely allow statives (Like that and you’ll like everything); they license negative polarity items, as in (79); and they do not exist in all languages. Han’s conclusion is that conditional imperatives are not actually imperatives.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

A way of (partly) reconciling the findings of Clark (1993a) and Han (2000a) can be derived from Boogaart (2004), who points out that sentences with the sequence IMPERATIVE - and - DECLARATIVE can instantiate either a fully compositional construction, in which the first clause is a regular (directive) imperative, or a grammaticalised construction, in which the first clause has conditional meaning. The difference is illustrated well by the pair in (83), given by Boogaart (2004: 24).27 (83)

a. b.

Hang the laundry outside and you can go home. (ordinary imperative) Hang the laundry outside and it starts raining. (conditional imperative)

Once this distinction is made, some of the apparent contradictions between Clark (1993a) and Han (2000a) are resolved. The former, focusing mostly on examples of type (83a), comes to the natural conclusion that conditional imperatives by and large behave like regular imperatives, while the latter considers especially cases like (83b) and reaches the opposite conclusion. Boogaart (2004) also offers a plausible account of how imperatives could have lost (some of) their imperative characteristics and instead acquired conditional properties. In diachronic terms, Boogaart suggests, (83a) is prior and (83b) is due to the well-known development whereby a conversational implicature or inference, through repeated activation, becomes part of the semantics of a construction. The implicature in (83a) would be that permission to go home is conditional on fulfilment of what the imperative enjoins (i.e. ‘Hang the laundry outside! If you do that, you can go home’). Once the conditional element is perceived to be part of the semantics of the construction, sentences like (83b), which only allow a conditional reading and no longer an imperative one, will also become possible. The development would therefore be an instance of the familiar mechanism of reanalysis with subsequent actualisation or extension. As in other cases, languages may differ in the extent to which the novel construction has gone on to differentiate itself from the source. For example, one such difference between English and Dutch lies in the use of the conditional imperative to refer to the past. While in both languages some speakers allow this use, English employs the bare verb stem in the conditional clause (see (56) and (57)) but Dutch employs a past tense form, as in example (84), given by Boogaart (2004: 26), similar examples being cited in Proeme (1984: 248). (84)

(Context: talk of how bicycle theft was rife in Amsterdam a few years ago) Vergat je fiets op slot te zetten en hij werd gestolen. forgot your bike on lock to set and it was stolen ‘Forget to lock your bike and it would get stolen.’

. Boogaart’s examples are in Dutch but they straightforwardly transpose into English, in which the same distinction applies.





Wim van der Wurff

If it is accepted that the conditional imperative originates in sentences with an ordinary imperative, use in Dutch of the past tense form vergat ‘forgot’ in (84) must be regarded as an innovation. English has also innovated in allowing past time reference in this construction (another distinctive property of conditional imperatives, not mentioned by Han 2002a), but it has not undergone the further change to use of an actual past tense form.28 A different kind of reinterpretation appears to have been at work in Frisian cases like (58) and (59). There the complement verb used to be an infinitive, but now looks like an imperative. As noted in 2.5, this development can be understood if the distinctive word order of the clause and certain sound changes taking place in earlier Frisian are taken into account. However, in recent work, Postma (2005, 2006) suggests that the embedded verb in such cases is not an imperative but a subjunctive. This subjunctive occupies the C-position; its non-overt subject is licensed by the lexicalisation of the C-position.29 Earlier, the verb was an infinitive, whose clause-initial position was due to the same movement process as yields the Italian Aux-to-COMP phenomenon. A difference from the Italian case is that in earlier Frisian (and some varieties of Middle and Modern Dutch), the auxiliary is non-overt and the lexical verb is adjoined to it, in a manner also found in the Dutch phenomenon of verb raising (Evers 1975). If this analysis of the Frisian facts is correct, there would still be a process of historical reinterpretation at work, but from (auxiliary plus) infinitive to subjunctive, rather than to imperative. This would not be unwelcome, since it would remove the need to draw general conclusions about the imperative from what – unlike the conditional imperative, which is widespread cross-linguistically – appears to be a more or less isolated case. .

The meaning of the imperative clause type

A final aspect of the imperative clause type that has been considered also in more recent work is the meaning that it expresses. As pointed out above, since the imperative is a syntactic category, it would in principle be possible to deny that it is always associated with one specific semantics. However, leaving it at this would amount to shelving the entire question of imperative meaning and the recent

. For some further cross-linguistic differences in conditional imperatives, see Boogaart and Trnavac (2004). . Another analysis of the modern Frisian facts is offered by Hoekstra (1997: 30–46). He suggests that the embedded clause has CP-recursion, leading to an ungoverned C and thus forcing movement of the (imperative) verb to this position; this would make the embedded imperative construction an instance of the embedded verb-second phenomenon that Frisian regularly allows. For further work on the Frisian embedded imperative, see the references in Hoekstra (1997) and Postma (2005, 2006).

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

literature contains various attempts to argue that the imperative is in fact systematically associated with one particular semantics. As in the early work discussed in 2.5, opinions are still divided on whether this meaning should be fairly wide or more narrow.30 Among the wider meanings adopted are those of irrealis or hypotheticality (Akmajian 1984), possibility (Huntley 1980, 1982, 1984, de Haan 1986, Boogaart 2004) and ‘presentativity’ or potentiality (Davies 1986: 48). Adoption of one of these – and perhaps they all amount to the same thing: possible differences between them are seldom or never discussed – entails that the imperative net is cast wide, so that similarities with the infinitive can easily be expressed and conditional imperatives like (78)–(82) and perhaps other cases can also be accommodated. More commonly, however, a narrower meaning, usually couched in terms of a directive statement aimed at the addressee, is assumed (e.g. Beukema and Coopmans 1989, Potsdam 1998, Jensen 2003b – whose detailed views of the temporal embedding of the directive we discussed in 3.2 – and many others). A variant of this which plays down the importance of the addressee is proposed by Schmerling (1982: 212), who views the imperative as ‘an attempt […] to bring about a state of affairs in which the proposition expressed by the imperative is true’. This formulation covers not only straightforward commands but also the requests, wishes and recommendations briefly discussed in Section 2.1, and in addition such uses as healing formulas like (85) and ‘hocus-pocus’ pronouncements like (86). (85) (86)

Hear! [uttered by a faith healer] a. Don’t fall! [uttered to an inanimate object about to fall] b. Start, dammit! [uttered to a lifeless engine] c. Don’t rain!

As briefly mentioned in 3.2, another variant is proposed by Platzack and Rosengren (1998): they provide some more content to the idea of directivity by viewing the imperative as setting or creating a norm (related to the addressee) with regard to the existence of the event referred to in the proposition contained in the imperative clause. For Portner (2005), the imperative denotes not a proposition but a property; nevertheless, utterance of an imperative makes it encumbent on the addressee to acquire that property. In Portner’s terms, the addressee will add the property to their To-Do list. A combination of a general and a narrower meaning is that proposed by Wilson and Sperber (1988), who join potentiality and desirability, the latter from the point of view of either the speaker or the hearer. A result of this is that taunts and wishes as in (87) no longer necessitate special provisions but can be regarded as straightforward imperatives, instantiating the option of hearer-desirability. (87)

.

a. b.

Hit me! Have a nice day!

For a summary of some of the debate up to the late 1980s, see Aarts (1989).





Wim van der Wurff

As we saw in 3.4, the existence of the two options is also exploited by Clark (1993a) to try and bring conditional imperatives into the regular imperative fold. However, we also saw that this leaves a residue of cases still outside the fold, casting some doubt on the attempt and the view of imperative meaning that it is based on. Further doubt about this is cast by Han (1999, 2000a), who points out that the notion of desirability is too weak to account for ordinary imperative usage. An imperative goes beyond stating that something is desirable: it enjoins the addressee to bring about the desirable state of affairs. To capture this, Han uses the feature [directive]. To this element (which directly captures what is called ‘narrow’ imperative meaning above), she adds the feature [irrealis], yielding an LF representation of imperatives as in (88). (88)

directive (irrealis (p))

The directive feature is an instruction to the addressee to add p to their plan set; the irrealis feature entails that the addressee is asked to consider a hypothetical possible world in which p is satisfied. Under this approach, desirability would be an epiphenomenon, following from reasonable assumptions about why a speaker should want the addressee to add something to their plan set. The distinction between speaker-desirable and hearer-desirable is not captured in any systematic way. Han (1999, 2000a) ascribes some of its apparent effects, as in taunts of type (87a), to the operation of irony. For wishes as in (87b), it may be possible to follow Huddleston (1984: 355) and deny that they have productive status. Existing examples tend to be formulaic and it is not possible to freely form new instances, as shown in (89). (89)

a. b.

*Have no pain! *Receive many presents!

Overall, it can be said that with regard to imperative meaning, recent work does not differ greatly from what was argued for or assumed in the 1960s and 1970s. ‘Getting the addressee to bring about a state of affairs’ is still the core meaning for many that opt for a relatively concrete semantics. For those interested in properties shared by different uses of the imperatives and by infinitives, subjunctives and hortatives, the more general meaning of ‘possibility’ still has a lot to recommend itself. However, there is now a clearer recognition of the need to distinguish syntactic from semantic properties, and if imperative semantics is represented structurally, it is done on a much more constrained and principled basis than in early work. Moreover, the notion of directivity has been somewhat further developed in terms of the addressee adding an item to a mental set or list (of norms, plans or things to do) and there have also been attempts to combine directivity with possibility/potentiality in the definition of imperative meaning. The latter idea, if shown to be tenable, may bring the development of prototypical imperatives into conditional imperatives further into line with better understood cases of language

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

change, since the development would then consist not in abrupt replacement of one feature by another one (directivity by possibility) but in gradual loss of one feature (directivity) and retention of another one (possibility). . .

Subjects of imperative clauses The nature of the non-overt subject

We saw in Section 2 that early generative investigators of the imperative devoted considerable effort to establishing the nature of the empty imperative subject. However, there was no general theory of non-overt arguments against which the findings could be evaluated. Thus, the you-deletion hypothesis popular in early work was not complemented by a theory that provided understanding of the overall constraints and effects of this process. Similarly, Downes (1977) argued that the imperative subject could be absent altogether but then went on to suggest that a you-subject would be ‘understood’ anyway, resulting in an unexplained split between what was represented and what was interpreted. In the late 1970s and early 80s it was exactly such problems, but then in the field of phenomena like passive, Wh-movement and null subjects in pro-drop languages, that triggered a search for understanding of the nature of empty categories in general. From the mid-1980s onward, the results achieved were also used to submit non-overt imperative subjects to renewed scrutiny. That it is indeed the norm for imperative subjects to be non-overt was pointed out by Schmerling (1982) and Sadock and Zwicky (1985). It is the most frequent option in English (for example, Aarts 1994 finds over 14 times as many non-overt as overt imperative subjects in a corpus of conversational English) and in languages like French, no other option exists at all. Moreover, it appears that no language forbids non-overt imperative subjects (though see Platzack, this volume: (25), for Icelandic). Zhang (1990) reports that, out of her sample of 46 languages, only Luo and Hawaiian require an overt subject in imperative clauses but Potsdam (1998: 254–255 n. 29) presents further data which suggest that these languages too allow a non-overt subject. At the same time, there is solid evidence that a non-overt subject involves more than a mere absence: even if it is not expressed phonologically, a subject constituent is present at some level of representation of the imperative clause. In addition to the reflexive fact cited in (2), Zwicky (1988) lists the following arguments for assuming an empty (second person) subject in English imperatives: the possibility of binding a reflexive emphasiser or possessive, as in (90a,b); of control into a complement or adjunct clause, as in (90c,d,e); and of binding a trace, as in (90f,g,h).31 To these, Potsdam (1998: 219–224) adds the fact that a . The proper analysis of the tough movement construction in (90g) is of course controversial, but the proposals in both Chomsky (1981: 308–314) and Hicks (2004) would entail that the matrix subject indeed A-binds a trace inside the infinitival clause.





Wim van der Wurff

thematic role (usually that of agent) is assigned to the non-overt subject; and that the subject supports quantifier float, as in (90i). As shown in Bennis (this volume), similar arguments for the syntactic reality of invisible subjects can be given for Dutch. (90)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

Do it yourself! Make your own drinks! Try PRO to be careful! Watch him PRO to find out! Speak up even if PRO unhappy! Stop t writing! Don’t be easy to spot t! Don’t be examined t by that doctor! Don’t be both talking at the same time!

Zwicky (1988) argues that these facts should not be explained by positing youdeletion (one of the arguments, from Schmerling 1982: 216 n.4, being the grammaticality of (86c), where an understood you is implausible) but then goes on to suggest – somewhat surprisingly – that all these phenomena may have a semantic or interpretative basis and do not constitute syntactic evidence for an empty subject. However, in the absence of an articulate theory of this semantic-interpretative basis, it seems preferable to make use of the concept of non-overt syntactic category, for which well developed theories are available. This is certainly what Potsdam (1998) and other studies of imperative subjects do. The basic choice they face is between interpretation of the empty subject category as a trace left by A-movement, a variable left by A’-movement, big PRO or small pro. No-one to date has suggested DP-trace status of the empty subject but the possibility that it could be a variable is explored by Beukema and Coopmans (1989: 423–424). Support for the idea comes from the observation that several of the overt imperative subjects allowed in English are quantificational (e.g. All of you/ somebody/everybody/nobody come here!). These subjects should undergo quantifier raising, usually taken to be adjunction to IP. The overt subject you could move to this position through topicalisation and Beukema and Coopmans suggest that this could then also hold for its non-overt counterpart. Case for the variable left in subject position would come from a feature [AGR] located in C (I, being tenseless, would be unable to assign case). The status of the non-overt subject as being bound by an empty topic has been called into question on the basis of two sentence types, given in (91a,b). (91)

a. b.

The tie give to Bob, the aftershave give to Don! Eveybody take out their1 books! After that, write down their2 names!

Potsdam (1998: 201) and Wratil (2000: 107–108) point out that a null imperative subject can co-occur with an overt topic, as in (91a). They then proceed to argue that sentences with double topics are ungrammatical, and hence the subject in

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

(91a) is not likely to be bound by an empty topic. With regard to (91b), Henry (1995) has pointed out that we might here expect topic continuity in the second clause, so that the subject is interpreted to be the same as in the first clause, in which case their 2 should be able to co-refer with their1. But such co-reference is impossible, again casting doubt on the idea that the subject of the second clause is an empty topic. Closer consideration of the argument based on (91a) suggests it may not be completely valid. For one thing, there could well be a difference in behaviour between overt topics and empty topics. For example, as we shall see in 7.2, Dutch imperatives allow empty topics but not overt topics. Moreover, as Marcel den Dikken (p.c.) points out, overt double topics are fine in some languages and not entirely impossible even in English (as in To Mary, such a book even JOHN would never give). This means that the null topic analysis for imperative subjects cannot be excluded out of hand on the basis of (91a). But to become fully convincing, it would need to be embedded more clearly in an explicit account of topic positions. To counter the argument based on (91b), this account would need to be supplemented by a working theory of topic continuity across sentences. With regard to the interpretation of their 2, the second sentence in (91b) behaves as if it is standing on its own and, in the absence of further statements, this is certainly unexpected if the subject of that sentence is a topic. Another possibility is that the imperative subject is PRO. This is argued for by Han (2000a: 115–160). From the idea that the imperative operator has the feature [irrealis] (see 3.5), she deduces that imperatives could pattern, also in their subject options, either with subjunctives or with infinitives, since these are the main other irrealis verb forms. Pattterning with subjunctives would lead to the use of an overt subject; patterning with the infinitive would lead to the use of a PRO subject. English allows both options; other languages may show the one or the other option only. Although this sounds neat and tidy, the argument bypasses the question whether PRO in imperative subject position would meet the requirements that PRO has to meet in other positions. There are problems, in particular, with Case assignment and with control of imperative PRO. The grammaticality of overt subjects reveals that the imperative subject position is Case-marked and this is something usually assumed to rule out the occurrence of PRO. Moreover, it is also not clear what element could control imperative subject PRO. It was considerations like these that led Beukema and Coopmans (1989) to rule out a PRO subject and no solution is provided by Han (2000a). If the imperative subject is not a trace or PRO, perhaps it is pro. It must be said that this conclusion is not entirely straightforward either, since – as pointed out by Beukema and Coopmans (1989) – it raises the question of how pro in imperative subject position is identified. In regular pro-drop languages like Spanish, identification might conceivably take place just as in indicatives through the second person verbal ending, as in (92a). Such an ending is absent in morphologically poor





Wim van der Wurff

languages like English. Still, they too allow non-overt subjects in the imperative, as in (92b). (92)

a. b.

e canta! (Spanish) sing.2. e sing!

A solution for this problem may be found in the nature and meaning of the imperative clause type: if the imperative prototypically proposes that the addressee bring about an event, there will always be a second person available in an imperative utterance that can license subject pro, over and above any verbal ending that may do so.32 The idea of a second person entity being contextually present in all imperatives goes back to Downes (1977) – as we saw in 2.4, he used it to account for sentences like (45). It is now also standardly invoked to account for the occurrence of pro (see Rooryck 1992, Potsdam 1998, Rupp 1999, 2003, Wratil 2000, Jensen 2003b, Moon 2004). In Bennis (this volume), the analysis is further developed and an account is offered for the surprising fact that in Dutch this identifying mechanism enables one and the same verb form (the bare stem) to be interpreted as having a zero subject which is either singular familiar, or plural familiar, or polite, as shown in (93a) for the bare stem kom ‘come’. When the subject is overt, however, the bare stem is only compatible with a singular familiar pronoun, (93b), while separate verb forms have to be used with plural familiar and polite pronouns, (93d,f). These separate verb forms, even though they have overt endings, are not able to licence a pro subject, (93c,e).33 (93)

a.

b.

Kom pro hier! come pro here ‘(You.././) come here!’ Kom jij/*jullie/*u hier! come you../*./* here ‘You.. come here!’

. Note that the syntax of imperatives here has a direct bearing on what is taken to be their semantics, as discussed in 3.5. Specifically, assuming a wide semantics in terms of possibility or potentiality without further specification of a special role for the addressee does not seem to be adequate for this account of pro-drop. At least part of the traditional directive analysis may have to be retained. On the other hand, the fact that a null subject is also licensed in conditional imperatives, even those with generic interpretation such as (82) and (83b), suggests that perhaps a slightly wider notion of pro licensing is needed. . Historically, Dutch did have a plural imperative verb form (ending in -t) which licensed a zero subject (Overdiep 1936). As shown in Overdiep (1935) and more systematically in de Schutter (1997), in some varieties, this plural imperative form remains; in others it has been reinterpreted as an insistent or emphatic imperative marker; in yet others (including the northern standard), it has been relegated to archaic registers.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

c. *Komen pro hier! come. pro here ‘(You.) come here!’ d. Komen jullie hier! come. you.. here ‘You.. come here!’ e. *Komt pro hier! come. pro here ‘(You.) come here!’ f. Komt u hier! come. you. here ‘You. come here!’

Bennis’ account turns on the idea that pro has only a 2nd person specification. This means it can be interpreted as singular, plural or polite. When the imperative verb is specified for any of these, pro cannot check the relevant features and a lexical pronoun is needed instead. This approach also seems a promising one for the pattern found in German, which is the same as in Dutch except that the familiar second person plural can be non-overt just like the singular.34 A further complication in the Dutch data is that the second person singular familar pronoun can appear in the imperative only in its full form, not in its reduced form. That is, alongside (93b), with full jij ‘you..’, there is no (94), with reduced je ‘you..’. (94)

*Kom je hier! come you.. here ‘You.. come here!’

Bennis (this volume) takes (94) to be impossible because in the imperative, the reduced form of a subject pronoun is simply pro. In an earlier proposal, Proeme (1986: 34) suggests that, if it is possible to use a non-overt imperative subject, using the overt form automatically leads to stress on that form. The problem with (94) would then be the inability of je to cope with the stress assigned to it.35

. As noted in 2.2, the German facts are held up as a problem for the you-deletion approach by Schmerling (1975, 1982) but she offers no further analysis. . Proeme (1986) uses the ungrammaticality of Vimp + je to argue that the Dutch form wees ‘be’, often held to be the only formally distinctive imperative verb form in the language, is not actually an imperative. The reason is that wees does allow je as a subject: Wees je voorzichtig, lit. ‘Be you careful’, i.e. ‘You be careful!/Will you be careful?’. Proeme argues that these sentences show overlap between interrogative and imperative. From this, he draws the conclusion that wees + full form jij (Wees jij voorzichtig ‘You be careful!/Will you be careful?’) is interrogative plus imperative as well. He generalises this conclusion to all sentences with a verb stem followed by jij (except of course straightforward interrogatives). Since crosslinguistic data suggest that overlap of imperative and other clause types is doubtful (see 3.1), Proeme’s reasoning must be





Wim van der Wurff

A similar point is made for English imperatives by Moon (2004), who analyses the discourse-pragmatics underlying the choice between you and pro. She suggests that, in accordance with general restrictions on the use of null elements, overt you is obligatory when the imperative subject is discoursally prominent (or ‘important’) and that Gricean quantity has the effect of making pro obligatory in all other cases. Whether an overt imperative subject is universally associated with prominence and/or stress assignment is not clear, but the many reports that prototypical imperatives are overtly subjectless certainly point in that direction. .

The interpretation of the subject

We saw in Section 2 that early work also devoted attention to the question what restrictions there are on subjects in imperatives. Work carried out from the early 1980s onwards mostly follows the conclusions reached in this earlier work (e.g. Downes 1977, discussed in 2.4). Thus, Schmerling (1982) observes that the subject must have audience reference, leading to various kinds of possible NP types (second person pronouns, indefinite pronouns, indefinite NPs, occasionally also definite NPs), but not NPs resisting addressee interpretation, as in (95). (95)

*The window be opened!

Even where the subject appears to be firmly third person, as in the Frisian examples in (96), it turns out the interpretation is still addressee-based (Hoekstra 1997: 39–41). (96)

a.

b.

Doch heit dat efkes! do. dad that once ‘You do that, dad!’ Kom hy/sy hjir mar! come. he/she here ADV ‘Do come here!’

What makes these examples distinctive is not any property of the imperative but the use of a third person form (in (96b) even a third person pronoun) to refer to the addressee. This phenomenon is not restricted to Frisian imperatives (Hoekstra 1997: 39) and may well be a case of conventionalised indirectness. A possible exception to the addressee-requirement of the imperative is discussed by Faarlund (1985). He points out that the Norwegian verb få ‘get, receive, be allowed’, when used in the imperative, appears to trigger a speaker-oriented interpretation of its subject. An example is (97). considered suspect. Part of the problem is that the exact distribution of wees is difficult to pinpoint: many speakers seldom use it outside clauses with directive meaning of the type at issue and it is certainly not the case that it is the ordinary present indicative form of the verb be in the second person singular familiar, even in interrogatives (see Bennis, this volume: n. 4, for a clear description).

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

(97)

Få den avisa! get/receive that paper ‘I should get that paper/Give me that paper!’

Faarlund links this property of imperative få to the verb’s behaviour in what are otherwise object control structures, where it also triggers a subject orientation, as in (98). (98)

Joni bad lærarenj om [PROi å få gå tidleg] John asked the-teacher about [PRO to get/receive go early] ‘Johni asked the teacherj PROi to be allowed to leave early.’

However, because få has the meaning ‘be allowed’, the control relation in (98) is not surprising, since it instantiates the well-known phenomenon of control shift triggered by various types of embedded predicates, one of which is the passive (Panther and Köpcke 1993). Nevertheless, the exceptional first person interpretation in (97) remains. Historically, it is no doubt linked to the semantic changes that få has undergone, from full lexical verb with the meaning ‘catch, receive’ to a more auxiliary-like element ‘get, be allowed’. The sentence in (97) might be thought to instantiate a further semantic development of this verb, from ‘get’ into ‘cause to get’ (as in English: Get me a coffee!) but Faarlund (1985: 152) observes that the verb shows no (other) signs of such a development. While (97) looks like an isolated case, Potsdam (1998: 170–217) describes a more systematic type of exception to the addressee-orientation of imperative subjects. It involves sentences such as (99), where the imperative subject (a group of soldiers) refers to a set that does not coincide or even intersect with the addressee set (General Grant, represented by a vocative). (99)

YOUR men go there, General Grant!

Potsdam’s conclusion is that the imperative subject is not restricted in reference, as long as the addressee is in control of the subject. Besides (99), this will take care of the range of subject types discussed in 2.4, where the subject is identical to the addressee or overlaps with it. Facts like those in (96) and (99) may receive a natural explanation when viewed in the light of recent efforts to define more precisely the status of subjects in imperatives as against subjects in other clause types. Initially in Platzack and Rosengren (1998) and later also in Jensen (2003b, 2004), it has been argued that whereas ordinary subjects are talked about, imperative subjects are talked to. Platzack and Rosengren (1998) derive the difference from their hypothesis of the absence of FinP from imperatives. Since SpecFinP is the ordinary surface position of subjects, the imperative’s prototypical subject does not take part in the predication relation that is normally established between a DP in SpecFinP and the complement of Fin0. Instead, the imperative subject is interpreted as the addressee.





Wim van der Wurff

This idea is developed further in interesting ways by Jensen (2003b, 2004), who distinguishes two separate functions that declarative subjects have: one is that of being agent/causer/initiator (established at SpecvP, where the subject is merged) and the other is that of being predicated of (established at SpecTP, to which the subject moves). While declarative subjects have both of these functions, the imperative subject has only the former. It is an agent. In imperative clauses, SpecTP is not a position that is predicated over. Instead, imperative T0 has a feature [addressee], which defines an addressee participant. This participant is not represented in the form of a DP in an A-position, but is directly associated with T0[addressee]. As a result, there are in principle two separate subjects in the imperative clause, an agent and an addressee. These match up as follows with the two different events that Jensen (2004) sees as being contained in imperative meaning (3.2): there is the addressee, directly given by the imperative T0 and being directly enjoined by the speaker at moment Tu; and there is the agent, who is going to carry out the event that the addressee is being enjoined to bring about. Addressee and agent may of course be the same individual(s). But this is not necessary. As long as the addressee can be expected to have sufficient control over the agent to make them carry out event e, they can in principle be distinct. And that is the possibility that examples like (99) instantiate. Its structure is as in (100). (100)

T0 [vP your men [VP go there]]] General Granti [ADDRESSEE]i

[TP

Timp

The addressee is given in T0; as it happens, it is associated with a vocative (General Grant) in this sentence. The DP your men in SpecvP is the agent that is to carry out the action of ‘going there’ (event e) which the addressee is being directed at Tu to bring about. Because the agent DP remains in SpecvP, it will not have an effect on the person specification of the verb, which is represented in a projection higher than vP. Hence the verb remains 2nd person even if the agent is 3rd person. As an example showing this more clearly than English can, Jensen (2004) gives the Latin sentence in (101). The structure in (102) has the verb raised out of the VP, through the vP, to T0, and showing 2nd person plural agreement with the addressee, in spite of the 3rd person agent DP in SpecvP. (101)

(102)

aperite aliquis! open.. someone..3 ‘Someone open it!’ (Plaut. Merc. 131) [ T0-aperitei ] [vP aliquis [ti v0] [VP ti ]] ] [TP [ADDRESSEE] Timp

In practice, injunctions will often make most sense when enjoinee and anticipated agent are one and the same person, and that is of course also possible.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

The structure will then be as in (100) but SpecvP will be filled by you or pro, coindexed with the addressee under T0.36 If the language allows it, the speaker may also use some other DP expression to refer to the agent/addressee. In (96b) it takes the form of a 3rd person pronoun, which again would be in SpecvP and not have any effect on the person specification of the verb. Clearly, this is a promising approach to imperative structure and meaning. It handles simple cases in a simple manner but, by separating out the two subject roles and the two events contained within imperative meaning, it also provides a natural interpretation for conceptually more complex possibilities. . .

Imperative verbs Minimal marking

Cross-linguistically, the imperative form of the verb is constructed making use of the ordinary range of options employed to make other verb forms as well (Sadock and Zwicky 1985: 171). Thus, imperatives can be found that are formed by means of inflections (a widespread method), reduplication (as in Hopi peena’a ‘paint!’, based on peena ‘you painted’; Bennett 1981), or a base form combined with an unchanging particle (often found in agglutinating languages, according to Schmerling 1982: 202). But the type of marking most often associated with the imperative is zero. Sadock and Zwicky (1985: 172–173) report that over half of the languages in their sample use the bare base of the verb as an imperative, especially in the second person singular familiar form. In some languages, such a base may include a theme vowel (see 2.5) but even then individual verbs may lack this element, as in the three Latin verbs given in (1) or the nine Spanish verbs listed by Harris (1997: 549). Clearly, when it comes to imperative morphology, little is enough.37 The reason for the meagre morphology of imperative verbs has been sought in the architecture of the imperative clause type. As we saw in 3.2, it is often argued . Some of the examples given in 2.4 show that co-indexing of pro with the addressee need not be exhaustive but can be partial. This can even vary from one clause to its following coordinate, as in Go to John and talk it out together!. The addressee is the same in both clauses but the first clause has exhaustively co-indexed pro in SpecvP and the second one a partially co-indexed pro. This specific example is adapted from Janssen (2006a), who gives a Dutch exclamative (interrogative?) example of this type: Waarom niet naar Jan gegaan en het samen uitgepraat? why not to Jan go. and it together out-talk. ‘Why not go to Jan and talk it out together?’. Conceivably, the Jensen analysis could be extended to such sentences as well. A simple ellipsis analysis of them, tempting for the English sentence, could not account for the presence of a past participle in Dutch. . The prevalence of minimal imperative forms means that, if a language – such as English – also uses bare verb stems in other functions, it may look as if it has no separate imperative verb form at all. Discussion of this point is widespread in the literature.





Wim van der Wurff

that imperative clauses lack certain functional projections and it would not be surprising to find this reflected in a relative poverty of imperatival marking. Quite explicit claims on this point are made by Platzack and Rosengren (1998). They state that, if their hypothesis of the absence of FinP, TP and MoodP from imperatives is correct, we would expect no tense or mood differentiation in imperative clauses. Data from Zhang (1990) appear to support this prediction. With regard to marking for the categories of aspect and agreement, no restrictions would be expected and to show that this expectation is fulfilled, Platzack and Rosengren (1998) cite data from the Slavic languages, which have both perfective and imperfective imperatives, and from Germanic languages with overt subject agreement. It must be said, however, that from an empirical point of view the general poverty of imperative marking also seems to extend to person marking: even in the German and Icelandic examples given by Platzack and Rosengren, there is an overt marker in the plural, but the singular is marked by the absence of any overt person affix. What may play a role here is not the absence of any functional category but the presence in all imperatives of a contextually given addressee, which not only licenses a subject pro (see 4.1) but also obviates any strong need for overt person marking.38 Given that imperatives are so minimally marked, it is not surprising to find that in some languages they are formed by means of a process of morphological subtraction or truncation. Perhaps the best-known case is Danish, as analysed by Anderson (1992: 249–252). The example Anderson uses is the form bæɁð, imperative of the verb ‘to bathe’, with the stød reflecting vowel length. The verb has underlying short /æ/ (like the noun bæd ‘bath’, from which it derives) but in the infinitive, which has a final schwa, a process of open syllable lengthening results in bæ:d. The imperative appears to be based on the infinitive, keeping the long vowel but shedding the final schwa through truncation. Another case, described by Bat-el (2002), is found in colloquial Hebrew. There, the future tense, when used as an imperative, can also undergo reduction through morphological subtraction. A form like ti-kansi ‘enter..!’, for example, can be realised as truncated tkansi.39 The details of the process are complex and differ for different verb classes (Bat-el offers an optimality account) but the phenomenon as such again shows that, where the imperative seems to formally derive from some other verb form, the process may involve a reduction in overt substance.40 A further case of formal . See also Sadock and Zwicky (1985:174) on the general tendency for zero person marking in the imperative singular. Marking for aspect and voice appears to be variable (Sadock and Zwicky 1985: 172–173). . Note the gender marking on this imperative, found in Semitic languages on verbs quite generally. This appears to be a category not involved in any reduction in imperative clauses. . Intriguingly, Winter (1969) is able to show that in Proto-Indo-European, the vocative, a category also known for its minimal formal marking, derives from the nominative through a process of truncation. He also considers the imperative, but comes to the conclusion that no truncation can be established for that form.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

reduction, described by Anipa (2000), is found in sixteenth and seventeenthcentury Spanish. There, the plural imperative seems to be losing its final –d, resulting in alternations such as mirad mirá ‘look.!’. Although Anipa cites some examples of nouns undergoing the same development (e.g. ciudad > ciudá ‘city’), which suggests that the process may be an ordinary sound change, it seems most prominent in imperative verb forms.41 Yet another case involves the imperative forms in (1): these completely endingless forms of classical Latin go back to early Latin dice ‘say..’, dūce ‘lead.. and face ‘do..’. Phonologically and morhologically, this loss of the final –e is irregular (Baldi 1999: 405), but like the other phenomena discussed in this paragraph it ties in well with the general trend towards minimalisation found in imperative forms cross-linguistically, perhaps as a result of the impoverished nature of the clausal structure coupled with the automatic presence of an addressee that needs no formal marking.42 .

Tense-marked imperatives

Although the existence of tense-marked imperatives is ‘extremely rare’ (Sadock and Zwicky 1985: 172), some cases have been reported in the literature. One distinction that is sometimes made involves what is usually called a present imperative contrasting with a future imperative. Examples are given in (103) for Latin (Baldi 1999: 404) and (104) for Bengali (Ferguson 1966). (103)

a.

i! go... ‘(You.) go!’

. Anipa (2000) reports that, within the category of the imperative, the reduced form is most frequent when an imperative functions as a discourse marker or particle (e.g. mirá ‘look here’). The development from imperative to discourse marker is a very usual one (see, for example, Waltereit 2002, Brinton and Traugott 2005: 136–140 and references given there). The verbs involved tend to have meanings like ‘look/see’, ‘listen/hear’, ‘come/go’, ‘think’ and ‘say’. The reduction in form that they often show may be due to the same type of factor that is responsible for reduction of the imperative quite generally, i.e. the absence of functional projections. At the same time, it is possible for different constructions featuring the erstwhile imperative to develop different discourse uses, as demonstrated in detail for the Dutch form kijk ‘look(!)’ in Janssen (2006b). . The outcome of the trend in any specific language is no doubt also guided by the general nature of its morphological system, as is clear from the merest glance at the bare imperative stems of English as compared with the 27 different slots in the imperative paradigm of Ancient Greek, cited by Rivero and Terzi (1995: 308 n. 8). However, little work has been done on the question of how imperative morphology gets shaped. Harris (1997, 1998) provides a distributed morphology account of Spanish imperative forms (including subjunctival ones). Koopman (2005) gives a movement analysis of Malagasy imperatives, by which pieces of morphology undergo manipulation in the tree prior to joining up into words.





Wim van der Wurff

b.

(104)

a.

b.

ito! go... ‘(You.) go!’ jau! go... ‘(You../) go!’ jeo! go... ‘(You../) go!’

Further languages having this type of distinction are Yakut (Turkic; Pakendorf and Schalley 2005) and several Algonquian languages, such as Cheyenne (Palmer 2001: 82). Since an ordinary imperative, if interpreted in terms of the tense system, canonically expresses future meaning, the distinction in (103)–(104) appears to involve two forms that both refer to the future and the question arises what difference in meaning is conveyed by the contrast between (103a/104a) and (103b/104b). The neo-Reichenbachian theories of tense developed in Comrie (1985) and Hornstein (1990) in principle make available two possibilities. Either the difference is one of absolute versus relative future (i.e. a future viewed from the time of speech or a future viewed from some other reference point which itself is in the future) or it is one of immediate versus remote future (i.e. a future that is close to the time of speech or a future located further into the temporal distance). As it happens, Latin and Bengali appear to instantiate exactly these two possibilities. Thus, Baldi (1999: 404–405) characterises the Latin present imperative as involving a future action, while the future imperative involves an action subsequent to some other future event. He gives (105) as an example illustrating the use of the future imperative. The first (indicative) clause in it refers to a future event; the second clause instructs the hearer to do something after that event. This would therefore be a classic example of relative tense use. (105)

rem vqbis prqpqnam; vqs eam penditqte matter you.. I.will.put; you.. it consider... ‘I will lay the matter before you; you (then) consider it!’

For Bengali, the usual characterisation is that the present imperative as in (104a) is used when immediate compliance is demanded and the future imperative as in (104b) is used when the action to be carried out lies further into the future (e.g. Seely 2002: 291). This suggests that the language uses an immediate-remote time distinction here. Although this looks tidy, there are both theoretical and empirical reasons to carry the inquiry a little further. For one thing, we have seen that there are some grounds for denying that imperative clauses have a TP. If this is correct, then it is somewhat strange having to claim that the imperative system of some languages

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

exploits a rather fine distinction crucially involving elements of the tense system. For another thing, the future imperative forms of Latin and Bengali also appear to fulfil another function beyond that of relative/remote future, i.e. that of expressing a law, maxim or general precept or exhortation (Risselada 1993: 122–138, Smith 1997: 111). The solution to both problems may lie in a characterisation of the two imperatives as not involving a tense distinction. Instead, we could adopt the proposal made for Latin by Risselada (1993: 122–138) and specify that the future imperative has non-immediate meaning. Exploiting the proposal for imperative meaning of Platzack and Rosengren (1998) (see 3.5), we could then say that the distinction involves the setting of a norm applying to the here-and-now versus the setting of a norm not restricted in this way. This would make the future imperative an elsewhere category, covering both types of use in Latin and Bengali (distant/ relative future and general exhortation). Also covered would be the type of distinction reported by Palmer (2001: 82) for some Northern American languages, in which there are different imperative forms for actions to be carried out in the presence of the speaker and in the absence of the speaker. The provisional conclusion may therefore be that it is not necessary to claim the existence in the imperative of tense distinctions relating to the future. In languages having so-called future imperatives, what is at stake seems to relate to the immediate versus non-immediate applicability of the norm set by using the imperative form.43 Another question about tense and imperatives involves the domain of the past. From a conceptual point of view, it is difficult to imagine an imperative that relates to an action in the past. How can someone be ordered to do something in the past? We saw that English allows some imperatives, like (23), which express the speaker’s wishes about an as yet unverified action in the past. However, it has been pointed out that the relevant cases all have present perfects, which makes it possible to claim that they focus not on the past action but on the present situation resulting from it. This would mean that strictly speaking they are not imperatives about the past after all. However, imperatives about the past do exist in languages other than English. Thus, Spanish has what Bosque (1980) calls a ‘retrospective imperative’, an example of which is given in (106).

. This may also apply to languages which use other traditional labels for two sets of imperative forms. An example may be (Ancient) Greek: the description in Bakker (1966) suggests that the Greek present imperative sets a norm for immediate compliance while the aorist imperative involves a non-immediate norm. A further relevant case may be the participial imperative in Dutch: as Rooryck and Postma (this volume) show, this form expresses immediate, ‘here-andnow’ meaning, while the ordinary imperative is not so restricted. It may also be possible that a language has an imperative only usable for an immediate norm, while altogether lacking an imperative for a norm applying non-immediately; judging from the description in Bennett (1981), Hopi may be a language of this type.





Wim van der Wurff

(106)

Haber venido! have. come ‘You should have come.’ (Bosque 1980)

According to Bosque (1980), the construction is used in Spanish for reprimanding or scolding someone that has failed to do whatever the sentence refers to. Formally, it consists of the infinitive of the auxiliary haber ‘have’ followed by the past participle of the lexical verb. As Bosque notes, it is not entirely surprising that the retrospective imperative should have this form, since the infinitive is often used with imperative force in Spanish.44 Other languages having a counterfactual imperative construction with the same general function are Syrian Arabic, which uses an ordinary imperative of a lexical verb combined with the perfect of kan ‘to be’, as in (107) (Palmer 1986: 112) and Dutch, which employs the past perfect, as in (108) (Proeme 1984: 255–256). (107)

(108)

knt ko’! you-were eat. ‘You should have eaten.’ Had iets gegeten! had something eaten ‘You should have eaten something.’

Bosque (1980) offers several arguments for saying that the Spanish construction is an imperative. Thus, like regular imperatives, it cannot be embedded, (109); the subject must be second person, (110); and an overt subject is contrastive or emphatic (111) – though this last argument is not entirely convincing, since it seems to hold for Spanish (second person) verbs quite generally. (109)

(110)

(111)

*Creo que haber venido. I.believe that have. come ‘I believe that you should have come.’ *Haber venido Juan! have. come Juan ‘Juan should have come.’ Haber salido tú! have. gone-out you ‘YOU should have gone out.’

In Dutch, the situation is more complicated due to the existence of a formally similar construction which is not (retrospectively) imperative but exclamative, expressing a counterfactual wish. Thus, next to (108) it is possible to have (112), with

. Bosque (1980) also mentions the possibility, if the subject is plural, of using not the infinitive haber but the 2nd person plural imperative form habed. This may by now be a ghost form; see den Dikken and Blasco (this volume: n. 8 and n. 12) for discussion.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

an overt first person subject, and (113), with an overt third person plural subject (and corresponding plural verb). (112)

(113)

Had ik maar iets gegeten. had I ADV something eaten ‘I wish I had eaten something/If only I had eaten something.’ Hadden ze maar iets gegeten. had.PLU they ADV something eaten ‘I wish they had eaten something/If only they had eaten something.’

It might be thought that (108) is in fact also such a wishful exclamative, which would then allow a non-overt subject if and only if it is second person. However, this conclusion would not be correct. Firstly, the wishful exclamative of (112)–(113) requires the presence of the discourse particle maar – without it, (112)–(113) are sharply ungrammatical under the intended reading. In sentence (108), maar could be inserted, but the sentence is also fine without it. Secondly, there are certain predicates that are semantically odd or deviant in a (retrospective) imperative, but that are unexceptionable in a (counterfactual) wish. Such predicates (e.g. someone being taller than they actually are) would indeed be strange in imperative sentences of type (108), such as (114a), but they are fine in wish-sentences of type (112)–(113), like (114b). (114)

a.

b.

??Was

iets langer geweest! be.. somewhat taller been ‘You should have been a bit taller.’ Was hij maar iets langer geweest. be.. he ADV somewhat taller been ‘I wish he had been a bit taller/If only he had been a bit taller.’

It therefore appears that Dutch has a retrospective imperative which is to be distinguished from the formally similar wishful exclamative. As in Spanish, it cannot be embedded (but this also holds for the exclamative). Where the Dutch retrospective imperative differs from Spanish (and from the ordinary Dutch imperative) is in its subject options. It only allows a zero subject (interpretable as second person familiar singular/plural or polite) and as a result only occurs with the bare verb stem, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (115a,b). (115)

a. *Had jij/je iets gegeten! had you...[]/you...[] something eaten ‘You should have eaten something.’ b. *Hadden (jullie) iets gegeten! had. (you..) something eaten ‘You.. should have eaten something.’

While there is as yet no explanation for these subject properties, they make the construction resemble the prototypical imperative (which has a non-overt second





Wim van der Wurff

person singular subject) rather than anything else. Moreover, it is hospitable to exactly the kinds of predicates found in regular imperatives. These facts, and those of the Spanish counterpart in (106), would follow if the construction is regarded as involving the retrospective setting of a norm which the speaker knows the addressee did not adhere to. The purpose of such a communicative act might be to reprimand or scold the hearer, or perhaps to express regret, which are indeed the general functions of the construction that Bosque (1980) and Proeme (1984) report for Spanish and Dutch respectively. The construction may not be frequent cross-linguistically but its existence reflects an option that can be considered a natural extension of regular imperative meaning. Apart from (retrospective) imperatives realised by a verb in the past perfect, Dutch also has imperatives realised by a simple past tense form. Proeme (1984) and Wolf (2003) distinguish two types. The first, illustrated in (116), has a past tense verb but this could be replaced by an ordinary imperative form, as in (117) and the sentence indeed has the same function as an ordinary imperative in that it expresses a directive applying to the present/future. The possibilities for overt and non-overt subjects in (116) are also exactly like those of (117), i.e. they have the pattern of (93) (except that there is no separate polite verb form in the past), which further supports the idea that (116) should be regarded as a genuine (though quite special) imperative. (116)

(117)

At liever eens wat minder! (Dan voel je je echt beter.) ate rather ADV a-little less (then feel you you really better) ‘Better eat a bit less/It might be better if you ate a bit less. (You will really feel better then.)’ Eet liever eens wat minder! eat. rather ADV a-little less ‘Better eat a bit less/It might be better if you ate a bit less.’

Proeme (1984: 251–252) characterises the construction in (116) as having a distancing effect in comparison with the ordinary imperative in (117). Use of such a past form imperative can make the directive less insistent and/or it can convey the speaker’s estimation that the advice is not likely to be heeded. The second type of Dutch imperative with a past tense form discussed by Proeme (1984: 252–253) and Wolf (2003) does what has often been pronounced to be impossible: it expresses directive meaning focused on some action in the past. Two examples are given in (118). (118)

a.

b.

Luisterde dan ook toen ik het zei! listened ADV ADV when I it said ‘You should have listened/Why didn’t you listen when I told you.’ Bleef dan maar uit zijn buurt! stayed then ADV from his vicinity ‘It was better to keep away from him then.’

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

In (118a), the speaker reproaches the addressee for not listening to him/her on some specific occasion in the past (i.e. it has perfective meaning), while (118b) expresses advice about behaviour in a recurring type of situation in the past (i.e. it has iterative or habitual meaning). Both could be called hortative imperatives, i.e. they (retrospectively) recommend a certain course of action. Wolf (2003) notes that such past imperatives with past time reference as in (118) also occur in Frisian. He furthermore observes that not all speakers of Dutch and Frisian accept them and that some speakers find examples with an irregular verb, such as (118b), better than ones with a regular verb, such as (118a). To account for the existence of the past imperative with past meaning, he proposes that hortative imperatives – unlike other imperatives – can have a tense feature. This means that there can be a [± past] opposition and sentences like (118) then instantiate the [+ past] value. To account for the preference that some speakers have for irregular verbs, he suggests that past imperatives are in a sense parasitic, since the general phonological template of the imperative has a good fit with the past tense singular of most irregular verbs (which in Dutch, as in English, is monosyllabic and lacks a phonological sequence which can straightforwardly be isolated and identified as the carrier of past meaning). Hence such a past tense can double as an imperative more easily than the past tense of a regular verb, which has an extra syllable containing the alveolar stop that marks past tense, i.e. -de/te. However, the claim that past imperatives exist because hortative imperatives can have a tense feature, while possibly true, amounts to little more than a restatement of the facts which cannot be said to shed a great deal of light on the occurrence of the phenomenon. For one thing, it does not explain why, if imperatives can in principle have tense, the occurrence of past tense imperatives seems to be so rare cross-linguistically. Secondly, the idea of restricting the tense feature to hortative imperatives seems to lack conceptual support, since it is not clear why orders, invitations or wishes could not also have tense. Thirdly, in view of the fact that Dutch and Frisian have past imperatives with present/future meaning, as in (116), and with past meaning, as in (118), it would seem a reasonable strategy to try and provide an account which links these two. Wolf ’s (2003) account does not do this and thus makes the co-existence of the two phenomena a coincidence. Finally, Wolf (2003) fails to note a difference between past imperatives of types (118a) and (118b). The former, just like ordinary imperatives such as (117) and also the past imperative with present/future reference in (116), are addressed to a specific hearer and they have the subject possibilities shown in (93), modulo the absence of a polite verb form. They thus allow an overt subject jij ‘you..’ or u ‘you.’, as in (119a). Type (118b), however, triggers a generic interpretation of the subject. It retrospectively recommends a course of action to anyone that could be or could imagine themselves in that particular type of past situation and it does not allow overt jij ‘you..’ or u ‘you.’ as a subject, as shown in (119b).





Wim van der Wurff

(119)

a.

Luisterde jij/u dan ook toen ik het zei! listened you../you. ADV ADV when I it said ‘You../you. should have listened/Why didn’t you../you. listen when I told you.’ b. *Bleef jij/u dan maar uit zijn buurt! stayed you../you. then ADV from his vicinity ‘It was better to keep away from him then.’

Clearly, all of these matters invite further research. From an empirical point of view, questions arise concerning the cross-linguistic spread of (116) and (118a,b) and also possible further shared tense properties of languages having them. Proeme (1984) notes that the existence of the phenomena in (116) and (118) has often been overlooked in studies of the Dutch imperative, perhaps because not all speakers consider them grammatical. He suggests they are primarily a feature of very colloquial speech, which has long impeded their recognition. If features like this can escape notice in a language as well studied and documented as Dutch, establishing whether other languages have them may not be a simple matter of checking reference grammars. From a theoretical point of view, the questions have to do with issues like the status of (116) and (118a,b) with respect to norm-setting and the general role of tense in imperatives.45 One possibility that suggests itself on the basis of the facts that have been studied in the literature so far is that the existence of past imperatives is not a quirky phenomenon but an option that realises possibilities made directly available by the general semantics of the imperative. In 3.5, we saw that suggestions for this include notions like potentiality and irrealis. The latter meaning could be formulated as [-realised], which is in fact what Rooryck (1992: 229–230) proposes. He suggests that this is the temporal meaning of the imperative, but it could also be regarded as a way of expressing general imperative semantics. If we do so, we would be predicting that there might be languages in which this [-realised] meaning embraces not only the obvious cases of actions to be performed at some point after the moment of speech, but also cases where an action to be performed failed to be performed (i.e. was not realised) at some point in the past. The combination of [directive] and [-realised] would in such cases plausibly yield a reading of reproach, reprimand or regret, which we have seen is exactly the meaning expressed by using the various past imperatives that have been studied. Such an account would suggest that past imperatives fit more or less naturally into the general conception of imperatives. What it would not explain is their undoubted rarity and also the variable judgments that they evoke, in Dutch at any rate. . Further work might also profitably explore a possible connection between imperatives like (118b) and imperative conditionals such as (84). Both feature a past tense with iterative/ habitual meaning, receive a generic subject interpretation and disallow an overt subject.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

.

Non-finite imperatives

A language that might have been mentioned in the previous subsection is Maasai, since imperative verb forms in this language look just like past tenses. More specifically, as Koopman (2000a) shows, the Maasai imperative forms are also used to express past perfective meaning in ordinary declarative sentences. Koopman (2000a) argues that this involves more than a chance formal similarity, since in both uses the verb forms similarly disallow negation and have identical patterns of allomorphy and suppletion. However, the Maasai imperative does not refer to a past situation but resembles ordinary imperatives in other languages in being about a present or future action. The solution that Koopman offers to this puzzling state of affairs is to propose that the verb form in question is in fact a nonfinite one selected by a non-overt auxiliary with a meaning close to English ‘get’. In imperatives, the meaning would then be comparable to that of get to V!, while in declaratives it would be X got to V. This proposal can be viewed as a modern and more sophisticated variant of the analysis proposed for English imperatives in early generative work. As shown in 2.1, it was long thought that imperatives like (120) involved will-deletion (as well as you-deletion) and this would mean that the verb stop is in fact an infinitive. (120)

You will stop it!

In current work, such proposals are no longer generally maintained for English. Although there is formal identity between the imperative and the infinitive, this is usually taken to be due to their shared use of the base form rather than anything else. Coopmans (2003: 43–44) notes there are no data clearly disproving the idea that the English imperative verb is or can be an infinitive but nor are there data suggesting the opposite (but see 7.2). In many languages other than English, the issue can be decided on formal grounds, since they have a distinctive infinitive form that can be used with imperatival meaning. Examples from Spanish and German are given in (121a,b). (121)

a.

b.

Cesar fuego! cease. fire ‘Cease fire!’ Rechts fahren! on.the.right drive. ‘Drive on the right!’

Wratil (2000: 94–95) claims that, unlike ordinary imperatives, infinitival imperatives are typically restricted to command use and do not occur in wishes, requests, challenges, the granting of permission and the like. However, we saw in 2.2 that it is difficult to find syntactic distinctions reflecting these various pragmatic categories in a watertight manner and Wratil’s claim about use of the ordinary versus





Wim van der Wurff

the infinitival imperative may not be watertight either. Thus the Dutch infinitival imperatives in (122a,b) seem to convey a wish and a request respectively. (122)

a.

b.

Gauw beter worden! quickly better get. ‘Get well soon!’ Na gebruik s.v.p. schoonmaken! after use please clean-make. ‘Please clean after use!’

The idea that there is a non-overt auxiliary selecting the infinitive in imperatival use was first put forward by Kayne (1992) for Italian. The initial motivation for the proposal was a puzzling word order asymmetry between imperatival and other infinitives, which will be discussed in 7.3. As shown above, Maasai facts of a very different type lend support to the idea and it might be the case that infinitival imperatives universally involve a non-overt auxiliary. This would mean that language learners would not be depending on any clues in primary data for its presence or absence. Once they have analysed the clause as an imperative and the verb as an infinitive, they would automatically deduce that a non-overt auxiliary is present. This might then have certain subtle consequences, which look natural enough if the auxiliary is known to be present but might not be enough to deduce the presence of the auxiliary from. At least one such case is indeed reported in the literature. Den Dikken (1992: 61) notes the contrast between Dutch sentences like (123a), with an infinitival imperative, and (123b), with an ordinary imperative. (123)

a.

Niet over na denken (dat probleem)! not about PRT think. that problem ‘Don’t think about that problem!’ b. *Denk niet over na (dat probleem)! think. not about PRT that problem ‘Don’t think about that problem!’

Apparently, it is possible to have a preposition (over ‘about’) without an adjacent complement if the imperative clause has an infinitival verb, (123a), but not if the verb is an ordinary imperative, (123b). This is quite unexpected, since Dutch allows non-overt prepositional complements (i.e. preposition stranding) in several contexts, but it is generally immaterial for this what specific form the verb has. Den Dikken’s (1992) explanation for the contrast in (123) is that the infinitive in (123a) can license a stranding-related feature in the specifier of the relevant PP (which is standardly taken to be the position crucially involved in all cases of Dutch preposition stranding); the imperative verb in (123b) cannot do so since it has a role to play in licensing the pro subject – a role which in (123a) is played by the null auxiliary, leaving the infinitive free to do other things. Since the facts are subtle but very robust, Den Dikken’s (1992) account of them supports the idea

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

that infinitival imperatives always have a (modal) auxiliary, as a consequence of some general grammatical principle. Another non-finite form that is sometimes found with imperatival function is the past participle. This form has been discussed in the literature in particular for Dutch and German, though the analyses offered do not amount to more than a couple of suggestions.46 Two Dutch examples of participial imperatives are given in (124). (124)

a.

b.

Opgepast! up-take-care. ‘Take care/Be careful!’ Nu de kleren opgeruimd! now the clothes clear-away. ‘Now clear away the clothes!’

The existence of the construction is noted by Duinhoven (1984: 149–150), who suggests that such sentences focus on the resultant state to be brought about rather than on the action of bringing it about (though it must be said that it is not clear exactly what state is brought about in cases like (124a)). He also points out that except in the case of certain highly frequent expressions, of which (124a) is one, participial imperatives often feature the word nu ‘now’, as in (124b). He does not advance an explanation for this or relate it to the supposed focus on the resultant state. For Hoeksema (1992), the participial imperative in Dutch occurs only in lexicalised units, which have to be learned on a one-by-one basis. The motivation for this claim is the unsystematic nature of the pairs of corresponding imperatives that can or cannot be formed. Thus, Hoeksema gives pairs like (125a), with a participial imperative lacking a corresponding ordinary counterpart; (125b), showing the reverse situation; and (125c), with a participial imperative which lacks a negative counterpart. (125)

a. *Wees weg! be. away ‘Be gone with you!’ b. Eet op! eat. up ‘Eat it up!’ c. Opgerot! up.rot. ‘Eff off!’

Weg geweest! away be. ‘Be gone with you!’ *Opgegeten! eat.up. ‘Eat it up!’ *Niet opgerot! not up.rot. ‘Don’t leave!’

. In addition, there has been some debate about the question whether certain participial forms in New Testament Greek have imperatival meaning and whether this is a real property of Greek or a mere feature of translationese. The focus of the debate is mainly philological; see Snyder (1995) and references given there.





Wim van der Wurff

Facts like these certainly point at the existence of various restrictions on participial imperatives, but Hoeksema’s conclusion that they are all idiomatic or lexicalised may be somewhat too strong. Thus, while (125a) features a verb that is indeed idiosyncratically restricted, this is not so clearly the case with the other two verbs. Thus, the participial imperative opgegeten (eat-up.) of (125b) can in fact be used felicitously if it is included in a series of participial imperatives. Wratil (2000: 96) gives example (126) for German, and this sentence pattern can be straightforwardly transposed into Dutch, where it freely allows various parti-cipial imperatives that may sound odd or ungrammatical when considered in isolation. As the Dutch example in (127) shows, opgegeten is one of these.47 (126)

(127)

Schnell die Hausaufgaben gemacht, Zigarette geraucht quickly the homework make., cigarette smoke. und ab zur Schule! and off to school ‘Quickly do the homework, smoke a cigarette, and then off to school!’ Eerst het huiswerk gemaakt, dan de boterhammen opgegeten, first the homework make. then the sandwiches eat-up. daarna de tanden gepoetst, en dan naar school! after-that the teeth brush. and then to school ‘First do your homework, then eat your sandwiches, next brush your teeth and then off to school!’

The affirmative-only restriction shown in (125c) is real, but it also holds for the corresponding ordinary imperative (rot up! rot.IMP up ‘eff off!’, but *rot niet op! rot. not up ‘don’t eff off!’), so it appears to be the type of verb rather than the specific form it takes that is responsible for the effect. These and other properties and restrictions of participial imperatives in Dutch are investigated systematically in Rooryck and Postma (this volume). They focus on the type in (125c). One of their proposals is that it crucially contains an underlying semantic negative, which would provide some insight into its resistance to overt negation. Their analysis also addresses the fact, not noted in earlier studies, that this type of participial imperative usually features a particle, often the element op ‘up’. They furthermore point out that participial imperatives are (or were) attested in several other languages, suggesting they are based on principles of at least some generality. This means that Hoeksema’s (1992) claim of lexicalised status of such imperatives in Dutch cannot be the whole story.48 Nevertheless, Rooryck . Though it is possible that this pattern instantiates not an imperative but a descriptive narrative. . This holds even more strongly for Hoeksema’s (1992) proposal that all Dutch infinitival imperatives have lexicalised status as well. In support of this idea, Hoeksema cites gaps of the type shown in (125), but involving infinitival imperatives. However, several facts militate against the conclusion he draws from them: (i) most of the cases involve pairs where an affirmative

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

and Postma show that many imperatival past participles are devoid of ordinary lexical meaning. For example, the semantics of opgerot in (125c) lacks any element connected with the verb rotten ‘rot’ that is contained in it; instead it has the generalised meaning ‘eff off ’, which it shares with several other past participles with op- (opgedonderd, opgehoepeld, opgesodemieterd). Rooryck and Postma link this delexicalisation to the fact that these elements (always) move into the functional domain, making them examples of a dynamic process of grammaticalisation. .

Let imperatives

After the early work discussed in 2.4, there has not been a great amount of activity on sentences with clause-inital let. In line with her characterisation of the imperative as expressing ‘potentiality’ (see 3.5), Davies (1986) regards the optative let construction of (47) and similar examples as presenting a potential state of affairs, but one having a subject which is not a second person. While this results in a clear-cut division of the broad category of imperatives into ordinary imperative clauses, with a second person subject, and optative let clauses, with other subjects, the meaning of potentiality that she attributes to the broad category may be too general to capture the prototypical use of the two subcategories. Moreover, the notion of potentiality is epistemic in nature, while imperatives (including let clauses) have clearly deontic semantics as well. Clark (1993b) accounts for the deontic character of optative let clauses by stating that, in addition to potentiality, they include the element of desirability. Like Davies (1986), he therefore bases his analysis of optative let on ideas which he has defended for the imperative quite generally (for some discussion of these ideas, which go back to Wilson and Sperber 1988, see 3.4). Like others, Clark (1993b) singles out as a special category optative let clauses with the form let’s, which he suggests express a state of affairs that is desirable specifically to the speaker and which have a first person inclusive subject. Clark (1993b) makes no very specific proposals about the syntactic status of optative let(‘s), beyond rejecting Seppännen’s (1977) idea that let(‘s) behaves like a modal auxiliary (see 2.4). The reason for this rejection is the grammaticality of negative clauses in which let’s is accompanied by don’t, as in (128).

imperative lacks a negative counterpart or vice versa, as in the Dutch counterparts of ??Be afraid! vs. Don’t be afraid! or ??Touch! vs. Don’t touch!; these effects seem entirely semantic-pragmatic in nature; (ii) attested instances of infinitival imperatives in Dutch (see for example the corpus data in Kirsner 2003) feature a wide range of different predicates, without any of the tell-tale restrictions to obsolete or obsolescent verbs that lexicalised constructions often show; (iii) clauses with infinitival imperatives allow various options suggesting the presence of internal syntactic structure (including the possibility of null and right dislocated objects, discussed in 7.2); and (iv) infinitival imperatives are a productive option in many other languages, hence they appear to instantiate general principles of grammar.





Wim van der Wurff

(128)

Don’t let’s leave so quickly.

However, Clark (1993b) does not make clear how the data that led Seppännen (1977) to the auxiliary analysis should be accounted for if it is assumed that let(‘s) is not an auxiliary. Some further data of the same kind are advanced by Potsdam (1998: 257–303), who adopts and updates Seppännen’s (1977) analysis.49 He gives examples like (129) and (130), which feature VP ellipsis, a process only licensed by inflectional heads, such as the auxiliary will, with or without a following not, as in (131)–(132).50 (129) (130) (131) (132)

Yes, let’s (you and me) [VP e] Let’s not [VP e] Yes, we will [VP e] No, we will not [VP e]

Potsdam’s conclusion is that let’s is an inflectional head. Given that let’s has been undergoing a diachronic development from full verb status, still visible in examples like (46), to auxiliary status, it is not entirely unexpected that Potsdam (1998) needs to make some stipulations in connection with let’s. Firstly, the presence of let’s in I0 has the effect of making the subject of the clause appear in the accusative rather than nominative case – historically, this is the original state of affairs, but synchronically, the why and how of this unexpected case form remains an open question.51 Secondly, in addition to allowing the expected negative with not, as in (130) and other sentences, let’s also, for some speakers, allows negation by means of don’t, as in (128). Historically, this too represents the original state of affairs, but synchronically, it is puzzling and Potsdam’s (1998: 290) suggestion that don’t in (128) is a particle may be the best that can be done with it.52 As Davies (1986) points out, let(‘s) is in several respects an imperative verb syntactically but not . At least for the let’s type; he remains agnostic about other optative sentences with let, which he regards as formal or even archaic (Potsdam 1998: 294–295). . For (129) with the overt subject you and me, Potsdam (1998) suggests let’s has started out in I0, following the subject, and has moved to C0, prededing the subject, through head-to-head movement. For further discussion of Potsdam’s ideas about I-to-V movement in imperatives, in particular with the element do(n’t), see 7.1. . As noted by Bennis (this volume: n. 13), the corresponding construction in Dutch shows variation between accusative and nominative subjects. It is tempting to regard the latter option as being due to an historical innovation that brings the syntax and semantics of the construction more closely into line with each other. There are no signs of such a change in English (yet). Another difference is that the Dutch construction also accepts the verbs kijken ‘look’ and horen ‘hear’ (Schermer-Vermeer 1986). . A further possibility, found in some – mainly North-American – varieties, is to have don’t follow let’s, as in Let’s don’t try that. Potsdam (1998: 301 n. 10) suggests that in these varieties don’t is one single head, located in Neg0.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

semantically and this inevitably leads to problems for a synchronic account that tries to go beyond mere description. A final particularity, commented on by Potsdam (1998: 267–272), is that let’s is inherently specified (perhaps: inflected) for first person inclusive plural and licenses a pro subject with the same properties. For some speakers, an overt subject is actually excluded with let’s, though others allow a limited range of subjects, such as you and me in (129).53

.

Imperatives and negation

.

Negative imperative facts

We noted in 3.1 that the imperative clause type seems to be a universal feature of languages. However, this statement applies unproblematically only to affirmative imperatives. Syntactically negated imperatives do not exist in several languages, or they are formed in a manner that looks non-compositional. Thus, Sadock and Zwicky (1985: 175–177) report that in their sample of 23 languages, three quarters make the negative imperative using either a special negator or a verb form that is different from the one used in affirmative imperatives. As an example of the former type, they mention Yokuts (American Indian), whose ordinary negator hm must be replaced by the special form a·n’i if and only if it is an imperative verb that is negated.54 As examples of the latter type, they mention Greenlandic, where the imperative verb form is replaced by the infinitive under negation, and Swahili, where a negated subjunctive is used. Some languages in fact have several replacement options (or surrogate imperatives, as they are often called). Thus in Spanish the ungrammatical negative imperative, (133a,b), has grammatical counterparts with an infinitive and a subjunctive, (133c,d) (Rivero 1994b: 91–92). (133)

a.

Lee! read.. ‘Read!’

. Potsdam (1998: 267, 299–300 n. 6) gives several further examples (stressed us, us and them, all/none of us, everyone); all of them receive a first person inclusive interpretation. Collins (2004: 301), in a corpus study of let imperatives, gives an example of let’s with the subject me (Oh Elli look let’s me sit opposite you) from the COLT corpus, representing London teenage speech of the 1990s. This appears to represent an innovation, whereby let’s has lost the inclusive plural features of its lexical specification, leaving only a first person feature. Collins (2004: 315) reports that in the COLT corpus let’s is more than twice as frequent as in any of the other corpora he has examined, which may well be a correlate of the same change. . The existence of a such an exclusively imperative negative marker may be rare; more common is probably the situation found in Old Latin and Ancient Greek, where the imperative is negated by means of a marker that is also used with other non-indicative verbs (i.e. ne rather than indicative non in Latin, mê rather than indicative ouk in Greek).





Wim van der Wurff

b. *No lee! not read.. ‘Don’t read!’ c. No leer! not read. ‘Dont’ read!’ d. No leas! not read...2 ‘Don’t read!’

Finally, there are languages in which both the negative marker and the imperative verb take special forms in negative imperative clauses. As an example, Sadock and Zwicky (1985: 176–177) mention Hebrew. We saw in 5.1 that this language often uses the future (indicative) with imperative meaning (in which case the form can undergo truncation). In negated imperatives, this future is the only form that can be used. In addition, such negated imperatives require the unique negator ‘al, rather than the ordinary negator lo’. Examples are given in (134), where (134a) shows the simple imperative; (134b) the ungrammatical result of combining the simple imperative with either the ordinary negator lo’ or the special imperative negator ‘al; (134c) the negative future indicative tense (with unproblematic use of lo’); and (134d) the negative imperative, composed of the future verb form together with the special negator ‘al. (134)

a.

Šev! sit... ‘Sit down!’ b. *Lo’/’Al šev! not/not sit... ‘Don’t sit down!’ c. Lo’ tešev not sit.... ‘You will not sit down.’ d. ‘Al tešev! not sit../.. ‘Don’t sit down!’

On the basis of these and further data, Sadock and Zwicky’s (1985: 177) conclusion about simple negated imperatives is that ‘the avoidance of such forms [i]s a typical feature of natural languages.’ Within the generative framework, avoidance taking the form of ungrammaticality of certain sentences is of course standardly viewed as the result of a violation of grammatical principles. However, it has turned out to be difficult to pinpoint the exact source of the ungrammaticality of sentences like (133b) and (134b). One of the reasons for this is the fact that there are also languages that unproblematically allow their simple imperative to be combined with their simple clausal

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

negator, yielding a negative imperative. Example (135) shows this for German and (136) for Serbian/Croatian (Rivero and Terzi 1995: 309).55 (135)

a.

b.

(136)

a.

b.

Sag das! say. that ‘Say that!’ Sag das nicht! say. that not ‘Dont’ say that!’ Citajte read.. ‘(You.) read!’ Ne citajte not read.. ‘(You.) don’t read!’

The analytic challenge is clear: it is necessary to identify the factor that makes ‘simple’ negative imperatives impossible – or ineffable, to use McConvell’s (2004) apt term – and then to determine why this factor has this effect in some languages but not all. .

Negative imperative analyses

We will here consider the main analyses of the patterns described above. Since any account of them must be based on a fine-grained structural analysis of clausal negation, it is not surprising that negative imperatives, though mentioned in Sadock (1974) and Schmerling (1982), started to receive detailed attention only after the introduction and general acceptance of the functional projection NegP in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As we shall see, an idea that is shared by many studies of the topic is that the ineffability of negative imperatives results from a certain imperative-specific movement process being blocked due to the presence of the negator. However, because this idea can be operationalised in many ways and because the facts are recalcitrant, they have inspired a comparatively large amount of work, not all of which can be discussed in detail here. The studies dealt with contain further references and also include critical discussion of at least some earlier work, as do Postma and van der Wurff (this volume) and Tomić (this volume). One idea that has been explored in the literature is that negative and imperative elements are in competition for the same structural position, straightforwardly resulting in mutual incompatibility. In Laka (1990: 245–252), this idea is implemented by requiring both the negative marker and the imperative verb to move to the functional projection ΣP, which is the host for imperative, negative . English is not a crystal-clear example of such a language in view of the facts in (35) and (36), where auxiliary have and be are combined with do and don’t. Since the analysis of do/don’t is intimately connected with the position of the subject, it is discussed further in Section 7.1.



 Wim van der Wurff

and (emphatic) affirmative features. This analysis is simple but, as pointed out by Zanuttini (1994: 124 n. 4), it would also rule out the grammatical negative imperatives of German and Serbian/Croatian, as in (135) and (136). Zanuttini’s own (1994) analysis provides a slightly amended version, in which the relevant projection (PolarityP in her account) is the target for movement of the imperative verb but not of all negative markers: only preverbal negatives have to move to PolP. Imperative verbs are prevented from moving to PolP if such a negative has already moved there. The restriction to preverbal negatives is ad-hoc in Zanuttini’s (1994) account, but it does reflect a widespread empirical tendency: very few languages with a postverbal negator disallow negative imperatives. Another line of attack on negative imperatives has been to exploit the assumed absence of one or more functional projections. However, while we have seen that a certain measure of architectural impoverishment of imperative clauses is widely accepted (3.2), there is no unanimity about which projections are missing. Furthermore, arguing one’s way from a missing projection to ungrammaticality of negative imperatives has turned out to be somewhat less than straightforward. An early approach of this type is sketched in Zanuttini (1991). In line with other work of the time on the implications of functional projections for language variation, such as Ouhalla (1991), Zanuttini (1991) posits variation among the Romance languages with respect to the position of NegP: some language have a NegP higher than TP (Neg1P, yielding preverbal negation), others a NegP lower than TP (Neg2P, yielding postverbal negation), as shown in (137). (137)

[Neg1P [TP [Neg2P ]]]

The next step is to say that imperative clauses do not have tense and therefore lack TP. From this, Zanuttini draws the conclusion that there can be no high NegP in imperatives, making negative imperatives non-existent in preverbal negation languages. This account is predicated on the idea that there is some link between the high NegP and tense. This might be possible but it has turned out somewhat hard to provide this connection with further substance. In subsequent work, Zanuttini (1994: 125–126) considers possible ways of forging a link between Neg1P and TP in (137), but abandons the idea in favour of the mutual-exclusion account discussed above.56 In Platzack and Rosengren (1998) it is not the absence of TP from imperatives that is exploited but the absence of FinP (see 3.2). With Zanuttini (1991), they assume a structure with two possible negator positions, where the lower negation may fail to project its own category, and be an adjunct to VP. Their crucial claim is that the negative head in the higher position has the feature [finite], which needs

. See also Robbers (1992), who uses the same idea of a link between the high NegP and TP in order to account for negative imperative ineffability in Afrikaans.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

to be checked by Fin0. FinP being absent from imperative clauses, no negative imperative can be formed in languages with high negation. This account therefore agrees with Zanuttini (1991) and much subsequent work in positing the availability in UG of two different clausal negators (or perhaps the same negators, but differently featured), the choice between them being a matter of parameter setting. Since the negators fit in different structural slots, the choice has an effect on word order and on the possibility or otherwise of forming negative imperatives. These are certainly attractive ideas. At the level of execution, Platzack and Rosengren (1998) also agree with Zanuttini (1991) in assigning to the high NegP a feature related to tense/finiteness. But this leads to the same question: what exactly is this feature doing there? And what happens to it when the high negator form is used not for clausal but for constituent negation (see, for example, Zeijlstra 2004: 183 on this use of non in Italian)? Other generative analyses of the negative imperative facts have not tried to derive them from mutual exclusivity or from structural poverty, but from certain other properties of the syntax of the languages concerned. A particularly influential account has been that proposed in Rivero (1994a,b) and Rivero and Terzi (1995). One underlying premise of the analysis is the widely shared one that imperative clauses have a feature or operator [IMP], to which the imperative verb has to move (see 3.2). The default position for [IMP] is in C0. In affirmative imperatives, the verb has no problems moving to C0 through repeated application of head movement via the positions of T0 and Agr0, as shown in (138). (138)

[CP [C0 Vi-C0[IMP] ] [AgrP/TP [Agr0/ T0 ti ] [VP ti ]]]

In negative imperatives, there is an additional projection NegP separating VP from C0 and through relativised minimality this will act as a barrier for V-to-C movement. The result will be a violation of the ECP and this is why (133b) and (134b), and the corresponding sentences in Modern Greek, Rumanian and other languages, are strongly ungrammatical. According to the Rivero-Terzi analysis, the situation is somewhat different in languages like Serbian/Croatian and Ancient Greek, which have clitics that must appear in second position in the clause. These clitics can be supported by an initial imperative (or other) verb, which has then moved to C0 for that specific purpose. In these cases, the imperative verb has what Rivero and Terzi (1995) call the Wackernagel function. However, clitics can also be supported by some other element in initial position, such as a DP fronted to SpecCP. In that case, the verb has no need to move all the way to C0 and it remains lower down in the clause, in T0/Agr0 or in Neg0 if the clause is negative. This is illustrated in (139), where the clitics are shown as being in SpecCliticP. (139)

[CP DPj [C0] [CliticP clitics [Clitic0 ] [NegP [Neg0 Vi ][AgrP/TP [Agr0/T0 ti ] [VP ti tj]]]





Wim van der Wurff

The role that C0 has to play in licensing clitics means that in these languages it cannot also carry the [IMP] feature. Instead, [IMP] is located in T0/Agr, which the imperative verb can reach without having to cross NegP. Hence negative imperatives are grammatical in these languages. While this analysis is ingenious, it suffers from several problems. One is the variable positioning of the feature [IMP], which does not receive a principled explanation. We saw in 3.2 that Jensen (2004) also locates the basic meaning of the imperative in T0, but there the claim is that this is a universal characteristic, not one co-varying with the (un)grammaticality of negated imperatives. Moreover, if [IMP] can be in T0/Agr0, it may not be possible to derive the restriction of the imperative to root clauses, which Rivero (1994b: 99–100) tries to link to the nature of imperative C0. Furthermore, the position of NegP in (139) (above or below T0/Agr0) is of crucial importance, since a low position would make the prediction that negative imperatives should be ungrammatical in all languages. However, the issue receives virtually no discussion in Rivero (1994a,b) or Rivero and Terzi (1995). From an empirical point of view there is the problem that the distinction between languages with and without second position clitics does not coincide with the distinction between languages with and without simple negated imperatives. Thus, languages like Hebrew and Bengali do not have second position clitics, yet they disallow negation of the simple imperative. Another problematic language is Slovene: as Sheppard and Golden (2002) point out, it allows the imperative verb to support clitics even when there is an overt constituent in SpecCP, i.e. in (139) the complex [Neg Vi ] of Slovene can move to C0. There may be several interpretations of this fact, but it certainly points to a lacuna in the Rivero-Terzi account when it comes to explaining why [IMP] can or cannot be in C0. In Zanuttini (1997: 105–154) some of these points are also raised and yet a different account of the ungrammaticality of negative imperatives is proposed. It is based on a clausal structure in which C0 in imperative clauses universally has a feature [IMP], a preverbal negative marker is the head of NegP and this negative head activates the head of its complement MoodP. The basic structure is given in (140). (140)

[CP [C0 [IMP] ] [NegP Neg0 [MoodP Mood0 [VP ..V.. ]]]

In affirmative clauses, the imperative verb moves to C0, checking the [IMP] feature there. In negative imperatives, it is the (preverbal) negative marker that moves to C0 and checks [IMP]. The problem in such clauses lies elsewhere: an imperative verb lacks mood features and therefore cannot check the Mood0 that is activated by Neg0. There is one class of verbs that Zanuttini (1997) says does have mood features, and that is the class of auxiliaries. These can indeed occur in negative imperatives. In Spanish (133c) and its Italian counterpart, there is a non-overt auxiliary (compare 5.3) but Zanuttini (1997: 118–122) gives examples from several northern Italian dialects that have an overt auxiliary, such as Paduan (141).

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

(141)

No stá parlare not .. talk. ‘Don’t talk.’

In languages with a postverbal negative, this negative is not a head but a maximal projection occupying a specifier position (Zanuttini 1997: 127). As such, it does not activate the mood projection and no problem therefore arises in negative imperatives. The analysis in Zanuttini (1997) differs from that of Zanuttini (1991) and Platzack and Rosengren (1998) in not crucially turning on a reduced architecture of imperative clause structure. However, unlike the Rivero-Terzi account of negative imperatives, it does appeal to the existence of some formal reduction in imperatives, i.e. the absence of mood from the imperative verb. This results in a potential gain in explanatory leanness and meanness. What would be needed to further enhance the power of Zanuttini’s (1997) analysis is a more detailed account of the relation between negative heads and the MoodP that they activate, as well as of the idea that a negative head can check features of C0. Some of these possible problems associated with NegP in imperative clauses are overcome under the proposals made by Zeijlstra (2004: 181–184). Like Zanuttini (1997), he assumes that imperatives require movement of the imperative verb to the head Mood0, which he takes to be located above NegP, as in (142). However, he argues that the movement of V to Mood0 takes place in affirmative and negative imperatives alike. (142)

[MoodP Mood0 [NegP Neg0 [vP [VP .. V .. ]]]

Furthermore, Zeijlstra also adopts the idea (providing extensive additional support for it from other negation facts) that languages can differ in either having a negative marker which is a Neg0 head, as in (142), or a marker that is basegenerated as an adjunct to V0 (or vP). In the second type of language, the imperative verb has no problem moving to Mood0 in negative clauses (the NegP of (142) is either absent or inert). But in the first type of language, Neg0 is active and will act as a barrier to Vimp-to-Mood movement, very much as in the Rivero-Terzi account, but now unencumbered with what looks like a spurious enclitic correlation.57 There is thus a growing consensus that it is in particular head negators that are incompatible with imperatives. But as the differences between Zanuttini (1997) and Zeijlstra (2004) demonstrate, this does not mean that there is an agreed . For further empirical support for Zeijlstra’s ideas, see the extensive data presented in Zeijlstra (2004). Nevertheless, his account raises some new questions. In particular, on the basis of his larger analysis of negation, it is predicted that negative imperatives are ineffable only in negative concord languages. This is indeed true in the 25-language sample that Zeijlstra (2004: 120–149) investigated. But it is not confirmed by languages such as Bengali, which lack negative concord yet disallow negated imperatives.





Wim van der Wurff

explanation for this fact. Nor is even the direction of the search agreed on. Thus, Han (2000a: 17–73) presents a semantically based account of negative imperative ineffability. For her, the problem with negative imperatives lies in the fact that, in some languages, the negative operator ends up having scope over the imperative operator, which is semantically incoherent and therefore ungrammatical. This situation will arise in languages where the negative marker is a preverbal clitic. The clitic will be taken along when the imperative verb moves out of the VP through Neg0 to C0 to check the imperative feature there. Once adjoined to C0, the [NegV] complex will c-command the feature [IMP] and trigger incoherence. While this account is attractive because of its exploitation of the semantic interaction between imperative and negation, it has to make some non-standard assumptions about c-command in order to get the technical machinery right and it cannot explain without invoking further machinery why Serbian/Croatian (136b) is grammatical, even though its preverbal negator ne is more clitic-like than the Spanish negator no in (133b). See further Postma and van der Wurff (this volume) for detailed discussion. For all of Zanuttini (1997), Han (2000a) and Zeijlstra (2004), it would be somewhat surprising to find that an imperative is incompatible with a (non-clitic) postverbal negator. However, exactly such a situation exists in spoken Danish, as shown in (143) (Platzack and Rosengren 1998).58 (143)

?*Gå

ikke der i morgen! [OK in formal styles] go not there in morrow ‘Don’t go there tomorrow!’

On the basis of further facts about Danish ikke ‘not’, it has been argued that it is a head and that it is this factor, rather than preverbal or postverbal position per se, that causes negative imperative ineffability. In particular, Platzack and Rosengren (1998) point at the ungrammaticality of sentences with topicalised ikke, such as (144), which have grammatical counterparts in the other Scandinavian languages, such as Swedish (145). (144)

(145)

*Ikke behøver han at give mig lønforhøjelse. not needs he to give me salary-raise ‘He does not need to give me a raise.’ Inte behöver ha ge mig någon löneförhöjning. not needs he give me any salary.raise

Since topicalisation can move XPs, (144) suggests that Danish ikke is not an XP but a head. The correlation between (143) and (144) is very tidy and could probably be made to follow from an adapted Zanuttini-Zeijlstra-style analysis of

. Zanuttini (1997: 112–113, 150–153) discusses some counterexamples to her claims, of this and other types, but does not provide a real solution.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

negative imperatives. However, others have somewhat spoilt the fun by examining a wider range of negative topicalisation facts, in Danish and other languages, and using these to suggest that ikke is not a head after all (see Jensen 2001 and Christensen 2003). Furthermore, Jensen (2003a: 152 n. 28) has attributed the doubtful grammaticality of (143) to pragmatic rather than syntactic factors. Clearly, there is scope for interesting further work on Danish, which appears to have diverged from its linguistic neighbours with regard to these properties only rather recently. Given the abiding doubts about the validity of the correlation between negative imperative ineffability on the one hand and preverbal/postverbal position or head/phrase status of the negator on the other hand, it is also possible that there is some slightly different correlation at work. That this is the case is suggested by Postma and van der Wurff (this volume). Examining the Germanic and Romance languages, they note that there is a large measure of overlap between two sets of languages: those with ineffable negative imperatives and those in which the ordinary clausal negator (i.e. the word ‘not’) has the same form as the anaphoric negator (i.e. the word ‘no!’). In the analysis proposed to account for this fact, a distinction is made between epistemic (indicative) and deontic (imperative) negation, both of which can head their own projection. Identity of the two negators means that the two projections are merged into one, which then forms a minimality barrier for movement of the imperative verb to C0. In terms of machinery employed, there are clear links between this account and the Rivero-Terzi one as well as the Zanuttini-Zeijlstra one, but the implications of assuming two very different NegPs still await further scrutiny, as does the empirical width of the generalisation regarding negator identity and negative imperative ineffability. . .

Imperatives and constituent order Subject positions

An important topic in the general literature on the imperative in English has been the position of the overt subject. In affirmative imperatives, such a subject is simply in a fixed position before the verb but in negative imperatives, the situation was for a long time unclear. In studies done before the mid-1980s, it is not unusual to find claims to the effect that no overt subject in imperatives is possible preceding the elements do/don’t/do not or following the element do (not). Stockwell, Schachter and Partee (1973: 669), for example, cite sentence (146) as being ungrammatical and Culicover (1976: 151) gives (147) as an impossible sentence. Schmerling (1982: 203) states that ‘imperative do has the […] peculiarity […] that it cannot co-occur with expressed subjects. This pattern is repeated in negative imperatives with do not’. (146) (147)

*Do you help him quickly! *Do somebody answer the phone!





Wim van der Wurff

As a result of these gaps, complications will of course arise for any account of do in imperatives. Further complications can come from sentences like (35) and (36), in which imperatives containing auxiliary have and be nevertheless take do-support. Either or both of these factors led several scholars to label do(n’t) an imperative particle, making it quite distinct from the dummy auxiliary do found in interrogatives and negative declaratives (for example, Cohen 1976; Akmajian 1984: 14–18; Pollock 1989: 401–407; compare also Zhang 1993).59 However, this has been shown to be an unnecessary move. Lasnik (1981: 167– 168) proposed that have and be fail to move to I0 in imperatives. They remain in VP, leaving I0 unoccupied and ready to receive do(n’t) whenever necessary, just like in other cases.60 Potsdam (1998: 128–137) provides several pieces of empirical data showing that this is indeed the correct analysis. For example, in (148) and (149), have and be have moved out of the VP and the VP has been ellipted. In other clause types this is fully grammatical. But not so in (148)–(149): in imperatives, have and be stay inside the VP and no structure as in (148)–(149) can arise. (148) (149)

(You must definitely be on time. No excuses!). *Just be [VP e ] (I so hope John has destroyed the letter.) *Please, have [VP e ], John.

With respect to the order of do/don’t/do not and the subject, the situation has also turned out to be somewhat less perplexing than it initially seemed. Specifically, Davies (1986) and Potsdam (1998) have argued that, given the right kind of context and/or emphatic stress, subjects before and after do/don’t/do not are all possible. To the extent that certain options are restricted, they put this down to pragmatic rather than syntactic factors. Some representative example sentences, taken from Potsdam (1998: 273, 372) are given in (150). (150)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Do SOMEone help him quickly! SOMEone do answer the phone! Don’t you give me any lip! Everyone don’t expect a raise! ?Oh please, do NOT ANY of you touch that cake! ?Oh please, SOMEbody do not desert me!

Although (150e,f) are not wonderful sentences, they are moderately acceptable and differ sharply from the sentence type in (151). This has the subject in between

. A complex word order picture is also bound to arise if no care is taken to systematically distinguish subjects from vocatives (compare 2.4). The discussion of this issue in Davies (1986), Potsdam (1998) and Rupp (2003) yields a list of clear and adequate criteria, formal and positional, for keeping the two categories separate, at least in English. . This absence of any kind of V-to-I makes imperatives like subjunctives, in which no element can move into I0 either. Full discussion can be found in Potsdam (1997, 1998: 137–155), where a null modal in subjunctive I0 is posited.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

do and not, which is completely ungrammatical, whatever stress or context is invoked for it. (151)

*Do somebody not desert me!

The analysis of the data in (150) proposed in Potsdam (1998) is that do(n’t)/do not in each case is the regular dummy auxiliary. In (150a,c,e) this auxiliary has undergone movement from I0 to C0, as shown in (152). In (150b,d,f) the auxiliary remains in I0, as shown in (153). (152) (153)

[CP [C0 [I0 do(n’t)/do not ]i ] [IP SUBJ [I0 ti ] [VP V… ]]] [IP SUBJ [I0 do(n’t)/do not] [VP V… ]]] [CP [C0 ]

As Potsdam (1998) points out, this analysis makes do in imperatives just like do elsewhere: it is inserted in I0 when this is required to be filled and there is no other suitable element to occupy it, and once there it can undergo I0-to-C0 movement. However, three further things need to be said to make this account work smoothly. Firstly, the sentence in (150e) appears to show movement from I0 to C0 of two separate words, do and not, which should be impossible. Potsdam (1998: 374–377) solves this problem by noting that the same surface order can be found in negative interrogatives like (154) and by suggesting that the sequence do not in such orders is in fact a unit having the internal structure shown in (155). (154) (155)

Did not any of you say anything? [I0 [I0 do ] [Neg0 not ]]

As Potsdam points out, both (150e) and (154) are formal in style and the process responsible for creating the piece of structure in (155) may not be ordinary head movement but a kind of morphological decomposition of the form don’t (i.e. what moves to C0 in (150e) and (154) is the word don’t; once there, it gets de-contracted into do not through some highly construction-specific process operating in formal styles only). A second problem is the ungrammaticality of (151). If imperative do is the regular dummy auxiliary, (151) should be as acceptable as (156). (156)

Do you not like salad?

Potsdam’s (1998: 379–389) reaction to this problem is to argue that in an imperative clause with do not, the form do is unable to move to C0 on its own. Empirically, this is demonstrated by the ungrammaticality of sentences like (157). (157)

*Do merely not return the forms!

As shown in detail by Potsdam (1998: 36–39) adverbs like merely cannot appear in IP-external position – they are adjoined to I’ or a position lower down the tree. If merely in (157) is adjoined to I’, do must have moved to C0, the structure being as in (158).





Wim van der Wurff

(158)

[CP [C0 doi ] [IP pro [I’ merely [I’ [I0 ti ] [NegP not [VP return the forms ]]]]]]

The only possible problem in this structure can be that I0-to-C0 movement of do has been illicit. If this is the case, the ungrammaticality of (151) also follows. This raises the question why I0-to-C0 movement of the dummy auxiliary do, so fine in (150a,c,e), should be so wrong in (151) and (157). Potsdam (1998: 383– 393) tackles this problem as part of a larger issue in his analysis of the facts in (150)–(151). Why does do in imperatives sometimes move to C0 and sometimes stay in I0 (sometimes even obligatorily), without any discernible syntactic factor causing the difference? Potsdam’s approach is to suggest that do movement in imperatives is semantically driven: do moves to check a semantically active element (i.e. a negative or emphatic). In (151), only the non-negative non-emphatic element do has moved. This is pointless movement, which is ruled out. In (150a,c,e), this problem does not arise, because the element that moves has a negative or emphatic feature. On the other hand, the presence of such a feature does not make (overt) movement compulsory. Concretely, Potsdam (1998: 390) suggests that emphasis or negation is represented in the functional category ⌺P. C0 has an [IMP] feature which attracts ⌺0. However, this [IMP] feature can be absent. The result is that movement is motivated but optional. From the perspective of economy, this is not an ideal situation but the imperative facts of English are of course part of a much larger collection of data that have so far defied a simple economical analysis. As in other cases, solutions could be sought in making the [IMP] feature optionally strong rather than optionally present (an entirely mechanical way out), in positing some discourse-based feature distinguishing sentences with and without movement (a difficult task, given the degraded status of some of the relevant data in (150)), or in setting up an operation-counting procedure which could result in two derivations having an equal number of steps and therefore being equally economical (see Kitahara 1997 for a general model). While Potsdam’s (1998) analysis of the word order facts of English imperatives with overt subjects is plausible, inspection of the data in (150) suggests that there may be another way of tackling them. Instead of saying that the auxiliary do can optionally move, as Potsdam does, it would also be possible to claim that do is stationary and that it is the subject DP that optionally moves. This is in fact one of the core claims made by Rupp (1999, 2003, this volume), who proposes that sentences like (150a,c) have the structure of (159), while (150b,d,f) are as in (160). (159) (160)

[IP e [IP SUBJi

[I DO(N’T) ] [I DO(N’T) ]

[FP SUBJi [FP ti

[VP ti V… ]]] [VP ti V… ]]]

The difference between them does not lie in any properties or features of do(n’t). In Rupp’s account, do(n’t) in imperatives behaves just as it does in declarative clauses: it is inserted where necessary but there is no need for it to move. What needs to move is the subject, which Rupp (1999: 130) suggests has to check the

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

[D] feature of I0. If this feature can be optionally weak in imperatives, the alternation of (159)–(160) can be derived: in (159), the [D] feature of I0 is checked at LF (through movement of the subject’s corresponding feature straight to I0 – no movement of the entire DP need be assumed) while in (160) the feature is checked through overt A-movement of the subject DP, just like in declarative clauses. As for the identity of the category FP in (159)–(160), it might be suggested that it is in fact no other than VP, making (159) into a structure with an overtly VPinternal subject. However, Rupp (1999: 131–134) follows Potsdam (1998) in arguing against this. One of the arguments is the possibility of having a floating quantifier as in (161). The word both has been stranded in SpecVP, while subject you has clearly raised to a higher position. (161)

Don’t youi ever [VP [ ti both] talk to me like that again!]

Another argument against the FP=VP hypothesis derives from VP ellipsis facts in sentences like (162). As in (129)–(132), the head in I0 (don’t) licenses an empty VP. The subject (you) is overt – because it is not part of the VP. (162)

Bill didn’t tell her so [I0 don’t ] you [VP e] either!

Rupp (1999) in fact suggests that FP in (159)–(160) may be AspectP, but she does not take a firm stand on this. For (150e), with the order do not SUBJ, Rupp (1999: 184–194) suggests a different analysis. She first notes that simple examples with this order, such as (163), are not grammatical. (163)

*Do not you leave me!

She attributes this to the blocking effect of not: as in (159), the features of the subject in (163) have to head-adjoin to I0 at LF but this will incur a violation of relativised minimality due to the intervening negative head not. This is an interesting idea. It takes sentences like (163) out of the pragmatic ragbag where Potsdam (1998) had dumped them and puts them squarely back on the syntactic workbench.61 It may look as if Rupp has to pay a price for this, in the form of a prediction that (150e) should also be ungrammatical, whereas in reality it is only less than perfect. However, Rupp (1999: 187–189), following Platzack and Rosengren (1998), points out that the acceptable examples with do not SUBJ word order, like (150e), can be interpreted as having constituent negation rather than . Once they are there, we can ask why replacing do not by don’t in (163) (i.e. converting it into pattern (150c)) doesn’t also trigger a minimality violation. Rupp’s (1999: 191–192) answer is that the single element don’t is base-generated in I0 and does not entail the presence of a NegP. A question Rupp (1999) does not address is: what causes the similarly reduced grammaticality of (150f) (?Oh please, SOMEbody do not desert me! and even more clearly *You do not desert me!)? Wratil (2000: 150) suggests the subject may have been topicalised here.





Wim van der Wurff

clausal negation. This would make (150e) an example of the pattern in (150a), the reduced acceptability coming from the awkwardness of constituent negation with the form [NOT ANY ….]. It is clear that both Potsdam (1998) and Rupp (1999, 2003) advance serious arguments in favour of their respective positions with regard to the proper analysis of SUBJ do(n’t)/do not and do(n’t)/do not SUBJ orders. In their contributions to this volume, they react to each other’s ideas and present further arguments bolstering their respective positions, resulting in a lively argument. Among the further data that they show are relevant are facts of negative-quantifier scope interaction, as in (164). (164)

Don’t you believe every rumour!

⫽ ⬎  ⫽ ⬎ 

As both Potsdam (this volume) and Rupp (this volume) make clear, interactions of this type have not been discussed in any detail before, and their explorations result in a fairly comprehensive map of this territory (with interesting differences in the conclusions that they draw from it with regard to the clausal structure of the English imperative). Further data that they explore come from adverb positioning, which – here as elsewhere – remains a source of both insight and puzzlement. While Potsdam’s general account of imperatival clause structure fits comfortably with standard analyses of declarative and especially interrogative clauses in English, Rupp’s ideas are more akin to those of Platzack and Rosengren (1998) and Jensen (2003b). As we saw in 4.2, these scholars have pointed at an interpretative difference between subjects of imperative clauses and other clauses and they link this with a positional difference as well. For Jensen (2003b), the imperative subject carries out part of its function or meaning in SpecvP and part in SpecTP. She does not directly connect this with surface word order possibilities, but the implication is clearly that imperative subjects may have somewhat freer positioning. This is explicitly argued for by Platzack and Rosengren (1998), whose hypothesis that FinP is missing in imperative clauses means that the imperative subject escapes the binding obligation to be in SpecFinP at Spell-Out that other subjects must meet. Hence, the imperative subject might remain inside VP or perhaps move only a short distance up the tree. Although Platzack and Rosengren (1998) point out that any such hypothesised movement will need to be justified by an appeal to obligatory feature checking, they cite suggestive data such as Swedish (165), where the imperative in (165a) appears to make available up to four acceptable subject positions, whereas the declarative in (165b) has only one. (165)

a.

b.

Spring (du) bara (?du) hem (du) meddetsamma (du)! run (you) just (you) home (you) immediately (you) ‘You just run home immediately!’ Då sprang (du) bara (*du) hem (*du) meddetsamma (*du). then ran (you) just (you) home (you) immediately (you) ‘Then you just ran home immediately.’

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

Further data supporting the idea that imperative subjects have more word order possibilities than other subjects are presented and analysed by Henry (1995: 45–80, 1997). The facts come from the vernacular Belfast dialect of English, which turns out to have a surprisingly wide array of word order options in the imperative. Henry was able to establish that there are two varieties. Besides the standard English word order options in imperatives, these varieties allow different additional options. One of the varieties permits subjects of unaccusative and passive verbs to appear in post-verbal position, as in (166). In structural terms, Henry analyses this variety as allowing the subject to remain in its base-generated object position inside VP at Spell-Out, perhaps because the features of I0 normally forcing movement of the subject to SpecIP can be weak. (166)

a. b.

Run you away! Be elected you for the team!

The second variety of Belfast English allows further – and rather stunning – possibilities: the subject in an imperative clause can be post-verbal with all types of verb, as in (167a), and if the object in such a clause is pronominal, it can intervene between verb and subject, as in (167b). (167)

a. b.

Read you that! Read it you to me!

Although these data look particularly challenging for a structural analysis in the context of the grammar of English, Henry argues that they follow straightforwardly from a parameter setting that is well known from other Germanic languages. To be precise, she argues that the second variety can have a strong feature in C0, which attracts the imperative verb overtly, as in (167a). This is a parametric difference from other types of English. Given movement of the verb out of the VP, it is a general property of the Germanic languages that they then allow object shift, where the pronominal object also leaves the VP (Holmberg 1986, 1999). And that is what (167b) shows. The structure for both clauses is as in (168), with OBJ1 marking the derived position for shifted pronominal objects and OBJ2 the base-generated position of all objects. Though not shown in (168), the subject can remain inside VP – this is what underlies sentences like (166b), which this variety also allows. (168)

[CP [C0 Vimp] [IP [I0 tV] OBJ1 [VP tV OBJ2 ]]]

The difference between Belfast variety 2 and standard English thus lies in the feature strength of imperative C0 (it can be strong, yielding a V1 effect in Belfast imperatives) and I0 (can be weak, yielding a late-subject effect). No further statements need to be made.62 As Henry (1997) shows, Belfast variety 1 is an . In particular, Henry (1995) insists that nothing needs to be said about object shift: the relevant mechanisms kick in automatically once the verb leaves the VP. This sounds almost too good to be true and there is indeed one unsolved problem. It is found in the sentence pattern I have it not. As Roberts (1995) points out, this instance of object shift is expected to be possible





Wim van der Wurff

intermediate stage both structurally (it only has weak I0) and temporally (only older speakers preserve variety 2, younger ones having shifted to variety 1). In terms of subject positions, Henry’s data fit quite well with the theoretical account presented by Platzack and Rosengren (1998). It is not the case that the imperative carries a specification stipulating extra subject positions. Rather, the imperative subject lacks the requirement of appearing in a designated position (SpecIP or SpecFinP) that other subjects have. This leaves it free to remain deep inside the VP, as in (166b), higher up in the VP, as in (167b), or to move out of the VP altogether, as in the standard English orders also allowed in Belfast. .

Object positions

We shall now consider to what extent stipulations are necessary when it comes to the position of objects in imperative clauses. Jensen (2003b: 151) argues that imperatives are just like declaratives with respect to all VP-internal properties. As one of her examples, she mentions object shift. In the various dialects of the Scandinavian languages, this process behaves alike in imperative and declarative clauses: the optional or obligatory nature of object shift in one clause type is also found in the other clause type. Strictly speaking, it is not clear that object shift can be regarded as an entirely VP-internal process, but it is certainly true that it affects a subpart of the tree that is clearly lower than T0, the point at which Jensen (2003b, 2004) argues the imperative nature of a clause is represented (see 3.2). It is also the case that, at first blush, Jensen’s claim about the clause type-neutrality of object shift is disproved by the Belfast data discussed in 7.1, where imperatives were shown to have object shift, while this process is impossible in declaratives. However, this would be taking a too literal-minded approach. The availability of object shift in (167b) can be regarded as an automatic result of the availability of verb-fronting. In the analysis of Henry (1995), verb-fronting itself results from the fact that imperative C0 has strong features in Belfast variety 2. As Henry (1995: 69–70) acknowledges, this amounts to a special statement specifically about imperative clauses. However, the facts seem to require it and the statement concerns a property, feature strength of functional heads, that is explicitly meant to account for instances of variation. Moreover, as we saw in 3.2 and 6.2, the presence of some feature in C0 that attracts Vimp is widely assumed and it may well be that overt movement does not occur only if there is a specific principle that, in interaction with other properties of the language, forbids it. This would imply that the Belfast imperative data are unremarkable. What would need explanation (possibly, stipulation) is the standard English imperative data. for speakers allowing possessive have to raise out of the VP. However, there appears to be some factor holding back many such speakers from using the pattern or labelling it as grammatical. The question therefore arises what keeps this same factor from making its influence felt among speakers of Belfast variety 2.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

A further object property found in imperative clauses but not (or to a much smaller extent) in declarative clauses is the option of appearing in a non-overt form. In word order terms, this boils down to the object lacking an overtly manifested position altogether. The existence of the phenomenon in English is mentioned in Sadock (1974: 141–142) and Downes (1977: 78), but like so many other topics in imperatives, it is not until the late 1980s that more systematic exploration is undertaken. An example is given in (169). (169)

Cook e for 30 minutes.

Haegeman (1987) addresses the question what category the empty object in (169) is. In doing so, she adduces examples licensing a parasitic gap, as in (170), and showing island effects, as in (171), (172). (170) (171) (172)

Dry e with clean towel before you deep-fry pg! *Boil the eggs for the salad while you roast e! *Preserve the mixture in which you have marinated e!

Haegeman’s conclusion is that null objects in imperatives are variables bound by an empty topic. She also suggests (Haegeman 1987: 236) that we are here looking at a case of language-internal parametric variation, with English imperative – but not declarative – clauses patterning like topic-prominent languages such as Chinese and Japanese. There are some difficulties for these views. A first one is that the empty topic analysis does not explain why, unlike overt topics, the phenomenon is restricted in English to imperatives. Other problems become apparent from the further data provided by Massam (1992). These include the virtual impossibility of preposition stranding, as shown in (173a) (a problem also noted by Haegeman 1987); the ungrammaticality of more deeply embedded empty objects, as shown in (173b) (a fact nullifying the significance of the island effects in (171)–(172)); the impossibility of empty ECM subjects, as in (173c); and the requirement that the imperative subject should be non-overt, shown in (173d). In all these respects, empty objects differ from standard A-bar traces (including topic traces) outside imperatives, as the corresponding sentences in (174) show. (173)

(174)

a. Take foil. *Cover cookies with e immediately. b. *Try to beat e carefully. c. *Assume e to be cooked when soft. d. *You then serve e while still warm. a. This foil, you must cover the cookies with e immediately. b. The eggs, you must try to beat e carefully. c. The rest, you can assume e to be cooked when soft. d. These too, you must serve e while still warm.

To Massam (1992), these facts suggest that (169) should not be analysed exactly like the topicalisation structures in (174). Instead, she draws attention to the





Wim van der Wurff

similarities between empty object constructions and middles – these too have an object gap and disallow preposition stranding, any kind of embedding, or the presence of a subject distinct in reference from the empty object. She then suggests that empty objects in imperatives are indeed bound by an empty discourse topic, as Haegeman (1987) had proposed, but that this null topic sits in SpecIP, making the empty object in effect a null anaphor. The structure would be as in (175). (175)

[IP [TOP ei ] [I IMP/2] [VP V ei]]

Massam argues that, since imperative I0 carries an inherent specification for second person, no structurally represented null subject is necessary. However, the analysis has problematic features. The structure in (175) is like that postulated by Jensen (2003b, 2004) in allowing for the addressee to lack representation as a DP in an A-position (4.2). But where Jensen postulates a separate DP agent in SpecvP, this is absent in (175), raising questions about the assignment of the external theta-role. Moreover, as we shall see below, English also allows overt topics in imperatives and these permit an overt subject. The structure in (175) makes no room available for such a constituent. Moreover, Massam’s account requires additional stipulation to take care of (170) and (173a–c), since none of these facts follows self-evidently from the structure in (175). In effect, what (175) achieves is only a correlation between empty objects and empty subjects, by putting the null binder of the object in the subject position. In view of this rather meagre yield, it may be advisable to return to the variable analysis of empty objects and see if the ungrammaticality of (173a–d) can perhaps be attributed to other factors. With respect to (173b,c), it is well-known that variables bound by a null operator in an infinitival clause are bad or doubtful elsewhere too (see, for example, Hicks 2004 on this phenomenon in the tough construction). The problem with (173d) may have something to do with the information structure of the sentence: it has a null object, which is therefore very low in informational load, while it has an overt subject, which in an imperative often means a high informational load. This division is exactly the wrong way round, since English clauses strongly prefer the informational focus to be on the predicate. Finally, the ungrammaticality of the stranded preposition in (173a) is quite unexpected for an A-bar construction but in 5.3 we saw the same ungrammaticality in the similar Dutch construction (123b). As discussed there, den Dikken (1992) explains the Dutch fact by suggesting that the imperative verb has to choose between either helping to license the null subject or helping to license SpecPP, necessary for preposition stranding to be possible. Both cannot be done at the same time.63 If we assume that preposition . The fact that English (173a) patterns with the Dutch ordinary imperative (123b) rather than the infinitival imperative (123a) suggests that, for English, the will-deletion hypothesis and its modern reincarnations cannot be right, since the imperative verb is not an infinitive. If this

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

stranding in English is subject to the same general requirements, an explanation for (173a) may come within reach. If all this is correct, the empty objects in English imperatival clauses can be analysed as traces of topicalised null elements. This seems a reasonable analysis also because English imperatives allow topicalised overt elements as well. They are discussed by Potsdam (1998: 325–333). Basing himself on earlier work on topicalisation in English generally, he argues – contra Zhang (1993) – that topics can adjoin to either IP or CP. In imperatives, the IP position cannot be conclusively demonstrated, since sentences like (176) are amenable to either analysis. Sentences with I-to-C and movement of a topic to SpecIP (i.e. [CP Don’t [IP [this book], [vP forget!]]]) are ruled out for independent reasons. For (177) Potsdam (1998) would assume that don’t has undergone I-to-C movement (compare (150c)) and the topic must therefore be in front of CP. (176) (177)

His lies, nobody believe t! My good wine, don’t anybody touch t!

As Potsdam (1998: 364–365) points out, examples like these also show up a problem with the idea that topics and overt subjects are mutually exclusive due to their competition for intonational prominence (Akmajian 1984, see the discussion of (67a)). However, Potsdam suggests that the basic idea can be retained if it is recognised that such competition is limited to the domain of the intonation phrase, which can be defined in quite precise terms. Sentences (176) and (177) then have two intonation phrases, each having one prominent element. Overt topics in imperatives can also be found in German. The main source on the construction is Reis and Rosengren (1992), who give examples like (178) and (179). (178)

(179)

Den Peter besuch t doch mal eins! the Peter visit. t ADV ADV once ‘Go and visit Peter one day!’ Den Peter versprich mir bitte, dass du t nie wieder besuchen wirst! the Peter promise. me please that you t never again visit will ‘Promise me please that you will never again visit Peter!’

In both cases den Peter has moved to SpecCP, like topics in other German clause types. In (178) this is strictly local movement, but in (179) there has been successive cyclic movement, possible only with bridge verbs and only in certain varieties of German. Reis and Rosengren (1992) argue that successive movement of a topic into sentence-initial position is also the mechanism underlying examples such as (62a), repeated here as (180).

conclusion can indeed be drawn, Henry’s (1995: 69–70) suggestion that standard English has a null auxiliary in the infinitive should not be adopted.





Wim van der Wurff

(180)

Weni sag mir doch mal gleich, dass du ti besucht hast! who tell. me ADV ADV right-now that you t visited have ‘Come on, tell me right now who you have visited!’

In spite of the initial Wh-word, the matrix clause is not a Wh-clause. The word wen has moved to the front of the embedded clause by virtue of its Wh-status (that clause has a [+WH] specification), but the further movement takes place by virtue of its topichood, just like the movement into the matrix clause of den Peter in (179). Examples like (180) are completely out in English. Reis and Rosengren (1992) do not comment on this but one factor responsible for this may be that topicalisation and Wh-movement in English do not target the same position, making it impossible for a Wh-phrase to be topicalised vicariously, as it were. Slightly more surprisingly, nothing like (180) is possible in Dutch either, even though topicalisation in that language is also to SpecCP. A real puzzle is the fact that, in spite of its strong verb-second character, Dutch does not even allow ordinary (overt) topics in imperative clauses. There are no Dutch counterparts to German (178)–(179); the imperative verb must be strictly clause-initial, as shown in (181). (181)

a. *Die wijn drink later maar op! that wine drink. later ADV up ‘That wine, finish later!’ b. Drink die wijn later maar op! drink. that wine later ADV up ‘Finish that wine later!’

This property of Dutch imperatives has not received an explanation in earlier work, but Barbiers (this volume) and Koopman (this volume) propose full – though opposing – accounts. For Barbiers, the ungrammaticality of (181a) has its roots in a morphological fact: in Dutch, with the single exception of the form wees ‘be.’ (though see note 35), there is no imperative verb that has a uniquely imperative form. The imperative form of the Dutch verb is the stem and that is also the form used for the present tense of the first person and (in inversion contexts) the second person singular. As a consequence, Dutch imperative verb forms do not have an [IMP] feature. Yet, the high functional head CDEM0 has an uninterpretable [IMP] feature which needs to be checked. This then is done by a null imperative operator, which is merged in SpecCPDEM. Hence, no topic can appear in this position and (181a) is impossible. In German, on the other hand, there is a set of verbs having a unique imperative form (e.g. versprich ‘promise..’) and this is reflected in imperatives having an [IMP] feature. Movement of the imperative verb to CDEM0 creates a checking configuration for the corresponding [IMP] feature there. SpecCPDEM remains free to accept other elements, in particular topics, as in (178)–(180).

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

Barbier’s explanation of the Dutch-German contrast can be extended without additional machinery to English. Here too, there is no verb with a distinctive imperative form, suggesting that SpecCP in English also contains an imperative operator. This has no effect on topicalisation possibilities, since that process does not target SpecCP in English. However, there are other fronting processes, which do target SpecCP. One of them is Wh-movement – putting aside cases like (71), this is indeed impossible in imperatives, as (182) shows. Another is the process of inversiontriggering fronting. As Potsdam (1998: 333–346) shows, fronting of negative phrases and so-predicatives, which trigger inversion in declaratives, is impossible in imperatives, as shown in (183). He attributes this to the presence of an imperative operator in SpecCP, and this hypothesis is supported by the ungrammaticality of (182). (182) (183)

a. b.

*Who tell me you have visited! *No analysis do be satisfied with! *So surly don’t be that no one will talk to you!

The reasoning by Barbiers and Potsdam, though based on facts from different languages, thus converges on the conclusion that there can be an imperative operator in SpecCP, subject to parametrisation. For Koopman (this volume), the pattern in Dutch (181) follows from an entirely different factor. To her the forbidden configuration of (181a), with a specifier and a head position that are both filled with overt material, is suggestive of what used to be called the doubly-filled COMP filter. This was the principle that in the 1970s was held responsible for the ungrammaticality of sentences like (184). (184)

*This is the book [COMP which that] I would like to borrow.

At the time, this filter was generally regarded as an entirely descriptive device which would in due course be replaced by a deeper, probably very different, principle. However, since then, Koopman has shown that, with some slight generalisation, the filter is in fact a principle of very wide import. In its more general form it states that no projection can have both its head and its specifier filled with overt material at Spell-Out, due to the impossibility of linearising such a sequence (Koopman 2000b). Hence, if there is a specifier-head relation between the fronted element and the second-position verb in Dutch (181a) (and, we might add, in English (182)– (183)), ungrammaticality follows. The grammaticality of an overt topic in German must mean that such a topic is not in the specifier associated with the head occupied by the imperative verb and Koopman (this volume) demonstrates how, given a slightly more relaxed requirement on the association between an imperative Force0 and an imperative verb in German than in Dutch, this is achieved. Both Barbiers (this volume) and Koopman (this volume) embed their explanation for the rather narrow fact of the Dutch-German difference visible in (178)/(181a) in a much wider context, which embraces not only topicalisation but also empty and right-peripheral objects in Dutch, illustrated in (185) and (186).





Wim van der Wurff

(185)

(186)

Leg e neer! put. e down ‘Put it down!’ Leg neer dat boek! put. down that book ‘Put down that book!’

Both of these phenomena were first discussed in den Dikken (1992), who proposed that they should be unified, the right-peripheral object in (186) being associated with an empty object. He suggested, as Haegeman (1987) had done for null objects in English, that (185) and (186) have an empty operator binding the null object. Empirical evidence for this comes from the possibility of having a parasitic gap, as in (187). By way of further support, den Dikken (1992) points at the impossibility of dative and embedded subject gaps, as shown in (188), which parallel other cases of empty operator movement, such as tough movement, shown in (189). (187)

(188)

(189)

Leg [zonder pg te lezen] e neer (die brief)! put. without pg to read e down (that letter) ‘Put (that letter) down without reading it!’ a. *Stuur e dat boek op (die jongen)! send. e that book up (that boy) ‘Send that boy that book!’ b. *Doe e maar ophouden (dat lawaai)! make e ADV stop (that noise) ‘Just make that noise stop!’ a. ?*Die jongen is moeilijk om e zoveel geld toe te vertrouwen. that boy is difficult COMP e so-much money PRT to entrust ‘That boy is difficult to entrust so much money to.’ b. ?*Het lawaai was niet zo makkelijk om e te doen ophouden. the noise was not so easy COMP e to make stop ‘The noise was not so easy to put a stop to.’

Barbiers (this volume) and Koopman (this volume) both accept den Dikken’s conclusion that (185)–(186) are the result of movement of an empty topic. They also agree on a further development of that analysis, whereby the empty topic is viewed as a null version of the demonstrative die/dat ‘that’. Moreover, they both make the point that null objects and right-peripheral objects can also, provided the grammatical requirements for them are met, be found in declarative clauses – an important issue in connection with the question to what extent the syntax of imperative sentences is imperative-specific and possibly in need of stipulation. But Barbiers and Koopman part company when it comes to the question whether empty topics are licensed in exactly the same way in declarative and imperative clauses. Koopman argues that they are completely parallel, but Barbiers points at some empirical differences between the clause types with regard to the categorial nature of the null topic. To account for this, he suggests that imperative but not

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

declarative verbs carry a feature [demonstrative], which can license a null demonstrative phrase that is in a specifier-head relation with it. In declaratives, such licensing can only take place in a designated functional projection, SpecCPDEM. Although Barbiers (this volume) does not expand on this, the presence in imperative verbs of a [demonstrative] feature, which can be viewed as a fundamentally deictic element, could be linked with the inherent speech-act orientation that has been found to underlie various aspects of imperative meaning and syntax. Thus, Jensen (2003b, 2004), briefly reviewed in 4.2, highlights the here-and-now focus of the act of enjoining that is part of every imperative. A further example of this orientation towards the deictic origo, manifesting itself as a speaker focus in certain Dutch imperatives, is described and analysed by den Dikken (1998). The data in question feature a definite indirect object. While such objects in Dutch imperatives are usually overt (see (188a)), den Dikken (1998) shows that there is at least one context in which the indirect object can remain unexpressed. This is in sentences like (190), which has the particle op ‘up’, a null direct object and a null indirect object. (190)

Geef op! give. up ‘Give it to me!’

Building on his earlier work on the structure of ditransitives (den Dikken 1995), den Dikken (1998) suggests that (190) has a partial structure as in (191). (191)

V [SC1 Spec op [SC2 DP1 [PP P DP2]]]

Direct object (DP1) and indirect object (PP, where P can be null) are part of a small clause selected by a particle (here an overt one). The particle heads a larger small clause selected by the verb. What is special about the particle op is that it licenses a null PP in SC2. Den Dikken (1998) connects this ability to the speakeroriented nature of op in imperatives of this type (but not elsewhere): the entire sentence can only mean ‘give it TO ME’. Den Dikken (1998) notes that a null PP licensed by op (i.e. a null indirect object) is only found in sentences which also have a null direct object. To explain this, it might be suggested that what op licenses is not a null PP (a somewhat difficult idea anyway, since PP is the complement inside the complement of op) but a null SC2 (the complement of op). The effect is a null direct object (interpretable only as referring to some entity present in the current speech situation) and a null indirect object (interpretable only as the speaker). This slight extension of den Dikken’s (1998) proposal fits well with the suggestions in Rooryck and Postma (this volume), who – on the basis of its use in participial imperatives – argue that op is oriented not just towards the speaker but towards the entire speech act (i.e. the here and now, including speaker and addressee). The idea that imperative verbs carry a demonstrative feature that is absent from other verbs, as Barbiers (this volume)





Wim van der Wurff

suggests, would fit in well with these various empirical and theoretical findings of recent work. What they amount to is that elements of the imperative clause are deictically grounded in the time, place and performance of the utterance. .

Clitic positions

We saw in 6.2 that in their account of negative imperative ineffability Rivero (1994a,b) and Rivero and Terzi (1995) attach great importance to the position of clitics with respect to the imperative verb. Although it is now generally thought that clitic facts play a much less crucial role in negative imperative ineffability than Rivero and Terzi assumed, the phenomena as such remain interesting. In this area too, the question can be asked whether special stipulations are necessary to account for the syntax of imperatives. As we shall see, there are at least some pieces of imperative clitic syntax that are unique if viewed simply as surface patterns. The challenge is to demonstrate that their uniqueness dissolves once they are viewed as instantiations of general principles operating in a configuration which has just one or two irreducible imperative characteristics, such as perhaps the presence of an [IMP] feature in the highest functional projection or an inherent specification for second person. This challenge is met head-on by Rooryck (1992) in a paper significantly entitled ‘Romance enclitic ordering and Universal Grammar’. The crucial datum that he confronts can be seen in (192), another imperative clause that is nothing if not brief – yet, like many other data that we have inspected, it requires considerable analytic work to fully comprehend its structural make-up, making it a another good illustration of the intrinsic interest that the imperative holds. (192)

Fais-le! do.-it ‘Do it!’

As Rooryck (1992) points out, the word order seen in (192), with the clitic following the verb, is attested very widely in affirmative imperatives in Romance and beyond. In some of the relevant languages, including French, enclisis like this is not found with any other verb form. But in imperatives, it is obligatory. What universal principles could be responsible for this idiosyncratic imperative fact? One ingredient in Rooryck’s answer is that imperative verbs have to move to C0 in order to acquire (or express) the imperative modal properties determined by C0 and/or to associate their imperative morphology with the corresponding functional projections. Another ingredient is the idea that in imperatives, C0 contains an inherently specified Agr0, reflecting the imperative addressee-focus. As we have seen, these are the minimal stipulations that have to be made in one way or another if the imperative is to be characterised at all. Rooryck (1992) shows that they are in fact all that needs to be said about the imperative in order to understand

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

(192). The rest follows from universal principles and independently motivated properties of the grammar of French. Specifically, the derivation of (192) involves the general French process of proclisis. There is also raising of the verb (with its proclitics) to the head of AgrSP, another general property of French syntax. From there, the verb complex could move on to C0, satisfying the requirements of imperative C0. However, if that happened, relativised minimality would step in. The imperative Agr0 in C0 would act as an intervening governor and block the path from the clitic inside the verb complex in C0 to its trace in AgrS0, resulting in an ECP violation The relevant part of the configuration is shown in (193); the offending trace is ti. (193)

[CP [AgrC0 [ lei faisj ]k AgrC0 ] [AgrSP pro [AgrS0 [ti tj ]k AgrS0] …….]]

An alternative derivation does not face this problem. This has movement to C0 not of the entire verb-complex but only part of it, with the clitic being left behind in AgrS0 by a process akin to excorporation. The result is the word order in (192). In Hulk (1996), clitic position in the French negative imperative is also brought into the debate. Surprisingly, such sentences have clitic-V order, as in (194). (194)

Ne le fais pas! NEG it do. NEG ‘Don’t do it!’

Hulk proposes that the imperative feature in C0 can be checked either by the verb (this happens in affirmative imperatives, much as in Rooryck’s 1992 account) or by the negator ne (an idea adopted from Zanuttini 1994). Hulk also shows that Old French had different word order in imperatives: the situation was as in Serbian/ Croatian and Ancient Greek, with the verb preceding the clitics only if there was no other initial element (see 6.2). An exception to the order of (192) found until the late 17th century is discussed by Hirschbühler and Labelle (2006). This is the pattern clitic-Vimp in the second term of a coordinate clause. An example is given in (195). (195)

apportez-moi mes pantoufles et me donne mon bonnet de nuit. bring me my slippers and me give my cap of night ‘Bring me my slippers and give me my nightcap!’ (Molière, B.G. II.4)

Hirschbühler and Labelle show that this exceptional order can be understood by making use of fully general principles only. They analyse these cases as involving conjunction not of two CPs but of two FinPs, as in (196). (196)

[CP [ConjP FinP1 [Conj et ] FinP2]]

The imperative verb in FinP1 is attracted to C0 and ends up in front of the clitic but the verb in the second FinP must remain in a lower position, Fin0 or Agr0, as part of the clitic-verb complex. Hirschbühler and Labelle attribute the loss of





Wim van der Wurff

this word order to the loss of the XP-clitic-verb order in the history of French, which would have the effect of decreasing the evidence for clitic-verb order in imperatives. It is well known that intricate questions arise as soon as clitic position is considered from a comparative point of view and clitics in imperatives are no exception to this. Some of these questions are addressed in Tomid (this volume), who examines clitic positioning of pronouns in both affirmative and negative imperatives in the South Slavic languages. Building on earlier work (see Tomid 2002 and references given there), she is able to reduce the rather complex facts to two independently varying parameters, one involving the strength of the mood operator in imperative clauses and one involving the strength of the negative operator. Among the potentially noise-creating factors is the possibility that other words in the sentence are also clitics – as Tomid shows, this is indeed the case for the negator in Bulgarian, which procliticises to the nearest enclitic pronoun. A phenomenon that can bring further complexity to imperative surface data is clitic climbing. In such cases too, the analyst’s task is to show that much or all of the complexity follows from the interaction of independent processes or principles, which are straightforward in themselves and which require minimal stipulation. One such case – particularly challenging because the surface context does not suggest that clitic climbing is at all relevant – is discussed by Kayne (1992). The fact at issue is the unique clitic-infinitive order in negative imperatives like (197) in Italian. (197)

Non lo fare! not it do. ‘Don’t do it!’

In all other contexts, the infinitive only allows an enclitic, which – especially in Northern Italian varieties – is in fact also available in (198), an alternative to (197). (198)

Non farlo! not do.-it ‘Don’t do it!’

Again, the sentences are short but puzzling. However, Kayne (1992) is able to make sense of them by suggesting that enclisis to infinitives is an absolute norm which, contrary to appearances, (197) does not violate. This is accomplished by positing a null modal auxiliary, licensed by negation. As a result of the general process of clitic climbing, lo in (197) ends up (pro)cliticising to this null modal, well in front of the infinitive. In varieties where clitic climbing is less usual, like in the North, variant (198) would be preferred. The upshot is that no special statements have to be made about the word order facts – they follow from independently established properties of Italian grammar, together with the presence of a null auxiliary (an element for which good cross-linguistic evidence has since been found, as we saw in 5.3).

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

That the following facts, having to do with clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives, could also receive a non-stipulative account may seem difficult to believe. They concern sentences with clitic climbing out of the complement of the aspectual verbs ir ‘go’ and venir ‘come’. Such sentences are ungrammatical, as shown in (199)–(200). (199)

(200)

*velo a ver! go.-him to see ‘Go to see him!’ (?)? Venlo a ver! come.-him to see ‘Come to see him!’

As den Dikken and Blasco (this volume) emphasise, these facts are baffling, since 1. clitic climbing as such is perfectly possible in Spanish, also with the aspectual verbs ir ‘go’ and venir ‘come’ (i.e. these verbs, like many others, can trigger clausal restructuring); 2. the result of such clitic climbing is enclisis; 3. imperatives with enclisis are fully grammatical; 4. clitic climbing to other imperative verbs (including other aspectual verbs) is grammatical; 5. the result of such climbing is enclisis. Given all these licit operations, what is wrong with the combination of them in sentences (199) and (200)? Den Dikken and Blasco provide an answer that manages to explain the ungrammaticality of (199)–(200) with only the simplest of assumptions about the way the verbs ir and venir undergo restructuring. No further special statements are necessary, either about clitic climbing, the verbs ir and venir or the imperative (let alone about clitic climbing from the complement of imperative ir and venir). To see what direction the explanation should take, den Dikken and Blasco draw on facts from Hungarian, which also forbids clitic climbing from the complement of aspectual ‘come’ and ‘go’, but only after the indicative present tense forms. This parallel offers some hope of illumination; at the same time, the apparent incompleteness of the parallel and the lack of clarity as to its significance in a way only serves to make things more mysterious. But from that point on, den Dikken and Blasco move fast. Noting that Hungarian present tense verb forms lack an overt tense marker and adopting the idea that TP is absent in (Spanish) imperatives (see 3.2), they suggest that restructuring of aspectual ‘come’ and ‘go’ involves movement of the embedded VP into the matrix TP. Absence of TP (as in Spanish imperatives) means no VP-to-SpecTP, hence no restructuring, hence no clitic climbing – a perfect demonstration of the way baffling imperative facts are sometimes best explained by essentially saying nothing about the imperative at all.

.

Imperatives in generative grammar: a brief conclusion

In the overview of imperative work presented in this introduction, several strands can be identified. One of these conforms to what may be the usual development





Wim van der Wurff

of a scientific discipline. A first stage in the generative discovery of imperatives was marked by wonder and delight at new facts and realisations, with highly optimistic claims being made about the unfolding achievement of deep insight and understanding of a wide array of data (2.1); this was followed by sober-headed reconsideration of the initial evidence and retrenchment of claims (2.2), after which came the stage of diligent collecting and sorting of further data to see what could be made of them using the initial theoretical tools (2.3–2.5). Just as this enterprise was losing steam in the mid 1980s, a new impetus came to the field, in the form of a novel conception of the object of linguistic study and a set of brand-new categories and relations. Somewhat later came a realisation of the significance of a host of new data obtained through cross-linguistic comparison. Both of these processes have continued to unfold themselves, so that current work can build on a large amount of primary data analysed from various theoretical angles. Another strand running through imperative work is the link that has slowly emerged between form and meaning of imperative clauses. Formally, they are in several senses impoverished: they freely allow null subjects and objects even in languages otherwise severely restricting such elements, they feature verbs with minimal or no marking, they often resist the insertion of a negative marker and they cannot normally be embedded in a larger sentence. As a consequence, the prototypical imperative utterance consists of no more than a single bare verb. Consideration of the prototypical meaning of the imperative can now be said to provide an explanation for several of these formal characteristics. Thus, imperatives have an inherent specification of the addressee, who therefore needs no overt identification in the form of verbal or pronominal marking. By virtue of their directive performative element, they are also inherently linked to the here-and-now, making tense differentiation less urgent than in declarative clauses and enabling the licensing of situationally given non-overt elements, often leading to minimal or no formal expression also of other referents than the addressee. The presence of imperative meaning in an [IMP] feature in the highest functional projection necessitates a process of verb movement not found in other clauses, which may be therefore be blocked by elements not having this effect outside imperatives – negation, in particular. The [IMP] feature also marks the sentence as a root clause, severely restricting the possibilities of embedding. The above properties of course represent a mix of what is necessarily the case and what is pragmatically plausible. The pragmatically plausible part (i.e. the tendency for imperative clauses to be bald and bare) can indeed be counterexemplified by imperative clauses showing a host of intricate syntactic phenomena, as the preceding sections have made clear. Interestingly, recent work aims to show that many of these phenomena do not require special stipulation. All that learners need to know about imperatives is their directive-cum-irrealis meaning, with the directive part being reflected in an orientation towards the current speech

Imperative clauses in generative grammar

act situation and the irrealis part requiring a (language-external) relation of control. On the syntactic side, there is an [IMP] feature in the highest clausal head, forcing verb movement. The further phenomena visible in imperative clauses, it is argued, are fully determined by universal principles interacting with independent general properties of the language. From the point of view of language acquisition, this would be an interesting result. The implication would be that children could use the imperatives directed at them as providing straightforward instantiations of innate principles (an important prerequisite for learning a language) and also as reliable evidence for general properties of the specific language they are exposed to. In other words, they would be able to safely generalise from the syntactic knowledge that imperatives suggest to them. This is probably a silent assumption that many linguists hold, but claims that imperatives have idiosyncratic syntax amount to a denial of it. Whether the assumption can be upheld only further detailed work can show. A clear desideratum for this would be the inclusion of acquisition data, which appears to be a source strangely neglected in the generative imperative literature so far. Another promising source is data from language change – studies that have analysed such data have been few, but they have achieved interesting results through exploring the micro-variation that slices of diachrony make available. Further insight is bound to come from more work along these lines. Yet, progress cannot be hurried, as the contributors to this volume and its series editors know only too well. I would like to thank all of them for their willingness to join the project and for their continued patience. Special thanks are due to Sjef Barbiers, for co-organising the symposium on imperative clauses to which several of the papers in this volume trace their origin; to Gertjan Postma, for being an inspiring co-author of our joint paper in this volume and for making helpful suggestions for this introduction; to Hilda Koopman, for first sending me Koopman (1997a,b), which greatly helped shape my thinking about imperatives, and for subsequently keeping me supplied with new imperative publications; and to Marcel den Dikken and Johan Rooryck, for much-appreciated comment and advice as I was writing this introduction. Finally, with the other authors, I would like to offer this volume as a scholarly tribute to Frits Beukema. His initial interest in imperatives in the mid-1980s set in motion small waves at the University of Leiden that soon spread out to reach an international audience (see Beukema and Verheijen 1987). His continued interest kept work on the topic alive in the late 1980s (see Beukema and Coopmans 1989). And his exemplary scholarly candour and co-operativeness still inspire activity in this field nearly 20 years later (see this volume). We hope he will enjoy seeing our efforts and will approve of the results. What remains to be said to him is most appropriately expressed by means of a short imperative clause: Valē, amīce!





Wim van der Wurff

References Aarts, F.G.A.M. 1979. “Taalstructuur en taalgebruik: De beschrijving van imperatieve zinnen in het Engels”. Inaugural lecture, University of Nijmegen, 22 June 1979. Aarts, F.G.A.M. 1989. “Imperatives sentences in English: Semantics and pragmatics”. Studia Linguistica 43: 119–134. Aarts, F.G.A.M. 1994. “Imperative sentences in A Corpus of English Conversation”. Leuvense Bijdragen 83: 145–155. Akmajian, A. 1984. “Sentence types and the form-function fit”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 1–23. Al-Daifallah, A.S. 1984. Imperative Constructions in Contemporary English. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Alexiadou, A., P. Law, A. Meinunger and C. Wilder. 2000. “Introduction”. In: A. Alexiadou, P. Law, A. Meinunger and C. Wilder (eds) The Syntax of Relative Clauses, 1–51. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Anderson, S. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anipa, K. 2000. “Tomad and tomá, etc.: Change and continuity in a morphological feature”. Modern Language Review 95: 389–398. Arbini, R. 1969. “Tag-questions and tag-imperatives in English”. Journal of Linguistics 5: 205– 214. Ascoli, C. 1978. “Some pseudo-imperatives and their communicative function in English”. Folia Linguistica 12: 405–415. Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Bakker, W.F. 1966. The Greek Imperative: An Investigation into the Aspectual Differences between the Present and Aorist Imperatives in Greek Prayer from Homer up to the Present Day. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert. Baldi, P. 1999. The Foundations of Latin. Berlin: Mouton. Barbiers, S. This volume. “On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and German”. Bat-el, O. 2002. “True truncation in colloquial Hebrew imperatives”. Language 78: 651–683. Baum, D. 2005. The Imperative in the Rigveda. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden. Bennett, M.E. 1981. “Aspects of the imperative in Hopi”. In: J.E. Copeland and P.W. Davis (eds) The Seventh LACUS Forum, 1980, 359–367. Columbia: Hornbeam Press. Bennis, H. This volume. “Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives”. Bergh, B. 1975. On Passive Imperatives in Latin. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Beukema, F. and P. Coopmans. 1989. “A Government-Binding perspective on the imperative in English”. Journal of Linguistics 25: 417–436. Beukema, F. and R. Verheijen. 1987. “Imperatives in a GPSG framework”. In: W. Bahner, J. Schildt and D. Viehweger (eds) Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Linguists, 884–889. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Bolinger, D. 1967. “The imperative in English”. In: M. Halle, H. Lunt, H. McClean and C. van Schooneveld (eds) To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Vol. 1, 335–362. The Hague: Mouton. Bolinger, D. 1974. “Do imperatives”. Journal of English Linguistics 8: 1–5. Bolkestein, A.M. 1990. “Unreportable linguistic entities in Functional Grammar”. In: H. Pinkster and I. Genee (eds) Unity in Diversity, 13–26. Dordrecht: Foris. Boogaart, R. 2004. “‘Meet het en je weet het’: Van gebod naar voorwaarde”. In: S. Daalder, T. Janssen and J. Noordegraaf (eds) Taal in Verandering, 23–36. Münster: Nodus Publikationen.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar Boogaart, R. and R. Trnavac. 2004. “Conditional imperatives in Dutch and Russian”. In: L. Cornips and J. Doetjes (eds) Linguistics in the Netherlands 2004, 25–35. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bosque, I. 1980. “Retrospective imperatives”. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 415–419. Bouton, L.F. 1982. “Stem polarity and tag intonation in the derivation of the imperative tag”. In: R. Schneider, K. Tuite and R. Chametzky (eds) Papers from the Parasession on Nondeclaratives, 23–42. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Bowman, E. 1963. “The classification of imperative sentences in English”. Studies in Linguistics 17: 23–28. Brinton, L.J. and E.C. Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. 1955. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Ms., MIT. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Christensen, K.R. 2003. “On the synchronic and diachronic status of the negative adverbial ikke/ not”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 72: 1–53. Clark, B. 1991. Relevance Theory and the Semantics of Non-Declaratives. Ph.D. dissertation, University College London. Clark, B. 1993a. “Relevance and ‘pseudo-imperatives’”. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 79–121. Clark, B. 1993b. “Let and let’s: Procedural encoding and explicature”. Lingua 90: 173–200. Cohen, A.-R. 1976. “Don’t you dare!” In: J. Hankamer and J. Aissen (eds) Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 2, 175–196. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Cole, P. and J.L. Morgan (eds). 1975. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. Collins, P. 2004. “Let-imperatives in English”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9: 299– 319. Coopmans, P. 2003. “Review of Potsdam (1998)”. GLOT International 7.1/2: 39–45. Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Culicover, P.W. 1976. Syntax. New York: Academic Press. Davies, E.E. 1979. “Some restrictions on conditional imperatives”. Linguistics 17: 1039–1054. Davies, E.E. 1986. The English Imperative. London: Croom Helm. Davison, A. 1975. “Indirect speech acts and what to do with them”. In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, 143–185. New York: Academic Press. Depraetere, I. 1996. The Tense System in English Relative Clauses: A Corpus-Based Analysis. Berlin: Mouton. Diehl, J.F. 2004. Die Fortführung des Imperativs im biblischen Hebräisch. Münster: UgaritVerlag. Dikken, M. den. 1992. “Empty operator movement in Dutch imperatives”. In: D. Gilbers and S. Looyenga (eds) Language and Cognition 2, 51–64. Groningen: Research Group for Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation. Dikken, M. den. 1995. Particles: On the Syntax of Verb-Particle, Triadic and Causative Constructions. New York: Oxford University Press. Dikken, M. den. 1998. “Speaker-oriented particles in Dutch imperatives”. Glot International 3.9/10: 23–24. Dikken, M. den and M. Blasco. This volume. “Clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives”. Downes, W. 1977. “The imperative and pragmatics”. Journal of Linguistics 13: 77–97. Downing, B. 1969. “Vocatives and third-person imperatives in English”. Papers in Linguistics 1: 570–592. Duinhoven, A.M. 1984. “Ban de bom! Over vorm en betekenis van de imperatief ”. De Nieuwe Taalgids 77: 148–156.





Wim van der Wurff Egbe I. 1985. An approach to the Syntax and Semantics of the Imperative in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Evers, A. 1975. The Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht. Faarlund, J. 1985. “Imperatives and control: First person imperatives in Norwegian”. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 8: 149–160. Ferguson, C.A. 1966. “The imperative system of Bengali”. In: A.S. Dil (ed.) Shahidullah Presentation Volume, 19–24. Lahore: Linguistic Research Group of Pakistan. Fortuin, E.L. 2001. Polysemy or Monosemy: Interpretation of the Imperative and the DativeInfinitive Construction in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Goodwin, W.M. 1897. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. 2nd edn. Boston: Ginn and Company. Green, G.M. 1975. “How to get people to do things with words: The whimperative question”. In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, 107–141. New York: Academic Press. Gysi, M. 1997. Die Verbalgrösse Imperativ im Spanischen: Überlegungen zum Grundwert des spanischen Imperativs und seiner Stellung innerhalb des Modussystems. Bern: Lang. Haan, S. de. 1986. “Gebruiksmogelijkheden van de Nederlandse imperatief ”. Tabu 16. 250–260. Haegeman, L. 1987. “Register variation in English: Some theoretical observations”. Journal of English Linguistics 20: 230–248. Hamblin, C.L. 1987. Imperatives. Oxford: Blackwell. Han, C.-H. 1999. “Cross-linguistic variation in the compatibility of negation and imperatives”. In: K. Shahin, S. Blake and E.-W. Kim (eds) Proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 265–279. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Han, C.-H. 2000a. The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar. New York: Garland. Han, C.-H. 2000b. “The evolution of do-support in English imperatives”. In: S. Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas and A. Warner (eds) Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms, 275–295. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harris, J. 1997. “There is no imperative paradigm in Spanish”. In: F. Martínez-Gil and A. Morales-Front (eds) Issues in the Phonology and Morphology of the Major Iberian Languages, 537–557. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Harris, J. 1998. “Spanish imperatives: Syntax meets morphology”. Journal of Linguistics 34: 27–52. Henry, A. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Henry, A. 1997. “Viewing change in progress: The loss of V2 in Hiberno-English imperatives”. In: A. van Kemenade and N. Vincent (eds) Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, 272–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hicks, G. 2004. “‘So easy to look at, so hard to define’: Tough constructions and their derivation”. Ms., University of York, UK. Hirschbühler, P. and M. Labelle. 2006. “Proclisis and enclisis of object pronouns at the turn of the 17th century: The speech of the future Louis XIIIth”. In: R.S. Gess and D. Arteaga (eds) Historical Romance Linguistics: Retrospective and Perspectives, 187–208. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hoeksema, J. 1992. “Bevelende zinnen zonder polaire tegenhanger”. In: H. Bennis and J.W. de Vries (eds) De Binnenbouw van het Nederlands: Een Bundel Artikelen voor Piet Paardekooper, 125–131. Dordrecht: ICG Publications.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar Hoekstra, J. 1997. The Syntax of Infinitives in Frisian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen. Holmberg, A. 1979. “On whimperatives and related questions”. Journal of Linguistics 15: 225– 244. Holmberg, A. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm. Holmberg, A. 1999. “ Remarks on Holmberg’s generalization”. Studia Linguistica 53: 1–39. Hopper, P. and E.C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hornstein, N. 1990. As Time Goes By: Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hulk, A. 1996. “How ‘greedy’ is the French imperative?” In: C. Cremers and M. den Dikken (eds) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996, 97–108. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Huntley, M. 1980. “Propositions and the imperative”. Synthese 45: 281–310. Huntley, M. 1982. “Imperatives and infinitival embedded questions”. In R. Schneider, K. Tuite and R. Chametzky (eds) Papers from the Parasession on Nondeclaratives, 93–106. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Soceity. Huntley, M. 1984. “The semantics of English imperatives”. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 103– 133. Janssen, Th.A.J.M. 2006a. Onvolledige zinnen. Münster: Nodus Publikationen. Janssen, Th.A.J.M. 2006b. “Focusconstructies als kijk eens en moet je eens kijken”. Nederlandse Taalkunde 11: 332–365. Jensen, B. 2001. “On sentential negation in the Mainland Scandinavian languages”. Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 6: 115–135. Jensen, B. 2003a. Imperatives in English and Scandinavian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford. Jensen, B. 2003b. “Syntax and semantics of imperative subjects”. University of Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics 31.1: 150–164. Jensen, B. 2004. “Imperative clause structure”. Ms., Cambridge University. Katz, J.J. and P.M. Postal. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kayne, R.S. 1992. “Italian negative infinitival imperatives and clitic climbing”. In: L. Tasmowski and A. Zribi-Hertz (eds) De la Musique à la Linguistique: Hommages à Nicolas Ruwet, 300– 312. Ghent: Communication and Cognition. Kirsner, R. S. 2003. “On the interaction of the Dutch pragmatic particles hoor and hè with the imperative and infinitivus pro imperativo”. In: A. Verhagen and J. van de Weijer (eds) Usage-Based Approaches to Dutch: Lexicon, Grammar, Discourse, 59–96. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics LOT. Kitahara, H. 1997. Elementary Operations and Optimal Derivations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Koopman, H. 1997a. “Topics in imperatives”. Ms., UCLA. Koopman, H. 1997b. “Imperatives”. Ms., UCLA. Koopman, H. 2000a. “On the homophony of ‘past tense’ and imperative morphology in Kisongo Maasai”. Ms., UCLA. Koopman, H. 2000b. The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads. London: Routledge. Koopman, H. 2005. “Malagasy imperatives”. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 141–160.





Wim van der Wurff Koopman, H. This volume. “Topics in imperatives”. Kreidler, C.W. 1967. “The English imperative”. In: D.G. Stuart (ed.) Linguistic Studies in Memory of Richard Slade Harrell, 103–112. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Kühner, R., C. Stegmann and A. Thierfelder. 1955. Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Vol. 2. Leverkusen: Gottschalk. Laka, I. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Lasnik, H. 1981. “Restricting the theory of transformations: A case study”. In: N. Hornstein and D. Lightfoot (eds) Explanation in Linguistics: The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition, 152–173. London: Longman. Lawler. J.M. 1975. “Elliptical conditionals and/or hyperbolic imperatives: Some remarks on the inherent inadequacy of derivations”. In: R.E. Grossman, L.J. San and T.J. Vance (eds) Papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 371–382. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Lees, R.B. 1964. “On passives and imperatives in English”. Gengo Kenkyu, Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan 46: 28–41. Lees, R.B. and E.S. Klima. 1963. “Rules for English pronominalization”. Language 39: 17–28. Levenston, E.A. 1969. “Imperative structures in English”. Linguistics 50: 38–43. Long, R.B. 1966. “Imperative and subjunctive in contemporary English”. American Speech 41: 199–210. Luelsdorff, P. 1977. “Questions of preimperatives”. Studia Linguistica 31: 65–70. Lyons, J. 1977. “Statements, questions and commands”. In: A. Zampolli (ed.) Linguistic Structures Processing, 255–280. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Manning, C.D. 1996. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Stanford, Ca.: CSLI Publications. Massam, D. 1992. “Null objects and non-thematic subjects”. Journal of Linguistics 28. 115–137. Mastop, R.J. 2005. What Can You Do?: Imperative Mood in Semantic Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. McCawley, J.D. 1968. “The role of semantics in a grammar”. In: E. Bach and R.T. Harms (eds) Universals in Linguistic Theory, 124–169. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. McConvell, P. 2004. “Mood swings and downward migration in Ngumpin-Yapa (PamaNyungan) and southern European languages”. Paper read at Historical Linguistics Seminar, Center for Research on Language Change, Australian National University, April 23, 2004. Meer, G. van der. 1975. “The imperativus pro infinitivo reconsidered”. Us Wurk, Tydskrift foar Frisistyk 24: 19–34. Millward, C.M. 1971. Imperative Constructions in Old English. The Hague: Mouton. Moon, G.G.-S. 2001. Grammatical and Discourse Properties of the Imperative Subject in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Moon, G.G.-S. 2004. “The null imperative subject in English: An interface between syntax, semantics, and discourse-pragmatics”. In: B.-S. Park, J.-H. Kim and G. Goh (eds) Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on English Linguistics: In Commemoration of Otto Jespersen’s Scholarship, 277–287. Seoul: The English Linguistics Society of Korea. Moutafakis, N.J. 1975. Imperatives and their Logics. New Delhi: Sterling. Ouhalla, J. 1991. Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. London: Routledge. Overdiep, G.S. 1935. “De vorm van den imperatief ”. Onze Taaltuin 4.8: 239–247. Overdiep, G.S. 1936. “De middelnederlandsche imperatief ”. Onze Taaltuin 4.11: 332–340. Pakendorf, B. and E. Schalley. 2005. “Unexpected sources of prohibitive markers in Yakut and other languages of the world”. Paper read at the confererence “From Ideational to Interpersonal: Perspectives from Grammaticalization”, University of Leuven, 10–12 February 2005.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar Palmer, F. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, F. 2001. Mood and Modality. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Panther, K.-U. and K.M. Köpcke. 1993. “A cognitive approach to obligatory control phenomena in English and German”. Folia Linguistica 27. 57–105. Piperek, K. 1980. Die grammatische Struktur des russischen Aufforderungssatzes. München: Fink. Pirvulescu, M. 2002. Le concept de paradigme et la morphologie verbale. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto. Platzack, C. This volume. “Embedded imperatives”. Platzack, C. and I. Rosengren. 1998. “On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause”. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 177–224. Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. “Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP”. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424. Portner, P. 2005. “The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types”. In: K. Watanabe and R.B. Young (eds) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications. Postal, P.M. 1964. “Underlying and superficial linguistic structure”. Harvard Educational Review 34: 246–266. [Reprinted in: D.A. Reibel and S.A. Schane (eds) Modern Studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar, 19–37. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1969]. Postal, P.M. 1966. “On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English”. In: F. Dinneen (ed.) Report of the 17th Annual Round Table Meeting on Languages and Linguistics, 177–206. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. [Reprinted in: D.A. Reibel and S.A. Schane (eds) Modern Studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar, 201–224. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969]. Postma, G. 2005. “Infinitivale V2 in het Middeldrents en de subjunctief ”. Taal en Tongval 57: 126–166. Postma, G. 2006. “IpI in het Fries, IV2 in het Middelnederlands, en de distributie van subjunctieven”. Taal en Tongval 58. Postma, G. and W. van der Wurff. This volume. “How to say no and don’t: Negative imperatives in Romance and Germanic”. Potsdam, E. 1997. “NegP and subjunctive complements in English”. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 533– 541. Potsdam, E. 1998. Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative. New York: Garland. Potsdam, E. This volume. “Analysing word order in the English imperative”. Pride, J.B. 1973. “An approach to the (socio-)linguistics of commands and requests in English”. Archivum Linguisticum N.S. 4: 51–74. Proeme, H. 1984. “Over de Nederlandse imperativus”. Forum der Letteren 25: 241–258. Proeme, H. 1986. “Is WEES imperativus van ZIJN? (Over de semantiek van WEZEN en ZIJN)”. Forum der Letteren 27: 30–41. Rahardi, K. 2000. Imperatif dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Duta Wacana University Press. Reis, M. and I. Rosengren. 1992. “What do Wh-imperatives tell us about Wh-movement?” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 79–118. Risselada, R. 1993. Imperatives and Other Directive Expressions in Latin: A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Rivero, M.-L. 1994a. “Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 63–120. Rivero, M.-L. 1994b. “Negation, imperatives and Wackernagel effects”. Rivista di Linguistica 6: 91–118. Rivero, M.-L. and A. Terzi. 1995. “Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood”. Journal of Linguistics 31: 301–332.





Wim van der Wurff Rizzi, L. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery”. In: L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Robbers, K. 1992. “Properties of negation in Afrikaans and Italian”. In: R. Bok-Bennema and R. van Hout (eds) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1992, 223–234. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Roberts, I. (1995). “Object movement and verb movement in early Modern English”. In: H. Haider, S. Olsen and S. Vikner (eds) Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, 269–284. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rooryck, J. 1992. “Romance enclitic ordering and Universal Grammar”. The Linguistic Review 9: 219–250. Rooryck, J. and G. Postma. This volume. “On participial imperatives”. Ross, J.R. 1970. “On declarative sentences”. In: R.A. Jacobs and P.S. Rosenbaum (eds) Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 222–277. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and Company. [Preprint version circulated as Ms. in 1968]. Rupp. L.M. 1999. Aspects of the Syntax of English Imperatives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex. Rupp. L.M. 2003. The Syntax of Imperatives in English and Germanic: Word Order Variation in the Minimalist Framework. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Rupp, L. This volume. “‘Inverted’ imperatives”. Russell, B. 1940. An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth. London: Allan and Unwin. Rycker, T. De. 1990. Imperative Subtypes in Conversational British English: An Empirical Investigation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Antwerp. Sadock, J.M. 1969. “Hypersentences”. Papers in Linguistics 1: 283–370. Sadock, J.M. 1970. “Whimperatives”. In: J.M. Sadock and A.L. Vanek (eds) Studies Presented to Robert B. Lees by his Students, 223–238. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research Inc. Sadock, J.M. 1974. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. Sadock, J.M. and A.M. Zwicky. 1985. “Speech act distinctions in syntax”. In: T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Structure, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schermer-Vermeer, E.C. 1986. “Een opmerkelijke imperativus”. Forum der Letteren 27: 56–59. Schmerling, S.F. 1975. “Imperative subject deletion and some related matters”. Linguistic Inquiry 6: 501–511. Schmerling, S.F. 1982. “How imperatives are special, and how they aren’t”. In: R. Schneider, K. Tuite and R. Chametzky (eds) Papers from the Parasession on Nondeclaratives, 202–218. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Schutter, G. de. 1997. “De imperatief in de moderne Nederlandse dialecten”. Taal en Tongval 49: 31–60. Searle, J.R. 1975. “Indirect speech acts”. In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, 59–82. New York: Academic Press. Seely, C. 2002. Intermediate Bangla. München: Lincom Europa. Seppänen, A. 1977. “The position of let in the English auxiliary system”. English Studies 58: 515– 529. Sheppard, M.M. and M. Golden. 2002. “(Negative) imperatives in Slovene”. In: S. Barbiers, F. Beukema and W. van der Wurff (eds) Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System, 245–259. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Smith, C.S. 1964. “Determiners and relative clauses in a generative grammar of English”. Language 40: 48–49. Smith, W.L. 1997. Bengali Reference Grammar. Stockholm: The Association of Oriental Studies. Smyth, H.W. and G.M. Messing. 1956. Greek Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Imperative clauses in generative grammar Snyder, S. 1995. “Participles and imperatives in 1 Peter: A re-examination in the light of recent scholarly trends”. Filologìa Neotestamentaria 8: 187–198. Späth, A. 1996. Der Imperativsatz im Slowakischen mit Blick auf andere westslawische Sprachen: Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik eines Satztyps. München: Sagner. Stenius, E. 1967. “Mood and language-game”. Synthese 17: 254–274. Stockwell, R.P., J.D. Bowen and J.W. Martin. 1965. The Grammatical Structures of English and Spanish. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Stockwell, R.P., P. Schachter and B.H. Partee. 1973. The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Thorne, J.P. 1966. “English imperative sentences”. Journal of Linguistics 2: 69–78. Tiersma, P.M. 1985. Frisian Reference Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Tomid, O. 2002. “Modality and mood in Macedonian”. In: S. Barbiers, F. Beukema and W. van der Wurff (eds) Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System, 261–277. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Tomid, O.M. This volume. “Pronominal clitics and imperatives in South Slavic”. Ukaji, M. 1978. Imperative Sentences in Early Modern English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Vairel-Carron, H. 1975. Exclamation, Ordre et Défense: Analyse de Deux Systèmes Syntaxiques en Latin. Paris: Belles Lettres. Voelz, J.W. 1977. The Use of the Present and Aorist Imperatives and Prohibitions in the New Testament. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge. Vries, M. de. 2002. The Syntax of Relativization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Wachtel, T. 1979. “A question of imperatives”. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 10: 5–31. Waltereit, R. 2002. “Imperatives, interruption in conversation, and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda”. Linguistics 40: 987–1010. Wilson, D. and S. Sperber. 1988. “Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences”. In: J. Dancy, J.M.E. Moravcsik and C.C.W. Taylor (eds) Human Agency: Language, Duty and Value, 77–101. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Winter, W. 1969. “Vocative and imperative”. In: J. Puhvel (ed.) Substance and Structure of Language, 205–223. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wobst, S.G. 1972. The Imperative in Contemporary Russian: A Paradigmatic-Syntagmatic Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. Wolf, H. 2003. “Imperatieven in de verleden tijd”. Taal en Tongval 55: 168–187. Wratil, M. 2000. “Die Syntax des Imperativs”. Linguistische Berichte 181: 71–118. Wurff, W. van der. 2004. “Jespersen and comparative syntax: The case of negated and embedded imperatives”. In: H.-M. Lee and Y.-B. Park (eds) Otto Jespersen: Festschrift for the 80th Birthday of Professor Sung-Sik Cho, 572–614. Seoul: Hankook Munhwasa. Yamaguchi, H. 1994. “Unrepeatable sentences: Contextual influence on speech and thought presentation”. In: H. Parret (ed.) Pretending to Communicate, 239–252. Berlin: Mouton. Zanuttini, R. 1991. Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Zanuttini, R. 1994. “Speculations on negative imperatives”. Rivista di Linguistica 6: 119–141. Zanuttini, R. 1997. Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zeijlstra, H. 2004. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Zhang, S. 1990. The Status of Imperatives in Theories of Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.





Wim van der Wurff Zhang, S. 1993. “Negation in imperatives and interrogatives: Arguments against inversion”. In: L.M. Dobrin, L. Nichols and R.M. Rodriguez (eds) Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 1991, Part 2: The Parasession on Negation, 359–373. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Zwicky, A.M. 1988. “On the subject of bare imperatives in English”. In: C. Duncan-Rose and T. Vennemann (eds) On Language: Rhetorica, Phonologica, Syntactica – A Festschrift for Robert P. Stockwell from his Friends and Colleagues, 437–450. London: Routledge.

On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and German* Sjef Barbiers Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam

Abstract In German imperatives, topics and Wh-elements can optionally precede the finite verb, whereas in Dutch imperatives only left-dislocated constituents can. This paper argues that this contrast derives from a minimal morphosyntactic difference between Dutch and German. In Dutch, a null imperative operator is merged in SpecCP to check uImperative on C. As a result this position is not available for topicalised material. German imperative verbs have an interpretable feature Imperative. Consequently, the imperative verb is sufficient to check the uninterpretable uImperative feature on C, and SpecCP is available for fronted material. The proposed morphosyntactic difference between the two languages is supported by the fact that German has a set of verbs with a unique imperative form, whereas Dutch does not. The situation in Middle Dutch is parallel to German in that Middle Dutch verbs have unique imperative forms and topicalisation in Middle Dutch imperative clauses is possible. The presence of a null imperative operator in SpecCP in Dutch blocks movement of D-pronouns to that position, an operation that is necessary in declaratives to make PF-deletion of the D-pronoun possible. The fact that D-pronouns related to PPs can delete in declaratives but not in imperatives supports the claim that deleted D-pronouns have moved to SpecCP in declaratives but not in imperatives. Despite this difference between declaratives and imperatives, a uniform analysis of PF-deletion of D-pronouns is developed according to which PF-deletion is possible when the D-pronoun occurs in the spec of a head with an interpretable Demonstrative feature. By assumption, C has such a feature and imperative verbs have such a feature as well, unlike indicative ones. Consequently, D-pronouns in declaratives have to move to SpecCP in order to be deletable whereas D-pronouns in imperatives can already be deleted when they are in a spec head configuration with the verb.

* I would like thank Hans Bennis, Marcel den Dikken, Gertjan Postma, Johan Rooryck and Wim van der Wurff for helpful comments and discussion. I thank Chris Reintges and Christina Erb for their judgements on the German sentences. The usual disclaimers apply.



Sjef Barbiers

.

Introduction

In Dutch imperatives, topics and Wh-constituents cannot precede the finite verb:1 (1)

a. *Frits beloof me dat je spoedig bezoeken zult! Frits promise. me that you soon visit will ‘Promise me that you will visit Frits soon!’ b. *Wie zeg mij dat Peter ontmoet heeft! who tell. me that Peter met has ‘Tell me who Peter met!’

In those varieties of German that allow long movement, long fronting of topics and Wh-constituents is possible in imperatives.2 (2)

a.

b.

Den Fritz versprich mir bitte, daß du nie wieder besuchen wirst! the Fritz. promise. me please that you never again visit will ‘Promise me please that you will never visit Fritz again!’ (R&R: 80, ex. 3) Wen sag mir daß Peter getroffen hat! who. say. me that Peter met has ‘Tell me who Peter met!’ (R&R: 86, ex. 45)

The main goal of this paper is to explain this contrast between the two verbsecond languages.3 In addition to the fronting contrast between German and Dutch just mentioned, there are two further contrasts that an adequate analysis should account for. First, Wh-fronting in German imperatives is possible when the Wh-element originates in the embedded clause but not when it originates in the matrix clause ((3a) vs. (3b); examples from R&R). (3)

a.

Wen sag mir daß Peter getroffen hat! who. say. me that Peter met has ‘Tell me who Peter met!’ b. *Wen benenne als meinen Nachfolger! who. nominate. as my successor.

According to R&R this shows that imperative clauses do not have a Wh-feature. Fronting in imperatives consists of two steps. First, a Wh-feature on the embedded C triggers obligatory movement of the Wh-element to the embedded SpecCP. Next, the Wh-element optionally moves on to the matrix SpecCP. This second

. Infinitival and participial imperatives are beyond the scope of this paper (cf. den Dikken 1992a, Rooryck and Postma, this volume). .

Cf. Reis and Rosengren (1992; henceforth R&R).

. Cf. Koopman (1997) for the original observation. See Koopman (this volume) for an alternative explanation of the contrast.

The periphery of imperatives and declaratives in Dutch and German

step is an instance of topicalisation. This analysis nicely captures the fact that Wh-fronting in German imperatives is only possible with verbs that select a Whcomplement clause. This is illustrated by the contrast between (4a) and (4b) on the one hand, and (4c) and (4d) on the other. (4)

a. *Wen glaube, daß Peter getroffen hat! who. believe. that Peter met has b. *Ich glaube wen Peter getroffen hat. I believe who. Peter met has c. Wen sag mir daß Peter getroffen hat! who. say. me that Peter met has ‘Tell me who Peter has met!’ d. Ich sage dir wen Peter getroffen hat. I say you. who. Peter met has ‘I tell you who Peter has met.’

The second contrast is between Wh-elements and topics. Whereas Wh-elements can only be fronted in imperatives if they originate in an embedded clause, topics can be fronted even if they originate in the matrix clause. In addition to (2a), repeated below as (5a), we find cases like (5b,c) in German.4 In Dutch, such short topic fronting is sharply ungrammatical, as (5d,e) illustrate. (5)

a.

b.

c. d. e.

.

Den Fritz versprich mir bitte, daß du nie wieder besuchen wirst! German the Fritz. promise. me please that you never again visit will ‘Promise me please that you will never visit Fritz again!’ Das Buch lies besser nicht! German that book read. better not ‘You better not read that book!’ Nun kauf mal das Buch mit 500 Abbildungen! German now buy. once that book with 500 pictures *Dat boek lees maar niet! Dutch that book read. just not *Nu koop eens dat boek met 500 foto’s! Dutch now buy. once that book with 500 pictures

Explanation of the fronting contrasts

I assume, following Chomsky (1977), Platzack (1986), den Besten (1989), Müller and Sternefeld (1993) for German, and Zwart (1993) for Dutch, that there are two CP-layers, CP and CPDEM, and that declaratives, imperatives and questions do not

.

Cf. Platzack and Rosengren (1998) for non-Wh-fronting of matrix constituents.





Sjef Barbiers

differ in this respect.5 The reason to call the lower layer CPDEM will become clear below. SpecCPDEM is the host for topics, D-pronouns, Wh-elements and empty operators. SpecCP hosts left-dislocated constituents; quantifiers may also occur there. The uniform syntactic base structure of German and Dutch imperatives assumed here is given in (6). (6)

[CP spec [C’ C [CP

DEM

spec [C

DEM’

CDEM [IP spec [I’ I [VP subj

[V’V [obj] ….]]]]]]]]

I would like to propose that the fronting contrast between German and Dutch imperatives should be explained as follows. In Dutch, the imperative verb is identical to the first person singular and to the second person singular in inversion of the present tense indicative paradigm. In German, the imperative normally coincides with the first person singular, both having a suffix -e, but there is a set of verbs with a unique form for the imperative. In particular, this is the case for verbs that show the alternation /e/ – /i/ in the present tense indicative (e.g. nehmen ‘take’) or the alternation /ε/ – /i/ (e.g. versprechen ‘promise’). This contrast is illustrated in Table 1. Table 1. Present indicative and imperative forms in Dutch and German Present tense indicative

Standard Dutch

German

1 singular

neem-ø

nehm-e

2 singular

neem-t

nimm-st

2 singular under inversion

neem-ø

nimm-st

3 singular

neem-t

nimm-t

1 plural

nem-e

nehm-en

2 plural

nem-e

nehm-t

3 plural

nem-e

nehm-en

Imperative (sing)

neem-ø

nimm-ø

I will formalise this difference in terms of the framework proposed in Chomsky (2001). Assume that the existence in German but not Dutch of a set of verbs with a unique imperative form reflects an abstract feature specification difference. In German, the imperative verb has the interpretable feature Imperative. In Dutch, the imperative verb does not have this feature. This gives rise to the configuration in (7) (irrelevant features and projections omitted). . There is an ongoing debate in the literature on the categorial status of imperatives (cf. Platzack and Rosengren 1998, Rupp 1999 for an overview). Rupp (1999, this volume) adopts an IP-analysis. For the view that imperatives are CPs, cf. Beukema and Coopmans (1989), Bennis (this volume), Potsdam (this volume), among many others. The null-hypothesis is that imperative clauses have the same categorial status in all languages, but it is of course possible that languages vary on this status.

The periphery of imperatives and declaratives in Dutch and German

(7) German: Dutch:

[CP [CP

DEM

[CP [CP

DEM

Op[iImp]

[CDEM [ uImp]

[IP … [VP … V[]

…..

]]]]]

[CDEM [ uImp]

[IP … [VP … V

….

]]]]]

Since CDEM and V agree in German, the feature uImperative is deleted, as required. No constituent needs to be moved to or merged in SpecCPDEM to check uImperative, hence this position remains available for fronted material. In Dutch, the verb and CDEM do not agree on the feature Imperative. A null imperative operator must therefore be merged in SpecCPDEM to check and delete uImperative. As a result, SpecCPDEM is not available for fronted material.6,7 The only preverbal position available in Dutch imperatives is SpecCP, which hosts left-dislocated constituents, not topics or Wh-elements, as we will see shortly. Given this view, the fact that both in German and in Dutch imperative clauses the verb moves to CDEM cannot be attributed to the uImperative feature and must be due to some other feature, presumably a Tense or Agreement feature. The fact that short Wh-fronting in German imperatives is impossible as opposed to long Wh-fronting can be explained if uImperative and uWh on CDEM are mutually exclusive. This adequately captures the fact that a matrix clause can either be an imperative or a question but not both. An imperative with a fronted Wh-constituent is not interpreted as a matrix . The only exception to the generalisation that Dutch does not have unique imperative forms is the verb zijn ‘be’, which has two imperative forms: ben which coincides with the first person singular and the second person singular of the present tense indicative in inversion, and the unique form wees (cf. Bennis, this volume). Despite the uniqueness of the latter form, fronting is impossible in clauses containing it. This does not constitute a problem for the proposed analysis, since the hypothesis is not that all and only verbs which are visibly imperative allow fronting. If that were the hypothesis, German verbs without the /e/ – /i/ or /ε/ – /i/ alternation would be expected to disallow fronting in imperative clauses, contrary to fact. Thus, the hypothesis is crucially that there is a difference between German and Dutch with respect to abstract feature specification, not with respect to visibility. From the given state of affairs we have to conclude that a child acquiring Dutch does not take the special imperative form wees ‘be’ as evidence for a grammar that specifies all imperative verbs with a feature Imperative, but as a lexical peculiarity. A child acquiring German ‘ignores’ the absence of a special imperative form in most verbal paradigms and arrives at the conclusion that German imperative verbs have an Imperative feature on the basis of the set of verbs that do have a special imperative form. . Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) argue that languages differ in the way they satisfy the EPP. In VSO/VOS languages, the EPP is satisfied by V movement, whereas in SVO/SOV languages it is the subject that satisfies the EPP. This difference is in turn derived from a difference in feature specification: VSO/VOS languages have a [+D] feature in their verbal morphology that the other language types lack. The account of cross-linguistic differences in fronting in imperatives presented here parallels Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou’s analysis. Just like the EPP feature, the uImperative feature is present in both languages. In German this feature is checked by the verb. In Dutch it is checked by merger of an empty operator. Although the verb moves in Dutch imperatives as well for independent reasons, this does not yield checking of uImperative, as Dutch verbs do not have such a feature.



 Sjef Barbiers

Wh-question but as an imperative. The embedded clause in such an imperative is interpreted as a question, because CDEM of the embedded clause does have a uWh feature. The fact that short topicalisation is possible in German imperatives shows that the optionally present topic feature triggering this is not mutually exclusive with uImperative on CDEM. Evidence supporting the proposed explanation of the fronting contrast between German and Dutch comes from Middle Dutch. As observed in Weerman (1989: 35), van Gestel et al. (1992: 46, ex. 21c,d), among others, fronting was possible in Middle Dutch imperatives: (8)

a.

b.

Nu sit weder op u ors now sit. again on your horse ‘Sit down on your horse again now!’ Oec weet: en heefstu die blader niet, also know. and have-you the leaves not so nem dat saet wel ghesoden in water so take. the seed well cooked in water ‘Note also: if you don’t have the leaves, then take the seed cooked well in water.’

Van Gestel et al. (1992: 46) speculate that the loss of fronting in imperatives in Modern Dutch may be a consequence of verbal deflection. The present proposal makes this speculation more precise and explains why inflection is relevant. Middle Dutch has a unique form for the imperative, the bare stem of the verb. All other forms of the present tense indicative and subjunctive have a suffix.8 Like German, Middle Dutch verbs have an interpretable Imperative feature that checks the uImperative feature in CDEM.9 .

Consequences for topic drop and dislocation

In this section I discuss an important consequence that the account proposed in the previous section has for the analysis of dislocation and topic drop in imperative and declarative clauses. As den Dikken (1992a) and Koopman (this volume)

. The hypothesis that only languages with a unique form for the imperative allow fronting holds for the Middle Dutch verbal paradigms reported in van Gestel et al. (1992: 41, 45). However, as is well-known, ‘Middle Dutch’ is a cover term for a collection of dialects. Claims about the correlation between verbal inflection and fronting in imperatives should therefore be treated with caution. Modern Dutch dialects show considerable variation in verbal inflection. If the same is true for Middle Dutch, then the hypothesis should be tested separately for every variety of Middle Dutch. The same holds for German. .

I thank Gertjan Postma for drawing my attention to the Middle Dutch facts.

The periphery of imperatives and declaratives in Dutch and German 

observe, Dutch imperative clauses allow topic drop and right dislocation: (9)

Leg neer (die bal) (jij)! put down (that ball) (you)

Right dislocation in Dutch normally requires the presence of a D-pronoun, and topic drop requires movement of that D-pronoun (dat ‘that’, die ‘that’, ‘those’, daar ‘there’) to SpecCPDEM (cf. Weerman 1989 for discussion).10 According to the present proposal, the null imperative operator in Dutch imperative clauses takes this position. This entails that topic drop in imperatives cannot be analysed completely on a par with declaratives. In this section I consider the problem in some more detail. In the next section, I argue that PF-deletion of a D-pronoun is licensed by an interpretable Demonstrative feature. This feature is located on CDEM in declaratives but on V in imperatives. Consequently, in declaratives but not in imperatives the D-pronoun has to move to CDEM in order to be deletable. Left and right dislocation in Dutch declaratives requires a visible D-pronoun: (10)

a.

b.

(Dat boek), ik geef *(dat) morgen terug. (that book) I give (that) tomorrow back ‘That book, I will give it back tomorrow.’ Ik geef *(dat) morgen terug, (dat boek). I give (that) tomorrow back (that book) ‘I will give it back tomorrow, that book.’

Only if the D-pronoun moves to SpecCPDEM can it be silent and in such cases too, the dislocated constituent is optional (11a,b). Thus, topic drop as in (11c) involves a D-pronoun that has moved to SpecCPDEM and deleted at PF, combined with absence of the optional dislocated constituent (11d). (11)

a.

b. c. d.

(Dat boek), (dat) geef ik morgen terug. (that book) (that) give I tomorrow back ‘That book, I will give it back tomorrow.’ (Dat) geef ik morgen terug, (dat boek). (that) give I tomorrow back (that book) Geef ik morgen terug. give I tomorrow back dati [CF geef [IP ik ti morgen terug]]] [CP Dem

Dem

Dislocation is also possible in Wh-questions (12a,b), but topic drop is impossible because the D-pronoun cannot move to SpecCPDEM, due to the presence of the Wh-constituent (12c,d). (12c,d) show a violation of the verb-second constraint,

. Dutch also has dislocation with an ordinary pronoun instead of a D-pronoun. This is irrelevant for the present discussion.

 Sjef Barbiers

which says that maximally one constituent can precede the finite verb in Dutch main clauses, ignoring left-dislocated material.11 (12)

a.

(Dat probleem), hoe los je *(dat) op? (that problem) how solve you (that) up ‘That problem, how do you solve that?’ b. Hoe los je *(dat) op, (dat probleem)? how solve you (that) up (that problem) ‘How do you solve that, that problem?’ c. *(Dat probleem), (dat) hoe los je op?12 (that problem) (that) how solve you up dati hoe [C d. [CP Dat probleem [C [CP DEM

DEM

los [TP je ti op]]]]]

For the same reason, it is impossible to drop more than one argument, as this would require moving two D-pronouns into SpecCPDEM, in violation of the verb second constraint. This is illustrated in (13), which shows that the subject and the object can be dropped separately, (13a,b), but not together, (13c). (13d) shows the ungrammaticality of moving two D-pronouns to SpecCPDEM. (13e) is the configuration for (13d). Imperatives, on the other hand, do allow the simultaneous dropping of the subject and the object (cf. (9)). (13)

a.

b.

c. d. e.

(Die) heeft het boek al meegenomen, (die jongen). (that) has the book already along-taken (that boy) ‘He has already taken the book along, that boy.’ (Dat) heeft hij al meegenomen, (dat boek). (that) has he already along-taken (that book) ‘He has already taken it along, that book.’ *Heeft al meegenomen. has already along-taken *Dat die heeft al meegenomen that that has already along-taken dat die [C heeft [TP al meegenomen]]] *[CP DEM

DEM

The verb-second constraint also rules out topic drop in yes-no questions, which according to standard assumptions have a null question operator. Example (14a) shows that left-dislocation in yes-no questions is possible. Example (14b) shows that the D-pronoun cannot be deleted. Like non-moved D-pronouns in declaratives it cannot be deleted in its position in (14a). The ungrammaticality of the sentence in (14b) further shows that the D-pronoun in yes-no questions cannot be moved to SpecCPDEM and deleted there. This follows from the assumption that

.

The same holds for non-Wh constituents in SpecCPDem: (i)

.

Dat boek, nu neem ik *(dat) mee. that book now take I (that) along

The order is equally impossible.

The periphery of imperatives and declaratives in Dutch and German 

there is a null question operator in SpecCPDEM that makes D-pronoun movement to SpecCPDEM impossible, (14c). The case in (14b) should not be confused with (14d), which is a declarative clause that is only marked as a question prosodically, not by word order. This option is generally available in Dutch, (14e). (14)

a.

b. c. d.

e.

Dat boek, neem je dat mee? that book take you that along ‘That book, are you taking that along?’ *Dat boek, neem je mee? that book take you along dati OP [C neem [TP je ti mee]]]] [CP Dat boek [CP Dem Dem Dat boek (dat) neem je mee? that book (that) take you along ‘You are taking along that book?’ Je neemt dat boek mee? you take that book along

In imperatives, dislocation is possible too (15a,b), but like in yes-no and Wh-questions, it is impossible to move a D-pronoun to preverbal position (15c,d). This follows if there is a null imperative operator in SpecCPDEM. (15c,d) violate the verb-second constraint, as (15e) shows. (15)

a. b. c. d. e.

(Dat boek), neem dat mee! (that book) take. that along Neem dat mee, (dat boek)! take. that along (that book) *Dat boek, dat neem mee! that book that take. along *Dat neem mee, dat boek! that take. along that book dat OP [C neem [TP … mee … ]]] * [CP Dem

Dem

Despite the impossibility of moving a D-pronoun to SpecCPDEM in imperatives, topic drop (i.e. D-pronoun deletion) is possible, as we have already seen: (16)

a. b.

(Dat boek), neem mee! (that book) take. along Neem mee, (dat boek)! take. along (that book)

Topic drop in imperatives as in (16a) and (16b) cannot be derived from (15a) and (15b) by PF-deletion of the D-pronoun since we have seen that PF-deletion of D-pronouns is only possible when the pronoun has moved to preverbal position. Neither can it be derived from (15c) and (15d) by PF-deletion of the D-pronoun, since the input of this deletion operation is ungrammatical.13 . Unless we stipulate that declaratives and imperatives differ in that clause initial Dpronouns may delete in declaratives and must delete in imperatives, but this would merely be a restatement of the problem.

 Sjef Barbiers

The uniform analysis of topic drop in declaratives and imperatives as involving D-pronoun movement to SpecCPDEM and PF-deletion cannot be rescued by assuming that the D-pronoun does move to SpecCPDEM in imperatives, but that this movement is concealed by subsequent movement of the verb to a higher position, as in (17a). If this were the proper analysis, we would expect all D-pronouns to be able to delete in this position. However, (17b) shows that D-pronouns related to PPs cannot be deleted in this position, exactly like non-moved D-pronouns in declaratives, (17c), but unlike moved D-pronouns in declaratives, (17d).14 Leftdislocation shows the same strong contrast, (17e,f). (17)

a. b.

c.

d.

e. f.

[[XP [X neem [CP (dat) [C neem [CP … mee …]]]]] dat boek] Dem Dem take (that) take along that book Werk *(daar) aan mee, aan dat project! work (there) on with on that project ‘Participate in that project!’ Ik werk *(daar) aan mee, aan dat project. I work (there) on with on that project ‘I participate in that project.’ (Daar) werk ik aan mee, aan dat project. (there) work I on with on that project ‘I participate in that project.’ (Aan dat project), werk *(daar) aan mee! (on that project) work (there) on with (Aan dat project), (daar) werk ik aan mee. (on that project) (there) work I on with

In conclusion, topic drop in imperative clauses cannot be analysed on a par with topic drop in declaratives, i.e. as the result of moving a D-pronoun to SpecCPDEM and deleting it there. There are three observations that show this. First, D-pronouns cannot occur in preverbal position in Dutch imperatives. Secondly, D-pronouns in postverbal position in imperatives cannot be taken to be in SpecCPDEM as this would wrongly predict D-pronouns related to PPs to be deletable

. Some speakers consider cases like (17b) and (i) without the D-pronoun to be grammatical. However, without the particles maar eens lit. ‘only once’ such sentences are clearly ungrammatical (ii). (i)

(ii)

Denk maar eens over na, over dat probleem! think but once about after about that problem ‘Just think about that problem!’ Denk *(daar) over na, over dat probleem! think (there) about after about that problem ‘Think about that problem!’

The focus particle in (i) presumably provides an additional licensing position (cf. Barbiers 1995). I leave the explanation of this contrast for future research.

The periphery of imperatives and declaratives in Dutch and German 

there. Thirdly, in imperatives the subject and the object can drop simultaneously, whereas maximally one constituent can drop in declaratives.

4. Licensing topic drop in declaratives and imperatives Although it is clear that topic drop in declaratives and imperatives cannot be analysed in a completely uniform way, the null hypothesis is that the licensing mechanism for topic drop is the same for declaratives and imperatives. Let us look at declaratives first. I propose the licensing mechanism in (18): (18)

Condition on PF deletion of D-pronouns A D-pronoun can optionally delete iff it is in the specifier of a head with an interpretable Demonstrative (henceforth Dem) feature.

The relevant configuration is given in (19): CP

(19) LeftDisl

C’ C

CPDEM D-proni [Dem] CDEM [Dem]

CDEM’ TP ... ti ....

The condition in (18) is a natural recoverability condition and may have a functional explanation. Since D-pronouns have a Dem feature themselves, the Dem specification is redundant. The condition captures the fact that D-pronouns in declaratives can only delete when they move to preverbal position. Wh-constituents, topics, the null question operator and the null imperative operator occur in SpecCPDEM, thus blocking D-pronoun fronting and deletion. The assumption that CDEM has a Dem feature is supported by the fact that in finite embedded clauses it is spelled out by the complementiser dat ‘that’ which is homophonous to the demonstrative dat ‘that’. The idea that these are not just homophonous but that this complementiser has properties of a demonstrative goes back at least to Bolinger (1972) (cf. also Barbiers 2000). If the licensing of topic drop in imperatives is subject to the same condition, there must be another head with an interpretable Dem feature. Let us assume that imperative verbs differ from other verb forms in having such a Dem feature. D-pronoun drop is then possible as soon as a D-pronoun is in a spec-head configuration with the imperative verb. According to the standard minimalist analysis

 Sjef Barbiers

(Chomsky 1995), this configuration already arises within vP, when the object is attracted by v to check its case feature. PF-deletion of the object D-pronoun in imperatives is thus parasitic on case checking. vP

(20)

D-pron-object [Dem] Subject

vP v’ v [Dem]

VP

The assumption that imperative verbs have a Dem feature explains why Dpronouns do not have to move to the left-periphery in order to be deletable. It also explains the contrast in (17), repeated here as (21), namely the fact that prepositional D-pronouns can be deleted in declaratives but not in imperatives. (21)

a.

b.

Werk *(daar) aan mee, aan dat project! work there on with on that project ‘Participate in that project!’ (Daar) werk ik aan mee, aan dat project. (there) work I on with on that project ‘I participate in that project.’

Little v does not attract PPs because there is no structural case to be checked. As a result, prepositional D-pronouns can only delete when they move to SpecCPDEM. The same presumably holds for dative arguments (cf. den Dikken 1992a, Koopman, this volume, for discussion). The contrasts in (22) follow from the additional assumption that datives have a hidden preposition (cf. den Dikken 1992b).15 (22)

a.

b.

c. d.

(Die) geef ik dat boek wel terug, (die jongen). (that) give I that book surely back (that boy) ‘That boy, I will give him that book back.’ Geef *(die) dat boek terug, (die jongen). give (that) that book back (that boy) ‘Give him that book back, that boy.’ (Die jongen), (die) geef ik dat boek terug. (that boy) (that) give I that book back (Die jongen), geef *(die) dat boek terug. (that boy) give (that) that book back

. The proposed analysis predicts that topic drop of adjuncts is possible in declaratives but not in imperatives. This is hard to test as adjuncts are optional by definition.

The periphery of imperatives and declaratives in Dutch and German 

Although the object D-pronoun does not have to move higher than vP to be deleted, this does not imply that it cannot move to a position higher than vP but lower than SpecCPDEM. Such movement should be possible given the observation in den Dikken (1992a) that object drop in declarative and imperative clauses licenses parasitic gaps: (23)

a.

b.

Leg [zonder pgi te bekijken] ti neer! put without pg to examine down ‘Put down without looking at it!’ Heb ik [zonder pgi te bekijken] ti weggegooid. have I without pg to examine away-thrown ‘I have thrown it away without looking at it.’

As (24a,b) show, an object D-pronoun can move across an indirect object, without moving as far as SpecCPDEM. Full object DPs cannot do this in Dutch, (24c). The movement operation in (24b) is sufficient to license parasitic gaps.16 (24)

a.

Toen gaf ik die jongen dat terug. then gave I that boy that back ‘Then I gave that back to that boy.’ b. Toen gaf ik dati die jongen ti terug. then gave I that that boy back c. *Toen gaf ik dat boeki die jongen ti terug. then gave I that book that boy back

For the sake of completeness, let us ask how the empty subject in imperatives is licensed. Following the logic of the analysis of PF-deletion of D-pronouns, the empty subject is licensed by an interpretable [2person] feature on v. (cf. Bennis, this volume, for discussion and references, and for the lack of a number feature). The condition on deletion of D-pronouns in (18) can now be generalised to a recoverability condition on pronoun deletion: (25)

Condition on PF deletion of pronouns A pronoun with an interpretable feature [X] can be deleted at PF iff it is in the specifier of a head with the same interpretable feature [X].

Summarizing this section, imperative verbs in Dutch differ from other verbs in that they have two interpretable features: [Demonstrative] and [2person].17 This is sufficient to explain the possibility of dropping the object and the subject in . According to den Dikken (1992a) the empty D-pronoun moves to the Spec of a Mood/Modality head that is exclusively present in imperatives. If I am right that topic drop in declaratives is basically the same as topic drop in imperatives and that topic drop in imperatives does not require movement, then this Mood/Modality head can be dispensed with. . If there is a feature that distinguishes demonstratives and 2person pronouns from other pronouns, these two features can be reduced to one.

 Sjef Barbiers

imperatives without moving them to SpecCPDEM, and to explain the impossibility of dropping PPs and datives in imperative clauses.

.

Further evidence and consequences

According to the analysis proposed here left dislocation in Dutch imperatives is simply a case in which a constituent is generated in the highest SpecCP, while a D-pronoun coindexed with it may occur in situ (26a) and delete there (26b).18 Without comma intonation, (26b) is ungrammatical, which shows that (26b) is a genuine case of left dislocation, not topicalisation. This is confirmed by the contrast between (26c) on the one hand and (26d–f) on the other, which shows that the adverb hard ‘fast’ can be topicalised but not left-dislocated. (26)

a. b. c.

d.

e.

f.

Dat boek, geef dat terug! that book give that back Dat boek, geef dat terug! that book give that back Die jongen, hard liep die naar huis. that boy quickly ran that to home ‘That boy, he ran home quickly.’ (*Hard), loop naar huis! (quickly) run to home Intended interpretation: ‘Run home quickly!’ (*Hard), wie loopt er naar huis? (quickly) who runs there to home Intended interpretation: ‘Who’s running home quickly?’ (*Hard), daar liep jij naartoe. (quickly) there ran you towards Intended interpretation: ‘You ran towards it quickly.’

Right dislocation as in (27a) can now be analysed as movement of the entire CP across the left-dislocated constituent (cf. Koopman, this volume): (27)

a. b.

Breng (dat) mee, dat boek! bring (that) along that book [Dat boek [CP breng dat mee]] that book bring that along

==> [[CP

Breng dat mee]i [[dat boek] ti ]] bring that along that book

As den Dikken (1992a) observes, only DP objects that contain a demonstrative can be dislocated in imperatives, (28). Declaratives behave differently in this respect.

. If the arguments for movement of the dislocated constituent in imperatives presented in Koopman (this volume) are valid, then the dislocated constituent and the D-pronoun should originate as one constituent. This does not affect the analysis presented here.

The periphery of imperatives and declaratives in Dutch and German 

Left-dislocated constituents in declaratives do not have to contain a demonstrative, but right-dislocated constituents do (29). (28)

a. *Veel boeken, breng mee! many books bring along b. *Breng mee, veel boeken! bring along many books c. *Alle boeken, breng mee! all books bring along d. *Breng mee, alle boeken! bring along all books e. Al die boeken, breng mee! all those books bring along f. Breng mee, al die boeken! bring along all those books

(29)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Veel boeken, die breng ik mee. many books those bring I along *(Die) breng ik mee, veel boeken. (those) bring I along many books Alle boeken, die breng ik mee. all books those bring I along *(Die) breng ik mee, alle boeken. (those) bring I along all books Al die boeken, die breng ik mee. all those books those bring I along (Die) breng ik mee, al die boeken. those bring I along all those books

The demonstrative restriction on dislocated constituents in imperatives supports the claim that deleted D-pronouns have not moved to SpecCPDEM in imperatives. In declaratives, D-pronouns that have not moved to SpecCPDEM obey the same demonstrative restriction: (30)

a. *Veel boeken, ik breng die mee. many books I bring those along b. *Alle boeken, ik breng die mee. all books I bring those along c. Al die boeken, ik breng die mee. all those books I bring those along d. Die boeken, ik breng die mee. those books I bring those along

Gertjan Postma (p.c.) suggests that the fact that right-dislocated constituents in declaratives do obey the demonstrative restriction as well can be explained if right-dislocation is derived from left-dislocation by CP movement (cf. (27)) and if the landing site of this CP movement is the same as the position that

 Sjef Barbiers

non-demonstrative left-dislocated constituents have to move to. I leave the explanation of the demonstrative restriction for future research, while noting that it must have something to do with the presence of the Demonstrative feature on CDEM and the fact that the relevant constituents are in a chain with a Dpronoun. According to the analysis presented here, overt preverbal material in Dutch imperatives is always left-dislocated, whereas overt preverbal material in German can be in SpecCPDEM, the position to the right of left-dislocated constituents that hosts D-pronouns, topics, Wh-elements, the null question operator and, in Dutch, the null imperative operator. As we have seen in Section 1, Wh-elements occur in preverbal position in German imperatives, but not in Dutch, (31a,b). Wh-elements cannot be left-dislocated in Dutch (31c), but they can follow a left-dislocated constituent, (31d). This supports the idea that we are dealing with two different positions. (31)

a.

Wen sag mir daß Peter getroffen hat? who. say me that Peter met has ‘Tell me who Peter met!’ b. *Wie zeg mij dat Peter ontmoet heeft? who tell me that Peter met has c. *Hoe, het probleem heb je (dat) opgelost? how the problem have you (that) solved d. Het probleem, hoe heb je dat opgelost? the problem how have you that solved

When there is a topic in SpecCPDEM in German imperatives, the D-pronoun must be deleted in a Spec-Head configuration with V, not with CDEM. Since datives do not occur in a Head-Spec configuration within vP, we correctly predict datives to be impossible as topics of imperatives in German, (32b). As we have seen, datives cannot be left-dislocated in Dutch imperatives either, (32d), not because the leftdislocated element is in SpecCPDEM but because the null imperative operator in that position blocks D-pronoun movement. (32)

a.

Dem Jungen gebe ich das Buch. the boy. give I the book b. *Dem Jungen gib das Buch nicht! the boy. give. the book not c. Die jongen geef ik het boek. that boy give I the book d. Die jongen geef *(die) dat boek niet! that boy give. (that) the book not

When the D-pronoun does not move to SpecCPDEM in Dutch, the left-dislocated element must be a constituent containing a demonstrative. A topic in SpecCP in

The periphery of imperatives and declaratives in Dutch and German 

German imperatives also blocks movement of the associated D-pronoun, so we expect the same restriction to apply. This expectation is borne out.19 (33)

.

a.

Manche Bücher habe ich gelesen. many books. have I read b. Alle Bücher habe ich gelesen. all books. have I read c. *Manche Bücher lies besser nicht! many books. read. better not d. *Alle Bücher lies besser nicht! all books. read. better not

Conclusion

The fact that only left-dislocated material can precede the finite verb in Dutch imperatives whereas in German imperatives topicalised material can also occur preverbally derives from a minimal morphosyntactic difference between the two languages. German imperatives have an interpretable feature Imperative but Dutch imperatives do not. The contrasts between declarative and imperative clauses with respect to dislocation and topic drop follow from a minimal morphosyntactic difference between imperative and declarative verbs. Imperative verbs have an interpretable feature Demonstrative in the two languages that licenses PF-deletion of D-pronouns that have not moved to the left edge. Declarative verbs do not have such a feature, hence D-pronouns in declarative clauses have to move to SpecCPDEM in order to be deletable. Both the German–Dutch contrasts and the declarative–imperative contrasts thus derive from differences in morphosyntactic feature specification, a result which supports the central hypothesis of the minimalist program that syntactic variation reduces to morphosyntactic variation.

References Alexiadou, A. and E. Anagnostopoulou. 1998. “Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539. Barbiers, S. 1995. The Syntax of Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.

. All things being equal, this analysis further predicts that datives and non-demonstrative DPs in German should be able to occur as left-dislocated elements in imperatives with deletion of the D-pronoun. Judgements are mixed. I leave this for future research.

 Sjef Barbiers Barbiers, S. 2000. “The right periphery in SOV languages: English and Dutch”. In: P. Svenonius (ed.) The Derivation of VO and OV, 181–218. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bennis, H. This volume. “Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives”. Besten, H. den. 1989. Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Beukema, F. and P. Coopmans. 1989. “A Government-Binding perspective on the imperative in English”. Journal of Linguistics 25: 417–436. Bolinger, D. 1972. That’s That. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. 1977. “On wh-movement”. In: P. Culicover, T. Wasow and A. Akmajian (eds) Formal Syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase”. In: M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Dikken, M. den. 1992a. “Empty operator movement in Dutch imperatives”. In: D. Gilbers and S. Looyenga (eds) Language and Cognition 2, 51–64. Groningen: Research Group for Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation. Dikken, M. den. 1992b. Particles. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden. Gestel, F. van, J. Nijen Twilhaar, T. Rinkel and F. Weerman. 1992. Oude Zinnen: Grammaticale Analyse van het Nederlands tussen 1200–1700. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Koopman, H. 1997. “Topics in imperatives”. Ms., UCLA. Koopman, H. This volume. “Topics in imperatives”. Müller, G. and W. Sternefeld. 1993. “Improper movement and unambiguous binding”. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 461–508. Platzack, C. 1986. “COMP, INFL, and Germanic word order”. In: L. Hellan and K.R. Christensen (eds) Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, 185–234. Dordrecht: Reidel. Platzack, C. and I. Rosengren. 1998. “On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause”. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 177–224. Potsdam, E. This volume. “Analysing word order in the English imperative”. Reis, M. and I. Rosengren, 1992. “What do Wh-Imperatives tell us about Wh-movement?” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 79–118. Rooryck, J. and G. Postma. This volume. “On participial imperatives”. Rupp, L. 1999. Aspects of the Syntax of English Imperatives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex. Rupp, L. This volume. “‘Inverted’ imperatives”. Weerman, F. 1989. The V2 Conspiracy: A Synchronic and a Diachronic Analysis of Verbal Positions in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris. Zwart, J.-W. 1993. Dutch Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.

Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives* Hans Bennis Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam

Abstract In Dutch imperatives we find a remarkable contrast with respect to the occurrence of lexical subjects. In subject position, the subject strictly agrees with the morphosyntactic properties of the imperative verb. However, in clause-final position, a plural subject can be combined with a non-plural verb. This contrast is the starting point for an analysis of subjects and, in particular, the appearance of pro in imperatives in Dutch. The account developed in this paper is based on the idea that the head of the highest functional projection of the root clause determines the pragmatic force of the sentence. In imperatives, the imperative force can be argued to assign to CP the status of ImpP. The head of this phrase will be assumed to contain a specified feature for 2nd person in Dutch. This assumption correlates with the pragmatic fact that imperatives are always directed towards an addressee, and thus that imperative verbs are typical instances of verbs that are morphosyntactically marked for 2nd person. From this assumption it can be made to follow that pro may appear in imperatives in Standard Dutch, but only if the verb is uninflected (or ø-inflected). It also follows that pro does not appear in ordinary declaratives or most other sentence types; that the polite pronoun U only shows up if the imperative verb has a t-inflection; that the weak subject pronoun je does not appear in imperatives; and that pro can receive an interpretation that corresponds to the pronouns jij, U [+polite] and jullie [+plu], as manifested in binding, control and right dislocation facts. The theory presented crucially depends on a particular interpretation of the theory of agreement, in which the distinction between interpretable and noninterpretable features and the specificity of the verbal morphosyntactic paradigm play an essential role.

* I would like to thank Sjef Barbiers, Johan Rooryck and Wim van der Wurff for comments on an earlier version of this paper. This chapter is closely related to Bennis (2006) although the general ideas advocated in the two articles differ in various respects.

 Hans Bennis

.

Introduction

In this article I will address an issue that, as far as I know, has not been discussed in the theoretical literature, although most of the data can be found in descriptive grammars (cf. Haeseryn et al. 1997). It concerns the presence of a subject in imperative clauses in Dutch. Although there are some indications that dialectal variation may provide interesting information (cf. de Schutter 1997), I will confine myself to standard Dutch here, due to the lack of systematic data on variation within the Dutch speaking area in this respect. Another restriction is that I will deal with ‘simple imperatives’ only, thus excluding other clause types that can have imperative force. Specifically, I will not discuss main clauses with imperative intonation as in (1), infinitival imperatives as in (2) (cf. den Dikken 1992) or participial imperatives, discussed elsewhere in this volume (Rooryck and Postma), as in (3). (1)

a.

b.

(2)

a.

b.

(3)

a.

b.

Jij gaat nu maar eens naar huis! you go now PRT PRT to home ‘You should go home now!’ Het moet nu maar eens afgelopen zijn! it must now PRT PRT finished be ‘This should really be the end of it!’ Ophoepelen jij/jullie! away-go. you.[−plu]/[+plu] ‘You go away!’ Neerleggen die bal! down-put. that ball ‘Put down that ball!’ Opgehoepeld jij/jullie! away-gone. you.[−plu]/[+plu] ‘You go away!’ Opgepast! on-taken-care. ‘Be careful!’

What I call ‘simple imperatives’ are those imperatives that have a more or less specialised verb form which shows up in the position that is normally restricted to finite verbs, i.e. the landing site for finite verb movement in root clauses. These imperative verbs are generally considered to be verbs that are inflected for second person. Standard Dutch has different realisations of the imperative inflection: the usual form corresponds to the stem of the verb, but in special cases we find an inflected form in which -t or -en is added to the stem. Examples are given in (4). (4)

a.

Loop (jij) eens door! walk you.[−plu] PRT on ‘(You) walk on!’

Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives 

b. c.

d.

Loop eens door jij! walk PRT on you.[–plu] Gaat U nu maar weg! go-t you.[+polite] now PRT away ‘You go away now!’ Wezen jullie nu eens rustig! be-en you.[+plu] now PRT quiet ‘You be quiet now!’

In this article I will address questions concerning the presence or absence of subjects in the imperatives in (4), in relation to the minimalist theory of features and agreement (see Chomsky 1995, 1999, and related work). Specifically, we will be concerned with the following questions: ● ●

●

.

under what conditions can the subject in an imperative remain empty? under what conditions can the subject in the regular subject position in an imperative be lexical? under what conditions can the subject in an imperative appear in a rightperipheral position?

Imperatives and person

Given that imperative verbs appear to be inflected for second person, we will first discuss the general morphosyntactic properties of finite verbs inflected for second person. Second person (non-past) verbs in standard Dutch show up with all three inflectional forms that are available in the (non-past) verbal paradigm: -t, -en and uninflected (or ø-inflection).1 The inflectional morphology of these verbs is dependent on two syntactic positions and two morphosyntactic oppositions. The positional difference is determined by the position of the subject with respect to the finite verb: in the case of a singular subject, subject-initial main clauses and subordinate clauses have a t-inflection, (5a,b), whereas non-subject-initial main clauses show up without inflection, (5c,d).2 (5)

a.

b.

Jij kijk-t naar de maan. you.[–plu] look at the moon ‘You look at the moon.’ Ik hoop dat jij naar de maan kijk-t. I hope that you.[–plu] at the moon look ‘I hope that you will look at the moon.’

. Although there are arguments for saying that the absence of overt inflection indicates the absence of inflection, rather than the presence of ø-inflection, I will not discuss this issue here. . For an explanation of this contrast in terms of the position of the verb (C vs. AgrS) see Zwart (1993, 2000) and Travis (1984). I adopt an analysis along these lines below.

 Hans Bennis

c.

d.

Kijk(-ø) jij naar de maan? look you.[–plu] at the moon ‘Do you look at the moon?’ In mijn dromen kijk(-ø) jij naar de maan. in my dreams look you.[–plu] at the moon ‘In my dreams you look at the moon.’

If the subject is plural, the verb shows up with the standard plural inflection -en, both in subject-initial and in non-subject-initial clauses, as in (6). (6)

a.

b.

c.

Jullie kijk-en naar de maan. you.[+plu] look at the moon ‘You look at the moon.’ Ik hoop dat jullie naar de maan kijk-en. I hope that you.[+plu] at the moon look ‘I hope that you will look at the moon.’ Kijk-en jullie naar de maan? look you.[+plu] at the moon ‘Do you look at the moon?’

In addition to the position and the number specification of the subject, the third factor that plays a role in determining second person inflectional marking is the opposition between [+polite] and [–polite], indicating a difference in formality in the relation between speaker and addressee.3 The polite pronoun U always cooccurs with an inflectional -t on the verb. As we saw above, the non-polite pronoun jij cooccurs with absence of inflection in non-subject-initial main clauses, as in (5c) and (5d). Replacing the non-polite pronoun jij by the polite pronoun U forces the t-inflection to show up in all contexts. This is demonstrated in (7). (7)

a.

b.

Kijk-t U naar de maan? look you.[+polite] at the moon ‘Do you look at the moon?’ In mijn dromen kijk-t U naar de maan. in my dreams look you.[+polite] at the moon ‘In my dreams you look at the moon.’

(cf. (5c))

(cf. (5d))

In the case of polite pronouns the feature for plurality is not morphologically realised. Whether or not the pronoun U refers to one or more addressees is morphosyntactically irrelevant, both for the pronoun and for the verbal inflection. The sentences in (7) are semantically ambiguous in having one or more addressees. The fact that U may be interpreted as plural can be demonstrated by adding the plural anaphor elkaar ‘each other’ as in (8a); this contrasts with (8b), where the addition of the phrase als enige ‘alone’ strongly favours a singular interpretation of U. . The feature [+polite] appears to be related to the feature [+honorific] that plays a role in the agreement system of languages such as Japanese and Korean.

Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives 

(8)

a.

b.

Lees-t U elkaars boeken? read you.[+polite] each.other’s.[+plu] books ‘Do you read each other’s books?’ Straks blijf-t U als enige achter. soon stay you.[+polite] alone.[–plu] behind ‘Soon you will be left all alone.’

The second person paradigm is by far the most complex paradigm in the verbal inflectional system of standard Dutch. In the first and third person paradigm only plurality plays a distinguishing role, but in the second person paradigm other features are also relevant. The Table in (9) gives a schematic representation of the patterns of second person inflection and the corresponding second person pronouns. (9)

verbal inflection (I) and subject pronouns (II) for second person verbs [polite]

+

[plural]

— +

Subj … Vfin

— +

—

I:

-t

-en

-t

-ø

II:

U

jullie

jij

jij

If simple imperative verbs are inflected for second person, we expect to find the same array of possibilities as in the table in (9). This is indeed the case. As was illustrated in (4), we find uninflected (4a/b), t-inflected (4c) and en-inflected (4d) imperatives. More examples are given in (10) and (11). These sentences also demonstrate that pronominal subjects in imperatives show up as second person pronouns.4

. The occurrence of the verb form wees(t)/wezen in (10c) and (11a/b) indicates unambiguously that these sentences are imperatives, since these inflected forms of the verb zijn show up in imperatives only. In yes/no-questions for instance, we find different verb forms: ben, bent or zijn, as in (i). (i)

a. b. c.

Ben/*Wees je bang voor slangen? are you.[–plu] afraid of snakes Bent/*Weest U bang voor slangen? are-t you.[+polite] afraid of snakes Zijn/*Wezen jullie bang voor slangen? are-en you.[+plu] afraid of snakes

The stem wees also appears in other forms of the irregular verb zijn ‘to be’, such as the infinitival form wezen ‘to be’ (which in most environments is an alternative to the infinitive zijn), the participle geweest ‘been’ and the past tense was/waren ‘was/were’. However, the verb forms wees and weest are exclusively reserved for imperative forms in standard Dutch, and thus constitute an interesting test to decide whether a particular construction can be taken to be imperative.

 Hans Bennis

(10)

a.

b.

c.

(11)

a.

b.

Hoepel(-ø) nu maar op jij! go now PRT away you.[–plu] ‘You, go away now!’ Loop(-ø) naar de maan jullie! walk to the moon you.[+plu] ‘You, go away!’ Wees(-ø) jij maar niet bang! be you.[–plu] PRT not afraid ‘Don’t be afraid!’ Wees-t U maar niet bang! be you.[+polite] PRT not afraid ‘Don’t be afraid!’ Wez-en jullie maar niet bang! be you.[+plu] PRT not afraid ‘Don’t be afraid!’

In line with the traditional view, we will thus consider imperative verbs to be marked for second person. .

The structural position of the imperative verb

The distribution of the inflectional markings of second person singular verbs has been argued to support the view that the finite verb in Dutch main clauses does not uniformly occupy the same structural position. We saw above in (5a,b) vs (5c,d) that second person verbs have a t-inflection if the singular subject precedes the finite verb and a ø-inflection if the subject follows. In the literature (cf. Travis 1984, Zwart 1993) it is argued that the rule of Verb Second targets the C-position in subject-non-initial main clauses and a lower functional projection (e.g. AgrS) in subject-initial main clauses. This allows us to relate different inflectional affixes to different structural positions. Given additional evidence from dialectal variation and from the behaviour of weak pronouns it seems indeed to be the case that the uniform analysis of Verb Second as Vfin–to–C should be abandoned. In the unmarked case, i.e. in subject-initial main clauses, the C-projection is absent, and the finite verb moves to a lower functional projection. We find a Cprojection in V2-main clauses only if that projection is functionally motivated by the presence of a force that indicates a marked sentence type, for example in the case of wh-questions or topicalisation. The same is true for V1-clauses. There are several instances of V1-constructions, all of which are functionally marked. Below we find examples of V1 in a joke-introduction (12a), a narrative context (12b), yes/no-questions (12c), imperatives (12d) and topic drop (12e). (12)

a.

Zitten twee mannen in de kroeg. sit two man in the pub ‘Two men are sitting in the pub.’

joke-introduction

Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives 

b.

c.

d.

e.

Zegt die een tegen de ander: says that one to the other ‘The one says to the other:’ Ga je met mij mee? go you with me PRT ‘Are you coming with me?’ Rot toch op jij! go PRT away you ‘You, go away!’ Wil ik wel doen. want I PRT do ‘I’m willing to do that.’

narrative V1

yes/no-question

imperative

topic drop

These varieties of V1 main clauses have different syntactic and pragmatic properties. What they have in common is that the subject follows the verb and that the sentence has a particular interpretation (force) that is, among other things, related to the V1-property of these clauses.5 We may thus take the C-position to be a clause-type operator. Absence of the C-projection gives rise to the unmarked declarative clause type. On this view it follows that in imperatives we should take CP to be the Imperative Force projection, or ImpP.6 If the imperative verb is in C/Imp . In imperative clauses, the verb cannot be preceded by the subject, i.e. the subject cannot raise to SpecCP (SpecImpP). In cases with an apparent initial subject, as in (i), the subject is clearly left-dislocated, as is evident from the heavy intonation break. (i)

a.

b.

Jij, ga toch naar huis! you go PRT to home ‘Get yourself home, you!’ Man, rot toch op! man go PRT away ‘Get off, you fellow!’

Of course, we should raise the question why movement to SpecCP is excluded in imperatives. I have no really illuminating answer to this question. Just as in yes/no-questions, I will assume that the SpecCP position contains an operator that blocks movement to this position. This view might provide the means to explain the fact that the SpecCP position in imperatives can be lexically filled in German (cf. Reis and Rosengren 1992, Barbiers, this volume). If we follow Barbiers in relating this difference to the fact that German imperative verbs have a distinct imperative inflectional paradigm, the topicalisation possibility in German might be due to the fact that, in contrast to Dutch (see below), the imperative feature in German is not located in C, but on the verbal inflection itself. This makes it possible for C to contain a topic feature in German, but not in Dutch. . As argued in Bennis (2000) I will assume that each functional projection in a particular language has to be interpretable at the interfaces with non-linguistic components of the cognitive system. If we take LF and PF to be relevant levels, this requirement predicts that a functional projection such as CP not only constitutes a phrase that is necessary to provide clause-peripheral structure, but it should also have a particular interpretation at the level of LF.

 Hans Bennis

we predict that ø-inflection will show up, because second person verbs in C (i.e. in subject-non-initial clauses) have ø-inflection (cf. the Table in (9)). In the second person paradigm, the inflectional affix -t has two potential sources (cf. the Table in (9)). It may be the form used in subject-initial clauses in which the subject is [–plural] and [–polite] (with the finite verb being in a lower functional projection) or it may be the realisation of the feature [+polite]. Given that imperative verbs occupy the C-position, the feature [+polite] appears to be the decisive factor. This is corroborated by the fact that the only subject that is allowed in t-imperatives is the polite pronoun U, (13a); that the absence of t-inflection makes it impossible for the polite pronoun U to appear in subject position, (13b); and that U obligatorily follows the imperative verb, (13c). (13)

a.

Weest U/*jij/*jullie maar niet bang! be-t you.[+polite]/[−plu]/[+plu] PRT not afraid ‘Don’t be afraid!’ b. Wees *U/jij/*jullie maar niet bang! be-ø you.[+polite]/[−plu]/[+plu] PRT not afraid c. *U weest niet bang! you.[+polite] be-t not afraid

We thus conclude that imperative verbs in Dutch are in C/Imp.7 Moreover, we have seen that the feature [polite] plays a distinguishing role in imperatives.

.

Imperatives and the subject

In Dutch imperative constructions the subject is generally absent. It can be added as a second person pronoun, as in (14).

Relevant interpretative functions of CP might be argued to be [question], [relative], [topic] etc. In this spirit the interpretative function of CP can also be taken to be [imperative]. This view implies that the categorial label CP is in fact shorthand for several different projections that assign interpretative force to a clause. We thus may replace CP by QuP, RelP, TopP or ImpP (etcetera). I will not discuss this issue here. In line with traditional views I will keep using C/CP, but it should be clear that this projection in imperatives is more precisely characterised as Imp/ImpP. . This analysis differs clearly from analyses presented for English imperatives by Rupp (1999, this volume) and Potsdam (1998, this volume). They argue at length that in English the imperative verb is in a lower verbal functional projection. Whether this is true or not (cf. Beukema and Coopmans 1989 and Platzack, this volume, for a different view), it does not really affect the argument presented here given that in English the peripheral functional structure of the verbal projection is clearly different, as can among other things be seen from the fact that topicalisation in English does not trigger verb movement to C.

Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives 

(14)

a.

b. c.

Ga jij maar weg! go-ø you.[–plu] PRT away ‘You, go away!’ Gaat U maar weg! go-t you.[+polite] PRT away Gaan jullie maar weg! go-en you.[+plu] PRT away

In (14) the imperative inflection agrees with the lexical subject. It is interesting to observe that the non-inflected imperative may cooccur with a singular or a plural second person subject pronoun when this pronoun occupies a right-peripheral position, as in (15a). This is not the case for t-inflected or en-inflected imperatives, as is clear from (15b,c). (15)

a.

Ga maar weg jij/jullie! go-ø PRT away you.[−plu]/[+plu] b. *Gaat maar weg jij/jullie! go-t PRT away you.[−plu]/[+plu] c. *Gaan maar weg jij/jullie! go-en PRT away you.[−plu]/[+plu]

The distribution of non-lexical subjects, pronouns in subject position and subjects in right-peripheral position will be discussed in the following sections. .

The occurrence of pro in imperatives

It is possible to leave out the subject in case the imperative verb is uninflected, as shown in (16a).8 If the imperative verb is marked for the feature [+polite] or [+plu], the subject U or jullie, respectively, has to be present, (16b,c). In older varieties of Dutch, (17a), and in regional varieties of the language, (17b), we find the t-inflected verb without a lexical subject, but in modern standard Dutch this is no longer acceptable. (16)

a.

b. c. (17)

a.

Kom (jij) eens hier! come you PRT here ‘Come here!’ Kom-t *(U) eens hier! Kom-en *(jullie) eens hier! Kom-t allen tezamen! come-t all together ‘Everybody come together!’

. The subject can be left out too in infinitival and participial imperatives, as shown in (2b) and (3b). Although I will not discuss these imperatives any further here, I assume that in these cases the subject position cannot be lexically realised, due to the lack of structural nominative Case. If a lexical subject is present, as in (2a) and (3a), it appears in right-peripheral position.

 Hans Bennis

b.

Kom-t (gij) eens hier! come-t (you.[regional]) PRT here

It is well-known that the absence of a lexical subject in imperatives does not imply that the subject is absent (see, amongst others, Beukema and Coopmans 1989). First of all, the non-lexical subject in imperatives is necessarily interpreted as the addressee. It thus seems to be most efficient to relate the interpretation of the subject to the non-lexical subject position. Moreover, the non-lexical subject can generally be replaced by a lexical pronominal subject (jij) without substantial differences in interpretation. We thus may assume the non-lexical subject to be the weak variant of the lexical subject. Confirmation for an analysis along these lines comes from the fact that weak subject pronouns do not occur in imperatives. Whereas strong and weak subject pronouns generally have identical distribution, in imperatives the strong pronoun jij cannot be replaced by its weak counterpart je, as is shown in (18). (18)

a.

b.

Ga (*je) maar weg! go you.[weak] PRT away ‘Go away!’ Wees (*je) eens niet zo stoer! be you.[weak] PRT not so tough ‘Don’t act so tough!’

In this respect the imperative subject behaves like a subject in a pro-drop language such as Italian or Spanish, where the strong lexical pronoun has the empty pronoun pro as its weak correlate. The only difference between imperatives with a lexical subject (jij) and imperatives without (pro) is the emphatic nature of the lexical pronoun. Another argument for claiming that there is an empty subject in imperatives comes from the fact that the empty subject is syntactically active in binding and control. This is shown in (19). (19)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Geef jiji/proi jezelfi nu eens wat rust! (reflexive) give you/pro yourself now PRT some rest ‘Give yourself some rest now!’ (inherent reflexive) Herinner jiji/proi jei dit gesprek nog maar eens! remember you/pro you this conversation PRT PRT PRT ‘Remember this conversation!’ (control) Beloof jiji/proi mij nou maar [om PROi op tijd thuis te zijn]! promise you/pro me PRT PRT for PRO on time home to be ‘Promise me to be home in time!’ (adjunct control) Kijk jiji/proi niet [PROi zo dom]! look you/pro not PRO so stupid ‘Don’t look so stupid!’

Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives 

We thus conclude that standard Dutch shows pro-drop phenomena in uninflected imperatives. .

The interpretation of pro in imperatives

As is clear from the preceding sections, the pro subject in imperative constructions can be interpreted as second person singular. This interpretation corresponds to the interpretation of the lexical pronoun jij. Pro can also be interpreted as a plural element corresponding to the pronoun jullie. We can force a plural interpretation of the empty subject by introducing a plural anaphor or quantifier that has pro as its antecedent. This is illustrated in the examples in (20). (20)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Geef proi elkaari de hand! give pro each-other the hand ‘Shake hands with each other!’ Herinner proi julliei het gesprek van vorige week! remember pro you.[+plu] the conversation of last week ‘Remember last week’s conversation!’ Beloof proi mij om PROi het probleem sameni op te lossen! promise pro me for PRO the problem together up to solve ‘Promise me to solve the problem together!’ Ga proi allemaali in de rij staan! go pro all in the line stand ‘All stand in line!’

The pro subjects in (20) must be plural since the anaphors (elkaar and jullie) and the quantifiers (samen and allemaal) require a plural antecedent. Pro in uninflected imperatives can also be interpreted as the polite pronoun U, as is demonstrated in (21). (21)

a.

b.

c.

Let proi goed op Uzelfi! watch pro good on yourself.[+polite] ‘Take good care of yourself!’ Vergis proi Ui niet! mistake pro you.[+polite] not ‘Don’t make mistakes!’ Probeer proi [PROi Ui die gebeurtenis te herinneren] try pro PRO you.[+polite] that event to remember ‘Try to remember that event!’

(reflexive)

(inherent reflexive)

(control+inh.refl.)

As is expected, the pro subject in (21) is interpretatively not specified for number. As was shown above, t-inflected and en-inflected imperative verbs do not occur with a pro subject in modern standard Dutch; a pronoun (U/jullie) must be present. Pro appears in uninflected imperatives only. Interpretatively it may occur as the non-lexical counterpart to jij, jullie and U. This can be represented schematically as in (22).

 Hans Bennis

(22)

verbal inflection (I) and subject pronouns (II) in imperatives [polite]

+

—

[plural]

.

+

—

I:

-t

-ø

-en

-ø

-ø

-ø

II:

U

pro

jullie

pro

jij

pro

Lexical subjects of imperatives

It is clear that lexical subject pronouns have a limited distribution in imperatives. Uninflected imperatives allow the lexical pronoun jij, and t-inflected imperatives require the presence of the polite pronoun U, just as the plural pronoun jullie shows up in subject position, i.e. directly to the right of the imperative verb, in the case of en-inflected imperatives. The weak pronoun je is not allowed in imperatives, as we have seen in (18). These facts are summarised in (23). (23)

a.

b. c.

Kom jij/*jullie/*U /*je/pro maar eens hier! come you.[−plu]/you.[+plu]/you.[+pol]/you.[weak]/pro PRT PRT here ‘You come here for a second!’ Komt *jij / *jullie/ U / *je / *pro maar eens hier! Komen *jij / jullie / *U / *je / *pro maar eens hier!

A somewhat unexpected fact is that we find clause-final subjects in Dutch imperatives. In imperfect imperatives this can be observed in clauses in which the nominative subject follows a verbal particle (such as weg ‘away’ in (24a)). In perfect imperatives we may find the subject following the participle, as shown in (24b).9 . As has been observed in the literature, imperatives do not occur with past-tense marking. Relevant examples from Dutch are given in (i). (i)

a. *Ging dan maar weg! went PRT PRT away b. *Was maar niet bang! were PRT not afraid

I will assume that this implies there is no formal expression of Tense in imperatives. However, Dutch has a set of perfect imperatives, or rather optative constructions, which contain a past-tense auxiliary; see the examples in (ii). (ii)

a.

b.

Had dat nou toch gedaan! had that PRT PRT done ‘You should have done that.’ Was maar niet zo haastig geweest! were PRT not so fast been ‘You should not have been in such a hurry.’

These clauses have most of the properties of imperfect imperatives, such as V1 and a non-lexical second person subject. In this case the past auxiliary seems to imply irrealis rather than past (the

Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives 

(24)

a.

b.

Ga maar weg jij! go PRT away you ‘You, go away!’ Was maar niet weggegaan jij! was PRT not away-gone you ‘You shouldn’t have gone away.’

At first sight, these sentences constitute cases of postverbal subjects since the intonational pattern is neutral and differs from clauses with a right-dislocated constituent, as in (25). (25)

a.

b.

Hij heeft dat al gedaan, die jongen. he has that already done that boy ‘That boy has already done that.’ Zouden ze dat niet doen, die jongens? would they that not do those boys ‘Wouldn’t those boys do that?’

If the sentences in (24) involved genuine cases of clause-final subjects, we would have a striking similarity between Dutch and Romance, since languages such as Spanish and Italian allow postverbal subjects in addition to pro subjects. However, more careful study of the data indicates that the lexical subjects in (24) should be analysed as instances of right dislocation as well. First of all, we find full DPs in the same position as jij in (24). (26)

a.

b.

Wees maar gerust mijn kind ! be PRT unafraid my child ‘Don’t worry, my child!’ Was maar niet weggelopen sukkel ! were PRT not away-walked fool ‘You shouldn’t have walked away, you fool.’

The clause-final DP in (26) cannot be the syntactic subject, given that the subject in imperatives must be second person.10 Putting these DPs in the canonical subject position indeed results in strong ungrammaticality, as is demonstrated in (27).

participle indicates perfect aspect). It has been argued that a past tense may be realised on Dutch imperatives in particular contexts (see van der Wurff, this volume). Since in my opinion such examples are only marginally acceptable, I will hold on to the view that Tense is not present in imperatives. . These postverbal DPs are like vocatives in several respects. This is of course to be expected given that these DPs have to be interpreted as addressees. For the purposes of our argumentation it does not really matter whether we take them to be vocatives or genuine right-dislocated DPs, as long as they are not taken to be syntactic subjects.

 Hans Bennis

(27)

a. b.

*Wees mijn kind maar gerust! *Was sukkel maar niet weggelopen!

On the other hand, the addition of a second person pronoun to the sentences in (26) is possible: (28)

a. b.

Wees jiji maar gerust mijn kindi! Was jiji maar niet weggelopen sukkeli!

This shows that the postverbal DP-subject in imperatives is right-dislocated and co-indexed with pro (26) or the pronoun jij (28) in subject position. A similar conclusion can be derived from the observation that the second person pronoun jullie can appear in clause-final position, although it does not occur in the subject position of uninflected imperatives, as we saw in (23a). (29)

.

a.

Ga proi maar weg julliei! go pro PRT away you.[+plu] ‘You go away!’ b. *Ga jullie maar weg! go you.[+plu] PRT away

Lexical subjects in imperatives in English and Dutch: a comparison

In her dissertation, Rupp (1999) argues that the verb in English imperatives is always specified for second person, notwithstanding the fact that English allows imperatives such as those in (30). (30)

a. b.

Don’t anyone answer the phone! Someone pick up the phone, please, before it drives me mad!

She argues that the italicised DPs in (30) are morphosyntactically third person, but semantically second person, in that they refer to the addressee (Rupp 1999: 71). Apparently, semantic agreement may overrule morphosyntactic agreement in these cases. There are, however, various objections against an analysis along these lines. First of all, it does not explain why semantic agreement in second person contexts in English is found in imperatives only. Second, and for our purposes most relevantly, an analysis along these lines predicts that semantic agreement would be possible in Dutch imperatives as well. This would lead us to expect that sentences such as (31) should be acceptable, contrary to fact. (31)

a. *Neem iemand de telefoon even op! pick someone the telephone PRT up b. *Iemand neem de telefoon even op, alsjeblieft! somebody pick the telephone PRT up please

Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives 

The difference between Dutch and English in this respect points to a slightly different account. For modern English it is the case that agreement between the subject and imperative verb is never realised morphosyntactically. The verb always appears in its base form. All arguments for the presence of phi-features in imperative verbs presented by Rupp derive from circumstantial considerations. She argues that in Old English and in other Germanic languages such as German and Icelandic, agreement morphology is present in imperatives, and that, by consequence, modern English has agreement morphology as well, although not lexically visible. She goes on to argue that the availability of nominative Case for the subject of imperatives shows that imperatives have an agreement node projected into the structure. Now suppose that there is indeed an Agr-node in modern English, but that the lack of formal phi-features in these imperatives allows for the occurrence of semantic agreement. We then expect that the subject position in English imperatives is available for all nominal constituents that may denote the addressee. We have seen that morphosyntactic features (second person, plural, polite) play a crucial role in subject-verb agreement in imperatives in Dutch. If we assume that semantic agreement only applies in cases in which formal morphosyntactic agreement is absent or irrelevant, we make the following predictions: (a) the lexical subject of Dutch imperatives must be a second person pronoun; (b) the pro subject of Dutch imperatives is interpreted as a second person pronoun; (c) the actual interpretation of pro (jij, jullie or U) is determined by semantic and/or pragmatic considerations. In order to realise subjects other than those that are morphologically specified for second person, Dutch thus has to make use of the process of right dislocation, which allows for semantic agreement in general, as is shown in (32). (32)

a.

b.

c.

Gaat [jullie elftal]i / Gaan [wij]i de wedstrijd winnen, [mannen]i? goes your team.[–plu]/go we.[1plu] the match win men.[+plu] ‘Is your team/Are we going to win the match, men?’ Gisteren hebben [zij]i weer eens gewonnen, [het eerste elftal van Ajax]i. yesterday have they.[+plu] again PRT won the first team of Ajax.[–plu] ‘Yesterday they finally won again, the first team of Ajax.’ [Jij]i hebt het nog steeds niet door hè, [makker]i. you.[2sing] have it still PRT not through PRT friend.[3sing] ‘You still don’t understand it, do you, mate?’

We thus conclude that clause-final subjects in Dutch do not occur. Although imperatives may give the impression of allowing right-peripheral subjects, closer scrutiny shows that these clause-final nominal phrases cannot be analysed as syntactic subjects. Rather, in these cases the pro subject is accompanied by a coindexed right-dislocated nominal phrase that is interpretatively connected to the pro subject through semantic agreement.

 Hans Bennis

.

On the nature of agreement

In Chomsky’s minimalist framework (1995, 1999) the operation Agree plays a central role in the core system (‘narrow syntax’). In order to derive a well-formed LF-structure, uninterpretable features have to be deleted in the course of the derivation. Agree is the operation that establishes a relation through which uninterpretable features can be deleted under identity with interpretable features. In what follows, I take these ideas as a useful point of departure for a formal implementation of the agreement process in Dutch imperatives. I will continue to focus on subject-verb agreement; for a detailed application of minimalist ideas to the overall derivation of imperative clauses, see Platzack (this volume). For subject-verb agreement this system implies that the uninterpretable phifeatures of the finite verb must be deleted under identity with the interpretable features of the subject in an agreement relation. Movement of the finite verb to a functional head position in the verbal domain (e.g. Tense) is a way to create a configuration of the type that allows the features of the inflected verb to be deleted. In this theory the presence of an empty pro subject is surprising at first sight. The theory appears to force us to assume that pro has interpretable features, but it is hard to see how an empty category can have interpretable syntactic features of its own. In line with many proposals in the literature we may assume that in prodrop languages it is the verbal inflection that provides the interpretable features for pro. In languages such as Italian and Spanish the verbal paradigm is fully specified with respect to the (uninterpretable) phi-features for person and number. We now may expect pro to appear if the unspecified phi-features of pro can be interpreted as a consequence of Agree with the specified features of the inflected verb. In these cases Agree thus establishes two things: it determines the unspecified feature value of pro and it allows the uninterpretable features of the inflected verb to be deleted as soon as the feature value of pro has been fixed. The agreement system shows two oppositions that are relevant to the agreement process under Agree. A particular morphosyntactic feature can be interpretable (+i) or uninterpretable (–i). This distinction is relevant for LF, in such a way that uninterpretable features have to be deleted in the course of the derivation. Nominal features on verbs, such as number and person features, are taken to be uninterpretable, and have to be deleted through an Agree-relation with a nominal phrase, the nominal features of which can and must be interpreted. In addition to the i-opposition, we also have an opposition between specified feature sets (+sp) and underspecified feature sets (–sp). Specification implies that an inflectional morpheme uniquely determines the value of the morphosyntactic features involved. Lexical pronominals and finite verbs in Spanish and Italian are taken to be specified for all their features. On the other hand, pro and finite verbs in languages such as Dutch and English are underspecified. This gives rise to the pattern in (33).

Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives 

(33)

Feature oppositions before Agree +sp, +i = lexical pronouns +sp, –i = inflection in Spanish, Italian –sp, +i = pro –sp, –i = inflection in Dutch, English

At LF the uninterpretable features of the finite verb must be deleted and the interpretable features of pronominals must be specified. This requirement thus triggers subject-verb agreement and determines the occurrence of pro subjects. In a non-pro-drop language the verbal inflection is underspecified with respect to the pronominal phi-features. It thus cannot provide pro with the required feature values through Agree, and a lexical pronoun with independent lexical features must be present in order to delete the uninterpretable features of the inflected verb. It has been observed that pro-drop phenomena not only show up in languages with rich verbal inflection (e.g. Spanish, Italian), but also in languages with no verbal inflection, such as Chinese (cf. Jaeggli and Safir 1989, Huang 1989). This can be made to follow from the agreement system discussed here if we assume that the verb does not have (uninterpretable) morphosyntactic phi-features in these languages. In that case, the operation Agree does not have to delete any uninterpretable features. The pro subject can then be interpreted unrestricted by morphosyntactic considerations, i.e. pro has no (unspecified) morphosyntactic features either. The interpretation of pro should then be derived through other mechanisms. This view is based on the perspective that pro is an empty category that receives its interpretation through syntactic and pragmatic operations. Pro has no intrinsic, unspecified morphosyntactic properties. This line of argumentation may provide us with an explanation for the fact that pro appears in imperatives in non-pro-drop languages such as Dutch and English. In Dutch the verbal inflectional paradigm distinguishes between 1st, 2nd, 3rd, polite and plural. Standard Dutch has the agreement system as given in (34). (34)

feature

inflected V

pronoun

[1]

V-ø

ik

[2]

V-t / V-ø

jij

[3]

V-t

hij/zij/het

[2, +polite]

V-t

U

[1, +plu]

V-en

wij

[2, +plu]

V-en

jullie

[3, +plu]

V-en

zij

Given the impoverished verbal inflectional paradigm it is clear that the morphosyntactic feature set is underspecified (–sp). This implies that pro is unavailable

 Hans Bennis

in Dutch. Let us assume, however, that the C/Imp node in Dutch has a specific second person feature, its presence being related to the fact that imperatives always have an addressee as their subject for semantic/pragmatic reasons.11 The imperative verb that moves to C/Imp has to be specified for second person by virtue of occupying the C/Imp node. If correct, it follows that pro may show up in this configuration. The uninflected verb is normally underspecified in that it may agree with a first or second person subject. However, if the imperative construction provides the means to disambiguate the feature content of the uninflected verb, pro can be assigned the (+sp) feature [2], which in turn allows the uninterpretable (–i) feature of V to be deleted under Agree. The assumption that C/Imp is inherently specified as second person allows us to explain the appearance of pro in a non-pro-drop language such as Dutch. The fact that the polite verbal form can show up in imperatives is also expected. As we have seen above, the polite form is characterised by the morphosyntactic (–sp) feature set [2], [+polite]. V-movement to the C/Imp-position is possible, due to the second person feature on the verb. No feature clash arises. It follows that pro is not allowed in this case, due to the fact that the verbal inflection is underspecified. A polite lexical pronoun (U) has to show up in order to delete the uninterpretable feature [+polite] on the t-inflected imperative verb. The same holds for plural imperative verbs. The en-inflected verb, which contains the feature [+plu], moves to the imperative C-position. As a result, the person feature will become specified. However, the feature set of the verbal inflection (-en) is underspecified and this will prevent pro from appearing in the subject position. The lexical pronoun jullie is necessary to delete the uninterpretable number feature on V. We thus are able to account for the distribution of imperative verbs (uninflected and t-/en-inflected verbs) and for the distribution of pro in imperatives (in the case of uninflected verbs only) by assuming that imperatives are characterised by the presence of a specified feature for second person in the C-position. It also follows that pro can be interpreted as a 2nd singular, a 2nd plural or a 2nd polite pronoun. As discussed above, pro has no inherent lexical features. This implies that pro is found in those cases in which the relation Agree is able to assign sufficient specific content to pro in order to delete the uninterpretable features of the finite verb. In uninflected imperatives the specified feature for second person is the only feature that is morphosyntactically relevant. It does not imply that pro must be second person singular. It may just as well be interpreted as second person plural,

. As discussed more extensively in Bennis (2006), I take the second person feature in C/Imp to be a feature that indicates non-distinctness. The feature allows all inflected verbs to move to C/Imp as long as they have a specification for second person in their feature composition. This is true for verbs inflected for second person singular, second person plural or second person polite.

Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives 

due to an abstract semantic feature [+plu], or as second person polite, due to a semantic feature [+polite]. For lexical pronouns the situation is different, since they are inherently specified for morphosyntactic features. A verb that is characterised by the feature [2] does not agree with a pronoun characterised as [2, +plu] (jullie) or [2, +polite] (U). Agreement thus presupposes an identical set of morphosyntactic features on both elements (in terms of Chomsky 1999: probe and goal must have an identical set of features). Pro is by default characterised by the same set of features as the finite verb since pro has no inherent morphosyntactic set of features. Lexical pronouns have lexically determined inherent features. If we assume that Agree causes the morphosyntactic features of the pronoun to be present on the inflected verb (and vice versa), the presence of the morphosyntactic feature [+plu] on the pronoun forces the verb to be realised as [+plu].

.

U as a third person pronoun

The polite pronoun U is not necessarily second person morphosyntactically. It may cooccur with a third person reflexive, as in (35a) or a finite verb inflected for third person singular, as in (35b). (35)

a.

b.

Ui vergist Ui(zelf) / zichi. you.[+polite] mistake yourself.[+polite, refl. 2nd]/himself.[refl.3rd] ‘You are mistaken.’ U hebt / heeft betaald. you.[+polite] have.[2]/has.[3] paid ‘You have paid.’

It even appears to be the case that the polite pronoun U can be second and third person at the same time. It may show second person agreement with the inflected verb and third person agreement with a reflexive anaphor, or vice versa. This is demonstrated in (36). (36)

a.

b.

U hebt zich vergist. you.[+polite] have.[2] himself.[3] mistaken ‘You have made a mistake.’ U heeft U vergist. you.[+polite] has.[3] yourself.[+polite] mistaken

From this it follows (a) that the pronoun U is formally ambiguous between second and third person; and (b) that the mechanism of subject-verb agreement has to be distinguished from agreement in a binding context. This morphosyntactic ambiguity is also found in t-inflected imperatives, as in (37). However, there are two exceptions to this. First, the imperative verb cannot appear inflected for third person. This is demonstrated in (38).

 Hans Bennis

(37)

(38)

Vergist U U(zelf) niet!12 mistake you.[+polite] yourself.[+polite] not ‘Don’t make mistakes!’ b. Vergist U zich niet! mistake you.[+polite] himself.[3] not a. Heb Uzelf lief! (cf. 36a) have.[2] yourself.[+polite] dear ‘Love yourself!’ b. *Heeft Uzelf lief! (cf. 36b) have.[3] yourself.[+polite] dear a.

With respect to the binding properties of the polite subject, we find a difference between a lexical subject U, as in (37), and pro in (39). (39)

a.

Vergis pro U(zelf) niet! mistake pro yourself.[+polite] not ‘Don’t make mistakes!’ b. *Vergis pro zich niet! mistake pro himself.[3] not

(cf. 37a)

(cf. 37b)

The ungrammaticality of (38b) and (39b) follows directly from the assumption that in imperatives the C-position is specified for second person. This accounts for the ungrammaticality of (38b) in an obvious way. The ungrammaticality of (39b) follows as well. As discussed above, pro in imperatives is second person as a consequence of agreement with a verb specified for second person in C/Imp. There is no way that pro can be morphosyntactically specified for third person, due to the lack of inherent lexical specification. It thus follows that (39b) cannot receive an interpretation since the anaphor zich cannot be bound.

.

Conclusion

We have argued that the distribution of verbs, the distribution of lexical pronouns and pro, and the interpretation of pro in simple imperatives in Dutch are

. This sentence is somewhat marked in comparison to (37b). This seems to be caused by the fact that the two polite pronouns U are strictly adjacent. If we separate the two occurrences, as in (i), the difference in acceptability between zich ‘himself ’ and U(zelf) ‘yourself ’ is the other way around. (i)

Bijt U nu maar eens van U/?zich af! bite you.[+polite] now PRT PRT from yourself/himself off ‘Now you should finally stand up for yourself!’

Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives 

determined by the following: ●

●

●

●

●

●

simple imperatives are characterised by a C-position that contains a specified feature for second person; only verbs that are characterised by a second person feature can move to C. This implies that the uninflected verb ([2]), the t-inflected verb ([2, +polite]) and the en-inflected verb ([2, +plu]) can show up as imperative verbs; the subject of uninflected imperatives can be pro since the imperative verb in C has a specified second person feature that is assigned to pro under Agree. As a consequence the uninterpretable morphosyntactic person feature of the imperative verb can be deleted; the subject of a t-inflected or en-inflected imperative verb cannot be pro; the presence of pro would give rise to a non-well-formed LF since the imperative verb contains an uninterpretable feature [+polite] or [+plu]; the interpretation of pro in uninflected imperatives is morphosyntactically restricted by the presence of the second person feature only. Interpretatively, it may correspond to the lexical pronoun jij [2], jullie [2, +plu] or U [2, +polite]; lexical pronouns have inherent features that are morphosyntactically relevant. The set of features of the pronoun is identical to the set of features of the inflected verb under Agree. This implies that the uninflected imperative only cooccurs with jij, the t-inflected imperative with U, and the en-inflected imperative with jullie.13

The analysis proposed here is crucially dependent on the assumption that in imperatives the C-position, i.e. the position that determines the pragmatic force or sentence type, contains a specified feature for second person. This assumption has been motivated by the semantic/pragmatic fact that imperatives are directed towards an addressee. The rest of the analysis of imperatives is determined by a particular interpretation of the theory of agreement that is quite similar to the theory proposed in Chomsky (1999).

. There are some rather puzzling data in which a non-expected subject shows up in imperatives. Relevant cases are: Laat ik/mij beginnen met een citaat! ‘Let I/me begin with a quotation’, and Kijk hij/hem eens rennen! ‘Look how he’s running!’. In these sentences the subject of the embedded clause may appear as a nominative subject (ik, hij) in the main clause. The alternative version with an objective pronoun (mij, hem) is a regular imperative in which the imperative verb provides exceptional Case marking to the embedded subject. The surprising fact is the appearance of the nominative subject in these cases. I do not know how to account for this phenomenon. Given the very limited distribution and idiosyncratic properties of this construction I will consider the sentences above idiomatic exceptions to the regular patterns discussed in this paper.

 Hans Bennis

References Barbiers, S. This volume. “On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and German”. Bennis, H. 2000. “On the interpretation of functional categories”. In: H. Bennis, M. Everaert and E. Reuland (eds) Interface Strategies, 37–53. Amsterdam: Edita KNAW. Bennis, H. 2006. “Agreement, pro, and imperatives”. In: P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. Schoorlemmer and F. Weerman (eds) Arguments and Agreement, 101–123. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beukema, F. and P. Coopmans. 1989. “A Government-Binding perspective on the imperative in English”. Journal of Linguistics 25: 417–436. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1999. “Derivation by phase”. Ms., MIT. Dikken, M. den. 1992. “Empty operator movement in Dutch imperatives”. In: D. Gilbers and S. Looyenga (eds) Language and Cognition, vol. 2, 51–64. University of Groningen: Research Group for Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation. Haeseryn, W., K. Romijn, G. Geerts, J. de Rooij and M.C. van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. 2nd edn. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff. Huang, J. 1989. “Pro-drop in Chinese: A generalized control theory”. In: O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds) The Null Subject Parameter, 185–214. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Jaeggli, O. and K. Safir. 1989. “The null-subject parameter and parameter theory”. In: O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds) The Null Subject Parameter, 1–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Platzack, C. This volume. “Embedded imperatives”. Potsdam, E. 1998. Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative. New York: Garland. Potsdam, E. This volume. “Analysing word order in the English imperative”. Reis, M. and I. Rosengren. 1992. “What do wh-imperatives tell us about wh-movement?”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 79–118. Rooryck, J. and G. Postma. This volume. “On participial imperatives”. Rupp, L. 1999. Aspects of the Syntax of English Imperatives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex. Rupp, L. This volume. “‘Inverted’ imperatives”. Schutter, G. de. 1997. “De imperatief in de moderne Nederlandse dialecten”. Taal en Tongval 49: 31–61. Travis, L. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Wurff, W. van der. This volume. “Imperative clauses in generative grammar: An introduction”. Zwart, J.-W. 1993. Dutch Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen. Zwart, J.-W. 2000. “Syntactic and phonological verb movement”. Ms., University of Groningen.

Clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives* Marcel den Dikken and Mariví Blasco The City University of New York & Iona College

Abstract In Spanish, the aspectual verbs ‘come’ and ‘go’ allow an object clitic to climb out of their infinitival complement in finite and infinitival contexts but not in simple imperatives. This paper argues that the ban on clitic climbing in simple imperatives with aspectual ‘come’ and ‘go’ (not noted in the literature before) can be related to the (likewise novel) observation that in Hungarian these aspectual verbs show a similar restriction, which (following den Dikken 1999) can also be analysed as involving clitic climbing. The Hungarian facts crucially implicate Tense: there is a ban on clitic climbing from the complement of aspectual ‘come’ and ‘go’ in the simple present, not elsewhere. The empirical generalisation covering the data is that in aspectual ‘come/go’ constructions clitic climbing onto ‘come/go’ is possible only if the aspectual verb is marked for Tense. This generalisation directly captures the Hungarian facts, and extends to the Spanish cases on the independently supported hypothesis that Spanish simple imperatives are not marked for Tense (while subjunctives are, which takes care of the fact that these do allow clitic climbing).

.

Introduction: The Spanish facts

In Spanish, the aspectual verbs ‘come’ and ‘go’, when they take an infinitival complement with a clitic, take part in two surface patterns, in finite indicative clauses: the clitic may either encliticise onto the infinitive (as in (1a) and (2a)), or climb * We would like to express our gratitude to the native speakers of Peninsular and SouthAmerican Spanish who we tested the Spanish examples presented in this paper out on. We also thank Ricardo Otheguy, the audience at the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (University of Southern California, February 2001), Sjef Barbiers, and the editor of this volume for useful comments and discussion. We are immensely indebted to Anikó Lipták and Ildikó Tóth for initially pointing out the Hungarian facts, and for their help with these data. This paper is presented to Frits Beukema, the first author’s first syntax teacher, with many thanks for his teaching, guidance, advice, help, multiple co-authorship and friendship over the more than twenty years that our paths have run along parallel lines.

 Marcel den Dikken and Mariví Blasco

up into the matrix clause and procliticise to the finite verb (as in (1b) and (2b)): (1)

a. b.

(2)

a. b.

Voy a verlo. I-go to see- Lo voy a ver.  I-go to see both: ‘I go to see him/it.’ Vengo a verlo. I-come to see- Lo vengo a ver.  I-come to see both: ‘I come to see him/it.’

When the ‘come/go’-construction is embedded under a verb that itself takes an infinitival complement, the same two options present themselves (plus a third one, if the highest verb is itself a clitic climbing verb;1 we will ignore this third case, since it is of no consequence to our concerns); the only difference between (1)/(2) and (3)/(4) is that, since clitics always encliticise onto infinitives, even the clitic climbing variants in (3b) and (4b) now exhibit encliticisation. (3)

a. b.

(4)

a. b.

Puedo ir a verlo. I-can go to see- Puedo irlo a ver. I-can go- to see both: ‘I can go to see him/it.’ Puedo venir a verlo. I-can come to see- Puedo venirlo a ver. I-can come- to see both: ‘I can come to see him/it.’

Infinitival constructions are not the only context in Romance in which we find enclisis: positive imperatives also exhibit this. On the basis of the patterns established in (1)–(4), we are now led to expect that in positive imperatives with the aspectual verbs ‘come/go’, two surface word-order patterns should manifest themselves, basically parallel to the ones seen in (3) and (4): the clitic should be able to encliticise either onto the infinitive embedded under ‘come/go’, or onto the imperative verb ‘come/go’ itself. Interestingly, however, this expectation is not

. For the sake of completeness, we illustrate this pattern in (i):

(i)

Lo puedo ir/venir a ver.  I-can go/come to see

Clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives 

borne out: (5)

a.

Ve a verlo! go to see- ‘Go to see him/it!’ b. *Velo a ver! go- to see

(6)

a.

Ven a verlo! come to see- ‘Come to see him/it!’ b. (?)?Venlo a ver! come- to see

Of the examples in (5), (5b) is flatly ungrammatical, and in the pair in (6), there likewise is a notable contrast between the example with clitic climbing and the one without, the former being substantially degraded.2 The deviance of (5b) and (6b) – not noted in the literature before, to our knowledge – presents us with an interesting puzzle. The descriptive generalisation is not that clitic climbing is incompatible with enclisis onto the higher verb – after all, (3b) and (4b) are grammatical. Nor can we say that it is a property of imperatives that they block cliticisation – after all, simple imperatives with enclisis are perfectly well-formed. Instead, it seems to be a property specific to simple imperatives which makes clitic climbing impossible from the complement of the aspectual verbs ‘come’ and ‘go’. That we really have to make this statement as specific as this (making reference to (i) simple imperatives, (ii) clitic climbing, and (iii) aspectual ‘come/go’) is evident from the fact that with verbs like ‘try’, and even with other aspectualisers such as ‘begin’ and ‘stop’, clitic climbing is not impossible in Spanish imperatives – though (7b) and (8b) are generally deemed somewhat worse than the corresponding non-climbing cases in (7a) and (8a), they are not nearly as bad as the clitic climbing cases in (5b) and (6b).3 (7)

a.

{Intenta/ Aprende a} hacerlo! try/learn to do- ‘Try/Learn to do it!’

. This is true both for speakers of Peninsular Spanish and for speakers of Latin-American Spanish, though the strength of the contrast in (6) varies somewhat from speaker to speaker (in ways that do not, in any obvious way, lend themselves to generalisations along geographical lines). We will not concern ourselves in this paper with the question of why (6b) seems somewhat less bad, for most speakers, than (5b) (though we add that there are also speakers who report that for them, (5b) and (6b) are equally bad). . Moreover, Kayne (1992) has argued with reference to Italian infinitival imperatives with procliticisation (cf. (i b), alternating with the uneventful encliticisation case in (i a)) that these involve a structure featuring a null modal matrix verb taking the projection of the infinitival

 Marcel den Dikken and Mariví Blasco

b. (?){Inténtalo/ Apréndelo a} hacer! try-/learn- to do (8)

a.

{Empieza/ Termina} de hacerlo! begin/stop to do- ‘Start/Stop doing it!’ b. (?){Empiézalo/ Terminalo} de hacer! begin-/stop- to do

So the puzzle is how to account for the specific cocktail of properties that manifests itself in (5) and (6): the fact that clitic climbing fails when the matrix verb is an imperative form of aspectual ‘come/go’. In this paper we set out to find a solution to this puzzle. We go about this job as follows. After rejecting (on the basis of English) a possible approach that would base itself on the premise that – for some reason – restructuring is blocked categorically in imperatives with aspectual ‘come/go’ (Section 2), we will present facts from Hungarian clitic climbing with aspectual ‘come/go’ to make the case that clitic climbing with these verbs is dependent on a specification for Tense in the matrix clause (Section 3). This generalisation will be seen (in Section 4) to naturally carry over to the Spanish facts in (5b) and (6b) on the assumption, independently defended for English imperatives in Beukema and Coopmans (1989), that simple imperatives in Spanish lack a specification for Tense – a hypothesis for which independent support will be provided in the text. It also makes sense of the difference between imperatives and subjunctives (polite imperatives) in Spanish, when it comes to clitic climbing. In Section 5, we finally proceed to an analysis of the Tense effect, couched in a structural analysis of restructuring in aspectual ‘come/ go’ verbs in Spanish (and Hungarian) in terms of VP-movement to SpecTP. .

No general ban on restructuring: The case of English ‘come/go’

Clitic climbing is often taken to be a hallmark of so-called ‘restructuring’ (or ‘clause union’) effects (cf. Rizzi 1982 and much subsequent work). And since clitic climbing is possible in aspectual ‘come/go’ constructions in Spanish, we can verb as its complement, with climbing of the clitic onto the null modal (cf. (i b')). If Kayne’s (1992) analysis of (i b) is on the right track, this is another case of perfectly unobstructed clitic climbing in a Romance imperative.

(i)

a.

Non farlo! not do- ‘Don’t do it!’ b. Non lo fare! not  do b'. [Ø + i (…) [ fare eci]]

Clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives 

conclude that restructuring is possible in them. This said, one may be tempted to blame the failure of clitic climbing in the examples in (5b) and (6b) on the failure of restructuring. Notice, however, that clitic climbing is possible in the imperatives in (7b) and (8b). So there cannot be a general ban on restructuring in imperatives – it apparently works successfully in imperatives with verbs like ‘try’ and ‘begin/stop’. Perhaps, then, restructuring fails only in imperatives with aspectual ‘come/go’ type verbs? But that cannot be true as a general statement about the UG properties of aspectual verbs either, in the light of the following facts from English, discussed in detail by Jaeggli and Hyams (1993). In English, the aspectual verbs come and go are peculiar in that they can ‘shed’ the infinitival marker to that occurs in their complement, under certain circumstances. In particular, come and go can take a to-less ‘bare’ infinitival complement if they are themselves uninflected (i.e. show up as the bare stem), and not otherwise. The facts in (9) illustrate this for go; parallel facts obtain for come. (9)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

I/you/we/they go (to) fetch a newspaper every morning. (S)he goes *(to) fetch a newspaper. I/you/(s)he/we/they went *(to) fetch a newspaper. I/you/(s)he/we/they have/has gone *(to) fetch a newspaper. I/you/(s)he/we/they am/are/is going *(to) fetch a newspaper. I/you/(s)he/we/they want(s) to go (to) fetch a newspaper. Go (to) fetch a newspaper!

Whenever the form of the aspectual verb is identical with the verb stem (i.e. in the simple present tense except for the third person singular, in infinitives and in imperatives), to can remain absent; otherwise it must show up.4 One may relate the absence of to to the absence of overt inflectional morphology by saying that, when to is absent, the lower ‘bare’ infinitive and the aspectual verb undergo restructuring – when to is absent, the only way to license the lower infinitive is by incorporating it into the aspectual verb; the link between to-drop and lack of inflectional morphology will then follow on the assumption that inflected verbs (in English at least) are not suitable incorporators/restructuring predicates (possibly as a consequence of general restrictions on complex X0 elements, perhaps of the type laid out in Kayne 1994). We will not dwell on the details of the restriction on restructuring exhibited by the English come/go facts in (9). Instead, we will simply take them to be explained by some morphophonological constraint whose nature need not concern us here. What matters for our purposes is that restructuring apparently succeeds in the

. The fact that the generalisation in question must be stated in terms of physical inflectional morphology, rather than in terms of the possession of abstract morphosyntactic features, suggests that we are dealing with a PF-restriction here.

 Marcel den Dikken and Mariví Blasco

imperative in (9g): Go fetch a newspaper! is grammatical. What this shows is that even a relativisation of a putative ban on restructuring in imperatives such that it would refer only to aspectual ‘come/go’ verbs would not be accurate crosslinguistically: English would refute it. To make such a claim with specific reference to Spanish would hardly gain us insight into what is really going on in (5)–(6), of course. At minimum, we should try to relate the account of the Spanish facts to peculiarities of ‘come/go’ verbs elsewhere, and we should manage to prevent the analysis of the Spanish facts from inadvertently carrying over to English. In the next section, we will address the former task, turning to the latter towards the end of the paper.

. A Tense effect: The case of Hungarian clitic climbing with ‘come/go’ The Spanish facts which are at the heart of this paper (cf. (5)–(6)) present us with a prima facie surprising ban on clitic climbing out of the complement of a class of verbs which is otherwise very flexible when it comes to clitic climbing: the aspectual verbs ‘come’ and ‘go’. Interestingly, in Hungarian these verbs also treat us to a tricky analytical problem, once again in the domain of clitic climbing. In this section we will lay out the relevant facts (first noted in den Dikken 1999) and pinpoint the generalisation that covers them, subsequently taking this generalisation as the stepping-stone towards the analysis of the Spanish facts. Hungarian has two types of agreement: subject agreement (for the person and number of the subject) and object agreement (typically only for the definiteness of the object). Subject and object agreement cannot be segmented; they surface as a portmanteau morpheme. This is illustrated in (10) (for indefinite objects) and (11) (for definite objects). (10)

a.

János olvasott-ø {ø/valamit/egy könyvet/néhány könyvet/minden könyvet}. János read--3. ø/something/a book/some book/every book b. *János olvast-a {ø/valamit/egy könyvet/néhány könyvet/minden könyvet}. János read--3. ø/something/a book/some book/every book

(11)

a. *J. olvasott-ø {azt/a könyvet/azt a könyvet/Mari könyvét/Marinak a könyvét}. János read--3. that/the book/that the book/Mari book/ Mari- the book b. J. olvast-a {azt/a könyvet/azt a könyvet/Mari könyvét/Marinak a könyvét}. János read--3. that/the book/that the book/Mari book/ Mari- the book

Every Hungarian object triggers either definite or indefinite agreement on the finite verb. But there is one special deviation from the pattern. When the direct object is second person (singular or plural) and the subject is first person singular, a special

Clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives 

agreement form shows up on the verb: the -lak/lek suffix, illustrated in (12): (12)

a.

Én szeret-lek téged/titeket/benneteket. I love-/ yousg/youpl-/youpl- b. *Én szeret-ek téged/titeket/benneteket. I love- yousg/youpl-/youpl- c. *En szeret-em téged/titeket/benneteket. I love- yousg/youpl-/youpl-

This -lak/lek form is arguably a complex entity (cf. also Simonyi 1907: 352, Bartos 1997: 364 n. 2) – it consists of the -k of first person singular indefinite agreement, a morphosyntactically uninteresting epenthetic vowel, and the -l of second person. In effect, then, -lak/lek is the only Hungarian inflectional form in which subject and object agreement appear to show up sequentially. Den Dikken (1999) makes a detailed case, however, for the claim that the -l of -lak/lek is not object agreement inflection but an object clitic. He shows that the clitic approach allows us to understand the otherwise elusive fact that there is indefinite agreement (the -k of -lak/lek) in (12a), and provides independent support for the analysis from the realm of permissive causative constructions.5 We will not go over the evidence here but simply adopt the analysis of -lak/lek in terms of cliticisation, treating -l as an object clitic in examples like (12a). Interestingly, now, in Hungarian indicative aspectual ‘come/go’ constructions with a first person singular subject and a second person object, the aspectual verb

. The key fact here is that the -lak/lek form is blocked in Hungarian permissive causative constructions with a dative-marked causee, as shown in (i) (where ‘’ stands for ‘preverb’, the name for aspectual particles like meg). (i)

Hagylak (*Jánosnak) meglátogatni (téged) let-/ János- -visit (you) ‘I let {*John/(unspecified)} visit you.’

The example in (i) is good when Jánosnak is left out (something which is hard to render directly in English, since English does not normally allow the causee of a let-causative to be dropped, an exception being live and let live), but it is ungrammatical with the dative-marked causee present. This will follow as a Relativised Minimality effect (Rizzi 1990, Chomsky 1993) if (a) the -lak/lek form involves overt-syntactic movement of the lower object into the matrix clause, à la clitic climbing, (b) the clitic (-l; or its pro associate – Sportiche 1996) raises via a two-step movement process (A-movement followed by head-movement), and (c) the dative-marked causee occupies an A-position c-commanding the extraction site of the object clitic, blocking the first step of the clitic climbing process (cf. (ii); for detailed discussion, see den Dikken 1999). (ii)

*[YP embedded objecti ... [XP Jánosnak ... [VP V ti]]] A-spec A-spec not equidistant

 Marcel den Dikken and Mariví Blasco

cannot show up with the complex marker -lak/lek (the combination of an object clitic and subject inflection) in simple present-tense contexts:6 (13)

a.

Mentelek meglátogatni (téged). go--/ -visit (you) ‘I went to visit you.’ b. *Megylek meglátogatni (téged). go()-/ -visit (you)

(14)

a.

Jöttelek meglátogatni (téged). come--/ -visit (you) ‘I came to visit you.’ b. *Jölek meglátogatni (téged). come()-/ -visit you

The contrast is robust: while past-tense (13a) and (14a) are perfect, present-tense (13b) and (14b) are completely impossible. In the context of Hungarian -lak/lek agreement, this Tense effect manifests itself only with the aspectual ‘come/go’ type verbs (cf. note 6). With the -lak/lek form analysed in terms of object cliticisation (as in den Dikken 1999), this suggests that there is something peculiar to these verbs when it comes to clitic climbing. In particular, the generalisation that suggests itself for the Hungarian facts is the following: (15)

Clitic climbing onto aspectual ‘come/go’ is possible in Hungarian indicatives only if the aspectual verb is marked for Tense.

The Hungarian present tense is morphologically unmarked, while the past tense forms all feature a -t (doubled in certain contexts; cf. jött ‘(s)he/it came’, jöttelek meglátogatni ‘I came to visit you’). Apparently, the presence of explicit marking

. We illustrate the pattern here with the aid of just megy ‘go’ and jön ‘come’; but elmegy ‘awaygo’, jár ‘go’ and van ‘be’ behave essentially the same way (cf. e.g. voltalak meglátogatni (téged) ‘be--/ -visit (you)’, which once again has no present-tense counterpart; as É. Kiss 1987: 227 points out, non-aspectual kész van ‘be ready’ blocks the -lak/lek form). These are further specimens of the class of aspectual verbs. Like in Hungarian, Dutch zijn ‘be’ belongs to the same class of aspectual verbs as gaan ‘go’ and komen ‘come’; all three take the same type of complement (a bare infinitive in both languages; cf. Dutch ik ga/kom/ben lunchen ‘I go/come/am lunch-’). We will continue to refer to this class of aspectual verbs as ‘come/go’ verbs, where it should be understood that this class has ‘be’ as a member in Hungarian (and Dutch), though not in Spanish (and English). We stress that aspectualisers like ‘begin’ and ‘stop’ do not belong to this class: in all four languages referred to in the preceding sentence, the pattern of complementation and syntactic behaviour is quite different for these verbs as compared to ‘come/go’. Recall the clear contrast in Spanish between (5/6b) and (8b); similarly, in English, ‘to-drop’ as in (9) is possible with come and go but not with begin or start; in Hungarian, ‘come/go’ but not ‘begin/stop’ (or other verbs) exhibit the sensitivity to Tense seen in (13) and (14).

Clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives 

for Tense is a precondition on successful clitic climbing onto aspectual ‘come/go’ in indicative clauses (on subjunctives and conditionals, see note 11, below). With this generalisation in hand, let us return to the Spanish facts to see what sense we can make of those now.

.

Back to Spanish: True imperatives vs fake imperatives and the role of Tense

Let us first refresh our memories. In Spanish simple imperatives with ‘come/go’ verbs featuring an embedded infinitive construed with an object clitic, the clitic can occur encliticised onto the infinitive but it cannot encliticise onto the imperative ‘come/go’ verb: (5)

a.

b. (6)

Ve a verlo! go to see- ‘Go to see him/it!’ *Velo a ver! go- to see

a.

Ven a verlo! come to see- ‘Come to see him/it!’ b. (?)?Venlo a ver! come- to see

This turns out to be a restriction peculiar to simple imperatives, not to the entire illocutionary class of commands – thus, polite commands and negative imperatives do not exhibit it, as shown in (16)–(17):7 (16)

a.

Vaya a verlo! go- to see-

. Illustration, here and elsewhere in this section, will be confined to ir ‘go’, for reasons of space. It appears that the difference between simple imperatives and polite commands (i.e. subjunctives) does not assert itself very clearly (if at all) in the domain of venir ‘come’, which may be due to the surface similarity between the true imperative (ven) and the form used in polite commands (subjunctive venga). On the other hand, the difference between singular imperative ven and plural imperative venid is apparently robust enough to allow clitic climbing with the latter: Venidlo a ver! ‘come-2.- to see’ is grammatical (and similarly, Idlo a ver! ‘go-2. - to see’). What exactly is going on here is not very clear to us; since the distribution of the second person plural imperative in -d is restricted (it is found only in Peninsular Spanish, the Spanish Academy preferring it to the infinitival imperative; but even in Spain it seems to be on its way out) we have chosen, in this paper, to confine the discussion of the simple imperative to the second person singular imperative.

 Marcel den Dikken and Mariví Blasco

b. ?Váyalo a ver! go-- to see (17)

a. b.

No vaya(s) a verlo! not go- to see- No lo vaya(s) a ver! not  go- to see

Likewise, infinitival imperatives are immune to the ban on clitic climbing (cf. (18)), and so are what Bosque (1980) calls ‘retrospective imperatives’ of the type in (19), featuring the auxiliary haber with a past participial complement headed by ido ‘gone’.8 (18)

a. b.

(19)

a. b.

Ir a verlo! go- to see- Irlo a ver! go-- to see Haber ido a verlo! have- gone to see- Haberlo ido a ver! have-- gone to see ‘You should have gone to see him/it.’

Morphologically speaking, the contrast between (5b)–(6b) and (16b)–(17b) involves a difference between imperatives and subjunctives – Spanish uses the subjunctive to make polite and negative commands. This is interesting in the light of the generalisation that came out of the discussion of the Hungarian facts in Section 3. So we pick it up from there and build up an analysis of the Spanish facts from that point of view. In Section 3 we noted that Hungarian indicative ‘come/go’ verbs allow clitic climbing onto them only if they are marked for Tense. The distinction between

. We thank Wim van der Wurff for drawing our attention to Bosque’s (1980) squib (which does not, however, consider the clitic facts central to this paper). As Bosque notes, the auxiliary of the perfect in ‘retrospective imperatives’ cannot take the form of a simple, second person singular imperative (*Hate levantado antes! ‘have-2.- got up earlier’ contrasts sharply with Haberte levantado antes! ‘have-- got up earlier’). Bosque reports that the second person plural imperative (as in Habed venido!) is well-formed in this context; but none of the speakers (of Peninsular Spanish, the only variant of Spanish that has plural imperatives in -d at all) that we asked found constructions like these at all felicitous – as a matter of fact, those (few) speakers who would usually prefer the plural imperative in -d to the infinitival imperative (Venid! versus Venir!) tell us that Habed venido! is strongly inferior to Haber venido! We take it, then, that in ‘retrospective imperatives’ the auxiliary must show up in the infinitival form. We will return to this issue in note 12, below, where the ban on ‘retrospective simple imperatives’ is accounted for in the context of the generalisation in (20a) in the main text.

Clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives 

imperatives and subjunctives in Spanish can be looked upon in the same light, on the assumptions in (20) (on (20a) see Beukema and Coopmans 1989).9 (20)

a. b.

Spanish simple imperatives are not marked for Tense; Spanish subjunctives are marked for Tense.

The accuracy of the claims laid down in (20) for Spanish is shown by the impossibility of (21b), and by the grammaticality of the past-tense subjunctive in (22b) alongside the present-tense example in (22a). (21)

a.

Ve a verlo! go- to see- b. *Ve+ a verlo! go-- to see-

(22)

a. b.

Quiero que vayas a verlo. I-want that go-..2 to see- Quise que fueras a verlo. I-wanted that go-..2 to see-

And we can support the absence of Tense from Spanish simple imperatives further on the basis of the ban on sentential negation in these constructions, illustrated in (23).10 (23)

*No ve a verlo! not go to see-

Given Zanuttini’s (1997) arguments for an inextricable link between negation and Tense, the fact that Spanish simple imperatives cannot be negated is incontrovertible evidence that they lack a projection of Tense.

. Beukema and Coopmans (1989: 420–421 n. 5) note that the absence of Tense from imperatives is not a pragmatic fact: languages differ on this point, Dutch having imperatives which feature morphologically past-tense verb forms (see also Wolf 2003): (i)

(ii)

Had het maar gezegd! had it but said ‘If only you had said it!’ Soms was hij kwaad. Hield dan maar beter je mond! sometimes was he angry held then but better your mouth ‘Sometimes he was angry. Then, it was best to keep your mouth shut.’

For Spanish, however, (20a) holds – the examples in (19) (Bosque’s ‘retrospective imperatives’) do not contradict it since they do not involve simple imperatives; see note 8, above. . We thank Arhonto Terzi for pointing this out to us. We add that the ban on negation carries over to plural imperatives in -d. Negative commands are made with the aid of subjunctives in Spanish; cf. (17).

 Marcel den Dikken and Mariví Blasco

With the statements in (20) in hand, we may now return to the contrast between (5b) on the one hand, and (16b) and (17b) on the other, and relate it directly to the generalisation in (15) which emerged from our discussion of Hungarian:11 (24)

Clitic climbing onto aspectual ‘come/go’ is possible in Spanish commands only if the aspectual verb is marked for Tense.

And with Tense taking centre-stage in the account of the restrictions on clitic climbing in Spanish as well, we can readily understand why clitic climbing is also successful in the ‘retrospective imperative’ in (19b): with Aspect (‘secondary Tense’) being dependent on a higher Tense, the perfect signals the presence of Tense in the matrix clause, and as a result clitic climbing is unproblematic.12 . Hungarian makes no formal distinction between imperatives and subjunctives: the morphology for both is the same, and clitic climbing is possible in them (cf. Ideje, hogy elmenjelek meglátogatni ‘it’s time that I went to visit you’). Clitic climbing is also possible in conditionals (cf. Szívesen elmennélek meglátogatni ‘I would gladly go visit you’). (Thanks to Anna Szabolcsi for pointing out these two examples to us.) This is why the scope of (15) was confined to indicatives. On the assumption that subjunctives and conditionals are always Tense-marked in Hungarian, these cases fit under the umbrella of the main-text discussion. Alternatively, the Mood/Modality head can attract VP to its specifier in Hungarian (though not in Spanish) in the same way that a Tense-marked T can – see Section 5; the latter hypothesis seems more readily compatible with the fact that Hungarian subjunctives do not show morphological tense distinctions, but it raises the obvious question of why Hungarian and Spanish differ in the inventory of VP-attracting heads in restructuring constructions. A separate but related question is why Spanish and Hungarian differ in the domain of clitic climbing in simple present-tense ‘come/go’ contexts: good in Spanish (cf. (1b) and (2b)) but bad in Hungarian (cf. (13b) and (14b)). We can make the desired distinction by assuming that in the Spanish simple present (unlike in its Hungarian counterpart), the verb is in fact marked for Tense. That the Hungarian simple present is totally unmarked for Tense makes sense in the light of the fact that simple present-tense forms involve the verb stem plus agreement morphology, if any; in the third person singular indefinite, there is no agreement inflection whatsoever, and the bare stem surfaces – it is this form which serves as the dictionary entry for the verb. (Zanuttini’s 1997 generalisation about the link between sentential negation and Tense then raises a problem for Hungarian, however: negation is grammatical in the simple present.) The morphology of the Spanish simple present, on the other hand, is more complex: the stem and the agreement marker are separated by a thematic vowel; this may give us the legitimation to take the Spanish simple present (and the infinitive as well; cf. (3b) and (4b)) to be marked for Tense. Note in this context as well that, while the Spanish simple imperative normally corresponds to the third singular present-tense indicative form (including the thematic vowel), the forms of ‘come’ (Viene vs Ven!) and ‘go’ (Va vs Ve!) do not. . We can in fact go further than this: if indeed Aspect is dependent on Tense, and if simple imperatives in Spanish are Tense-less (20a), we predict that ‘retrospective imperatives’ are impossible as simple imperatives. As we already pointed out in note 8, this prediction is certainly correct for the singular simple imperative. For all speakers we consulted, it is basically accurate for the plural imperative in -d as well, but Bosque (1980) himself reports that Habed venido! is grammatical; at this time, we do not quite know what to make of the behaviour of the plural imperative in -d in Spanish. We leave this for further research.

Clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives 

So we may conclude this section on the positive note that, with (24) in place alongside (15), all the clitic climbing restrictions discussed so far (from both Spanish and Hungarian) fall out from a simple statement about the role of Tensemarking.

. An analysis of the Tense effect: VP-movement to SpecTP The question still remains, though, why it is that clitic climbing in aspectual ‘come/go’ constructions should be sensitive to the Tense-marking of the aspectual verb. This question is all the more poignant in the light of the fact that no such sensitivity manifests itself with other types of verbs – Spanish (7b) and (8b) are grammatical; similarly, Hungarian auxiliaries like akar ‘want’, control verbs like igyekszik ‘strive’ and the permissive causative verbs hagy and enged ‘let’ allow clitic climbing regardless of the Tense of the sentence:13 (25)

a. b.

(26)

a. b.

(27)

a. b.

Meg akarlak látogatni (téged).  want-/ visit (you) Meg akartalak látogatni (téged).  want--/ visit (you) ‘I want(ed) to visit you.’ Igyekezlek idpben felhívni (téged). strive-/ time-in -call (you) Igyekeztelek idpben felhívni (téged). strive--/ time-in -call (you) ‘I will try/tried hard to call you on time.’ Hagylak/engedlek meglátogatni (téged). let-/ -visit (you) Hagytalak/engedtelek meglátogatni (téged). let--/ -visit (you) ‘I let-/ people visit you.’

In this section we will address the question of why clitic climbing onto aspectual ‘come/go’ shows a sensitivity to Tense.14

. Thanks to Anna Szabolcsi for pointing out (26a) to us. . Terzi (1996) argues on the basis of tense matching effects in examples of clitic climbing from finite complement clauses in Salentino and Serbo-Croatian for an analysis of clitic climbing involving T-raising as one of its crucial ingredients. Her proposal bears an overall resemblance to the account of clitic climbing in aspectual ‘come/go’ constructions outlined here in giving pride of place to Tense; since Terzi’s article focuses on subject control complements (and their finite counterparts in Salentino and Serbo-Croatian), however, her proposal addresses the complement set of the cases under investigation in this paper. We will briefly turn to clitic climbing out of control complements to ‘try’ type verbs later in this section. Terzi’s (1996) analysis may well

 Marcel den Dikken and Mariví Blasco

We will embed our answer to that question in an approach to the syntax of restructuring in aspectual ‘come/go’ constructions in Spanish and Hungarian which makes the following central assumption: (28)

Restructuring in Spanish/Hungarian aspectual ‘come/go’ constructions involves raising of the infinitival VP into the matrix SpecTP position.

A partial derivation of a Spanish/Hungarian aspectual ‘come/go’ construction with restructuring (or ‘clause union’) will hence read roughly as in (29).15 (29)

[Agr SU [AgrS [TP [VP Vinf OB]i [T [VP1 ‘come/go’ [CP/IP (…) ti]]]]]]

This structure will allow us to manoeuvre the object clitic included in the raised VP into a position in the matrix inflectional domain (thereby delivering the quintessential ‘clause union’ effect) without any particular difficulty, so long as there is no barrier to block movement from out of the VP in SpecTP. We assume that, when T is marked for Tense, TP as well as the VP in its specifier are transparent. When T is not marked for Tense, on the other hand, it could simply be absent altogether (as is likely in the case of atemporal simple imperatives; cf. (the text below) example (23)), or, if it is present, it will fail to serve as an attractor, leaving the infinitival VP

be adopted as is for ‘try’ type constructions; the combination of her analysis of clitic climbing with ‘try’ and the present approach to clitic climbing in aspectual ‘come/go’ constructions then emphasises the key role played by Tense throughout the realm of clitic climbing. . In (29), we abstract away from the question – irrelevant for our concerns here – of what the categorial status of the complement of aspectual ‘come/go’ is: either CP or IP will do (but arguably not bare VP). We also abstract away from the question of what and where a (in the Spanish examples) is. Note that, with a located in the matrix T-head, the derivation in (29) comes to mimic Kayne’s (1999) analysis of constructions featuring infinitival complementisers: the infinitival marker of the complement clause is introduced outside the matrix VP and attracts the infinitival VP up to its specifier. We assume that ‘come/go’ will raise, in the course of the overt-syntactic derivation, to the Agr position above the landing-site of the moved VP. This will ensure the desired surface word order. An alternative is conceivable which would not involve raising of the infinitival VP and ‘come/go’ to such high positions in the tree: VP could raise to the specifier position of an AspP lower in the structure, with Asp anaphorically linked to T. The Tense effect would still be guaranteed by this approach, thanks to the anaphoric link between Asp and T. A problem for this approach is the fact the Hungarian aspectual preverb el ‘off, away’ does not block the clause union effect (i.e. clitic climbing in -lak/lek) – (El)mentelek meglátogatni ‘I went (off) to visit you’ is grammatical regardless of the presence or absence of el; if el raises to SpecAspP in the course of the derivation (cf. den Dikken 1999), the grammaticality of this example with el present is unexpected if SpecAspP is to be the landing-site of the VP-raising operation that procures the clause union effect. (In point of fact, the presence or absence of el is entirely immaterial: it does not obstruct clitic climbing (as just shown), and it does not enhance it either – that is, the mere addition of el does not eliminate the Tense effect; *Elmegylek meglátogatni ‘I go off to visit you’ is just as bad as its counterpart without el, given in (13b).)

Clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives 

in situ and making it impossible for the object clitic to raise into the matrix inflectional domain (due to the intervention of at least one barrier: CP/IP). We now have an account of the Tense effect. Whenever T is marked for Tense, the infinitival VP in the complement of the aspectual ‘come/go’ verb is attracted to SpecTP and is transparent to movement of the object clitic into the matrix inflectional domain (AgrS, in particular). By tying ‘restructuring’ in aspectual ‘come/go’ constructions directly to the matrix T-node, we are awarded an immediate perspective on the sensitivity of object clitic climbing to the Tense properties of the matrix clause in these constructions. That there should be a privileged link between the matrix T-node of an aspectual ‘come/go’ construction and the infinitival VP can be understood from the point of view of the aspectual contribution made precisely by ‘come/go’. With Tense and Aspect viewed as two sides of the same coin, we can easily envisage a close relationship between the infinitival VP and the matrix Tense, which we suggest embodies both the temporal properties of the matrix clause and the aspectual properties of the whole construction. With verbs like ‘try’, there is no such privileged relation between the infinitival VP and the matrix Tense node. ‘Restructuring’ in constructions with verbs of this type will not involve VP-raising to SpecTP, therefore. Instead, a more traditional account in terms of ‘reanalysis’ of the matrix and embedded verbs (‘(abstract) incorporation’ à la Baker 1988, perhaps elaborated along the lines of Terzi 1996 in terms of T-raising; cf. note 14, above) is more likely to be on the right track for those kinds of ‘restructuring’ verbs. And since there is no VP-raising to SpecTP in such cases, we do not expect there to be any particular dependency of such restructuring on the temporal properties of the matrix verb. Indeed, this is precisely what we find: it does not matter whether the matrix clause is specified for Tense or not, clitic climbing will succeed regardless (cf. Spanish (7b) and (8b) and Hungarian (25)–(27)). One last note is now due with reference to the difference between Spanish/ Hungarian ‘come/go’ verbs and their English counterparts.16 Recall that, following . We still need to conduct a systematic comparative investigation into the restrictions on clitic climbing in ‘come/go’ imperatives in other Romance languages. Initial checks with a few Italian speakers suggest that clitic climbing (as in (i b)) is entirely natural to most speakers, though some find it awkward in (ii b); all speakers seem to agree, though, that clitic climbing is dispreferred in the context of ‘come/go’ imperatives. More careful checking of the Italian facts (and those of other Romance languages) is called for. But what we can say off the cuff is that if, in some Romance languages, clitic climbing in ‘come/go’ imperatives is perfectly grammatical, this presumably shows that ‘restructuring’ in aspectual ‘come/go’ constructions in the relevant languages proceeds via head-movement/incorporation rather than via VP-raising to SpecTP. Finding independent morphosyntactic support for head movement vs VP-raising (for instance, but not necessarily, of the type discussed for English vs Spanish in the main text) will then be the major challenge.

 Marcel den Dikken and Mariví Blasco

Jaeggli and Hyams (1993), we analysed the absence of the infinitival marker to in the complement of English come and go in examples such as (9) in terms of ‘restructuring’. But recall also that in English, this ‘restructuring’ effect with aspectual come/go is not sensitive to the difference between indicatives and imperatives – I go fetch a newspaper and Go fetch a newspaper! are both good. With English imperatives unmarked for Tense (cf. Beukema and Coopmans 1989), this leads us to the conclusion that ‘restructuring’ in English come/go constructions lacking to cannot involve VP-raising to SpecTP – otherwise we would expect it to be blocked in the absence of Tense marking. This is not an embarrassing result; on the contrary. After all, we observed before (following Jaeggli and Hyams) that there are peculiar morphological restrictions on the availability of to-drop (hence ‘restructuring’) in English come/go constructions — restrictions which are much easier to account for if one assumes that restructuring in these constructions involves incorporation of the infinitival verb into the matrix aspectual verb (so that the two verbs actually become a unit, something which is apparently blocked when the aspectual verb is morphologically complex), rather than raising of the VP to the matrix SpecTP.

.

Conclusion

We conclude, then, that ‘restructuring’ in Spanish and Hungarian aspectual ‘come/ go’ constructions involves VP-raising into the matrix SpecTP, and that this is what ultimately explains the sensitivity of this phenomenon to the temporal specification of the matrix aspectual verb, and thereby the prima facie baffling restrictions on clitic climbing exhibited by ‘come/go’ constructions in Spanish imperatives and Hungarian simple present contexts. Other ‘restructuring’ constructions (including the English come/go construction, with its morphological restrictions peculiar to the matrix verb) do not involve VP-preposing to SpecTP but instead receive a more traditional account in terms of head-to-head movement. As a result, those constructions do not show any sensitivity to the matrix tense. Thus, we have identified two different ways in which ‘restructuring’ can come about – head-to-head movement and VP-raising. Some of the ‘restructuring’

(i)

a. b.

(ii)

a. b.

Va a vederlo! go to see- Vallo a vedere! go- to see Vieni a vederlo! come to see- Vienilo a vedere! come- to see

Clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives 

pie has been reanalysed in terms of XP-movement rather than head movement; but the head movement and XP-movement derivations both exist. They are not in free variation, the two being used in complementary contexts. Some constructions which have traditionally been thought to involve head movement turn out to involve XP-movement instead; but it seems that not all restructuring can be reanalysed in terms of XP-movement – at least, not of the type we have proposed here. With specific reference to the analysis of imperatives, we have found that Beukema and Coopmans’ (1989) conclusion that simple imperatives are not marked for Tense is correct – at least for English and Spanish (though see note 9 for an indication that this is not a universal). We have shown that ‘being unmarked for Tense’ is tantamount, in the context of restructuring in ‘come/go’ constructions, to the absence of ‘clause union’ effects with clitic climbing – something which we have suggested may ultimately be blamed on the inability on the part of a T-node unmarked for Tense to attract the VP in the complement of aspectual ‘come/go’ up into its specifier position. It goes without saying that this first stab at the analysis of the Spanish and Hungarian data laid out in this paper raises a host of questions. We express the hope that future research will be able to benefit from the discussion in these pages, and will find interesting answers to the questions raised.

References Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bartos, H. 1997. “On ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ agreement in Hungarian”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44: 363–384. Beukema, F. and P. Coopmans. 1989. “A Government-Binding perspective on the imperative in English”. Journal of Linguistics 25: 417–436. Bosque, I. 1980. “Retrospective imperatives”. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 415–419. Chomsky, N. 1993. “A minimalist program for linguistic theory”. In: S.J. Keyser and K. Hale (eds) The View from Building 20, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Dikken, M. den. 1999. “Agreement and ‘clause union’”. Ms., CUNY Graduate Center. [Revised version published in: H.É. Kiss and H. van Riemsdijk (eds) 2004. Verb Clusters: A Study of Hungarian, German and Dutch, 445–498. Amsterdam: Benjamins.] Jaeggli, O. and N. Hyams. 1993. “On the independence and interdependence of syntactic and morphological properties: English aspectual come and go”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 313–346. Kayne, R.S. 1992. “Italian negative infinitival imperatives and clitic climbing”. In: L. Tasmowski and A. Zribi-Hertz (eds) De la Musique à la Linguistique: Hommages à Nicolas Ruwet, 300–312. Ghent: Communication and Cognition. Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kayne, R. 1998. “Overt vs. covert movement”. Syntax 1: 128–191. Kayne, R. 1999. “Prepositional complementizers as attractors. Probus 11: 39–73. [Reprinted as Chapter 14 of R. Kayne, 2000. Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]

 Marcel den Dikken and Mariví Blasco Kiss, K.É. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Rizzi, L. 1982. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Simonyi, Zs. 1907. Die ungarische Sprache: Geschichte und Charakteristik. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. Sportiche, D. 1996. “Clitic constructions”. In: J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 213–277. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Terzi, A. 1996. “Clitic climbing from finite clauses and tense raising”. Probus 8: 273–295. Wolf, H. 2003. “Imperatieven in de verleden tijd.” Taal en Tongval 55: 168–187. Zanuttini, R. 1997. Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.

Topics in imperatives* Hilda Koopman UCLA

Abstract This paper examines the left and right periphery in Dutch imperatives. Rightperipheral objects in Dutch imperatives are argued to arise from the interaction of leftward topicalisation into the left periphery, inversion and topic drop, licensed under movement of the verb to the Topic head. An examination of reconstruction effects establishes the movement characteristics of right-peripheral objects. Differences between the reduced left periphery of Dutch (only a dropped topic is allowed to precede the imperative verb) and German (one overt topic may precede the imperative) are argued to be due to the landing site of the imperative verb form, and slightly different pied-piping configurations which allow an imperative verb to “type” imperative force.

.

Introduction

Traditional grammars typically manage to describe imperatives in just a few pages, suggesting there is not much to be said about them, nor to be learned from these impoverished constructions. However, after a somewhat slow start, work on imperatives has really taken off and many interesting properties of imperatives have now been uncovered (see van der Wurff, this volume, for an overview). Imperatives are relatively short and occur frequently in the primary data directed to children. This fact raises intriguing questions. What general properties of the target

* I would like to thank the participants of a seminar at UCLA in the Fall of 1996, where this paper was first developed. A preliminary version of this paper was presented at Nias in June 1997 and at Ibbs a/d Donau in July 1997. This paper is a revised version of Koopman (2002). Thanks to the many Dutch speakers I have asked for their judgments on imperatives. Particular thanks go to Jeannette Schaeffer, Hans Bennis and Henk Harkema for the time they put in to judge long lists of imperatives. I am grateful to Gisbert Fanselow, Martin Prinzhorn and Daniel Büring for their help with German imperatives. Extensive comments by Marcel den Dikken and Wim van der Wurff on a previous version of this paper are gratefully acknowledged.

 Hilda Koopman

language can be fixed on the basis of imperatives? What role, if any beyond figuring out imperatives, could imperatives play in the acquisition process? Within the modular approach to constructions that characterises modern syntax, the question arises how exactly imperatives differ from other clause types and how apparent construction-specific properties should be accounted for. This paper examines two aspects of imperative constructions in Dutch from this perspective. First, (non-doubled) right-peripheral objects are possible in Dutch imperatives, as shown in (1), but not in declaratives nor in interrogatives (den Dikken 1992). (1)

Dutch Imperatives allow for right-peripheral objects Leg neer dat boekje! put down that book ‘Put that book down!’

I will show that, contrary to appearances, the occurrence of right-peripheral objects is not restricted to imperatives, i.e. it is not a construction-specific property. Right-peripheral objects arise through the interaction of the specific properties of the imperative Force head, general properties of right dislocation and topic drop. Secondly, this paper examines the apparent difference in the left periphery of imperatives and (root) declaratives (i.e. imperatives are ‘verb first’ and declaratives ‘verb second’) from the perspective of Rizzi’s (1997, 2001) fine structure of the left periphery. Rizzi (1997, 2001) shows that the CP layer (the left periphery) (universally) consists of a highly structured hierarchical set of projections:1 (2)

Force> Topic*> Int> Focus> Topic*> Fin

Force and Int(errogative), a position where Italian si and perche are located, express clause type and Fin relates to the finiteness of the verb in IP. Topicalised and focused constituents occupy designated projections, Top and Focus, at spell-out. The LF interpretation and PF intonation are directly read off from these configurations. Given this view of the left periphery, the Dutch left periphery is a bit of a mystery: not all these projections can cooccur in the left periphery in Dutch root declaratives, which are verb second.2 Root declaratives minimally require one of the following to precede the verb: an overt (or covert) topic, a focus, a subject, a weak nominative pronoun or an adjunct; and they maximally tolerate a preceding overt topic/focus and an overt resumptive D-pronoun. The finite verb raises high

. Further expanded to (i) in Rizzi (2004), with Mod a position for initial non-topicalised adverbs: (i)

Force Top* Int Top* Focus Mod* Top* Fin IP.

. The Top* FP series recurs more fully in the Dutch middle field (Koopman and Szabolcsi 2000).

Topics in imperatives 

into the left periphery, i.e. the finite verb seems to be at least as high as Fin, and precedes what is standardly assumed to be IP, as shown in (3). (3)

Dat boekje dat heb [IPik even neergelegd] that book that have I ADV down-put ‘That book I just put it down.’

A first puzzle then is how the verb-second constraint should be expressed, given the universal availability of a number of projections and possible iterations (Top*) in the left periphery. The answer can no longer take the form of a simple X-bar theoretic account, with declarative C requiring a single overt specifier, and V moving to C. An EPP account is not very satisfying either, given the flexibility of the initial constituent. A second related puzzle concerns the ‘verb first’ constraint on Dutch (overt and covert subject) imperatives: imperatives neither require nor tolerate a preceding constituent, as shown in (4), even though imperatives are clearly CPs, with the imperative V raising out of IP into the C-domain: (4)

a. *Dat boekje dat leg even neer! that book that put ADV down ‘That book, just put it down!’ b. *Dat leg even neer! that put ADV down ‘That, just put it down!’

Here the standard view says that imperatives are verb first because a silent imperative operator occupies the first position. This is not quite satisfactory either, since it raises the question why a declarative operator could not cause declarative clauses to be verb first too. Moreover, Dutch imperatives do appear to allow for topic drop. (5)

Leg eens even neer! put ADV ADV down ‘Just put it down now!’

Since only left-peripheral D-word topics can be dropped in conjunction with V-to-C movement, the conclusion must be that imperatives allow for a silent topic in the left periphery. The verb-first restriction therefore cannot be written off as the absence of an EPP feature on Top, the imperative V or C. The impossibility of an overt topic in the left periphery does not appear to be related to any inherent property of imperative constructions, either. German differs from Dutch in this respect and allows left-peripheral topics in imperatives (Reis and Rosengren 1992): (6)

Das Buch gib mal zurück! that book give ADV back ‘Give that book back!’ (lit.: That book give back!)

 Hilda Koopman

How then should these patterns be captured? How exactly should the difference between Dutch imperatives and declaratives be captured? What exactly is the difference between Dutch and German imperatives? Or more broadly, how should the problem of language-internal differences between clause types and crosslinguistic variation be approached within the cartographic approach to the left periphery? .

Den Dikken (1992)

Den Dikken (1992) shows that imperatives are exceptional within Dutch in allowing for right-peripheral objects. (7)

Leg neer dat boekje! ‘Put down that book!’

Other clause types disallow right-peripheral objects, a well-known fact, and puzzle, about Dutch, which appears to lack “heavy NP shift”: (8)

a. *Ik leg nu neer dat boekje. I put now down that book ‘I am putting that book down now.’ b. *Nu leg ik neer dat boekje now put I down that book c. *wie legt neer dat boekje? who puts down that book

Since right-peripheral objects license parasitic gaps, the derivation involves A’movement (den Dikken 1992: (12a) and (12b)). (9)

Leg (zonder pg in te kijken) neer (dat boek)! put without in to look down that book ‘Put that book down without looking into it!’

Den Dikken (1992) motivates the following analysis: (10)

a. b. c.

The right-peripheral DP is base generated; An empty operator associated with the right-peripheral DP undergoes A’-movement; The landing site for the empty operator is available only in imperatives.

Den Dikken establishes that the right-peripheral object construction shares properties with empty operator constructions. Thus, it can only correspond to an accusative DP, in support of (10b). These shared properties are to be attributed to restrictions on the type of A’-moved element, in particular on empty operators. (10c), a relatively minor point in Den Dikken’s paper, implies that right-peripheral objects are restricted to imperatives: the landing site for the empty operator is provided by a clausal head that only occurs in imperatives. Den Dikken’s analysis raises the following questions: is the right-peripheral DP indeed base generated,

Topics in imperatives 

i.e. merged in its surface position? What element undergoes A’- movement and is (10c) indeed justified? In this paper I will show that right-peripheral DPs distribute extacly like rightdislocated DPs associated with a fronted D-pronoun, and that the empty operator behaves like a dropped D-word (i.e. topic drop), with topic drop forced in imperatives. Right-peripheral DPs show characteristic properties of movement (Section 2.4), hence their derivation involves movement. Assuming, following Kayne (1994), that only leftward movement is available implies a derivation that involves at least leftward movement of a DP to a designated Topic position, followed by fronting of the (remnant) constituent containing the imperative verb to some higher position, as shown in (11). This raises questions about the finer structure of the left periphery, which will be further addressed in Section 4. (11)

XP YPimp X

TopicP

Vimp DPi DPi

.

YPimp

Right dislocation and topic drop

Dutch has at least two types of right dislocation constructions, one in which the dislocated constituent is related to a regular clause-internal personal pronoun, (12a), and one in which it is related to a demonstrative pronoun, henceforth a D-pronoun3. D-pronouns can occur in the left periphery or within the clause, (12b, c). Right-dislocated DPs have a typical destressed (i.e. low toned) intonation,

. Left dislocation with D-pronouns mirrors (12b) and (12c), suggesting that right and left dislocation are in some ways related. However since right dislocation is more restricted (the right-dislocated DP cannot correspond to a bare dative DP or to a stranded P), left dislocation will not be discussed further. (i)

Left dislocation with a left-peripheral D-pronoun: a. Dat boekjei dati leg ik even neer. that book that put I ADV down ‘That book, I am just putting it down now.’ Left dislocation with a clause-internal D-pronoun: b. Dat boekjei ik leg dati even neer. that book I put that ADV down

 Hilda Koopman

associated with backgrounded material. This intonation also holds for rightperipheral objects in imperatives. (12)

Right dislocation with a resumptive personal pronoun: a. Ik leg ‘ti even neer (,) dat boekjei I put it ADV down that book ‘I’m just putting it down, that book.’ Right dislocation with a left-peripheral D pronoun: b. Dati leg ik even neer (,) dat boekjei that put I ADV down that book Right dislocation with a clause-internal D-pronoun: c. Ik leg dati even neer (,) dat boekjei I put that ADV down that book ‘I’m just putting that down, that book.’

The right-peripheral constituent can be preceded by a pause or not. I will take the relevant generalisation to be that no pause is necessary when the right-peripheral DP immediately follows the element receiving main sentence stress as in (12a), and that this holds for both declaratives and imperatives. Pauses are necessary (or strongly) preferred after unstressed material, as in the following example (main stress on the particle, the participle carries no stress). Clause typing prosody precedes the right-dislocated DP which carries the typical low tones associated with backgrounded material: (13)

Ik heb dat even néergelegd, dat boekje. I have that ADV down-put that book

A question that arises is if right dislocation with and without comma intonation behave otherwise in an identical fashion. I will not address this issue in this paper. Right-dislocated constituents are always definite, and quantified right-dislocated DPs are excluded, a characteristic property of topics. Furthermore, there is a very strong preference for right-dislocated elements to contain a demonstrative determiner (dit ‘this’, dat ‘that’, deze ‘these’, die ‘those’). I take this to reflect a form of D-agreement between the D-pronoun and the right-dislocated DP. (14)

a. b. c.

Dat leg ik even neer dat/?*het/*elk/?*een boekje. that put I ADV down that/the/each/a book Dat leg ik even neer ??Jan’s boekje/dat boekje van Jan. that put I ADV down John’s book/ that book of John’s Die leg ik even neer (??al) deze/?*de boekjes. those put I ADV down (all) those/the books

There are, however, restrictions on right-dislocated DPs that do not hold for left-dislocated DPs. In particular, there are restrictions on datives related to silent D-pronouns and right-dislocated DPs cannot be related to stranded Ps (see 2.1 and 2.2). Right dislocation shares this property with English Heavy NP shift.

Topics in imperatives 

In addition, stranded Ps must be “doubled” with right-dislocated PPs. As we will see, this property does not appear to be related to any specific property of Dutch, but may hold quite generally cross-linguistically (oblique pronouns are doubled with right-dislocated PPs) (see 2.2).

.

The distribution of right-peripheral objects

Let us systematically compare right-dislocated DPs and topic drop in declaratives and imperatives. Right-peripheral DP objects receive characteristic backgrounded intonation; as stated above, they like to start with a demonstrative and cannot be quantified. (15)

a. b.

Dat leg ik even neer, dat boekje. that put I ADV down that book Leg ik wel even neer, dat boekje. put I ADV ADV down that book ‘I will just put it down, that book.’

(15b) yields a clear case of a right-peripheral object in a declarative, through the interaction of right dislocation and topic drop. I claim that this is also the source for right-peripheral objects in imperatives (see also Barbiers, this volume). In Dutch imperatives, the left and right peripheries pattern as follows: (16)

Left periphery in imperatives: a. *Dat boekje dat leg neer! that book that put down b. *Dat leg even neer! that put ADV down c. Leg even neer! put ADV down ‘Just put it down!’

(17)

Combining left and right periphery: a. *Dat leg even neer dat boekje! that put ADV down that book b. Leg even neer dat boekje! put ADV down that book

Imperative CPs thus differ from (root) declaratives as follows: (18)

a. b. c.

Imperatives do not tolerate an overt topic in the left periphery, (16a). Imperatives do not tolerate an overt D-pronoun in the left periphery, (16b). Imperatives allow topic drop, (16c).

 Hilda Koopman

(18b) and (18c) together yield the following descriptive generalisation, which will be attributed to a generalised doubly filled C effect in Section 3: (19)

A left-peripheral topic must be dropped in imperatives.

The imperatives discussed thus far are finite covert subject imperatives, with V movement of the imperative verb form into the left periphery. Dutch also has overt subject imperatives (see Bennis, this volume), and, at first blush, these seem to behave differently from covert subject imperatives. In imperatives with an overt pronominal subject right-peripheral objects sometimes are excluded, and initial D-topics seem to be allowed: (20)

a. *Leg jij neer dat boekje! (Koopman 1997) Put you down that book b. Dat boekje leg jij neer. that book put you down

However, there are legitimate cases of right-peripheral objects in overt subject imperatives like (20a). In addition there is independent evidence that (20b) should not be analysed as an imperative, but as a declarative used with imperative force. Adding an adverb or a string of adverbs to the ill-formed (20a) renders it quite acceptable: (21)

a. *Leg jij neer dat boekje! (=(20a)) put you down that book b. Leg jij maar eens even neer dat boekje! put you ADV ADV ADV down that book.

The ungrammaticality of (21a) is therefore unrelated to the exclusion of peripheral objects in imperatives, but related to the expression of the addressee, which must be a stressed second person pronoun (Bennis, this volume). This suggests that there is not enough derivational “space” for the overt addressee in (21a): adding adverbs creates an additional layer of structure, allowing the subject to move out of vP, and creating the derivational space to express the addressee (see Barbiers, this volume, for an interesting suggestion along these lines). Since the verbal forms in imperatives and declaratives with verb-subject order are identical, (21b) could in fact be a analysed as a declarative with topic drop. There are two arguments that show that (21b) is a genuine imperative construction and not a declarative disguised as an imperative. First, the second person pronoun in (21b) cannot be reduced: (22)

Leg jij /*je maar eens even neer dat boekje! put you ADV ADV ADV down that book

This is a general characteristic of imperatives, as Bennis (this volume) shows.

Topics in imperatives 

Secondly, the only unambiguously imperative verb form in Dutch can occur in this context (with backgrounded intonation on the PP).4 (23)

Wees/*ben jij (d’r) maar mee tevreden met dat leven van jou! be.IMP/are you (there) ADV with content with that life of yours ‘You just be happy with your life!’

Therefore right-peripheral objects are in principle possible in overt subject imperatives: the interesting contrast between (21a) and (21b) should follow from the interplay of conditions that license the overt pronominal addressee, rightdislocated DPs, and licensing of the imperative verb form. Let us next focus on the question if (20b) is an imperative with a left-peripheral topic. If this was indeed an imperative, overt subject imperatives would differ from covert subject imperatives in allowing an overt topic in the left periphery. Distributional evidence concerning the overt pronominal subject and imperative verb forms shows that this type of example is in fact a declarative used with imperative force. Thus, the overt pronominal subject can be stressed or reduced, as in declaratives, and unlike imperatives. (24)

Dat boekje leg jij/je nu neer. that book put you/you now down

Other personal pronouns can also be used in this context, with no appreciable difference in meaning: (25)

Dat boekje legt hij nu neer. that book puts he now down ‘He should put that book down now.’

And finally, in the presence of an overt left-peripheral topic, an unambiguously imperative verb form is excluded, as shown in (26a). This contrasts with the possibility of topic drop, which yields much better results, as (26b) shows: (26)

a.

b.

Daar ben/*wees jij maar tevreden mee. there are/*be. you ADV content with ‘You have to be satisfied with that.’ (?) Wees jij maar tevreden mee! be. you ADV content with ‘You just be satisfied with it!’

I conclude, therefore, that all clauses in Dutch that contain an imperative verb form disallow an overt topic, but allow topic drop, as stated in (19). If right-peripheral objects are to be analysed as right-dislocated DPs with a dropped associated D-pronoun, right dislocation should be independently possible in imperatives. This is indeed the case, as (27) shows. . For many speakers, D-drop of an oblique r-pronoun is degraded, and seems to belong to an even less formal speech register than dropping accusative D-pronouns.

 Hilda Koopman

(27)

Leg dat /’t neer dat boekje! put that/it down that book ‘Put it/that down, that book!’

These data can be replicated for the full range of accusative-marked DPs, i.e. subjects of intransitive small clauses and direct objects (den Dikken 1992). In many of the examples below, additional adverbs or string of adverbs render the sentences more natural, though harder to translate into English. (28)

a.

b.

(29)

a.

b.

(Dat) laat ik zinken, dat bootje. (that) let I sink that boat ‘I let it sink, that boat.’ Laat maar zinken, dat bootje! let. ADV sink that boat ‘Let it sink, that boat!’ (Die) laat ik rennen, die hond (that) let I run that dog ‘I let it run, that dog.’ Laat maar rennen, die hond! let. ADV run that dog ‘Let it run, that dog!’

In sum, it can be maintained so far that the right-peripheral object arises from right dislocation, in conjunction with obligatory topic drop in imperatives. Other clause types should also allow for right-peripheral objects, as long as the general properties of right dislocation and topic drop are met. The ungrammaticality of the examples in (8), repeated here for convenience as (30), follows from failure of topic drop. The silent D-pronoun cannot be analysed as being in the left periphery, since some other element is occupying the position to the left of the verb. Topic drop requires superficial verb first. (30)

a. *Ik leg nu neer dat boekje. I put now down that book ‘I now put down that book.’ b. *Nu leg ik neer dat boekje. now put I down that book c. *Wie legt neer dat boekje? who puts down that book ‘Who puts it down, that book?’

Restrictions on right-peripheral objects should be explainable in terms of general restrictions, either by general properties of right dislocation or by properties of topic drop. Differences between clause types should be explainable in terms of restrictions on the particular projections involved in the clause types in question, in particular the projections specific to imperative force.

Topics in imperatives 

.

Indirect objects

Den Dikken (1992) notes that the right-peripheral object in imperatives cannot be related to an indirect object DP, and uses this to motivate the empty operator analysis. (31)

?*Stuur

maar eens even een briefje op (die jongen)! send. ADV sometime ADV a letter up (that boy) ‘Just send that boy a letter!’

It is again useful to compare this example with topic drop in declaratives. (32)

?*Stuur

ik even een briefje op (die jongen). send I ADV a letter up (that boy) ‘I will just send that boy a letter.’

The comparative judgments here are important: some speakers find a contrast between imperative and declaratives, with imperatives less acceptable than declaratives, others don’t. This judgment can be attributed to the possibility of extreme phonological reduction of the D-pronoun in declaratives. Since imperatives never tolerate an overt left-peripheral D-pronoun or topic, there is simply nothing to reduce. Examples of the two types of right dislocation yield comparable results, showing the problem lies with right-dislocating a bare DP that corresponds to a dative, not with the fronted overt dative D-pronoun, or topic drop of a dative D-pronoun. (33)

.

a.

Die jongen die stuur ik wel even een briefje op. that boy that send I ADV ADV a letter up ‘I will just send that boy a letter.’ b. *?Die stuur ik wel even een briefje op die jongen. that send I ADV ADV a letter up that boy ‘I will just send him a letter, that boy.’ c. *?Ik stuur ‘m wel even een briefje op, die jongen. I send him ADV ADV a letter up that boy ‘I will just send him a letter, that boy.’

P-stranding

As is well-known, Dutch allows for limited instances of P-stranding (van Riemsdijk 1978, Koopman 2000, among others). But right-peripheral objects in imperatives are totally excluded with stranded Ps. The P must instead be “doubled”. Here again, there is a left-right asymmetry: right-peripheral DPs are more restricted in what they can correspond to than left-peripheral DPs:5

.

Judgments on (34c) vary, from degraded for some speakers to fine for others.

 Hilda Koopman

(34)

a.

b.

c.

Dat probleem daar denk ik wel eens over na. that problem there think I ADV ADV about PRT ‘That problem, I do think about it from time to time.’ Daar denk ik wel eens over na. there think I ADV ADV about PRT ‘I do think about that from time to time.’ Denk ik wel eens over na. think I ADV ADV about PRT ‘I do think about that from time to time.’

(35)

a. *Daar denk ik wel eens over na, dat probleem. there think I ADV ADV about PRT that problem ‘I do think about that from time to time, about that problem.’ b. *Denk ik wel eens over na, dat probleem. think I ADV ADV about PRT that problem ‘I do think about that from time to time, about that problem.’

(36)

a.

b.

Ik denk daar/er wel eens over na, over dat probleem. I think there/there ADV ADV about PRT about that problem ‘I do think about that from time to time, about that problem.’ (Daar) denk ik wel eens over na, over dat probleem. (there) think I ADV ADV about PRT about that problem ‘I do think about that from time to time, about that problem.’

The ungrammaticality of the sentences in (35) is not due to a problem with the left periphery: a fronted +D, +R pronoun may appear overtly, as in (34b), or may be dropped (34c). The culprit therefore is the right-peripheral topic constituent. Indeed, a right-peripheral DP cannot be associated with a resumptive r-pronoun, whether this is a D-type r-pronoun (35), or a regular r-pronoun (den Dikken 1992): (37)

*Ik denk daar/er wel eens over na, dat probleem. I think there/there ADV ADV about PRT that problem ‘I do think about that from time to time, about that problem.’

Whatever the ultimate explanation, it is clear that right-peripheral DPs associated with stranded Ps should be impossible in imperatives as well, since this is a general property of right dislocation. In sum, then, restrictions on right dislocation conspire to yield only accusative DPs as fully acceptable right-dislocated DPs. However, full PPs (or even VPs or CPs6) are fine in the right-dislocated position.7 It is worth noting that this .

Full VPs are allowed as right-dislocated constituents: (i)

Doe maar even, dat boekje op tafel leggen! do ADV ADV that book on table put ‘Just do that now, putting the book on the table!’

Topics in imperatives 

restriction holds more widely cross-linguistically, as illustrated for French and English below: (38)

a.

b.

(39)

a.

(40)

a.

Ce livre, je l’ai lu hier. this book I it-have read yesterday ‘This book I read it yesterday.’ Je l’ai lu hier, ce livre. I it-have read yesterday this book ‘I read it yesterday, this book.’

Paris, j’y vais souvent. Paris I-there go often ‘Paris, I go there often.’ b. *J’y vais souvent, Paris. I-there go often Paris ‘*I go there often, Paris.’ c. J’y vais souvent à Paris. I-there go often to Paris ‘I go there often, to Paris.’ Jean, je lui ai donné ce livre. Jean I him have given this book ‘Jean, I gave him this book.’ b. *Je lui ai donné ce livre Jean. I him have given this book Jean ‘*I gave him this book, Jean.’ c. Je lui ai donné ce livre à Jean I him have given this book to Jean ‘*I gave him this book, to Jean.’

The distribution of the right-dislocated objects closely parallels that of heavy NP shifted objects: Heavy NP shift affects accusative DPs only, indirect objects

As are full infinitivals: (ii)

Probeer maar even, om dat boekje op te pakken! try ADV ADV COMP that book up to pick ‘Just try that now, picking that book up!’

Remnant IPs or VPs are excluded (iii, iv): (iii) (iv)

*Probeer dat boekjei maar, [e]i op te pakken! try that book ADV up to pick *Laat Jan de kamer maar maken [[e] [schoon [e]]! let John the room ADV make clean

. If bare dative DPs and “bare” locative DPs are analyzed as “incomplete” phases, the generalisation is that only full phases can be right-peripheral topics (see Koopman 2002 for an analysis along these lines).

 Hilda Koopman

cannot be shifted, Ps cannot be stranded, and heavy NP shift licenses parasitic gaps.8 The major difference concerns the interpretation: heavy NP shift involves Focus on the shifted DP (as well as “heaviness”), while right-peripheral objects in Dutch are interpreted as backgrounded topics. This suggest that these restrictions might have a common source. .

Some remarks on right-peripheral objects in imperatives cross-linguistically

Den Dikken (1992) assumes that the empty operator (i.e. the silent D-pronoun) lands in a specific landing site which is available only in imperatives. In contrast, I have so far argued that right-peripheral objects are not special to imperatives. Their distribution reduces to the general properties of right dislocation and topic drop. Den Dikken’s proposal predicts that we should find silent objects in imperatives with right-dislocated base-generated DPs in languages that do not allow for topic drop in general. My proposal predicts that right-peripheral objects should be available cross-linguistically if a language allows for both right dislocation (or topics to the right) and topic (or clitic) drop. Although I am unaware of any systematic typological study on topics in imperatives, the languages I am familiar with impressionistically support the right dislocation/right topics and topic drop correlation. Thus, for example, neither English nor French allow topic drop, and imperatives do not allow for backgrounded right-peripheral objects.9 (41)

French: Met *(le) sur la table, ce livre! English: Put *(it) on the table, that book!

There seems to be a cross-linguistic correlation between right dislocation/right topics and topic drop. German, for example, allows right dislocation and topic drop independently, and allows right-peripheral DPs as well. (42)

a.

b.

(Das) gib mal her! (that) give. ADV to.speaker ‘Give that to me!’ (Das) gib mal her, das Buch! (that) give. ADV to.speaker, that book ‘Give that to me, that book!’

Malagasy, an Austronesian language spoken in Madagascar, is a topic-on-the-right and topic-drop language (Pearson 2001), with voice morphology indicating which

. But heavy NP shift cannot double P: *John talked to yesterday to his uncle from New York. Note that pseudo-clefts accept P-doubling more readily: what John talked about during his flight, was about his book. .

Unless of course the verb itself allows for object drop independently.

Topics in imperatives 

constituent has escaped from the vP/VP domain. Malagasy allows right-peripheral topics in imperatives, as well as topic drop (TT refers to theme topic voice, sometimes called passive voice, maN represents the active voice form, AT, often referred to as Actor Voice; see Koopman 2005 on Malagasy imperatives): (43)

a.

b.

c.

[vakio [e]i] [TOP (ny buky)i]] read.. (the book) ‘Read the book/it!’ Mamakia buky. maN.read. book ‘Read a book!’ Mamakia. maN.read. ‘Read!’

(43c) cannot be interpreted as an imperative with topic drop: in this voice form, objects cannot be topics. This pattern of course fits perfectly with the correlation I have expressed. .

Movement versus base generation: reconstruction

We have seen that the occurrence of right-peripheral objects in a language is linked to the occurrence of right dislocation and topic drop. This fact is unexpected under den Dikken’s (1992) analysis. However, the other ingredients of Den Dikken’s analysis may very well be compatible with the results so far: base generation of the right-peripheral DP, and movement of an empty operator, a silent D-pronoun, targeting the left periphery. Nevertheless, I will next present an argument against base generation of the right-peripheral DP, based on reconstruction. In order to determine if right dislocation should be analysed in terms of movement (i.e. low merger) or base generation (i.e. high merger), we should consider what diagnostic test distinguishes between these. Given the copy theory of movement, reconstruction constitutes a powerful diagnostic for movement. Sportiche (1997) argues that reconstruction is not only a defining property of movement, but in fact the only reliable diagnostic for movement. .. Against base generation of right-peripheral DP in a high position The right-peripheral DP reconstructs within the clause, and behaves in this respect like Cinque’s (1977) clitic left-dislocation construction. (44)

Anaphor binding: a. Geef de kindereni eens gauw terug, die fotos van elkaari give the children ADV quickly back those pictures of each-other b. Laat de kindereni maar vertellen, dat verhaal over hunzelfi let the children ADV tell that story about themselves

 Hilda Koopman

While anaphor binding might receive an alternative explanation, it is more revealing that Condition C effects show up with right-peripheral objects: (45)

Condition C effects a. *Geef hemi maar terug, die fotos van Jani give him ADV back these pictures of John b. *Laat hemi maar vertellen, dat verhaal over Jani let him ADV tell that story about John

These reconstruction effects argue against base generation of the DP in a high right-peripheral position. As expected, right dislocation with a fronted D-pronoun shows the same effect: (46)

Anaphor binding: a. Die geef ik de kindereni maar gauw terug, die fotos van elkaari those give I the children ADV quickly back these pictures of each-other ‘I will just give them back quickly to the children, those pictures of each other.’ b. Die laat ik de kindereni maar zelf inplakken, die fotos van hunzelfi these let I the children ADV self paste those pictures of themselves ‘I will just let the children paste them in themselves, those pictures of each other.’

(47)

Condition C effects *Dat laat ik hemi maar zelf vertellen, dat verhaal over Janj that let I him ADV self tell that story about John

Right dislocation behaves in this respect like one type of left dislocation in Dutch and German that shows reconstruction effects (van Haaften, Smits and Vat 1978, Anagnostopoulou, van Riemsdijk and Zwarts 1977, Grohmann 2000), strengthening the fundamental similarity between the constructions.10

. Den Dikken (1992) argues against movement on the basis of the fact that the moved object does not alter pronominal binding relations: a quantified direct object in right-peripheral position cannot bind into an indirect object DP. However, quantified objects in Dutch never appear to be able to create a binding configuration into a DP indirect object, nor can a quantifier be stranded before an indirect object. This suggests movement of the accusative DP never passes through an A-position higher than an indirect object. (i)

a.

b.

c.

*Stuur al die fotosi huni eigenaren op! send all those pictures their owners up ‘Send all those pictures to their owners!’ *Al die fotosi die stuur je huni eigenaren op. all those pictures those send you their owners up ‘All those pictures, you should send to their owners.’ *Die fotos die stuur je (*?allemaal) hun eigenaren (allemaal) op. those pictures those send you (all) their owners (all) up

Topics in imperatives 

.. Movement or in-situ The examples so far show that the right-peripheral object is c-commanded by the dative object at some point in the derivation. (48)

Right-dislocated objects are c-commanded by the dative object at some point in the derivation.

Reconstruction thus points to a movement derivation for right dislocation. This would follow if the right-dislocated object is simply always lower than the first object in double object constructions, either because it is in-situ (merged low and unmoved), as in Kayne’s (1994) proposal for Heavy NP shift and Right dislocation, or because its landing site is lower than the position where the dative object is merged into the structure, as in Cecchetto (1999). If this is true, the landing site of the right-peripheral DP could be a topic position in a lower left periphery, as proposed for right dislocation in Italian by Cecchetto (1999). (49)

Top AgrS ……Top AgrIO….TOP AgrOP

In order to establish that movement is indeed involved in the derivation of right dislocation, it must therefore be shown that the right-peripheral object ends up higher than the IO or the subject. There are two arguments that right-dislocated DPs in Dutch are not in a complement position (i.e. they are not in-situ). The first argument is a phonological argument. Right-dislocated DPs carry their own characteristic intonation, and are set apart from the preceding clause11. Right-peripheral constituents are preceded by an intonational contour associated with the right bracket of the clause. This suggests that the DP is preceded by the right bracket of the clause, and is in a designated projection that provides the configuration for the interpretation and intonation, as shown in (50) where ImpP provides the right boundary tone: (50)

[ImpP geef de kindereni [e]j eens gauw terug] ! [die fotos van elkaari]j give.IMP the children ADV quickly back those pictures of each other

The second argument is based on Condition C effects with adjuncts. It is a wellknown, though poorly understood, fact that names in adjuncts may fail to reconstruct. Consider now the contrast between (51) and (52). (51)

a. *Lees hemi [dat verhaal uit Jani’s dagboek] maar voor! read him that story from John’s diary ADV PRT ‘Read him out that story from John’s diary!’ b. *Laat hemi [dat verhaal uit Jani’s dagboek] maar voorlezen! let him that story from John’s diary ADV PRT-read ‘Let him read out that story from John’s diary!’

. If the clause ends in main stress (H tone), the low-toned backgrounded object can follow immediately; if the clause ends in a low tone, a pause seems to be necessary.

 Hilda Koopman

(52)

a. b.

Lees hemi (dat) maar voor, dat verhaal uit Jani’s dagboek! read him (that) ADV PRT that story from John’s diary Laat hemi (dat) maar voorlezen, dat verhaal uit Jani’s dagboek! let him (that) ADV PRT-read that story from John’s diary

If right-dislocated DPs were in a low complement position, they should behave like (51) for Condition C effects. However, coreference seems possible, demonstrating that the DP that contains them is in a high position, with late merger of the adjunct in a position higher than the dative antecedent. .. How high is the right-peripheral DP? Starting with Sportiche (1994) and Hallman (1997), the idea has gained ground that a clause consists of a series of clauses, each with their left periphery. In particular, Cecchetto (1999) has proposed that right-dislocated DPs in Italian are in a lower left periphery, i.e. a Topic position on top of AgrO, but lower than AgrS. The following examples, tailored after Cecchetto’s example (7), show that the rightperipheral object with fronted D-pronoun is related to the high left periphery (i.e. higher than the subject):12 (53)

a.

b.

c.

Die aankondiging die Jani naar de krant gestuurd had, that announcement that John to the paper sent had die ontkende hiji al na een paar uur. that denied he already after a couple hours ‘The announcement that John had sent to the paper, he denied (it) already after a couple of hours.’ Die ontkende hiji al na een paar uur, that denied he already after a couple hours die aankondiging die Jani naar de krant gestuurd had. that announcement that John to the paper sent had ‘He denied that already after a couple of hours, that announcement that John had sent to the paper.’ Heeft hiji al na een paar uur ontkend, has he already after a couple of hours denied die aankondiging die Jani naar de krant gestuurd had. that announcement that John to the paper sent had ‘He denied it already after a couple of hours, that announcement that John had sent to the paper.’

The availability of coreference in (53b and c) establishes that the right-dislocated object with a fronted D-pronoun behaves like a left-dislocated object, and hence can be assumed to have moved to a position in the high left periphery.13 .

Of the six native speakers of Dutch that I consulted, one rejected (53b) and (53c).

. There is an intriguing difference between Dutch (53b) and corresponding sentences in Italian. In Italian, where the right-dislocated DP is resumed by a clitic pronoun, the relevant

Topics in imperatives 

In conclusion, then, reconstruction of anaphors and names argues for a movement analysis, and late merger of names in adjuncts shows that right-dislocated DPs may occupy a high position in the left periphery. Assuming only leftward movement, with Kayne (1994), requires at the very least leftward movement of the DP to an A’-landing site, followed by leftward movement of a remnant constituent containing the imperative verb, ImpP, to some projection in the left periphery, as in (54). XP

(54) ImpP/FinP V…. [e]i

TopP DPi

In order to make this analysis specific, it now becomes important to map out the left periphery in Dutch, so that we can gain some understanding of the properties of right dislocation and the relation between left and right dislocation. The following questions will be addressed: (55)

a.

b. c. d. e.

Given Rizzi’s (1997) left periphery consisting of Force (clause type), Topic*, Int, Focus, Topic*, Fin (finiteness of the IP), how can the cooccurrence restrictions on the left periphery be captured? What is the difference between imperatives and declarative root clauses? What is the landing site for ImpP in (54 )? How to analyse topic drop; why is topic drop obligatory in imperatives? How to account for the difference between German and Dutch with respect to initial topics in imperatives?

interpretation is unavailable, as the following example from Cecchetto’s shows (Cecchetto 1999: 8): (i)

*pro1 lo smentì dopo poche ore, l’annuncio che John1 diede alla stampa. ‘He denied it after a few hours, the announcement that John gave to the press.’

Note that the parallel dislocation construction in Dutch, with a personal pronoun rather than a D-pronoun, seems to yield the Italian judgment: (ii)

*Hiji ontkende ‘m al na een paar uur, de aankondiging die Jani aan de krant gestuurd had. ‘He denied it already after a couple of hours, that announcement that John had sent to the paper.

This strongly suggest that D-dislocation and pronominal dislocation do not distribute in the same way, with the right-dislocated element targeting different left peripheries.

 Hilda Koopman

.

The left periphery

Imperatives and (root) declaratives are two different clause types, hence involve two different instantiations of Force: imperative force (Forceimp) and declarative force (Forcedecl). In both clause types the verb moves into the left periphery, at least as high as FinP, or to a projection able to host the imperative, which I have called ImpP. A logical candidate for the location of this projection is Rizzi’s Int(errogative) which is related to clause type, rather than FinP which seems related to Finiteness. Suppose, in the spirit of Kayne (1998), that Force always attracts some designated constituent with overt material (following Koopman 1996, 2000, Koopman and Szabolcsi 2000). More specifically, let us assume that the Force head needs to be “typed” as imperative or declarative and this is achieved by moving a constituent with the relevant property to Force. Imperative Force and declarative Force attract a clausal constituent containing the V, say at least FinP (in declaratives) or ImpP (in imperatives):14 (56)

Force attracts FinP in declaratives; Force attracts ImpP in imperatives.

If Force determines the intonational contour, clausal pied-piping will capture transparently that this intonation contour precedes the backgrounded topic. The difference between imperatives and declaratives can now be expressed as a difference in pied-piping, i.e. the conditions under which Force can be typed as declarative or as imperative. The following subsections spell out the configurations, with specific focus on the left periphery of imperatives. .

Imperative Force

Forceimp attracts ImpP containing the imperative verb. Thus the following representation is part of the native speakers ‘knowledge’ of Dutch imperatives: (57)

Vimp must occur in the following configuration to type Force : ForcePimp XP Forceimp [XVimp]

The imperative Force head must find the imperative verb within the highest projection attracted to its Spec, a canonical agreement configuration. This configuration collapses the two “good” surface configurations: regular imperatives with V-to-Imp . This labeling is consistent with Platzack and Rosengren (1998), who argue that imperatives lack FinP, making Fin unavailable as a landing site for imperative verb forms.

Topics in imperatives 

movement, followed by ImpP-to-ForceP movement, (58), and imperatives with topic drop, i.e. with V-to-Imp-to-Top movement, followed by TopP to Forceimp (59): (58)

V–to-Imp followed by ImpP-to-Forceimp ForcePimp ImpP

[XVimp]

(59)

V-to-Imp-to-Top movement, followed by Top-to-Forceimp ForcePimp TopP proi [[Vimp]e]

ImpP

[Vimp]

The representation in (59) presupposes an analysis of topic drop that relies on V movement to the Top projection, a natural way of expressing the fact that topic drop depends on V raising into the left periphery. This is furthermore in accordance with the proposal in Koopman (1996) and Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000) that each projection must be associated with overt material at some point in the derivation. However, overt material in both Spec and head at spell-out is impossible because of the inviolable doubly filled C filter, which I have argued should be derived from an impossibility to linearise this structure as it does not yield asymmetric c-command (see Koopman 1996). Contexts in which specifier drop (prodrop) or head drop occur, then, are exactly those contexts in which the projection contains overt material, either in the head position or the Spec position (as shown in (60 a,b), overt material in boldface). (60)

a. pro-drop: [XP pro [X Y b. head drop: [XP WP [X Y [ c. *[XP WP [X Y [

In Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000), we discuss how head adjunction of an overt head to another overt head is excluded in the same way. The only allowable cases of head movement, if any, would be head adjunction of a ph-overt (i.e. phonologically overt) head to a silent head, head movement of a silent head to a ph-overt head, or head movement of a silent head to a silent head, provided some other

 Hilda Koopman

material activates the projection in the course of the derivation: (61)

Head adjunction a. [y [x]] b. [y [ x]] c. *[y [x]] d. [y[x]]

Topic drop, then, is an instance of either the configuration in (60a) or (61b). The topic projection is activated by the overt verb: the topic can be silent, precisely because V is in the topic projection. The generalised doubly filled C filter also captures the fact that imperatives cannot cooccur with an overt topic to their left. Indeed, if overt material spells out SpecTopP or the Top head position (as the d-word does perhaps), the verb is kept lower than the Topic position. An overt topic in the left periphery therefore always results in a violation of the filter on Force (see (57)): the imperative verb will be too deeply embedded and is not found in the ‘search space’ of the imperative Force. (62)

ForcePimp TopP Forceimp dat [D] (dat)

ImpP

An overt imperative verb form is too deeply embedded to satisfy Forceimp Imp Vimp

The generalised doubly filled C filter captures the verb-first property of imperatives: if V must be in the highest projection, the Spec of that projection cannot host any overt material. This is a nice result, since it makes the appeal to a silent operator for the verb-first effect unnecessary. The verb-first property of imperatives can now be seen to follow from conditions under which Force can be “typed”: Force demands the presence of the phonologically overt imperative verb in the highest projection that raises to Spec, Force. Projections in the left periphery may be present, as long as V can reach them on its own, or is in a constituent that can move around them yielding rightperipheral objects. Thus the “heavy” left peripheries below are ruled out, even though they are in principle available: (63)

*Top Vimp *Top Top Top Vimp *Foc Vimp etc

ImpP pied-piping TopP violates (57) left-peripheral topic recursion is blocked by (57) left-peripheral focus violates (57)

Topics in imperatives 

The filter does not block derivations with the constituent attracted to Force moving around eventually right-peripheral topics, presumably through an intermediate projection which inverts figure and ground, backgrounding the right-peripheral topic, as sketched in the previous version of this paper,15 and represented below (intermediate projections omitted for simplicity): (64)

ForceP ImpP

XP ImpP

TopPbackground DP

ImpP

Note that clause typing cares about finding the imperative verb in the highest projection, not about the location of any particular phrase, say, ImpP. Vimp/fin can move to Top, as we have already seen. Consider now a heavy left periphery consisting of Force, Top, Focus, Top, and Fin. If the verb moves to the low Top, and V pied-pipes the series of projections to Force, the filter on Force will invariably be violated. But what if V reaches the higher Top? Subsequent movement of the constituent containing the imperative V to Force would satisfy the filter, since Force finds the imperative verb in the highest projection. This type of derivation predicts the grammaticality of the following surface strings: (65)

Linear orders:

a. b. c. d.

Vimp Focus [IP] Vimp Topic [IP] Vimp Topic Focus [IP] Vimp Focus Topic [IP] etc.

With proper manipulation of intonation, some of these strings seem indeed quite acceptable (for subjectless imperatives, weak pronouns mark the left boundary of the IP): (66)

a.

b.

(?) Geef déze boeken [‘m maar gauw kado]! give these books him ADV quickly present ‘Quickly give him these books as a present!’ (?) Geef NU [‘m deze boeken maar gauw kado]! give now him these books ADV quickly present

. See in particular Poletto and Pollock (2004) for GroundP as the landing site of a remnant IP in Romance.

 Hilda Koopman

c. d.

(*) Geef déze boeken NU [‘m maar gauw kado]! (*) Geef NU deze boeken [‘m maar gauw kado]!

These data suggest that the imperative V can get around a high Focus, i.e. there must be a position in the left periphery higher than the low Topic or Focus projection that can attract an imperative verb. At this point, it could be that the imperative verb raises to Force, or that there is a clause-typing position lower than Force but higher than Focus or Topic. A natural candidate for this position is the position where Rizzi locates Int in Italian, a proposal which I will tentatively adopt. Such a high position of the imperative verb will also explain why an overt 2nd person pronoun addressee can immediately follow the imperative (the focus/topic field are lower than Imp) yielding overt subject imperatives. Why this addressee cannot be a non-pronominal DP remains unexplained. Further work is required. .

Dutch versus German

German, in contrast with Dutch, does allow for overt topics in the left periphery of imperatives. This can be captured by a slightly less restrictive typing of imperative Force in German, which allows typing under pied piping: (67)

ImpP can type Force under pied-piping of Top: ForcePimp TopP

ImpP

Fin Vimp

This filter allows verb first imperatives, imperatives with topic drop, and in addition, it allows a single overt Top preceding the imperative verb. Note that it seems that the fronted constituent in German can be interpreted either as a contrastive topic or a topic, but not as a focus. This is suggested by the fact that the fronted constituent does not seem to be compatible with focus accent (H*L) (Daniel Büring, p.c.). (68)

(I don’t want that record. You remember that book I gave you?) a. ??DAS gib mal zurück! that give.IMP ADV back ‘Give me back THAT!’ b. Gib mir DAS zurück! give me that back

Topics in imperatives 

The left periphery of imperatives differs in this respect from the left periphery in declaratives. This raises the further question why (surface) left-peripheral focus is not available in German imperatives. If the imperative verb is in fact in the same position as Italian se ‘if ’, which can only be preceded by a topic, this distribution would fall out straightforwardly. This then is the analysis that I tentatively will adopt for Dutch and German. Rizzi’s (2001) Int can be seen as an instantiation of a universal clause-typing projection, where clause-typing elements can be expected to occur cross-linguistically. (69)

Force Top* Int/Imp/(Decl/..) FocP TopP FinP .. Vimp

Thus, German imperative verbs can cooccur with a left-peripheral topic, or with a topic which has moved through Focus first (i.e. a contrastive topic), but never with a left-peripheral focus. At the same time this analysis predicts that some left-peripheral material can surface on the right of the imperative verb, and precede IP. (70)

Force (Top) Imp (Focus) Top …

These predictions may indeed be supported, as the imperative verb can be followed by a focus, or by an overt addressee, but remain to be more systematically explored in future research. .

Declarative Force

Root declaratives minimally require one of the following in front of the finite verb: an overt (or covert) topic, a focus, a subject, a weak nominative pronoun or an adjunct, and maximally tolerate a preceding overt topic and an overt resumptive D-pronoun. These configurations can be restated in an expanded left periphery framework, with FinP pied-piping one segment to Decl, possibly being in the same position as Int/Imp, and DeclP typing Force, possibly pied-piping a higher Topic projection: (71)

FinPfin must appear in the following root configuration: DeclP XP Decl X

FinP

Vf

 Hilda Koopman

FinP must be once embedded and the finite verb needs to appear somewhere within this configuration, either in Fin or in X (thus allowing topic drop). Note that at this point, this configuration is a restatement of the traditional verb-second filter. The difference between the left periphery of imperatives and declaratives must eventually be made to follow from the property of the elements that distinguish these two clause types, i.e. the presence of a finite verb form versus an imperative verb form, the presence of weak nominative pronouns in finite clauses but not in imperatives, the difference in the clause-typing head, and the potential difference in the clause-typing configurations distinguishing declaratives from imperatives. Solving this puzzle requires a better understanding of the fine structure of the left periphery cross-linguistically, as well as a better understanding of the EPP property. Indeed, one property that distinguishes tensed clauses from imperatives is the requirement that tensed clauses, but not imperatives, have a subject-like EPP position. This EPP requirement is further echoed in the left periphery of tensed Dutch root clauses as well.

.

Conclusion and further questions

In this paper, I have argued that the occurrence of right-peripheral objects does not follow from a specific property of imperatives, but arises through the interaction of D-right dislocation together with general properties of topic drop and properties of imperative Force. Right-peripheral objects are not restricted to imperatives, but occur in other clause types as well, as long as the conditions on right dislocation and topic drop are met. Perhaps most surprising in this respect is the adverb effect: clauses must contain enough overt structural pieces to allow for the expression of overt subjects, topic drop and right-peripheral objects in imperatives. I have argued for a movement account of right dislocation on the basis of various reconstruction effects and shown that the right-dislocated element is spelled out in a high structural position. This particular type of right dislocation targets a high topic position in the left periphery, followed by movement of the remainder around the topic and further movement to type Force. Differences between the left periphery of declaratives and imperatives are to be related to the verb-second constraint which is specific to tensed root clauses and verb-first constraints in imperatives, which can be implemented as restrictions on how the root Force node can be typed as an imperative. I have argued that the imperative verb is attracted to IMP, a general clause-typing position which is located high in the left periphery, in the same position as Rizzi’s Int. A slight difference in imperative clause typing of Force allowing clause typing under pied-piping yields the Dutch/ German imperative contrast.

Topics in imperatives 

References Anagnostopoulou E., H. van Riemsdijk and F. Zwarts. 1977. Materials on Left Dislocation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Barbiers, S. This volume. “On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and German”. Bennis, H. This volume. “Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives”. Cecchetto, C. 1999. “A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Romance”. Studia Linguistica 53: 40–67. Cinque, G. 1977. “The movement nature of left dislocation”. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 397–412. Dikken, M. den. 1992. “Empty operator movement in Dutch imperatives”. In: D. Gilbers and S. Looyenga (eds) Language and Cognition 2, 51–64. Groningen: Research Group for Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation. Grohmann, K. 2000. Prolific Peripheries: A Radical View from the Left. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland (accessible at: http://www.ling.umd.edu/Publications/Dissertations/ index.html). Haaften, T. van, R. Smits and J. Vat. 1978 “Left dislocation, connectedness, and reconstruction”. In: W. Abraham (ed.) On the Formal Syntax of Westgermania. 133–154. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hallman, P. 1997. “Reiterative syntax”. In: J. Black and V. Motapanyane (eds) Clitics, Pronouns, and Movement, 87–131. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kayne, R. S.1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Kayne, R. S.1998. “Overt vs. covert movement”. Syntax 1: 128–191. Koopman, H. 1996. “The spec head configuration”. In: E. Garrett and F. Lee (eds) Syntax at Sunset [UCLA Working Papers], 37–64. Los Angeles: Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA. [also in Koopman, 2000] Koopman, H. 1997. “Topics in imperatives”. Talk presented at the workshop on “The Architecture of Grammar”, Ibbs a/d Donau , July 1997. Koopman, H. 2000. The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads. London: Routledge. Koopman, H. 2002. “Derivations and complexity filters”. In: A. Alexiadiou, E. Anagnostopoulou, S. Barbiers and H. Gaertner (eds) Dimensions of Movement: From Features to Remnants, 151–188. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Koopman, H. 2005. “Malagasy imperatives”. In: J. Heinz and D. Nthelitheos (eds) Proceedings of AFLA XII, UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 141–160. Koopman, H. and A. Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Pearson, M. 2001. The Clause Structure of Malagasy: A Minimalist Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. Platzack, C. and I. Rosengren. 1998. “On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause”. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 177–224. Poletto, C. and J.-Y. Pollock. 2004. “On the left periphery of some Romance Wh-questions”. In: L. Rizzi (ed.) The Structure of CP and IP, 251–296. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reis, M. and I. Rosengren. 1992. “What do Wh-Imperatives tell us about Wh-movement?” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 79–118. Riemsdijk, H. van. 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, L. 1997. “On the fine structure of the left-periphery”. In: L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [Also in Rizzi, L. 2000. Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition. London: Routledge].

 Hilda Koopman Rizzi, L. 2001. “On the position ‘Int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause”. In: G. Cinque and G. Salvi (eds) Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 287– 296. New York: Elsevier. Rizzi, L. 2004. “Locality and the left periphery”. In: A. Belletti (ed.) The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3: Structures and Beyond, 223–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sportiche, D. 1994. “Adjuncts and adjunctions”. Ms., UCLA. Sportiche, D. 1997. “Reconstruction and constituent structure”. Paper presented at GLOW 1997. Wurff, W. van der. This volume. “Imperative clauses in generative grammar: An introduction”.

Embedded imperatives* Christer Platzack Lund University

Abstract Embedded imperatives are found in Old Scandinavian, but not in any of its modern descendants, i.e. Danish, Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian or Swedish. This paper aims to uncover the structural prerequisites for embedded imperatives to be possible in a language. Assuming a feature-driven version of the minimalist program, it is shown that embedded imperatives are possible under the specific structural requirement that the non-finite verb is in a position lower than the object, i.e. in a kind of partial OV-structure that I will call pseudo-OV, differing from ordinary OV in having the tensed verb before the object, both in main and embedded clauses. A number of predictions follow which are indeed fulfilled, such as the obligatory presence of the second person subject, the position of the imperative verb in front of the object, and the fact that the kinds of objects found in embedded imperatives are the ones that also turn up in clauses with pseudo-OV in Old Scandinavian.

.

Introduction

Rögnvaldsson (1998) has found that Old Icelandic had embedded declarative aðclauses (that-clauses) with imperative verbs, and Delsing (1999a) has shown the same for Old Swedish. Examples (1a,b), taken from Delsing’s paper, are Old Swedish, while the ones in (1c,d), taken from Rögnvaldsson’s paper, are Old Icelandic. Notice that both Old Icelandic and Old Swedish use the bare stem of the verb to express the imperative; this form is not used for any other purpose. (1)

a.

b.

Wakta thig at thu mødh enkte thit hiærta ther wm watch yourself that you bother. not your heart there with ‘Be careful not to bother your heart with that.’ Jag bidher tik at thu ey owergiff mik I ask you that you not abandon. me ‘Please do not abandon me!’

* Thanks to Werner Abraham, Lars-Olof Delsing, Katarina Lundin, Maria Mörnsjö, Inger Rosengren and Wim van der Wurff for valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper.

 Christer Platzack

c.

d.

Ger þú annaðhvort að þú sel þá fram ella munum vér brenna upp bæinn. do you either that you deliver. it up or will we burn up house-the ‘Either you deliver it or we will burn the house.’ Nú ger þú svo mannlega að þú sit heldur að eignum þínum hér. now do you so manly that you sit. rather at estate your here ‘Now be like a man and stay at your estate.’

Cases like (1) are absent in today’s Swedish and Icelandic.1 Hence the modern languages conform to the overwhelmingly most common situation in human languages, which can be summarised as in (2): (2)

When a language has a particular form of the verb used only as the imperative, this form cannot occur in embedded declarative clauses.

As a matter of fact, embedded imperatives are so rare cross-linguistically that accounts of imperatives sometimes bluntly state that imperatives cannot be embedded, see e.g. Rivero (1994) and Platzack and Rosengren (1998); a more cautious statement is found in Rupp (1999: 44). It is the purpose of this paper to consider the particular situation in the two Old Scandinavian languages mentioned above that makes cases like (1) well-formed.2 The solution I will offer is couched in a restricted version of the minimalist program, viz. the feature-driven system outlined in Platzack (2001), which is based on Chomsky (2001) and Pesetsky and Torrego (2001). This system is briefly presented in Section 2 and an account of imperatives based on this system is given in Section 3. With this background, we are ready to approach the embedded imperatives in Old Scandinavian in Section 4, showing that their existence follows as a coincidence of particular properties of these languages. Section 5 is the conclusion.

. In Modern Swedish and Danish, an imperative may show up where we might expect an infinitive: (i)

(ii)

Försök lyft stenen! Swedish (Teleman et al. 1999: IV, 709) try- lift- stone-the ‘Try to lift the stone!’ Skynd dig at tænd for lyset! Danish (Erik Hansen, p.c.) hasten- you to light- for light-the ‘Hurry up to turn on the light!’

This is possible only after an initial imperative. . As Wim van der Wurff (p.c.) has pointed out to me, embedded imperatives also exist in Slovene (see Sheppard and Golden 2002). I have not been able to investigate if the approach taken here to account for embedded imperatives in the Old Scandinavian languages can be applied to Slovene.

Embedded imperatives 

. .

A feature-driven system for the universal clause Introduction

In this section I will briefly present the feature-driven system for deriving basic sentence structures proposed in Platzack (2001), which is an extension and refinement of suggestions presented in Chomsky (2001) and Pesetsky and Torrego (2001, in preparation). Expanding on an idea in Pesetsky and Torrego (in preparation), Platzack (2001) proposes that the sentence is basically built up as a tripartite system of adjacent TP/VP-pairs, with a single CP on top. The features used to drive the computation (except EPP3) all have a semantic value, and the description thus falls within the Relativised Extreme Functionalism of Pesetsky and Torrego (2001).4 The driving force of the computation is the assumption that features come in two guises, interpretable and uninterpretable on the expressions where they occur. Uninterpretable features must be deleted by the end of each phase. An uninterpretable feature F is deleted if it has entered an Agree relation (Chomsky 2001) with another instance of F, see Section 2.3. below. Interpretable features will be marked +F, uninterpretable ones ¬F, where F ranges over specific feature values. .

The universal clause

I assume the clause is built up by merging roots with categorial values V, N, A or P to produce a binary branching tree with the properties of bare phrase structure (Chomsky 1995). We only assume two functional categories, T and C, within the extended projection of the verb.

. The EPP feature determines where in the structure phonological information is present. In the system I will outline below, where the universal clause is seen as a kind of hierarchical reflex of complex temporal information interacting with particular situations and elements involved in these situations, it might seem to be an unnecessary complication that some positions must be spelled out. From a universal perspective, there is only one language and one structure, but this general scheme is implemented differently for each natural language and I think it is safe to say that we currently do not understand why the human language comes in so many different guises. Nevertheless, we must be able to account for properties of the particular languages and EPP has gradually developed into a tool for making this possible. As we understand EPP today, it has come a long way from the Extended Projection Principle that Chomsky (1982) introduced to account for the fact that subjects are different from other arguments. . Following Pesetsky and Torrego (2001), I will assume that purely formal grammatical features do not exist. All grammatical features have a semantic value, but they sometimes occur in positions where they do not express their value. The exception to this is EPP, which regulates arbitrary facts of word order in a language.

 Christer Platzack

(3)

CP TPFin

C0 T0

VP TPEv

V0 T0

vP TPAsp

v0 T0

VP V0

The three TPs must come in the order indicated, which is formally guaranteed by (4), which gives the feature values associated with each T, where τ reads ‘tense’ and φ ‘person/number/gender’. In addition, TEv contains an uninterpretable feature [¬α] (α for ‘aspect’) and TFin an uninterpretable feature [¬ε] (ε for ‘event’). Since the positive values of these features are associated with the main verb, a link is guaranteed between the functional T-heads and the main verb. For motivations, see Platzack (2001). (4)

a. b. c.

TFin: [+τ, ¬ε, ¬φ] TEv: [+τ, ¬α, ¬φ] TAsp: [+τ, ¬φ]

The three instances of T represent the three aspects of tense associated with a clause: it describes an event or state with a particular internal time contour (telicity), represented in TAsp, which is ordered with respect to some reference point on a time line (TEv) and related to the speaker’s now (TFin); the final identification with real time takes place at the highest node, C, which is extralinguistically anchored in the time and place of the speaker, and in the speaker’s point of view. To a great extent, this account is based on the insights in Pesetsky and Torrego (2001, in preparation).5 .

Features and operations on features

Features and operations on features drive the derivation of the clause. Features represent information attached to parts of structure or to lexical elements; the operations on features guarantee that the information value of a feature is made . For the assumption that Aspect intervenes between v and VP, see also Koizumi (1993) and Egerland (1998).

Embedded imperatives 

available to the interfaces (semantic, pragmatic and phonological). In addition to the features presented in (4), the following ones will be used in the presentation below: (5)

a. b.

C always hosts the features [+κ] (i.e. Force)6 and [¬τ] (Tense). Optionally it may also contain the features [¬Wh], [¬Topic] and [¬Focus]. Argument DPs and agreement suffixes on verbs have the features [¬τ,+φ].7

A feature is either introduced with the value interpretable, [+F], or uninterpretable, [¬F]; the result of the calculus is a representation where all features are interpretable (i.e., all instances of [¬F] are deleted; with [¬F] present at the interface, the derivation does not converge). Phonological features, i.e. features that determine where in the structure phonological information is present, are formally represented as EPP, to be read as an uninterpretable feature that is deleted when replaced by phonological material. The relation between EPP and grammatical features is summarised in (6). (6)

a.

b.

Grammatical EPP features: A grammatical EPP feature is associated with an uninterpretable feature in a functional head, and it is deleted by the element that also deletes the uninterpretable feature. Semantic EPP features: A semantic EPP feature is associated with an interpretable feature in a functional head, and it is deleted by an element with phonological features in that head (or its specifier).

Two operations are defined on features, Agree (Chomsky (2001) and Modify (Platzack 2001): (7)

a.

b.

Agree The relation Agree is established between a probe and a goal iff the probe ccommands the goal and the probe minimally has one interpretable and one uninterpretable feature, +F and ¬G, and the goal has the same features but with reversed values for interpretability, ¬F and +G. Modify The relation Modify is established between a probe and a goal iff the probe c-commands the goal and the probe minimally has one uninterpretable feature ¬F, and the goal has the interpretable feature +F.

I will adopt the economy considerations of recent work within the minimalist program, e.g. taking Merge to be a less costly operation than Move (Chomsky 1998). A derivation must furthermore obey the Minimal Link Condition (Chomsky 1995);

. The feature κ ranges over illocutionary forces like declarative and interrogative (cf. Chomsky’s 1995 use of Force and Rizzi’s 1997 Force Phrase). When necessary, I will specify κ as κDECL, κQ or κIMP . . That agreement in certain languages functions as an argument is an idea I have borrowed from Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998).

 Christer Platzack

I will adopt the version of it given in (8a). Finally, I adopt the Economy condition (8b) from Pesetsky and Torrego (2001), and the Consistency Condition (8c): (8)

a.

b.

c.

.

Minimal Link Condition F and G may participate in a single operation on features iff there is no H such that i. F and H may participate in the same operation on features as F and G, and ii. F c-commands H and H c-commands G. Economy Condition A head H triggers the minimum number of operations necessary to satisfy the properties (including EPP) of its uninterpretable features. The Consistency Condition All instances of a particular functional head in a derivation must have the same feature value.

Deriving the simple transitive clause

In this subsection I will illustrate in detail how the TP/VP-part of a transitive clause like (9) is derived in my system. When a verb is merged in V0, it is minimally specified with the features [+α,+ε], indicating that it expresses an aspect of an event. If the verb is transitive, there must be a DP, overt or covert, in the complement of V. This DP is an argument, hence it carries both an uninterpretable tense feature and (like all DPs) an interpretable φ-feature. When TAsp is merged to VP, it introduces the feature bundle [+τ, ¬φ], see (4c). Extending an idea from Pesetsky and Torrego (2001), I will assume that the uninterpretable φ-feature of TAsp is associated with an EPP feature, hence it follows from the economy principle in (8b) that the object DP must move to SpecTPAsp, since this operation will wipe out all uninterpretable features in TAsp and DP. This is illustrated in (10), where I have marked deleted features with double strikes through the features. Note that the presence of an EPP feature is indicated indirectly by the movement chain. (9)

John bought the book. TPAsp

(10) DP

the booki T0 [+φ, ¬τ] [¬φ,+τ]

T’ VP V

DP

bought [+α,+ε]

ti

At the next step, v is merged to TPAsp, introducing the subject with its features [¬τ, +φ]. Then TEv with the features [+τ,¬α, ¬φ] is merged to vP. Since the subject is

Embedded imperatives 

closer to TEv than the object, it is the interpretable φ-feature of the subject that is probed by the uninterpretable φ-feature of TΕv, which is deleted simultaneously with the uninterpretable τ-feature of the subject. Note that there is an EPP feature associated with [¬φ] in TEv – it follows from the Consistency condition (8c) that there must be an EPP feature associated with [¬φ] for all T-heads. The subject, therefore, must move to SpecTPEv. In addition, TEv also contains the feature [¬α]. There are reasons to assume that this feature is associated with an EPP feature, at least in English and Scandinavian. The element that can satisfy both this EPP feature and the uninterpretable [¬α]-feature is V, i.e. bought in this case. The result is presented in (11); as a general convention, features that have been deleted at earlier stages will not be indicated in the representation of higher computations. (11)

[TPJohnj ([+φ,¬τ]) [T boughtv ([¬φ, +τ, ¬α) ] [vP tj tv [TP the booki tv [VP tv [DP ti ]]]]]

In the absence of an auxiliary, the next step in the derivation is to add an empty VP and the TFin that is merged to it, introducing the feature bundle [+τ, ¬ε,¬φ], cf. (4a). The feature [¬φ] in TFin is associated with an EPP feature, in accordance with (8c). The subject is the closest element with the necessary interpretable φ-feature, and it is therefore moved to SpecTPFin, deleting all the uninterpretable features in TFin except [¬ε], which is deleted by [+ε] in V in TEv. This is an instance of Modify (7b), since only one feature is involved. No EPP feature is related to [¬ε] in English, according to Platzack (2001). The result of the computation at this stage is depicted in (12). (12) TPFin DP | Johnj [+φ]

T’ T0 | [ φ, + ,

VP ] V0

TPEv DP | tj

T’ T0 | boughtv

vP DP | tj

v’ v0

TPAsp DP | the booki T | tv

T’ VP V tv

DP ti

 Christer Platzack

As can be seen in (12), both the verb and the object have moved; in the final version they have the same linear order as in VP, but they occupy higher positions. This analysis is thus a restatement in terms of the TP/VP system of a hypothesis originally proposed by Johnson (1991), indicating that the verb-object order of languages like English is not a direct result of the base order in VP. This analysis is further developed in Koizumi (1993); Josefsson and Platzack (1998) have shown that this account is fruitful for Swedish as well. Within the TP/VP domain of the structure, the derivation of the English clause mimics the derivation of the corresponding clause in the modern mainland Scandinavian languages (MSc): word order differences between these languages are mainly due to the verb second property of Scandinavian, which is the result of an EPP feature associated with [¬τ] in C. In addition, both English and MSc have an EPP feature associated with [+κ] in C as well. It is important to note that there is a difference between a derivation like the one just described for an English transitive clause, and the derivation of the corresponding clause in a language where agreement is syntactically active, as in Icelandic. According to the account presented here, finite verb agreement in Icelandic has argument features, i.e. [¬τ, +φ]. So has the nominative and the accusative DP argument, in Icelandic as well as in English and Mainland Scandinavian. The Icelandic situation is shown schematically in (13a), compared with the English situation in (13b). (13)

a. b.

Hann keypti bókina. [¬τ, +φ] [¬τ, +φ] [¬τ, +φ]. He bought the book. [¬τ, +φ] [¬τ, +φ].

Since the features of agreement are introduced in v0, the computation of TPAsp proceeds exactly as shown for English above: TPAsp

(14) DP bókinai [+φ, ¬τ]

T’ T0 [¬φ,+τ]

VP V

DP

keypti

ti

The next step is to merge v0, project it to vP and introduce the external argument in SpecvP. TEv is then merged to vP. As mentioned above, I assume that agreement

Embedded imperatives 

is introduced in v0, and is spelled out on the finite verb.8 The uninterpretable features in TEv, i.e. [¬α] and [¬φ], both associated with EPP features, are deleted by agreement features of the finite verb raised to TEv; this will also delete [¬τ] of agreement. I give the relevant structure in (15); to avoid making the structure overloaded with information, I only represent some of the features. In (15) the features belonging to TEv are given in the first line directly below the verb in TEv, and the features belonging to agreement are presented in the next line. Notice that there remains an uninterpretable tense feature in SpecvP. TPEv

(15) T0

vP

DP keyptiv [¬φ,+τ] [+φ, ¬τ] hann [+φ, ¬τ]

v’ v0 tv

TPAsp DP bókinai

T’ T0 tv

VP V

DP

tv

ti

The next step is to add VP and TPFin above TPEv. The relevant features in TFin are [+τ, ¬φ], where [¬φ], as in English, is associated with an EPP feature. The tensed verb in TEv hosts the closest instance of [+φ], hence the verb is attracted to TFin, deleting the uninterpretable features. . I assume that agreement morphology is introduced in v0 together with its features. To account for the fact that the agreement morphology ends up on the tensed verb, I will tentatively suggest the following semi-formal description: (i)

Agr-features are assigned to V lacking the features [+µ] (infinitivals) and [+π] (participles) a. if Agr c-commands a V, this is raised and adjoined to the agreement morphology; b. if a. does not apply, Agr-features are raised to the closest c-commanding V without [+µ] and [+π].

(i a) covers, roughly, tensed main verbs, and (i b) tensed auxiliaries. Note that this analysis presupposes the possibility for the agreement ending to pass through TEv on its way to an auxiliary in V0, deleting [¬φ] in TEv and its associated EPP, and at the same time deleting its own [¬τ]. Since the infinitival verb in TEv has the feature [+µ], agreement cannot attach to it.

 Christer Platzack

Considering the derivation at this point, it is obvious that it cannot converge: there is an uninterpretable tense feature in the argument in SpecvP. This is where structural case enters the description. We will claim that the role of structural case is to delete uninterpretable features in the DP to which case is attached. Note that in the derivation described, it is only nominative case that has to be operative here: the object bókina ‘the book’ gets its [¬τ] deleted by [+τ] in TAsp, as was described in connection with (14). As a matter of fact, it is not clear to me if there is any situation where accusative case has to be active.9 I propose the following operation: (16)

Delete [¬τ] in DP with nominative morphological case.

It might be that (16) should be extended to oblique cases as well, but since that question is not relevant for our account of embedded imperatives, I will abstain from any further discussion of oblique case in Icelandic in this paper.

.

The imperative clause

In this section I will suggest an account of the imperative clause within the feature driven version of the minimalist framework outlined in Section 2. I will concentrate on the universal structure of the imperative, claiming that most of the language-specific properties discussed in the recent literature are the result of combining universal structure with language particular properties (see e.g. Beukema and Coopmans 1989, Zhang 1990, Rivero 1994, Rivero and Terzi 1995, Potsdam 1998, Koopman 1997, Platzack and Rosengren 1998, and Rupp 1999). In addition to trying to explain why the imperative verb form is not used in declarative embedded clauses, which is partly the subject of the present paper, these studies also address the question why the imperative clause usually does not have to have an overt subject expressing the addressee, even in languages that otherwise do not accept null subjects, like English and Mainland Scandinavian, cf. (17). Another question addressed in these papers is why many languages display restrictions on negated imperatives compared with ordinary finite clauses, like the absence of negated imperatives in Italian and Spanish (18a), and the impossibility in English of using the non-contracted negation together with an overt representation of the addressee (18b,c). (17)

a. b.

Tell a story about yourself! Förklara det för mig! explain it to me ‘Explain it to me!’

(Swedish)

. There is an interesting morphological correlation to this observation: as pointed out by Sigurðsson (2000: 95), accusative is the morphologically unmarked case, especially within the masculine paradigms.

Embedded imperatives 

(18)

a. *Non telefona! not call. b. Do (*you) not call! c. Don’t (you) call!

(Italian)

Following Platzack and Rosengren (1998), I claim that there is an important semantic difference between the imperative clause and other sentence types: the imperative value of the Force-feature [+κIMP] directly sets or creates a norm related to the addressee with respect to the existence of the event the proposition refers to. Stating a norm is not the same as creating a norm, as the difference between (19a) and (19b) reveals: (19)

a. b.

You should visit your mother. Visit your mother!

The finite clause in (19a) directly states the necessity of the existence of the event referred to. In (19b) we have an imperative clause; the necessity is not stated, it is directly set or projected into the actual world. We may respond to (19a) with ‘No, that is not true’ or ‘No, I’m not obliged to’, whereas the corresponding response to (19b) would be ‘No, I won’t’. Since the imperative clause does not express a statement, we may tentatively assume that the imperative clause lacks the highest TP/VP-block (TPFin), where the proposition is established: in the framework adopted this equals the account of the imperative clause in Platzack and Rosengren (1998), according to which FinP in a Rizzian style of left periphery is missing in imperatives (Rizzi 1997, but see Stroh-Wollin 2002 for criticism of this assumption). It directly follows that the imperative clause cannot contain a modal auxiliary (20a), since these are merged above TEv; on the other hand, it may contain have, be, and do (20b–d), which all are merged in v0 (see Platzack 2001). (20)

a. *Must come! b. Have a nice day! c. Be quiet! d. Don’t cry!

In the Platzack and Rosengren account, the absence of an obligatory overt subject in imperatives in non-null subject languages like English and Mainland Scandinavian is explained as an effect of the absence of FinP, taking SpecFinP to be the obligatory subject position in these languages. This idea cannot be directly taken over in the framework adopted here, since there is an EPP feature associated also with [¬φ] in TEv, which in ordinary finite clauses forces the presence of a visible subject. For the imperative verb I will suggest the solution in (21): (21)

Imperative morphology has the interpretable feature [+φ], in addition to its force-feature [+κIMP].

Intuitively, (21) captures the fact that the imperative verb always must have the addressee as its subject, i.e. its person-value is determined.

 Christer Platzack

We are now in a position to derive the imperative counterpart to (9): (22)

Buy the book!

At the lowest TP-level, the derivation is the same as the derivation of the corresponding finite clause: TPAsp

(23) DP

T’ T0

the booki [+φ, ¬τ]

VP V

DP

buy [+κIMP]

ti

[¬φ,+τ]

It is important to note that the feature [+φ], mentioned in (21), has not been introduced at this stage: like ordinary subject-verb agreement morphology, I assume the imperative morphology to be inserted in v0; in the case of English, there is no visible morpheme accompanying [+φ]. If there is an overt second person pronoun in the array, this is merged in SpecvP, where it agrees with [+φ] in the imperative morpheme, see Platzack (2001) and note 7 above for a discussion of agreement; note that this pronoun, as an argument, also hosts the feature [¬τ]. Adding TEv, we simultaneously add the feature bundle [+τ, ¬α, ¬φ] (cf. (4b)), where both uninterpretable features are associated with EPP. It follows from (8b) that the most economical way to delete the uninterpretable features of TEv is to raise the verb through TAsp and v0; the interpretable features [+α] and [+φ] associated with the verb will delete both uninterpretable features in one swoop. Adding C, the EPP associated with [+κ] is deleted by the raising of the imperative verb to initial position, yielding (22), with the structure in (24). CP

(24) C0 buyv

TPEv T0 tv

vP v0 tv

TPAsp DP

T’

the booki T0 tv

VP DP ti

V’ V0 tv

DP ti

Embedded imperatives 

Consider now the case where an overt second person pronoun is merged in SpecvP, with the features [¬τ,+φ], just like all arguments, cf. (5b). If the derivation proceeds as just outlined, the uninterpretable tense-feature associated with the pronoun will not be deleted. The only way to save the derivation in English10 is to make the uninterpretable φ-feature of TEv probe for the interpretable φ-feature of the pronoun, which (due to EPP) will force the pronoun to raise to SpecTPEv. The imperative verb must raise to TEv, as in (24), since there is an EPP feature associated with [¬α] as well. To eliminate the EPP feature associated with Force in C, the pronoun must further raise to SpecCP, yielding You buy the book!11 This word order is impossible in Swedish and Icelandic (25a), since in these languages the second person pronoun inflects for case, hence (16) is activated, and there is no need for the pronoun to raise to SpecTPEv. Since the imperative must go to TEv, it will be closest to C and be raised to that position, deleting all uninterpretable features there, yielding (25b–d): (25)

a. *Du köp boken! you buy. book-the b. Köp (du) boken! buy. you book-the c. Keypdu bókina! buy-.you book-the d. Keypt þú bókina! buy- you book-the

(Swedish) (Swedish) (Icelandic, standard form) (Icelandic, clipped form)

Note that the second person pronoun is optional in Swedish, as in English, whereas it is obligatory in Icelandic, either as a clitic in the so-called standard form of the imperative (25c), or as a free pronoun together with the clipped form of the imperative, as in (25d).12 . This is due to the fact that the second person pronoun you does not inflect for case. In languages like Swedish, where the pronoun has both a nominative and an oblique form, the mechanism in (16) will be activated, as we will see immediately. . Since SpecTP and T0 are equidistant from C (see Pesetsky and Torrego 2001, Platzack 2001, and the Minimal Link Condition (8a) above), we would expect the alternative way of deleting EPP associated with Force in C to yield a well-formed result as well, i.e. we predict that the imperative verb may raise to C0. The result (i), however, is unusual or ungrammatical in present day English, except in a few phrases like (ii): (i) (ii)

*Buy you the book! Mind you!

As Visser (1963: 16) notes, this word order is prevalent in texts from the 17th century and occurs regularly in the Scottish dialect of Walter Scott’s novels and in the Essex dialect of the early 20th century. . Icelandic has a third imperative form, the short form, which like the Swedish imperative only consists of the stem; the pronoun is optional with this form. Note, however, that the short form of the imperative is not really productive in modern Icelandic, being largely limited to poetic texts and the Bible.

 Christer Platzack

Following Pesetsky and Torrego (2001) for English, Platzack (2001) claims that complementisers in Swedish too are realised as the spell-out of T-to-C movement. For this spell-out to be possible, the verb must not be in T adjacent to C. This description immediately rules out embedded imperatives in Swedish and English, since the imperative verb is always raised to TEv, which is the T closest to C in imperative clauses. Consider next Icelandic. In finite clauses, the tensed verb is raised to TFin, which is shown by the fact that it always precedes sentence adverbials (Platzack 2001), as in (26a), which can be compared with the Swedish example in (26b): (26)

a.

b.

Ég veit að María las ekki bókina. I know that Mary read not book-the ‘I know that Mary didn’t read the book.’ Jag vet att Maria inte läste boken. I know that Mary not read book-the ‘I know that Mary didn’t read the book.’

(Icelandic)

(Swedish)

With the tensed verb in TFin, the complementiser cannot be the result of T-to-C movement, but must be merged in C, deleting the uninterpretable EPP feature associated with [+κ]. Nevertheless, as in Swedish and English, the imperative verb cannot occur in embedded that-clauses, as shown by (27a). To understand why, consider the relevant structure in (27b): (27)

a. *að keypdu bókina that buy..you book-the b. CP C0 að

TPEv T0

vP

keypdu

bókina

A Modify-relation is established between C and T: C contains the features [+κ] and [¬τ], and T the features [+κ] and [+τ]. However, since [+κ] of C0 is specified as declarative whereas – due to the imperative verb – T has a [+κ]-feature specified as imperative, the two heads are not compatible, and the derivation is blocked.13 . This account is closely related to the one in Rupp (1999: 44 n. 11). As Rupp notes, the imperative can be embedded in the absence of a complementiser, as in (i), taken from Rupp: (i)

The judge said [(*that) hand over my driving license!]

As (ii) indicates, Swedish behaves in the same way, although the complementiser may also be present; in this case the embedded clause is judged as an embedded root clause; see Holmberg and Platzack (1995: 78–80).

Embedded imperatives 

Note that there would be no blockage of this kind if the imperative verb were not in T0, since T in itself does not contain a [+κ]-feature. As we will see below, this observation is important for our account of embedded imperatives in Old Swedish and Old Icelandic.

.

Embedded imperatives in Old Scandinavian

As mentioned in the Introduction, Old Swedish and Old Icelandic are exceptional in accepting imperative verbs also in embedded that-clauses, as the examples in (1) show. Additional Old Swedish examples, taken from Delsing (1999a), are given in (28a,b); (28c) is an Old Danish example (cited both in Falk and Torp 1900: 192 and in Mikkelsen 1911: 403–404). (28)

a.

b.

c.

Jak manar thik …At thu sigh mik sannindh (Old Swedish) I advise you that you say. me truth-the ‘I advise you to tell me the truth.’ (Old Swedish) Jag bidhir thik at thu döp mik mz thässom14 I bid you that you baptise. me with them ‘I’m asking you to baptise me together with them.’ oc iæk svær thek, at thu gijf mek stenen. (Old Danish) and I swear you that you give. me stone-the

According to Falk and Torp (1900: 192), cases like these are also found in Old Saxon and Old High German.15 Whereas the imperative usually comes without an overt subject in the Old Scandinavian languages discussed (the obligatory use of a second person pronoun or clitic in modern Icelandic is an innovation), the subject seems to be obligatory in embedded imperatives, as Delsing (1999a) observes. In his Old Swedish material there are seventy-five cases with an overt second person pronoun, always placed immediately after the complementiser and in front of the imperative verb; he only reports two instances without a visible subject, and suggests that they can be analysed as embedded main clauses. The situation seems to be the same in Old Icelandic, as Rögnvaldsson (1998) has shown. The position of the subject is the (ii)

Domaren sa (att) räck över körkortet! judge-the said that hand- over driving-licence.the ‘The judge said, hand over your driving licence.’

. The spelling mz seen in (28b) is often used in Old Swedish texts as an abbreviation for medh ‘with’. . Falk and Torp (1900: 192) do not provide any examples. According to Werner Abraham (p.c.), it is not unlikely that the examples they are referring to have optative subjunctive verb forms and not true imperatives, in which case OHG does not have embedded imperatives. It has not been possible for me to check this.

 Christer Platzack

same: it occurs between the complementiser and the imperative verb. This is also the case for the only Old Danish example available, (28c). Consider now a possible derivation of the embedded clause with an imperative verb given in (28b) above, in a manner as close as possible to the derivation of the imperative clause in English in (24). Nothing of interest happens at the lowest TPAsp-level, hence we will start discussing the structure when the imperative morphology with its features [+φ, +κIMP] is merged in v0. Since there is an overt instance of the second person pronoun, this is merged in SpecvP, yielding the structure in (29) for the example in (28b); the imperative verb is raised to v0, see note 8, principle (i a). (29)

vP DP

v’

thu [+φ, ¬τ]

v0

TPAsp

döp mik mz thässom [+φ, +κIMP]

Merging TEv, we introduce the feature bundle [+τ, ¬α, ¬φ] above vP; as before, [+τ] is assumed to be associated with EPP. As in the English case in (24), there are two possible ways to delete this EPP feature: either by the pronoun thu or by the imperative verb. Since the structure we are deriving is embedded under a declarative complementiser, we know from the discussion above that it will crash if the imperative verb with its feature [+κIMP] is placed in TEv. Hence, the only way to delete [¬φ] in TEv is to raise the pronoun to SpecTPEv. This account predicts both that the subject pronoun must be overt in embedded imperatives and that it must precede the imperative verb. Both predictions are fulfilled, as we have seen. According to this line of reasoning, we conclude that the structure of the embedded clause in (28b) must be as in (30): (30) CP C° at [+κDECL, ¬ τ]

TPEv DP

T’

T0 thui [+φ, ¬τ] [+τ, ¬α, ¬φ= ]

vP DP ti

v’ v0

TPAsp

döp mik mz thässom [+φ, +κIMP]

Since [+κIMP] is in v0, not in TEv, the factor that blocks (27) is not at hand.

Embedded imperatives 

To avoid the raising of the imperative verb to TEv, it must be the case that no EPP is associated with [¬α] in TEv in Old Icelandic and Old Swedish, contrary to the situation in Modern Icelandic and Modern Swedish. I will here try to justify this assumption. The absence of an EPP feature associated with [¬α] in TEv yields a structure where the non-finite verb follows the object in SpecTPAsp, i.e. a structure corresponding to (10) and (14). It is to be noted that this only applies to non-finite verbs: a finite verb in this situation must move to v0 to pick up agreement morphology, ending up in front of the object.16 It follows from the discussion that my account predicts the existence of a kind of pseudo-OV in Old Swedish and Old Icelandic, cases where the finite verb precedes the object both in main clauses (verb second) and in embedded clauses, but the non-finite verb follows the object. As a matter of fact, such a word order is well attested, simultaneously with a word order identical to the modern one, where the non-finite verb precedes the object, indicating an EPP associated with [¬α] in TEv. The concurrent occurrence of both word orders, i.e. finite verb – object – nonfinite verb and finite verb – non-finite verb – object, has been observed at least since Wenning (1930) and Larsson (1931),17 and it has been discussed recently for Old Icelandic by Sigurðsson (1988), Rögnvaldsson (1996), and Hróarsdóttir (1996, 1998, 2000), and for Old Swedish by Delsing (1999b, 2001). See also Pintzuk (1991) for a similar situation in Old English. The following examples illustrate the variation at hand; the Old Icelandic sentences are from Sigurðsson (1988), the Old Swedish ones from Delsing (1999b): (31)

a.

b.

Móðir mín skal því ráða. mother my shall that decide ‘My mother will decide.’ skalt þú jafnan þessu sæti halda shall you always this seat keep ‘You will always keep this seat.’

(Old Icelandic: OV)

(Old Icelandic: OV)

. As we have seen in (30), this is also the case for the imperative verb, which must raise to v0 to pick up agreement. Hence we expect the imperative verb to precede the object, as indeed it does, see below. . Note that there are very few examples in Early Old Swedish of cases where both the finite and the non-finite verb follow the object in an embedded clause, i.e. word orders corresponding to what we find in the modern Germanic OV-languages: (i)

daß Hans das Buch kaufen wollte. that Hans the book buy wanted ‘That Hans wanted to buy the book.’

Roughly speaking, this type is first recorded in Old Swedish during the 14th century, presumably as a result of Low German influence The following Old Swedish example is from the late 15th century (Larsson 1931: 170): (ii)

nar the sina maltidh giorth haffdo when they their meal done had ‘When they had eaten their meal.’

 Christer Platzack

c.

d.

(32)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Þa let herodes taka ioan (Old Icelandic: VO) then let Herodes take John ‘Then Herodes took John prisoner.’ hvárt hon vill eiga hann (Old Icelandic: VO) whether she wants.to own him ‘If she wants to own him.’ at han skulde ekke seger fa (Old Swedish: OV) that he should not victory get ‘That he won’t get a victory.’ at hon aldrig skulde thz nakrom sighia (Old Swedish: OV) that she never should it someone- say ‘that she would never tell it to anybody’ ok sænde mik at løsa thin band (Old Swedish: VO) and sent me to open your fetters ‘And sent me to loosen your fetters.’ æller han wildi radhæ hænni ok æi dræpa hanæ (Old Swedish: VO) or he wanted.to advise her and not kill her ‘And he wanted to give her advice and didn’t want to kill her.’

A possible interpretation of the variation displayed in (31) and (32) is that Old Icelandic and Old Swedish had optional EPP associated with [¬α] in TEv; cf. Rögnvaldsson (1996), who – like Pintzuk (1991) for the same variation in Old English – suggests that two grammars were available at the same time. Delsing (1999b, 2001) tries to deepen our understanding of the variation at hand by showing that only a subset of all objects may occur in preverbal position, as shown in (33). (33) Object type and word order in Old Scandinavian Type I: almost only postverbal position

Type II: preverbal or postverbal position

Proper names

Personal pronouns

Object with definite article hæstin ‘horse-the’

Object with demonstrative pronoun then hæst ‘this horse’

Object with genitive attribute ens mans hæst ‘a man’s horse’

Object with possessive pronoun min hæst ‘my horse’

Ordinary bare noun (ther aff vpkommær) haat there from arises hatred

Bare noun with light verb1 (för än han haffde) hämdh (giort) before he had revenge done

Object with indefinite article en hæst ‘a horse’

Object with indefinite pronoun alle/nokre hæstar ‘all/some horses’

Object with cardinal numeral thre hæstar ‘three horses’  The examples in this group contain a light verb and a semantically heavy bare noun, often a noun which has its root in common with a verb.

Embedded imperatives 

Although his study is not as detailed as Delsing’s, the data in Rögnvaldsson (1996) suggest that the same situation existed in Old Icelandic. Observing that the two types of objects may be analysed in terms of filled/activated D, Delsing (1999b, 2001) suggests that objects with filled/activated D are licensed in post verbal position, whereas objects where D is not filled or activated have to move to preverbal position to be licensed. It is not clear to me how this suggestion can be made compatible with the account given above in terms of EPP. Returning to the embedded imperatives, we conclude that the prediction made by our theoretical approach is borne out: the presence of embedded imperatives implies a grammar where pseudo-OV is an alternative.18 It is even possible to make a more precise prediction: taking Delsing (1999b, 2001) into consideration, I predict, more or less correctly as far as I am able to tell, that embedded imperatives of transitive verbs almost always have an object of Type II, according to the classification in (33): of the forty-three clear examples of embedded imperatives of transitive verbs that Delsing bases his study on, there are only four cases (9%) of an object of Type I.19 Furthermore, my approach correctly predicts that the imperative verb is always in front of the object in embedded imperatives. This might seem contradictory in light of what I have just said, i.e. that embedded imperatives presuppose a pseudoOV grammar, but it is a consequence of my analysis: the imperative verb has to raise to v0 to pick up the agreement morphology, and in v0 it will always precede the object in SpecTPAsp. The factual situation is clear: although both Old Icelandic and Old Swedish display variation between VO and pseudo-OV, only VO is attested in embedded imperatives.20 Finally, I will support my account with a diachronic observation. If the crucial factor for the occurrence of embedded imperatives in Old Swedish and Old Icelandic is the absence of EPP associated with [¬α] in TEv, i.e. the factor that brings

. Observe that my accound does not imply that embedded imperatives should be present in all types of OV-languages, a prediction that would be falsified immediately by modern German and modern Dutch. . Considering the relative frequencies of the two types of object in Old Swedish generally, i.e. not only in embedded imperatives, type I is found in approximately 30% of the cases. Thanks to Lars-Olof Delsing for providing me with this information, as well as for giving me access to his material. . As a matter of fact, there is one OV example in the Old Swedish material, found in Siælinna Thrøst, a manuscript from c. 1440. Since the example is poetry, it is not clear if it should be considered a counterexample: (i)

at thu mik mina synder forlath that you me my sins forgive- ‘That you forgive me my sins.’

 Christer Platzack

about OV word order, we predict that embedded imperatives are lost when the OV option is lost. The youngest examples of embedded imperatives reported for Swedish are from the sixteenth century (Delsing, p.c.). Concerning the loss of OV, this also takes place during the sixteenth century, according to Delsing (1999b, 2001); hence our diachronic prediction is borne out. Admittedly, Platzack (1983) has shown that OV is used by writers active as late as the first half of the eighteenth century, but there are good reasons to believe that OV at this period is a writing convention; as Delsing (1999b, 2001) observes, these late OV-users do not treat different kinds of object differently, i.e. there is no longer any trace of the distribution displayed in (33).21

.

Subjects in non-embedded imperatives

In this section I will discuss a fact about Old Scandinavian imperatives that supports the analysis presented in Section 4. Although most sentences with ordinary non-embedded imperatives in Old Scandinavian are introduced by the imperative verb, just as they are in modern Scandinavian, Rögnvaldsson (1998) points out that there are some cases that are different. In his Old Icelandic corpus, he found approximately 100 examples that would be impossible in modern Icelandic. In most of these cases, the subject precedes the verb; the following typical cases are taken from Rögnvaldsson’s paper: (34)

a.

b.

“mun eg vera heima”, segir hann, “en þú far til tìða ef þú vilt” will I be home says he but you go. to service if you want ‘I will stay home, he says, but you may go to divine service if you like.’ en þú lát sem þú vitir eigi but you act. as.if you know nothing

Similar cases are found in Old Swedish and Old Danish: (35)

a. b.

thu kynd hannum (Old Danish; Falk and Torp 1900: 289) you kindle. him Twu gör aff thenna, hwat tu gither (Old Swedish; Wessén 1965: 121) you do. of this what you like

Corresponding examples with an initial second person pronoun are impossible in modern Scandinavian, as illustrated in (25a). This was explained in terms of case: since the pronoun inflects for case, its uninterpretable tense feature is deleted by (16). The EPP feature associated with [¬α] in TEv forces the raising of the . For Icelandic, the diachronic picture is less clear. Rögnvaldsson (1996) has found embedded imperatives in the first Icelandic translation of the New Testament from 1540. On the other hand, Hroarsdóttir (2000) reports the loss of OV in Icelandic to be of recent origin (19th century).

Embedded imperatives 

imperative verb to this position, where it will also delete the uninterpretable [¬φ] of TEv. Hence the imperative verb will always be the element closest to C and thus forced to raise to C in order to delete the EPP feature associated with [+κ]. In Old Scandinavian, however, no EPP feature need be associated with [¬α] in TEv, as I have argued above, resulting in pseudo-OV. Hence, eliminating [¬φ] of TEv could be done by either the second person pronoun or the imperative verb, since being in SpecvP and v0, respectively, they are equidistant to TEv. This gives us two ways to delete the EPP feature associated with [+κ] in C: when the pronoun is in SpecTPEv, it must be further raised to SpecCP, yielding cases like (34) and (35). When the imperative is raised to TEv, on the other hand, it is the verb that is closest to C and must raise. Hence we account both for subject-first and verb-first imperatives in Old Scandinavian. Verb-first will always be the case when the VO-option of having an EPP feature associated with [¬α] in TEv is selected, and hence I predict that cases like (34) and (35) are lost when pseudo-OV is lost.22

.

Conclusion

In this paper I have studied the occurrence of embedded imperatives in Old Icelandic and Old Swedish. Assuming the feature-driven system outlined in Platzack (2001), based on Chomsky (2001) and Pesetsky and Torrego (2001), I have proposed a description that states that imperatives may be embedded in a that-clause only if the syntactic structure is such that it would lead to a particular kind of OVsyntax (pseudo-OV). From this follow several predictions, all of them borne out. They concern the obligatory presence of the second person subject, the occurrence of the imperative verb in front of the object, and the fact that the object is of the type that can be found in front of the verb in the languages in question. Diachronically, the description also seems to be consistent, since imperatives embedded in that-clauses are lost during the sixteenth century, which is when pseudo-OV syntax is also lost in these languages.

. As mentioned above, embedded imperatives have been reported for Old High German too; thus my account predicts that pseudo-OV should be attested in this language as well. This is indeed the case; consider Tomaselli (1991: 102), who cites the following example from Isidor’s Schrift contra Iudaeos. (i)

dhazs dhar ist Christ chizeichnit that there is Christ meant ‘That Christ is meant there.’

 Christer Platzack

References Alexiadou, A. and E. Anagnostopoulou. 1998. “Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539. Beukema, F. and P. Coopmans. 1989. “A Government-Binding perspective on the imperative in English”. Journal of Linguistics 25: 417–436. Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1998. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework”. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15. Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase”. In: M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Delsing, L.-O. 1999a. “Om imperativsatser i fornsvenskan” [About imperative clauses in Old Swedish]. In: I. Haskå and C. Sandqvist (eds) Alla Tiders Språk: En Vänskrift till Gertrud Pettersson November 1999, 50–58. Lund: Institutionen för Nordiska Språk. Delsing, L.-O. 1999b. “Från OV-ordföljd till VO-ordföljd: En språkförändring med förhinder” [From OV to VO: A prevented linguistic change]. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 114: 151–232. Delsing, L.-O. 2001. “From OV to VO in Swedish”. In: S. Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas and A. Warner (eds) Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms, 255–274. New York: Oxford University Press. Egerland, V. 1998. “The affectedness constraint and AspP”. Studia Linguistica 52: 19–47. Falk, H. and A. Torp. 1900. Dansk-norskens Syntax i Historisk Fremstilling.[Danish-Norwegian diachronic syntax]. Kristiania: Aschehoug. Holmberg, A. and C. Platzack. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Hróarsdóttir, Th. 1996. “The decline of OV word order in the Icelandic VP: A diachronic study”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 92–141. Hróarsdóttir, Th. 1998. Verb Phrase Syntax in the History of Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø. Hróarsdóttir, Th. 2000. “Parameter change in Icelandic”. In: P. Svenonius (ed.) The Derivation of VO and OV, 153–179. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Johnson, K. 1991. “Object positions”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 577–636. Josefsson, G. and C. Platzack. 1998. “Short raising of V and N in mainland Scandinavian”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 61: 23–52. Koizumi, M. 1993. “Object agreement phrases and the split VP hypothesis”. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 98–148. Koopman, H. 1997. “Topics in imperatives”. Ms., UCLA. Larsson, C. 1931. Ordföljdsstudier över det finita verbet i de nordiska fornspråken [Word order studies of the finite verb in Old Scandinavian]. Uppsala: Lundequistska. Mikkelsen, K. R. 1911. Dansk Ordföjningslære med Sproghistoriske Tillæg [The grammar of Danish word order with diachronic notes]. København: Lehmann and Stage. Pesetsky, D. and E. Torrego. 2001. “T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences”. In: M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 355–426. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Pesetsky, D. and E. Torrego. In preparation. “The syntax of tense and the nature of Case”. Ms., Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Pintzuk, S. 1991. Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Embedded imperatives  Platzack, C. 1983. “Three syntactic changes in the grammar of written Swedish around 1700”. In: E. Andersson, M. Saari and P. Slotte (eds) Struktur och Variation: Festskrift till Bengt Loman 7.8.1983, 43–63. Åbo: Åbo Akademi. Platzack, C. 2001. “The computational system as a minimal feature driven device and the tripartite TP/VP-hypothesis of the universal clause”. Ms., Lund University. Platzack, C. and I. Rosengren. 1998. “On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause”. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 177–224. Potsdam, E. 1998. Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative. New York: Garland. Rivero, M.-L. 1994. “Negation, imperatives and Wackernagel effects”. Rivista di Linguistica 6: 91–118. Rivero, M.-L. and A. Terzi. 1995. “Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood”. Journal of Linguistics 31: 301–332. Rizzi, L. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rögnvaldsson, E. 1996. “Word order variation in the VP in Old Icelandic”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 58: 55–86. Rögnvaldsson, E. 1998. “The syntax of the imperative in Old Scandinavian”. Ms., University of Iceland. Rupp, L. 1999. Aspects of the Syntax of English Imperatives. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Essex. Sheppard, M. and M. Golden. 2002. “(Negative) imperatives in Slovene”. In: S. Barbiers, F. Beukema and W. van der Wurff (eds) Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System, 245–259. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Sigurðsson, H. 1988. “From OV to VO: Evidence from Old Icelandic”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 34. Sigurðsson, H. 2000. “The locus of case and agreement”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65: 65–108. Stroh-Wollin, U. 2002. Som-satser med och utan som [Som-clauses with and without som]. Ph.D. dissertation, Uppsala University. Teleman, U., S. Hellberg and E. Andersson. 1999. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik [The Swedish Academy grammar]. Stockholm: NorstedtsOrdbok. Tomaselli, A. 1991. “Cases of V-3 in Old High German”. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 33: 93–127. Visser, F. 1963. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part 1: Syntactical Units with one Verb. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Wenning, A. 1930. Studier över ordföljden i fornsvenskan: predikatets bestämningar i äldre och yngre fornsvenska [Studies of word order in Old Swedish. The modifiers of the predicate in Early and Late Old Swedish]. Lund: Lindstedts. Wessén, E. 1965. Svensk språkhistoria III. Grundlinjer till en historisk syntax [The history of Swedish: Syntax]. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Zhang, S. 1990. The Status of Imperatives in Theories of Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.

How to say no and don’t Negative imperatives in Romance and Germanic*

Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff Meertens Institute, Amsterdam & Newcastle University

Abstract After reviewing some earlier analyses of negative imperatives, we argue that there is a correlation between the (non-)availability of negative imperatives in a language and the merger of the anaphoric negator (no) and sentence negator (not). This shows up not only as lexical identity of these two types of negation (e.g. Portuguese não ‘no’/’not’), but also in the syntactic merger of the corresponding functional projections. The interaction between this merger and the imperative will be studied in the light of Hoekstra and Jordens’s (1994) data from Dutch child language, in which there is a lexical distinction between boulemaeic negation (nee) and epistemic negation (niet). In the adult language, the corresponding functional projections have grammaticalised to an A-bar and A-projection, respectively. These two projections undergo complete merger in languages where the negators coincide lexically. In this way, the absence of the negative imperative can be viewed as a consequence of relativised minimality, an insight due to Rivero and Terzi (1995), which will be shown to crucially involve the A-bar properties of the imperative operator (with V-movement skipping negation on its way to COMP) and the A/Abar properties of negation.

.

Introduction

In many languages, saying don’t! is simple: one combines the ordinary form of the imperative with the ordinary form of the clausal negator, and the result is a negative imperative. An example is the Dutch sentence in (1), where fiets is the regular * We would like to thank Johan Rooryck and Hilda Koopman for useful comments. We offer this study to Frits Beukema as a tribute to his scholarship in matters imperative and nonimperative. The first author would like to express his thanks to Frits for all his words of wisdom, good advice and good humour, so freely dispensed over the years; the second author would like to add to this: ‘Thank you, Frits, for having been such an excellent co-teacher, co-author, co-editor and co-organiser. It was great to have you as a colleague in Leiden.’

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

second person singular imperative of the verb fietsen ‘to bike’ and niet ‘not’ is the regular clausal negator.1 (1)

Fiets niet zo hard! bike. not so fast ‘Don’t bike so fast!’

In other languages, however, such a simple combining operation does not have the expected effect, since the resultant sentence is ungrammatical or may even express a different meaning. In these languages, various suppletive strategies have to be adopted to express negative imperative force. Thus, in Kisongo Maasai, a sentence like (2a) is impossible; the desired meaning must be expressed by resorting to the use of a subjunctive as in (2b).2 In Bengali, (3a) expresses supplication instead of negation, and (3b), which has a negated form of the special future imperative, must be used to express the meaning of a negative imperative.3 (2)

(3)

a. *mi-ta.nap.a -carry. ‘Don’t carry it!’ b. m-î-nap -2-carry. ‘Don’t carry it.’ a. aSo na. come.. NEG #‘Don’t come.’ ‘Please, do come.’ b. eSo na. come.. NEG ‘Don’t come.’

This phenomenon could be viewed as pointing at an imperfection of design in languages like Maasai and Bengali, which do not show compositionality of meaning in this area of grammar. From a functional point of view, this lack of compositionality is surprising, since the intended negative meaning of (2a) and (3a) cannot be considered particularly outlandish or esoteric. Still, it cannot be expressed through the use of the simplest semantic building blocks that the language makes available. It therefore appears that there are formal factors at work here, which in some but not all languages block the compositional expression of negative imperatives. Explanations that have been offered for this in earlier work are indeed all formally oriented.

.

On the forms of the Dutch imperative, see Bennis (this volume).

.

Data are from Koopman (2000).

.

On this and other non-negative uses of na in Bengali, see Singh (1976).

How to say no and don’t 

In this paper, we first review three earlier accounts of the phenomenon, showing that each of them faces problems (Section 2). After this, we present data from the Romance and Germanic languages showing that in these languages there is an as yet unnoticed correlation between the (non-)availability of compositional negative imperatives and the (non-)identity of the clausal negator ‘not’ and the anaphoric negator ‘no’ (Section 3). We then use this correlation in Section 4 to develop a new account of the facts. It will build on suggestions in earlier accounts, but accommodate them in an analysis which avoids the problems they face and at the same time provides a natural explanation for the correlation described in Section 3. A brief summary of our findings and proposals is presented in Section 5. The basic idea that we will pursue is that negation in imperatives has a meaning which is different from that of negation in declaratives, since it has a boulemaeic component, i.e. it expresses volition on the speech act level. In several languages, including child Dutch, this difference is reflected in the use of different negators in negative imperatives versus negative non-imperatives. We therefore posit the existence of two separate functional projections for negation. Furthermore, we develop an account of the anaphoric negator ‘no’ whereby it is raised to sentenceinitial position from a specifier position in NegP. The result is that ‘no’ and ‘not’ are located in two different NegPs, with ‘no’ being a specifier and ‘not’ being a head. In languages where the forms for ‘no’ and ‘not’ are identical, the two NegPs are collapsed, and form a minimality barrier for movement of V to the COMP position which houses the imperative operator. Hence, these languages only allow positive imperatives, unless they have some mechanism for circumventing the blocking effect of NegP. In languages where the forms for ‘no’ and ‘not’ are different, there are two NegPs. The verb first moves to the higher NegP to check an imperative feature (an instance of A-bar movement), skipping the lower NegP (which is an A-projection); subsequently, V moves to COMP. There is no violation of relativised minimality, and the negative imperative is grammatical.

.

Previous accounts of negative imperatives

In the generative literature prior to the 1990s, there appears to be no single study focusing on the question why compositional imperatives are ungrammatical in some languages. However, from the early 1990s onwards several accounts of the phenomenon have appeared, which all argue that there is a correlation between the (non-)compositionality of negative imperatives and other facts of the language. In this section we review the three most important proposals that have been made, as a prelude to our subsequent presentation of a new correlation and an account of it.

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

.

Rivero and Terzi (1995)

An influential syntactic account of the absence of the negative imperative in many languages of the world was proposed in Rivero and Terzi (1995), which builds on Rivero (1991, 1994a, 1994b). We will discuss their proposal in some detail, since we will take over in our own analysis an essential ingredient from their account: the idea that the imperative and negation interact through relativised minimality. .. Negation and clitic position: a correlation To begin with, Rivero and Terzi (1995) suggest that the absence of the negative imperative is not a mere surface phenomenon, or just an accidental absence in the morphological paradigm of a language. The absence follows from core syntactic properties of the language. They argue that some languages have a ‘distinct syntax’ in imperatives while other languages have ‘regular syntax’ in imperatives, the difference being due to properties of COMP. ‘Distinct syntax’ of imperatives manifests itself in two areas: the behaviour of the imperative with respect to negation and its behaviour with respect to the position of pronominal clitics. Rivero and Terzi claim that the following observational correlation holds: if imperative forms in a language have a distinct syntax with respect to negation, they also have a distinct syntax with respect to clitic placement, and vice versa. They illustrate this claim using Ancient and Modern Greek, Serbo-Croatian and Spanish as examples. Thus, Modern Greek and Spanish have proclisis in all tensed verbal forms, as illustrated in (4), but enclisis in imperatives (5). (4)

a.

b.

(5)

a.

b.

Lo leiste/*Leiste lo it. read..2 ‘You read it.’ To diavases/*Diavases to it. read..2 ‘You read it.’ Leelo! read..2-it.CL ‘Read it!’ Diavase to! read..2 it.CL ‘Read it!’

(Spanish)

(Modern Greek)

(Spanish)

(Modern Greek)

Correlating with this, these languages do not have negative imperatives. In other words, the negative imperative cannot be made compositionally out of negation plus imperative (note that the imperative is the only verbal form with such behaviour). This is illustrated in (6) and (7) for Spanish and Modern Greek respectively, where the a-examples are positive imperatives, the b-examples are ungrammatical negative imperatives, and the c-examples represent the resort strategy of using a negative subjunctive instead of an imperative.

How to say no and don’t 

(6)

(7)

a. Leelo! (Spanish) b. *No lee(lo)! c. No lo leias. not it. read..2 ‘Don’t read it!’ a. Diavase to! (Greek) b. *Mi/den diavase (to)! c. Den to diavases. not it read..2 ‘Don’t read it!’

imperative negative imperative negative subjunctive

imperative negative imperative negative subjunctive

Ancient Greek and Serbo-Croatian, on the other hand, have uniform clitic placement in imperatives and finite forms. Correlating with this, Ancient Greek and Serbo-Croatian have fully compositional negative imperatives. Rivero and Terzi’s correlational claim is represented in the Table in (8); of the four options that are logically possible with respect to clitic position and negation in imperatives, only two exist. Type I (Modern Greek and Spanish) has a special clitic position and no negation in imperatives, while Type II (Ancient Greek and Serbo-Croatian) has ordinary clitic placement and ordinary negation. (8) Imperative has distinctive syntax: with clitics

with negation yes no

yes

no

Type I Type II

Since clitic placement is standardly analysed as involving movement of the verb across pronominal clitics, Rivero and Terzi therefore link the existence/nonexistence of the negative imperative in a language to the language’s behaviour with respect to verb movement. .. Negation and clitic position: an explanation Rivero and Terzi (1995) explain the correlation described above by positing an interaction between the imperative feature and negation, such that verbal movement triggered by the need for checking an imperative feature will be blocked by the presence of negation, since the NEG and IMP features are of the same type. However, the effects of this blocking are circumvened in languages in which COMP has certain specific properties. These specific features in COMP have various other consequences in syntax. Hence the correlation.

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

These ideas are implemented by assuming that Type I languages have an imperative feature in C, while languages of Type II have an imperative feature that is located in I, which Rivero and Terzi assume to be below negation. Let us consider what happens in Type I languages first. In imperatives, there will be movement of V to C, which is a kind of operator movement. Since movement for checking of negative features is also operator movement, V-to-C in a negative clause crosses a position of a similar kind, which is ruled out by relativised minimality. Hence, negative imperatives are ungrammatical in these languages, as shown in (9). Clitic positions, however, are of another type, and movement of the verb skipping the intermediate position is possible here, as shown in (10). (9)

C [imp]

Neg

V [imp]

(10)

C [imp]

Cl

V [imp]

Languages of Type II have the feature [imp] in I. Rivero and Terzi (1995) assume that [imp] in I is weak, so that checking will be postponed. Nevertheless, imperatives move to COMP also in Type II languages such as Serbo-Croatian and Ancient Greek. Rivero and Terzi are therefore led to the assumption that these languages have movement to COMP of another type. This movement does not take place for purposes of feature checking but is a ‘last resort strategy’ in order to ensure that there is appropriate support for weak phonological material. Negation, or any other functional projection, does not count as a minimality barrier for this movement, hence languages of type II can form negative imperatives. The authors identify this movement, which they also call ‘Wackernagel movement’, as Long Head Movement in the sense of Rivero (1994a). .. Problems for Rivero and Terzi (1995) There are various problems with Rivero and Terzi’s (1995) account, both theoretical and empirical. In the first place, the authors do not make clear why the weak/ strong alternation of [imp] correlates with a change in the location of the [imp] feature. Secondly, it is by no means clear why the weak [imp] feature in Type II languages correlates with the presence of Wackernagel movement. What makes it impossible for COMP as a position of phonological support to host the [imp] feature? Rivero and Terzi claim that its function as a host for phonological support disables it from being a host for the logical illocutionary force of the sentence. Apart from the fact that this is undesirable from a meta-theoretical point of view, the consequence is that these functions are not independent of each other, as the authors suppose in the context of (relativised) minimality.

How to say no and don’t 

There are also empirical problems with the account. As the authors themselves admit, the correlation is not absolute. Cypriot Greek, for instance, behaves as a type II language with respect to clitics in imperative clauses, but with respect to negation it behaves as a Type I language, just like Modern Greek. A similar case is presented by Portuguese. Just like Cypriot Greek, it does not allow for a compositional negative imperative, and resorts to the use of a negative subjunctive instead. However, Portuguese has no special clitic strategy in imperatives. Portuguese does not allow for sentence initial clitics, either in imperatives or in declaratives. Since Portuguese is, in the sense of Rivero (1993), a proto-typical Wackernagel language, it should be able to move the verb past the negation under Long Head Movement as in (10). However, it cannot. A reverse case can also be found: Modern French has a compositional negative imperative, as (11) illustrates. (11)

a.

Va à la maison! go. to the house ‘Go home!’ Ne va/*ailles pas à la maison! NEG go./ NEG to the house ‘Do not go home!’

b.

imperative

negative imperative

Nevertheless, contrary to predictions, French has a distinct syntax in imperative clauses with clitics, as shown in (12). (12)

a.

Tu t’en vas. you REFL there go. ‘You go away.’ Va-t’en! go.- there ‘Go away!’

b.

proclisis with all verbal forms

enclisis with imperatives

Hence, if we complete the scheme in (8), it turns out that all four slots are occupied, which means that there is no true correlation between the two phenomena. (13) Imperative has distinctive syntax: with clitics

with negation

yes

no

yes

Modern Greek Spanish

Cypriot Greek Portuguese

no

French

Ancient Greek Serbo-Croatian

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

Of course, there may well be a statistical correlation between the two dimensions in (13), causing two of the four cells to be overpopulated. However, we believe that the observational correlation is, at least, of a more remote nature than the authors assume. In Section 3, we present another correlation, evidenced in the Romance and Germanic languages. Membership of Class I and Class II with respect to the negative imperative turns out to correlate with the nature of negation, rather than with properties of COMP. In Section 4, we give an account of this which takes Rivero and Terzi’s minimality analysis as a starting point, but deviates from it in that we attribute the escape hatch for minimality in type II languages not to properties of COMP but to (A/A-bar) properties of negation (NegP) itself. The (A/A-bar) properties of NegP may correlate with (A/A-bar) properties of COMP, giving rise to the statistical correlations noticed by Rivero and Terzi, but the correlation is not absolute. .

Zanuttini (1994)

A different approach to the negative imperative can be found in Zanuttini (1994), where an interesting attempt is made to define the imperative using independent criteria. This is most welcome as there is some confusion in the literature on what should be considered an imperative and what not (e.g. Harris 1998). We shall adopt Zanuttini’s definition in our new proposal in Section 4. We will also use, in a modified form, her idea that true imperatives in Romance are defective, in the sense that they lack a functional projection. She calls this projection FP1; it resides just below Laka’s (1994) ΣP. .. What counts as a syntactic imperative? Traditional grammars often try to provide a full paradigm of imperative forms, though they usually acknowledge that – for semantic reasons – it is defective in the first person singular. Thus, Dardano and Trifone (1985) present the imperative paradigm of the Italian verb lavare ‘wash!’ that is given in the first column of (14). (14) 1SG 2

3

1PL

imperative – Lava-ti, (tu)! wash- (you) ‘Wash yourself!’ Si lavi (egli)! REFL wash (he) ‘Let him wash himself.’ Laviamo-ci! wash- ‘Let’s wash ourselves.’

negative imperative – Non ti lavare!/*Non lava-ti not REFL wash./not wash.- ‘Don’t wash yourself.’ Non si lavi!

Non laviamo-ci!

How to say no and don’t 

2

3

Lavate-vi! Non lavate-vi! wash- ‘Wash yourselves!’ Si lavino (essi)! Non si lavino! REFL wash (they) ‘Let them wash themselves.’

However, it has been argued on semantic, morphological and syntactic grounds that the 3SG and 3PL forms are not true imperatives. Semantically, these forms do not involve a second person and therefore lack a basic semantic ingredient of imperatives.4 The 1PL form does have this ingredient, since it has an obligatorily inclusive reading, which can be reprented as [1+2] in terms of Postal (1966). Furthermore, for all verbs, including irregular ones, the 3SG and 3PL forms in (14) coincide morphologically with subjunctive forms. Finally, with regard to syntax, the 3SG and 3PL forms show the proclisis characteristic of all indicative and subjunctive forms of the verb, instead of the enclisis found with the other forms in (14).5 For all these reasons, it seems reasonable to admit only the 2SG, 2PL and 1PL forms in (14) to the category of true imperatives; the 3SG/PL forms in (14) show grammatical suppletion by present tense subjunctive forms. Zanuttini (1994) goes even further: she accepts as true imperatives only those forms that have a morphological shape which does not have systematic syncretism with any second person form of another paradigm. Imperative forms that systematically coincide with subjunctive or indicative forms are to be considered suppletive imperatives. Hence, the set of true imperative forms is language dependent. For Italian, of all forms given in (14), only the 2SG form is a true imperative, since it shows no syncretism with any other second person singular form in the language. Zanuttini dismisses the 1PL and 2PL forms on the paradigmatic grounds that they are systematically identical to the second person plural indicative present tense. Zanuttini therefore takes a strict morphological stand. However, she does so at the cost of introducing an additional suppletive strategy: not only the present tense subjunctive provides suppletive forms (in 3SG/PL), but the present indicative also does so (in 1/2PL). A second and more serious disadvantage of limiting the set of imperative forms in this way is that there is no longer a two-way correlation between imperatives and special clitic placement. However, . The forms in question can also be used as second person honorifics. We leave these out of account here. . Note that, whether the 3SG/PL forms are excluded or not, the data in (14) create problems for Rivero and Terzi’s generalisation represented in (8). In their view, if a language has distinct imperative syntax, this should show up both in the ungrammaticality of compositional negative imperatives and in special clitic placement patterns in imperative clauses. As can be seen in (14), there is special clitic placement in 2SG/PL and 1PL, but the compositional negative is blocked only in 2SG. Apparently, the two manifestations of ‘distinct syntax’ are disconnected in Italian.

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

there is an advantage too: as can be seen in (14), under Zanuttini’s approach there is a bidirectional implication between true imperativehood and the impossibility of forming a compositional negative imperative.6 Zanuttini posits, however, that this relation holds true only in languages with preverbal negation, such as Italian; languages with postverbal negation, such as Dutch and German, have no problem in forming negated imperatives. .. Ruling out negative imperative forms Having thus restricted the set of true imperatives in Italian, Zanuttini proceeds to account for the ungrammaticality of negative imperatives in languages with preverbal negation. She assumes that the relevant projections in the imperative are 1. CP; 2. a projection where the yes/no polarity of the clause is encoded, which she calls PolP or ΣP; and 3. a projection FP, which immediately dominates the functional projection that hosts the pronominal clitics. Furthermore, she assumes that lexical material adjoins to functional projections, and that multiple adjunction to a head is ruled out by Kayne’s Linear Correspondence Axiom (Kayne 1994). Hence, verbal adjunction and clitic adjunction involve two seperate heads. Finally, negation adjoins to the head of ΣP. Enclitic structures, as in Italian suppletive imperatives such as 1PL and 2PL in (14), are analysed as involving verbal movement to the projection FP. This is illustrated in (15). (15) [CP

[ΣP Σ0 [ FP

F

[CliticP Cl [

V ]]]]]

(ordinary tenses and suppletive imperatives)

To rule out negated true imperatives, the crucial assumption is now that true imperatives differ from all other verbal forms in that they are defective and lack the projection FP. Instead, imperatives move to ΣP, as shown in (16). (16) [CP [ΣP Σ0 [CliticP Cl [

V ]]]]

(true imperative)

In a language having preverbal negation, problems arise in negative imperatives: since a preverbal negative marker is adjoined to the head of ΣP, the verb cannot also . A note of warning may be in order about this uniqueness requirement on true imperatives. Zanuttini considers the Italian 2SG imperative a true imperative since it cannot be confused with any other 2SG form. However, this is only the case for verbs in conjugation class I. For all verbs in the second and third conjugations (including some highly irregular ones), the 2SG imperative is systematically identical to the 2SG form of the present tense indicative. Although Zanuttini does not state this explicitly, the silent assumption is that non-syncretism for at least one verb suffices for an entire set of forms to qualify as true imperatives (for discussion of what such a principle would lead to in Dutch, see Barbiers, this volume: n. 6 and Bennis, this volume: n. 4).

How to say no and don’t 

adjoin to it, multiple adjunction being forbidden. As FP is absent in true imperatives, no adjunction slot for the verb to move to is available. Under the assumption that imperative movement is obligatory, the ungrammaticality of negated true imperatives follows.7 These languages therefore use a suppletive strategy with a fullfledged structure as in (15). In a language with postverbal negation, no problem arises since the imperative verb first moves across negation, and then on to ΣP. This proposal differs from Rivero and Terzi’s (1995) account in two major ways. In the first place, Zanuttini does not consider movement to COMP as as basic ingredient of imperatives, contrary to Rivero and Terzi. Secondly, in Zanuttini’s account the blocking of verb movement is not caused by a minimality barrier but by a defective clause structure of true imperatives, whereby the negative marker and the imperative verb compete for the same structural position. .. Problems for Zanuttini (1994) Zanuttini’s proposal faces a variety of problems. On the theoretical side, one would like to know the identity of the mysterious FP that is absent in imperatives. Zanuttini (1994) remains agnostic about the nature of this projection. One possibility she mentions is that FP is to be identified with TP, which would be in line with Beukema and Coopman’s (1989) idea that imperatives may lack Tense (see also den Dikken and Blasco, this volume). However, in Zanuttini (1997), FP is identified with MoodP (see Mulder and den Dikken 1992 and Cinque 1999). The result would be that, somewhat counter-intuitively, a structural Mood projection is present in ordinary declaratives but absent in imperatives. Another question raised by Zanuttini’s account concerns the difference betweeen preverbal and postverbal negation. Since FP resides in the higher functional domain of the clause, Zanuttini predicts that blocking effects only manifest themselves with preverbal negators, of the type exempliefied by French ne, but not with post-verbal negation, of the type of French pas. Apart from the fact that it is not entirely clear that the concept of pre- and postverbal negation is more than an epiphenomenon of verb movement across negation, there are empirical problems with Zanuttini’s use of it. Surmeiran, a Rhaeto-Romance dialect discussed in Zanuttini (1997: 17), forms a counterexample to her claims. In Surmeiran, the negator bec resembles French pas in occurring postverbally in declarative sentences. However, in true imperatives, the negator bec blocks verb movement, leading to bec-V order. Examples are given in (17), taken from Haiman (1988: 377).

. Zanuttini (1994) does not say anything about the trigger for imperative V-movement. It might lie in the need for the empty subject to be governed (whether it is PRO, which must be governed if we adopt Kayne’s 1991 proposals, or pro, which must be identified).

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

(17)

a.

b.

c.

Tu seras bec la fanestra. you close. not the indow ‘You do not close the window.’ Sera la fanestra! close. the window ‘Close the window!’ Bec sera la fanestra! not close the window ‘Don’t close the window!’

(Surmeiran)8

Surmeiran in fact constitutes a double counterexample to Zanuttini’s (1994) claims. Despite having a true imperative, the negative imperative is not blocked. Secondly, despite having a postverbal negator, this negator blocks V-movement in imperatives. Simply extending the way negation and true imperatives interact to also include postverbal negation would be an overgeneralisation, as it would wrongly predict that the Germanic languages, which all have postverbal negation, should have no negative imperative. Nevertheless, such an extension would be theoretically desirable, especially in any account that crucially appeals to relativised minimality (such as Rivero and Terzi’s account and the one we will present in Section 4). It is difficult to imagine why post- and preverbal negators should be of different types, and hence would interact differently with the imperative. Another type of counterexample is Middle Dutch. Just like Italian, it has a preverbal (clitic) negator and it has an imperative form which is distinct from all other 2SG verbal forms. Nevertheless, negation can simply be combined with the imperative form, as shown in (18). (18)

a.

Du neems dat. you take. that

(indicative)

. The Raetho-Romance dialects that have buk(a) as the heavy negator realize it either pre- or postverbally in true imperatives, as shown in (i). (i)

(buk(a)) sa muenta (buk(a))! NEG REFL move. NEG ‘Don’t move!’

The pre- and postverbal realisation is explicitly reported in Nay (1938: 49) and Haiman (1988: 376). The Rhaeto-Romance dialects that have bec instead of buk(a) have the negator only preverbally in true imperatives, as can be seen from the dialect atlas by Jaberg and Jud (1928: VIII, map 1647): (ii)

Bec sa muenta! NEG REFL move.IMP ‘Don’t move!’

(Villages 5, 10, 14, 16, 25, 35).

In both types of dialects, the strong postverbal negator interacts with verb movement in imperatives, which is unexpected under Zanuttini’s approach.

How to say no and don’t 

b. c.

Neem dat! take. that En neem dat niet! NEG take that not ‘Don’t take that.’

(imperative) (negative imperative)

Of course, these data are also problematic for Rivero and Terzi’s (1995) account. A similar problem is posed by French, in which a 2SG imperative such as va is distinct from the present indicative (vas) and from the present subjunctive (ailles). Nevertheless, imperative va can be combined with negation. The examples in (19) illustrate this. (19)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Tu t’en vas. you REFL-ADV go. ‘You go away.’ Va-t’en! go.-- ‘Go away!’ Que tu t’en ailles. that you - go. ‘That you go away.’ Ne t’en va pas! NEG REFL-ADV go. not ‘Don’t go away!’

(indicative)

(imperative)

(subjunctive)

(negative imperative)

Zanuttini is aware of these facts and suggests that the difference between the imperative form va and the indicative vas is an artefact of the spelling, as the final <s> of vas is silent. Apart from the fact that French patterns with Romance dialects where the second person -s is still pronounced (such as Surmeiran, cf. Haiman 1988: 377; Romagnolo and Old Italian, cf. Zanuttini 1997: 150), this solution is doubtful even if one confines oneself to modern French. Imperatives of être ‘be’ and avoir ‘have’ are clearly distinct from the indicative, as shown for avoir in (20). (20)

a.

b. c.

Tu as pitié de moi. you have pity of me ‘You have pity on me.’ Aie pitié de moi! have pity of me Que tu aies pitié de moi. that you have pity of me

(indicative)

(imperative) (subjunctive)

It is true that the imperative form in (20b) is phonologically identical to the subjunctive form in (20c). However, to draw any conclusions from this, we would require a more articulated notion of suppletion, in which the choice of the suppletive strategy is not only different in different person/number forms, but also with respect to different verbs or verb classes. Although this split-strategy suppletion is a serious option, if we split up verb classes with respect to suppletion in French,

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

we should do the same for Italian. As we saw in 2.2.1, imperative forms in the second and third conjugation of Italian verbs are systematically identical to the present tense indicative, so they should count as suppletive imperatives. Nevertheless, imperatives of the second and third verb class cannot be combined with negation. This split-strategy proposal would therefore destroy the correlation in Italian. Summarising we may say that Zanuttini’s account is attractive with respect to the definition of true imperatives that she provides and the assumption that imperative clauses are characterised by the presence of somewhat reduced functional structure (although the absence of a clear identification of the FP that is missing in imperatives makes the theory somewhat hard to evaluate). The theory provides good coverage of data, both for Romance and for Germanic. The latter are not sensitive to the absence of FP, as most of the Germanic languages have postverbal negation. However, some clear problems exist, both in Romance (Surmeiran, French, Old Italian) and in Germanic (Middle Dutch, Middle German, etc.). In these cases, the distinction between postverbal and preverbal negation does not seem to work. Apparently, some other factor is active, which strongly correlates with this distinction, but is not identical to it. .

Han (2000)

The third approach to negative imperatives that we discuss here is found in Han (2000). Han takes Zanuttini’s observational generalisation about pre-/postverbal negation and the (un)grammaticality of negative imperatives as a starting point. Instead of attributing these facts to the defective nature of the imperative (as Zanuttini does by saying that it lacks a projection in the preverbal domain), Han provides a semantic scope motivation for the generalisation. An important element in the explanation is Han’s reduction of Zanuttini’s pre/post-verbal opposition to a clitic/non clitic opposition. In fact, the crucial point is whether the verb takes negation with it on its way to COMP or not, the idea being that head incorporation changes scope relations with clitic negation but not with heavy negation. Although we will not take over Han’s approach entirely, we will also derive this opposition in the account that we present in Section 4. .. The scope of negative and imperative First, Han argues that the imperative is an illocutionary operator that always sits in COMP. Next she observes that any negative imperative reading must have an unambiguous scope relation between imperative force and negation: imperative must have scope over negation. For this reason, illocutonary force is represented by a feature which resides in the highest projection, COMP, while negation resides lower. For syntactic reasons, the verb must move to the COMP projection in order to check its imperative feature. Han then argues that, if negation is a clitic, movement of V to C, passing through NEG, will create a configuration as in (21),

How to say no and don’t 

where the scope relations are wrong, since negation will asymmetrically have scope over IMP. CP

(21)

C’ C0 I0 Neg

IP C0

I0

[IMP]

verb

To define the scope relations, Han uses the definition of c-command of Kayne (1994: 16), given in (22). (22)

X c-commands Y iff 1. X and Y are categories and 2. X excludes Y (i.e. no segment of X dominates Y) and 3. every category that dominates X dominates Y

With (22) as a definition, NEG will c-command [IMP] in (21), but [IMP] will not c-command NEG (the domination requirement is symmetrically satisfied, but the exclusion requirement is not). This implies that only one reading is present: (21) expresses a negation of a command, instead of a command not to do something. Since illocutionary force cannot be negated, the ungrammaticality of imperatives in languages with preverbal negation follows. In this way, Han provides an attractive semantic account of the (modified) observational generalisation posited by Zanuttini. .. Problems for Han (2000) The account sketched above faces the same empirical problems that exist for Zanuttini’s analysis. Han in fact pays special attention to French and other languages which have a preverbal clitic negator and nevertheless unexpectedly allow the formation of a negative imperative. For these cases, Han adopts an additional hypothesis, also present in Zanuttini (1997): since the preverbal negator can be dropped (colloquially), the true negator is the non-clitic pas. No scope problem arises when the verb moves to COMP, since it does not take along pas and no configuration as in (21) arises. Surmeiran is a problem also for Han. Like French, it has combined pre- and postverbal negation, with the preverbal negator usually being dropped. However, the ordinarily postverbal negator bec, in which the negative force resides, appears

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

to block movement of the imperative verb, so that imperatives have the order becV, as shown in (17). Some of the languages discussed by Rivero and Terzi (1995) also do not fit neatly into Han’s theory. Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian have clearly preverbal negation, and yet they allow for a negative imperative (see Section 4.6 below). Han’s solution is to say that these languages check the imperative feature at LF. Since at LF morphological constraints do not count, the verb can LF-move to COMP through NegP without taking the clitic negation along. Hence, V-movement to COMP does not change the scope relations between IMP and NEG. This explains, Han suggests, why these languages have negative imperatives. A major problem here is that it is not clear why languages like Italian cannot similarly check the imperative feature at LF. Moreover, Han here assumes a correlation between Wackernagel-type languages and IMP-checking at LF, without discussing the nature of the connection (or is it a mere accident?). Note that Rivero and Terzi’s (1995) solution is equally stipulative: they assume overt checking of the IMP feature, which now resides low in the structure, since the Wackernagel properties push the IMP feature downward. From a theoretical perspective, Han’s analysis is implemented at a fairly technical level of detail, and is therefore dependent on fine-tuned properties of the syntactic model. We highlight some points (for some other problematic aspects, see Sheppard and Golden 2002): ●

●

●

Note that the dominance relations between Neg and [IMP] in (21) are symmetrical. The asymmetry in c-command in (21) stems from the (asymmetrical) exclusion relations. However, it is not standard practice to use the notion of exclusion in defining scopal c-command. If Han is right, incorporation will always reverse scope relations (as long as the operators reside in the head). This will have far-reaching consequences for the theory of incorporation. It also appears to incorrectly predict that forms like improbable and not probable have different scope relations. Han’s result is crucially dependent on the locus of the imperative operator in C0. If one locates the imperative operator in SpecCP, as Barbiers (this volume) and Bennnis (this volume: n. 5) suggest, Han’s result will be lost since the IMP operator would asymmetrically c-command the NEG operator. In fact, it seems that Han does not make a distinction between the IMP feature and the IMP operator. The IMP feature must be checked by Spec-head agreement and/or by head-movement, just like the WH feature in COMP. These features are usually considered uninterpretable. Only the IMP operator, which resides in SpecCP, is interpretable. This means that Han’s solution is dependent on two controversial technicalities (exclusion being part of the definition of ccommand; and the IMP operator being located in C0). This makes the solution vulnerable.

How to say no and don’t 

●

As verbs are base-inserted in VP, below the negation, the question is how the verb passes the heavy Neg (e.g. French pas) without scope problems arising. Han must assume that pas is a maximal projection, located in a specifier position. This is not the standard view, and is adopted without argumentation.

We have discussed Han’s (2000) proposal in some detail for two reasons. First, we will take over the idea that the imperative feature is uniformly located in COMP. However, we separate this [IMP] feature from the IMP operator which, by standard assumptions, occupies a maximal projection. This means that we will not be able to take over Han’s scope analysis: head movement of V will not inverse scope relations. Secondly, we believe that Han’s intuition that Zanuttini’s pre/post-verbal opppostion of negation should be replaced by a tonic/atonic opposition is worth considering. In fact, the new generalisation that we present in the next section is reminiscent of it.

.

A new correlation

We saw above that there are two main correlations that have been proposed between the (non)-existence of negative imperatives in a language and the (non-) existence of other features in it. One concerns word order patterns (i.e. the existence of a special cliticisation order in imperatives, as proposed by Rivero and Terzi 1995) and the other concerns the nature of clausal negation in the language (preverbal vs. postverbal, as proposed by Zanuttini 1997, or clitic vs. non-clitic, as suggested by Han 2000). We also saw, however, that there is some reason to doubt the correctness of both correlations, viewed as empirical generalisations. In this section, we present data showing that there is another correlation involving negative imperatives, which appears to hold quite robustly across the Romance and Germanic languages. We will use this correlation to develop a new account of negative imperatives in Section 4. The correlation that we have found involves the lexical (non-)identity of the anaphoric negator and the clausal negator on the one hand, and the (non-) compositionality of the negative imperative on the other hand. To be precise, if a language has an anaphoric negator NON-1 (i.e. no in English, nein in German, nee in Dutch, no in Spanish, não in European Portuguese, etc.) which is identical in form with (one of) the basic clausal negator(s) forming the set NON-2 (i.e. not in English, nicht in German, niet in Dutch, no in Spanish, não in European Portuguese, etc.), the language does not have a negated true imperative, and vice versa. Thus, only languages in which the form NON-1 ∉ NON-2 have compositional negative imperatives. Some examples from various Romance and Germanic languages to illustrate the correlation are given in (23)–(47). In each case, we provide the forms for NON-1 and the element(s) of NON-2, a specimen of a positive 2SG imperative,

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

and a specimen of a negative imperative, indicating whether it is compositional (i.e. consists of a true 2SG imperative combined with a clausal negator) or not (i.e. represents a resort strategy involving the use of a subjunctive, infinitive or some other means of expression).9 (23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

Classical Latin NON-1 = non NON-2 = {non} a. Tange me! touch. me ‘Touch me!’ b. Noli me tangere! -want..2 me touch. ‘Don’t touch me!’ b’. Ne me tangas. not me touch..2 ‘Don’t touch me.’ European Portuguese NON-1 = não a. Toca-me! touch.-me b. Não me toques! not me touch..2 ‘Don’t touch me!’

non-compositional

non-compositional

NON-2 = {não}

Spanish NON-1 = no NON-2 = {no} a. Toca-me! touch.-me b. No me toque! not me touch..2 ‘Don’t touch me!’ Catalan NON-1 = no NON-2 = {no} a. Toca’m! touch. me b. No em toquis! not me touch..2 ‘Don’t touch me!’

non-compositional

non-compositional

non-compositional

. For Latin, see Risselada (1993: 141–142, 296–300); for European Portuguese, see Cunha and Cintra (1984: 474); for Spanish, see Rivero (1994b); for Sardinian, Jones (1988: 333) and Zanuttini (1997: 110); for Italian, Dardano and Trifone (1985: 183); for Rumanian, Beyrer, Bochmann and Bronsert (1987: 188, 250); for Old French, Einhorn (1974: 95, 119–120); for Provençal/ Occitan, Durand (1941: 103) and Wheeler (1988: 261–262); for Surmeiran, Haiman (1988: 361, 376–377); for Piedmontese, Zanuttini (1997: 111); for Gothic, Krause (1968: 207, 218); for Icelandic, Thráinsson (1994); for Faroese, Barnes and Weyhe (1994); for Norwegian, Faarlund et al. (1997: 587–590); for Swedish, Holmes and Hinchliffe (1994: 298–299); for Danish, Allan et al. (1995: 301–303); for Middle Dutch, van Gestel et al. (1992: 46–47); for Frisian, Tiersma (1985: 107–109); and for Yiddish, Jacobs et al. (1994). For help with the data, we would like to thank Roberto Crespo and Beatrice Santorini.

How to say no and don’t 

(27)

(28)

(29)

Sardinian NON-1 = no a. Kanta! sing. b. Non kantes! not sing..2 ‘Don’t sing!’

NON-2 = {non, no}

Italian NON-1 = no(n) a. Parla! speak. b. Non parlare! not speak. ‘Don’t speak.’

NON-2 = {no(n)}10

Rumanian NON-1 = nu a. Asteapta! wait. b. Nu astepta!11 not wait. ‘Don’t wait!’

non-compositional

non-compositional

NON-2 = {nu}

non-compositional

. In line with most historical grammars of Italian, we assume that the shared underlying form is non, which in final position is realised as no, both in its anaphoric negative function and in its clausal negative function (see Rohlfs 1968: 302). For the anaphoric negative, this results in alternations such as no ‘no’ vs. nossignore ‘no, sir’ (with geminate s). Alternation in the form of the clausal negator can be seen in (i) as compared with (ii). (i) (ii)

Piedro va, mà non Gianni. ‘P. goes, but not G.’ Piedro va, mà Gianni nó. ‘P. goes, but G. [does] not’

Another option would be to say there are two clausal negators, non and nó, with the anaphoric negator being identical to one of them; compare the Old French facts in (30). . In modern spoken Rumanian, there appears to be a tendency to make the negative imperative compositionally, so that forms like Nu te du acole! NEG REFL go.IMP there ‘Don’t go there!’ are used instead of Nu te duce acolo NEG REFL go.INF there ‘Don’t go there’. In a development that we think is connected, the anaphoric negator nu is losing ground to a new form, ba (originally a strong affirmation given as a reply to a negative statement, to be compared with French si and German doch). Examples of anaphoric negative ba can be seen in (i). (i)

a.

b.

Mergi cu mine? - Ba! come.2 with me no ‘Are you coming with me? - No!’ Da sau ba? -Ba! yes or no no

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

(30)

Old French NON-1 = non NON-2 = {ne, nen, non} a. Va, si te chouche! Go., and yourself lie. ‘Go and lie down!’ b. Jamais devant moi ne viegnes non-compositional anymore in-front-of me not come..2 ‘Don’t show yourself to me anymore!’ b’. Ne t’esmaier! non-compositional not .frighten. ‘Don’t be afraid!’

(31)

Occitan NON-1 = non NON-2 = {ne, non, pas} a. Canto! sing. b. Cantes pas12 sing..2 not ‘Don’t sing.’

(32)

(33)

(34)

Surmeiran NON-1 = na NON-2 = {bec} a. Sera la fenestra! close. the window b. Bec sera la fanestra! not close. the window ‘Don’t close the window!’ Piedmontese NON-1 = no NON-2 = {nen} a. Parla! speak. b. Parla nen! speak. not ‘Don’t speak!’ Modern French NON-1 = non NON-2 = {pas, ne} a. Touche-moi! touch.-me b. Ne me touche pas! NEG me touch. NEG ‘Dont touch me!’

non-compositional

compositional

compositional

compositional

. Besides the subjunctive strategy shown here, Occitan also uses the verb ‘want’ to form suppletive imperatives. In such clauses, the preverbal clausal negator non is used, and not postverbal pas (see Alibert 1976: 332). An example is: (i)

Non volgatz o creire not want..2 it believe ‘Don’t believe it.’

How to say no and don’t 

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

Gothic NON-1 = ne NON-2 = {ni} a. Qaþ þan Iesus: let ija (John 12: 7) said then Jesus let. her ‘Then Jesus said, “Let her alone.”’ b. Jah qaþ du izai: ni gret (Luke 7: 13) and said to her not cry. ‘And he said to her, “Don’t cry!”’ Icelandic NON-1 = nei a. Farðu! go..you b. Farðu ekki! go..you not ‘Don’t go!’

NON-2 = {ekki}

compositional

Faroese NON-1 = nei NON-2 = {ikki} a. Kom! come. b. Kom ikki! come. not ‘Don’t come!’ Norwegian NON-1= nei NON-2 = {ikke} a. Gå! go. b. Gå ikke! go. not ‘Don’t go!’ Swedish NON-1 = nej a. Spring! run. b. Spring inte! run. not ‘Don’t run!’

compositional

compositional

compositional

NON-2 = {inte}

Danish NON-1 = nej NON-1 = {ikke} a. Luk døren op! open. door.the up ‘Open the door!’ b. Luk ikke døren op! open. not door.the up ‘Don’t open the door!’

compositional

compositional13

. This is what Allan et al. (1995: 301–303) suggest. In informal spoken Danish, the negative imperative seems increasingly to be favouring a non-compositional form (see van der Wurff, this volume). We put aside this development here.

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

Dutch NON-1 = nee a. Doe dat! do. that b. Doe dat niet! do. that not ‘Don’t do that!’

NON-2 = {niet}

compositional

Middle Dutch NON-1 = neen NON-2 = {ne, niet} a. Doech af tgescoeite dijnre voete! take. off the-shoes of.your foot b. En doe niet also Amon dede!14 not do. not as Amon did ‘Don’t do as A. did.’ Frisian NON-1 = nee NON-2 = {net} a. Sjoch mar yn ‘e spegel! look. ADV in the mirror b. Sjoch net te folle yn ‘e spegel! look. not too much in the mirror ‘Don’t look in the mirror too much!’ German NON-1 = nein NON-2 = {nicht} a. Sag es! say. it b. Sag es nicht! say. it not ‘Don’t say it.’ Yiddish NON-1 = nejn a. Kush mikh! kiss. me b. Kush mikh nit! kiss. me not ‘Don’t kiss me!’

compositional

compositional

compositional

NON-2 = {nit}

compositional

We summarise all these data in the following Table, where for each of the twentythree Romance and Germanic languages investigated, the status of the negated imperative and the (non-)identity of the anaphoric negator to (one of) the clausal negator(s) are shown.

. The variation in the form of the verb, doech in (42a) and doe in (42b), reflects a dialect distinction in Middle Dutch. Both dialects have a compositional negative imperative.

How to say no and don’t 

Table 1. Correlative data on negative imperatives and clausal/anaphoric negation in Romance and Germanic Language Class. Latin European Portuguese Spanish Catalan Sardinian Italian Rumanian Old French Occitan Surmeiran Piedmontese French Gothic Icelandic Faroese Norwegian Swedish Danish Dutch Middle Dutch Frisian German Yiddish

[NEGIMP] − − − − − − − − − + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

NON-1 ∈ NON-2 + + + + + + + + + − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

The data in Table 1 allow for only one conclusion: in the languages investigated, the correlation described above, as formalised in (46), holds. (46)

For every language L, [αNEGNEG] ⇔ [–– αNEGIMP] where L is [+NEGNEG] iff NON-1 ∈ NON-2, NON-1 = anaphoric negator, NON-2 = the set of clausal negators in L, and L is [+NEGIMP] iff L has a compositional negative imperative.

There thus turns out to be a direct relation between the phonological shape of the anaphoric and clausal negators and the existence of a negated imperative.15 Viewed as an empirical generalisation, this finding is unexpected, if not puzzling. It raises the question what the underlying principles could be that are responsible . For completeness’ sake, we point out here that the correlation also holds for the two languages illustrated in (1) and (2), i.e. Kisongo Maasai (where the clausal negator is mi) or m, and one of the anaphoric negators is mm, with a high-low tonal pattern causing spreading of m) and Bengali (where the anaphoric and clausal negators are both na). Thanks to Hilda Koopman for the Kisongo Maasai data.

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

for the patterning in Table 1, and how these principles could be integrated in an account of anaphoric negation and negative imperatives from which the empirical facts follow. .

A new account of negative imperatives

In this section, we develop an analysis of negative imperatives that incorporates the findings of Section 3. Although the account that we present is new, it builds on the earlier work discussed in Section 2. Thus, from the analysis of Rivero and Terzi (1995), we adopt the idea that the factor blocking negative imperatives crucially involves a NEG head that creates a relativised minimality barrier for V-movement. From the analysis of Zanuttini (1997), we take over the idea that only languages with a certain type of negation disallow negative imperatives and the idea that this is due to a reduced functional structure. From Han (2000), finally, we take over the idea that there is an imperative feature in COMP, which uniformly triggers movement of the imperative verb to this position. .

The relation between NON-1 and NON-2

An important ingredient of any explanation for the correlation established in the previous section must be the relation between NON-1 and the elements of NON2, i.e. the relation between ‘no’ and ‘not’. Let us therefore begin by considering the simple example of anaphoric negation given in (47). (47)

A: Did Peter kiss Mary? B: No. ___________ Peter did not kiss Mary.

|-

What we observe in this example is a logical connection between the uttered word no and its interpretation, which includes the word not. The full interpretation will be based on the more complete answer in (48), in which no is immediately followed by its associated clause. (48)

B: No, Peter did not kiss Mary.

We will analyse this structure as follows: the element no originates inside the clause, but is obligatorily fronted due to its operator nature. The structure that we assume is therefore as in (49). (49)

noi [ Peter did ti not kiss Mary]

Obviously, a relation must be established between no and not here, since the two do not cancel out each other but express one and the same logical negation. This can be naturally captured in theoretical terms through the mechanism of Spec-Head agreement, where no is the specifier and not is the head of NegP. In this

How to say no and don’t 

configuration, shown in (50), the Neg criterion (Haegeman 1995) will be straightforwardly satisfied. (50)

noi [ Peter did [NegP [Spec ti ] [Neg not] kiss Mary] ]

Empirical evidence for assuming that the anaphoric negator is at some level part of the clause that it is associated with comes from the phenomenon of conjugated nee ‘no’, found in dialectal and historical varieties of Dutch.What happens in these varieties is that nee appears to agree with the subject of its associated clause, so that the reply to a question like Can he do it would be, literally, no-he, the answer to Can you come? would be no-I, etc. Paardekooper (1993) provides full data and discussion of the forms attested, which can consist of a full paradigm, as in the data in (51) from the island of Texel. (51)

1SG 2 3

1PL

2 3

ninnik ninje ninnie ninse ninnit ninnewe ninjullie ninse

(no-I) (no-you.) (no-he) (no-she) (no-it) (no-we) (no-you.) (no-they)

As Paardekooper (1993: 146, 154) notes, the word nee ‘no’ here behaves like a finite verb showing subject agreement. He also points out that the marker –e- seen inside the first person plural form ninnewe ‘no-we’ can be identified with the plural marker –e found (substandardly) on the subordinating conjunction dat ‘that’ when followed by a plural subject, as shown in (52). (52)

a. b.

…dat ik ga. that I go …datte we gaan. (sometimes: datteme gaan) that.PL we go

The data in (51) thus suggest that nee can behave just like elements that are unequivocally part of a full clause. A comparison with (52b) may in fact help us to establish more exactly the position of the anaphoric negator in (50). Since the conjugated conjunction phenomenon seen in (52b) takes place in the CP domain, it is likely that the anaphoric negator moves to SpecCP, where it can agree with the subject of its associated clause. For present purposes, however, it suffices to note that the facts just reviewed support an analysis whereby the anaphoric negator is an integral part of its associated clause, as suggested in (49)/(50).16 . From a modern English perspective, such an analysis may not be intuitive, since there appears to be no overt interaction between no and its associated clause, which is typically left unexpressed anyway. Other languages, however, behave differently, as the Dutch facts discussed above show. In earlier English too, there are some signs of interaction. It is found in questions with no + auxiliary: the OED (s.v. no, adv1 5) gives examples like R. This is not she. M. No is? (1553 Udall

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

The movement of no as in (49)/(50) is restricted to root clauses: examples like (53) and (54) cannot be interpreted as instantiations of extraction from an embedded clause. (53)

A: Did he say that he was ill? B. No. 1. He did not say he was ill. 2. #He said that he was not ill.

|-

(54)

A: Did he leave because he was tired? B: No.

|-

1. He did not leave. 2. He left but not because he was tired. 3. #He left because he was not tired.

Thus, no fronting is a root phenomenon. In this, it of course resembles various other movement processes (see Emonds 1976). This account of anaphoric negation carries over to any language in which there are elements similar to English no and not. In Dutch, for example, the structure of (55a) will be as in (55b). (55)

a.

b.

Nee, hij komt niet. no he comes not ‘No, he won’t come.’ neei [ hij komt [NegP [Spec ti ] [Neg niet] ]]

In what follows, we will take as a point of departure this rather simple analysis of anaphoric negation, in which the anaphoric negator NON-1 is a maximal projection and NON-2 (more precisely, the element in NON-2) a head, with NON-1 obligatorily fronting to the sentence-peripheral position. However, on the basis of child language data, we will argue that the structures in (50)/(55b) should be further articulated. But before doing so, we address the question how the imperative is to be represented in structural terms. .

How to represent the imperative

In Section 2.2.1, we discussed Zanuttini’s (1994) proposal for a morpho-syntactic definition of the imperative. Before we can develop a specific theory of the interaction between the imperative and negation it is also necessary to give a formal syntactic representation of the imperative. There are various ingredients that ask for an account. For one thing, imperative verbs often front to the COMP position. In V2 languages, this can cause V1 syntax at the surface. Thus, in Dutch, it is not possible to front a topic to SpecCP, as in (56a); only when there is a

Royster D. i. iv). The precise structure of this construction must remain a topic for further study. The etymology of the anaphoric negator no also suggests a clause-internal origin: the OED (s.v. no, adv.1) derives it from ne + a ‘ever’.

How to say no and don’t 

strong intonational break can another constituent precede the imperative verb, as in (56b). (56)

a. *In geval van brand ga onmiddellijk naar buiten! in case of fire go. immediately to outside ‘In case of fire, go outside immediately!’ b. In geval van brand: Ga onmiddellijk naar buiten! in case of fire go. immediately to outside

Instead of dropping the V2 rule for Dutch, it is proposed in Barbiers (this volume) that an abstract imperative operator occupies SpecCP, where it excludes other constituents. (57)

[OPimp ga [pro tv onmiddelijk naar buiten]]

Evidence that the imperative indeed involves an operator can be obtained by applying the Dutch nee-nietes test. This test is based on the fact that Dutch has two negative replies to an utterance by a previous speaker. One is the standard anaphoric negator nee ‘no’, the other is the expression nietes, a colloquial form that seems to consist of the word niet ‘not’ in which the copula verb is ‘is’ has been incorporated. Interestingly, nee and nietes are in complementary distribution as felicitous answers to different types of speech acts, as shown in (58). (58)

Positive proposition

Interrogative

A: Jan ging naar huis. Ging Jan naar huis? J. went to home went J. to home ‘J. went home.’ ‘Did J. go home?’ B: *Nee. Nee. Nietes. *Nietes.

Imperative

Negative proposition

Ga naar huis! go to home ‘Go home!’ Nee. *Nietes.

Jan ging niet naar huis. J. went not to home ‘J. didn’t go home.’ Nee. *Nietes.

The generalisation seems to be that nee can be a response to an utterance containing an operator, in these cases WH, IMP and NEG. Nietes, on the other hand, can only be used as a response to a simple positive proposition. This is of course not surprising, as nietes is a reduced negative proposition itself, with the meaning ‘(it) is not’. Now that we have established that the imperative contains an operator, the next question is whether this imperative operator is base-inserted in a clauseperipheral position (perhaps in ForceP of Rizzi 1997), or is fronted to such a position under operator movement. Now, if the parallel in the test above is not a mere accident, the relation between nee/no and the imperative/interrogative can be viewed as being structurally parallel to the relation between no and not in (50) and (59). This is illustrated in (60) and (61). (59)

(60)

A: [OPneg [Jan ging [FP t niet [naar huis]]]] B: nee [nee [ Jan ging [FP t niet [ naar huis]]]] A: [OPWH ging [ Jan tv [FP t F0 [ naar huis]]]] B: nee [nee [ Jan ging [FP t niet [ naar huis]]]]

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

(61)

A: [OPimp [ pro2sg ga [FP t F0 [ naar huis]]]] B: nee [nee [ ik ga [FP t niet [ naar huis]]]]

In each of the three cases, the operator has undergone fronting from its basegenerated position in the specifier of a clause-internal functional projection. Since in both (59) and (60), the truth-value of the clause is at stake, the similarity between the two can be naturally captured by saying that the operator originates as the specifier of Laka’s (1994) ΣP, which expresses the polarity of the clause. The projection FP in (61) can be interpreted as MoodP, or more precisely as a projection expressing volitional or boulemaeic force, for which we will use the label BoulP.17 .

Negation in Dutch child language

Above, we proposed a simple structural analysis of the relation between the anaphoric negator NON-1 and the sentential negator NON-2. However, data from child Dutch suggest that some further distinctions need to be made. Interestingly, Dutch child language exhibits the two forms nee and niet as well, but their functions are different from those in the adult language (where nee is the anaphoric negator and niet the clausal negator). In the Dutch child language data of Hoekstra and Jordens (1994) a distinction appears to be made between clausal negation that is linked to an expression of volition and clausal negation linked to a proposition. In the former case, nee is used, in the latter case nie(t). Thus, Hoekstra and Jordens found sentences such as (62), in which the sentence has modal meaning and the sentential negator is nee, and (63), which is about the here-and-now and has the sentential negator niet. (62)

(63)

Nee thee. no tea ‘I don’t want tea!’18 Die niet goed. That not good ‘That one is not good.’

. This analysis allows various approaches to the contrast between Dutch and German with respect to the possibility of having an overt topic in imperative clauses, as discussed by Barbiers (this volume) and Koopman (this volume). . Note that the gloss in (62) may be misleading, since the form no in English can be either the anaphoric negator (as in Yes-No) or a negative noun modifier (as in No money). The word nee in (62) corresponds to the former interpretation. The Dutch word nee can only be used for anaphoric negation in adult Dutch, i.e. it is an example of NON-1. The word nee is never used to modify a noun, either in adult Dutch or, as far as we know, in child Dutch.

How to say no and don’t 

On the basis of their full set of data of negative uterances in child Dutch, Hoekstra and Jordens (1994) put forward the following generalisation: (64)

a. b.

niet expresses non-modal negation: it negates a description pertaining to the here and now; nee expresses modal negation, predominantly of the boulemaeic type, i.e. meaning ‘I do not want’

We will refer to negation of the first type as epistemic negation, calling negation of the second type boulemaeic negation.19 Hoekstra and Jordens (1994) note that in their data, there is also marker of a positive boulemaeic force, which has the form minne, ‘I want’ (with variants unne and hunne). It is found in sentences like (65). (65)

Minne hoene uit. MINNE shoes out ‘I want my shoes out.’

The strict lexical and semantic separation in these child data of boulemaeic and epistemic negation can be captured structurally by accommodating the two categories in separate functional projections, as shown in (66). Here, EpisP can be equated with Laka’s (1994) ΣP (compare (59) and (60)). Just as Laka proposes that ΣP can host negative and positive polarity, we propose that BoulP can be lexicalised by either nee or minne. In accordance with Cinque’s (1999) hierarchy of functional projections, the volition projection BoulP in (66) is dominated by the epistemic projection EpisP. (66)

[EpisP=ΣP Spec X0 [BoulP Spec X0 ...]] niet

nee minne

To establish maximum compatibility with the adult language, we have represented nee and minne as being maximal projections generated in the specifier position, while niet is a head. These two negators remain in adult language but the simple one-to-one form-meaning correspondence is replaced by a structural distinction. .

From child language to adult language

As we have seen, there is evidence that Dutch child language has two seperate projections, EpisP and BoulP, which have distinct lexicalisations (nee and nie(t)). The question is now how this system develops into the adult system of negation. . A formal distinction between negators according to the type of negation expressed can of course also be found in various adult languages. Thus, Scottish Gaelic resembles the Dutch child data of Hoekstra and Jordens (1994) in having a designated negator for imperatives (see Gillies 1993: 214); in languages like Ancient Greek, the choice of the negator involves the broad distinction between epistemic vs. deontic – so not just boulemaeic – meaning (Smyth and Messing 1956: 608–630). See also Sadock and Zwicky (1985: 175).

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

We expect some things to change. Child and adult languages typically differ with respect to the functional domain. Whereas child language has content identification of functional projections and hence only those projections are present that are semantically active in the clause, in adult language a typical hierarchy of functional projections exists, in which one selects the other (see Cinque 1999 for full discussion). Moreover, to the extent that agreement phenomena emerge, we must assume a grammatical distinction between lexemes that lexicalise heads and those that lexicalise specifiers. Let us see how this works out in the development of boulemaeic and epistemic negation in Dutch. A brief inspection of the facts suffices to show that no simple lexicalisation of the boulemaeic/epistemic distinction remains in the Dutch adult language. Although the two lexicalisations of negation, niet and nee, are both retained, in adult Dutch they are not inherently tied to boulaemic and epistemic meaning the way they are in child Dutch. Nee and niet can both be used for epistemic utterances, as can be seen from (67), and also for boulemaeic utterances, as can be seen from (68). (67)

A: Ga je naar huis? go you to home ‘Are you going home?’ B: Nee! no

|(68)

Nee, ik ga niet naar huis. no I go not to home

A: Ga naar huis! go. to home B: Nee!

|-

Nee, ik ga niet naar huis.

In (67), nee is clearly epistemic. In (68), nee is the negative counterpart to the positive adverb graag, which expresses the meaning ‘I want’ or ‘I’ll be happy to’ (German gerne and French volontiers are close counterparts). Hence, it seems reasonable to interpret nee in (68) as being boulemaeic in nature. The negator niet is also used boulemaeically in adult Dutch, for instance in negative imperatives like (69). (69)

Ga niet naar huis! go not to home ‘Don’t go home!’

Hence, the one-to-one form-meaning relation has been lost in the adult language. Instead, a formal-syntactic distinction emerges. Nee is typically used sentenceinitially or as a bare utterance, whereas niet is only used sentence-internally as an adverb, except in elliptical utterances. By uttering nee, epistemic or boulemaeic negation is obtained under recoverability of a deleted IP. Thus, in (67) and (68),

How to say no and don’t 

nee can be seen as a placeholder for the full utterance Ik ga niet naar huis. Under the assumption that that nee must – at some level of representation – be tied to the negation projection (usually represented as NegP), we have implemented this in 4.1 as a syntactic movement relation: nee moves out of a Neg-projection to the sentence-initial position. Moreover, it may not remain sentence-internally, but MUST move. The word niet, on the other hand, cannot move to the sentence-peripheral position, in contrast to most adverbs. Thus, in (70) we see that the adverb nooit ‘never’ can occur both sentence-internally and sentence-peripherally, but (71) shows that the latter option is not open to niet. (70)

(71)

a.

Ik ga nooit naar huis. I go never to home ‘I never go home.’ b. Nooit ga ik naar huis. never go I to home a. Ik ga niet naar huis. I go not to home ‘I am not going home.’ b. *Niet ga ik naar huis. not go I home

We will therefore assume that Dutch niet occupies a head position from which it cannot move, as argued by Pollock (1989) for English not. Despite the fact that both lexemes, nee and niet, instantiate the logical negative operator, ¬, it therefore seems that the boulemaeic lexeme nee of child Dutch develops into a true syntactic operator which moves to sentence-inital position, while niet lacks such syntactic operator properties. Put differently, nee seems to develop into a lexeme that encodes a speech act property, such as interrogation, imperative, and denial, but niet, while encoding negation, does not encode a distinct speech act. Since speech act properties typically reside in COMP, which is an A-bar position, we will hypothesise that the two projections EpisP and BoulP of the child language representation (66) grammaticalise in the adult language into an A-projection and an A-bar-projection, respectively. (72)

Hypothesis: Epistemic and boulemaeic functional projections in child language grammaticalise in the adult language into an A-projection and an A-bar-projection, respectively.

We will show that this simple hypothesis suffices to derive the specific interaction of negation with the boulemaeic imperative operator in the adult language. Moreover, it will derive the dichotomy in languages, discussed and illustrated in Section 3, with respect to the expression of negation and the possibility of forming the negative imperative compositionally.

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

Although we have presented the assumption in (72) as a mere hypothesis, we are aware that independent arguments of plausibility would be welcome. At this stage, we can only draw attention to a poorly understood link between epistemic operators and NP-movement, i.e. A-movement of maximal projections. In contrast to speech act operators as found in WH clauses and exclamative clauses, epistemic operators such as ‘likely’ and ‘must’ involve a chain with A-properties, whether analysed as movement or control (see Barbiers 1995, 2002). (73)

a. b. c.

Who did you see ec yesterday John is likely ec to be the culprit John must ec be the culprit

A-bar movement A-movement A-movement/A-relation

As yet, it is not clear how exactly the distinction between speech-act operators vs. epistemic operators, all of which operate at clause-level, relates to the distinction between A vs. A-bar movement. The relation might be purely epiphenomenal, as epistemic operators typically introduce an extra IP, which supplies an additional SpecIP that can be targeted by A-movement. But it is also possible that the distinction is more deeply rooted in the grammar, and has to do with scope ambiguities in the case of epistemic operators. As argued in Hornstein (1995: 157) and Fox (1999), scope ambiguity is a typical consequence of A-movement. The A-bar nature of speech act operators and the A-nature of epistemic operators might be relevant to these phenomena if projections as a whole can be classified as being either A-bar or A; something along these lines is in fact suggested in Roberts (1993: 50–51, 223), who regards T and AGR as A-heads, while COMP and Neg are A-bar heads.20 .

Merged negation and negative imperatives

We are now ready to develop an account of the correlation presented in Section 3. We will link up with Rivero and Terzi’s (1995) idea that the negative imperative is blocked by negation because of the head movement constraint, unless there is an escape strategy. Recall that their proposal is that some languages have an additional type of head movement, which seems to correlate with properties of the Wackernagel position, COMP. Languages which have a kind of ‘phonological’ movement to COMP, i.e. a type of head movement of another nature, can void the effects of the head movement constraint under relativised minimality. Although Rivero and Terzi’s theoretical approach is basically healthy, they go astray in basing their account on an incorrect generalisation, as shown in 2.1.3 above. In this section we will develop a slightly different account, retaining Rivero and Terzi’s use of

. In Roberts (1994: 217), following suggestions in Chomsky and Lasnik (1993), the labels A and A-bar are replaced by L-related and non-L-related, but the basic distinction remains.

How to say no and don’t 

relativised minimality, but applying it to the distinct A/A-bar nature of EpisP and BoulP (cf. 4.4). As Rivero and Terzi note, the imperative and negation are both operator-like. However, as we saw above, we need to distinguish two types of negation, only one of which has this operator nature (see (72)). The structure that we propose for a negative imperative clause in adult Dutch is therefore as in (74). (74)

[-C0 ... [ΣP Spec Σ0 [BoulP Spec Boul0 …[ V ...]]]] niet

OPimp nee

The imperative operator, OPimp, moves to specCP, as shown in (61). In order to check its imperative feature, V moves to COMP, passing trough Boul0, but skipping ΣP. Relativised minimality allows V to skip ΣP in this manner, since V-movement to COMP is an instance of A-bar movement, while ΣP is an A-type of projection. Hence, negative imperatives are grammatical in Dutch and languages like it which have the structure in (74). As we saw in Section 3, descriptively, these languages have different forms for the anaphoric negator, NON-1, and the clausal negator, NON-2. In (74), these two elements are in two different projections, functioning as specifier and head, respectively, and no problems arise.21 Blindly applying the structure in (74) to languages like Portuguese, in which NON-1 has a form that is identical to that of NON-2, would result in the following configuration: (75)

[- C0 ... [ΣP Spec Σ0 [BoulP Spec Boul0 …[ V ...]]]] não

OPimp não

This structure, of course, is problematic: it has two functional projections which broadly speaking have to do with the (desired) truth-value of a state of affairs described in the clause, and there is one and the same surface form, i.e. não, occupying the specifier position of the one projection and, at the same time, the head position of the other projection. It is plausible to assume that, probably for reasons of learnability, such a structure is ruled out in principle. Instead, children appear to acquire a collapsed structure as shown in (76).

. Since the imperative operator and the anaphoric negator (nee) in (74) compete for the same position, we predict that there should be no (negative) imperatives prefixed by an anaphoric negator. As Katz and Postal (1964: 77) note, sentences like No do not drive the car (spoken without an intonation break) are indeed impossible, while non-imperatives like No you will not drive the car are fine.

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

(76)

[- C0... [BoulP/ΣP Spec Boul0/Σ0 ... [ V ...]]] OPimp não não

Here, the specifier of the merged projection BoulP/ΣP is occupied by a boulemaeic operator, and hence the projection as a whole, and also its head, is boulemaeic. The imperative operator will move to SpecCP. A morphological imperative form V will have a boulemaeic feature to be checked off against this imperative operator. On its way to C0, V cannot skip BoulP/ΣP, since this projection has boulemaeic (or Abar) features and will therefore be a relativised minimality barrier for movement of V. Hence, negative imperatives are ungrammatical in Portuguese and languages like it which have the structure in (76). As we saw in Section 3, the relevant languages are exactly those in which NON-1 and NON-2 are identical in form, and it is these languages that cannot have the structure in (74). Instead, they have a collapsed structure as in (76), in which minimality will block V-movement to C0. The account that we have now arrived at gives more precise theoretical content to Zanuttini’s (1994) claim that the blocking effect is due to a reduction in functional structure. It also provides a firm empirical basis for establishing which languages have such a reduction and which do not. Furthermore, our account employs the same blocking mechanism as in Rivero and Terzi (1995). It is shown here in a nutshell as (77), where NegP blocks V-movement to C0. (77)

[CP C0 [NegP Neg0 [IP V]]] *

However, there are some major differences too. Our account embeds (77) in an articulated functional clause structure, in which there are two projections accommodating negation. Moreover, while Rivero and Terzi’s analysis entails that (77) is the normal state of affairs, and that only clitic languages can escape the blocking effects of NegP by making available a type of verb movement that is oblivious to the presence of NegP, our account implies that the compositional formation of negative imperatives is not standardly blocked: minimality problems only arise in languages in which NON-1 ∈ NON-2, such as European Portuguese and the other languages like it discussed in Section 3. It is these languages that employ various alternative strategies for expressing the relevant meaning without using the morphological imperative, by resorting to the use of subjunctives, future tenses, infinitives, etc. Hence, the hypothesis that the structure in (75) cannot be acquired gives us a satisfying account for the observational generalisation presented in Section 3. .

Merged negation: exploring some further cases

As we have seen, the account of negative imperatives presented above straightforwardly allows for the existence of two types of languages. However, there are

How to say no and don’t 

some further types. Some of them are explainable under our account, but others are problematic in one way or another. We will explore some of these cases in this subsection. To begin with, there are some languages that appear to make use of an escapehatch for V-movement that exists in (76)/(77): V might pass through BoulP/ΣP (or NegP) on its way to COMP, thus avoiding any minimality violation. This will only be possible if the negative element can incorporate into V and if the two negative projections are merged. Without merger, as in (74), head movement of V to COMP through both negative heads would result in improper movement. An actual example of a language making use of this escape hatch in (76)/(77) appears to be Latin, where such incorporation is possible only with the verb velle ‘want’, which has a negative form nolle ‘not want’. For the Latin imperative in (78a), the structure would therefore be as in (78b) or, more fully, as in (78c). (78)

a. Noli me tangere. not-want.IMP me touch.INF ‘Dont touch me!’ b. C0 NEG me vel- tangere

c. [ -

C0 [BoulP/ΣP Spec Boul0/Σ0

[VP

vel- me tangere]]]

OPimp neg

Since in Latin, the anaphoric negator is identical to (one of) the clausal negator(s) (cf. (23)), the language has the collapsed structure shown in (76). In moving to C0, V does not skip BoulP/ΣP, but touches down in its head position, taking along the negative head, as suggested already in Kayne (1992: n.18) and shown in (78b,c). No principle of grammar is violated, and the structure is allowed. It is therefore no coincidence that it is the imperative of the verb nolle that shows up in negative imperatives in Latin: since this verb can incorporate a negative, it is ideally suited to undergo movement as in (78b,c).22 The existence of this escape hatch of course raises the question what happens in languages that have negative incorporation into V more generally. Such a language should allow the compositional formation of negative imperatives even if its anaphoric negator is identical to its clausal negator. This expectation is indeed borne out by the existence of several counter-examples to the correlation described in Section 3. Thus, the South Slavic languages Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, and Slovene have compositional negative imperatives (see Tomid, this volume), yet their anaphoric and clausal negators are identical, as shown in (79)–(81).

. Another language using this strategy is Occitan; see note 12.

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

(79)

(80)

(81)

Macedonian NON-1= ne NON-2 = {ne} a. Daj mu go! give.. him it ‘Give it to him!’ b. Ne davaj mu go23 not give.. ‘Don’t give it to him!’ Serbo-Croatian NON-1 = ne a. Citaj je! read. it b. Ne citaj je! not read. it. ‘Don’t read it!’ Slovene NON-1 = ne a. Beri jo! read. it b. Ne beri jo! not read. it ‘Don’t read it!

compositional

NON-2 = {ne}

compositional

NON-2 = {ne}

compositional

Since all three languages have the negative marker immediately adjacent to the verb, sentences like (79b), (80b) and (81b) can be analysed as involving incorporation of ne in the verb, with V-movement proceeding just as in (78c). Where Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Slovene differ from Latin is in the range of verbs that can incorporate negation: only velle/nolle (and two or three other verbs that are not relevant here) in Latin, but all verbs in these South Slavic languages. These counter-examples to the descriptive generalisation presented in Section 3 thus do not invalidate the analysis presented in 4.5. As usual, we find that the facts are the way they are not because of some surface correlation that appears to hold across a wide range of languages, but because of the underlying structures and principles responsible for the correlation. Establishing a correlation may be useful in suggesting certain lines of inquiry, but only study of the underlying structures and principles can provide true insight into the nature of the correlation, and also its limitations. Let us now consider how English fits into the scheme of things. Although lexical verbs in English negative imperatives show ordinary behaviour in taking don’t, just like they do in indicative negative clauses, the negative imperative of be appears to be non-compositional since imperative be cannot be negated by not, which is of course exceptional for this verb.

. The aspectual difference between (79a) and (79b) is irrelevant here; see Tomid (this volume: n. 1).

How to say no and don’t 

(82)

a. John is not late/You are not late. b. *Not be/be not late! c. Don’t be late!

Since the anaphoric negator no is different from the clausal negator not, this is unexpected. There are, however, two possible approaches to the facts in (82) that will leave intact the account of negative imperatives presented above. First, it could be the case that be in (82b) differs from the finite forms of be in (82a) in not undergoing movement to INFL; hence, it will resemble finite lexical verbs in requiring the presence of don’t in negatives (this is in fact the standard generative analysis of these facts; see Beukema and Coopmans 1989 and Potsdam 1998 for extensive argumentation). Another possibility would be to say that the form no in English can actually also function as a clausal negator (as in It was no good, He’s no fool, He was no more sensible than the rest of them and We’ll no longer tolerate this). This would entail that in English, NON-1 ∈ NON-2, and hence that the negative imperative should be formed by a resort strategy. Of course, the use of do in all negative clauses lacking an auxiliary means that English uses this last resort strategy quite rampantly, making it somewhat difficult to decide whether its use in negative imperatives should be considered special or not. So far, the languages that we have surveyed are all well-behaved with respect to the account of negative imperatives that we have proposed. However, some problematic cases remain. Since our account uses basic ingredients from previous analyses (Zanuttini 1994, 1997, Rivero and Terzi 1995), some cases that remain unexplained by them, such as Old Italian and Milanese as reported in Zanuttini (1997), are also troublesome for the account advocated here. Rather than presenting these same cases here once again, we would like to mention three other problematic languages: Bulgarian, Brazilian Portuguese and Afrikaans. Bulgarian resembles the other South Slavic languages in having a compositional negative imperative and identical anaphoric and clausal negators. Hence only the incorporation strategy should be open to it. Yet, in Bulgarian the clausal negator is not immediately adjacent to the verb, as shown in (83). (83)

Bulgarian NON-1 = ne a. Ceti ja! read..it b. Ne ja ceti! not it read. ‘Don’t read it!’

NON-2 = {ne}

compositional

How can this be explained? A solution might be to regard Bulgarian as a language that in fact does not have a fully productive compositional imperative. As Scatton (1993: 226) notes, Bulgarian cannot make the negative imperative compositionally with perfective verbs: only imperfective verbs allow it. This phenomenon cannot have a semantic origin, since Slovene does not display such a limitation (Priestly

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

1993: 431). Moreover, modern spoken Bulgarian appears to exhibit a tendency (Eleni Bužarovska, p.c.) to use a suppletive strategy with nedej rather than a true negative imperative, even in the case of imperfective verbs. This means that a form like (83b) or (84a) is in fact unusual, the ordinary form being (84b). (84)

a.

b.

Ne pisi! not write. ‘Don’t write.’ Nedej da pises. NEG COMP write.2 ‘Don’t write.’

The interaction between negation, imperative and aspect is outside the scope of this paper, but clearly further research is needed here. Also problematic is Brazilian Portuguese, in which the sentential negator is não and the anaphoric negator is não as well. On the basis of the generalisation put forward in Section 3 we would predict that Brazilian Portuguese does not have a compositional negative imperative, just as its European variant. However, this is not the case. As can be seen from (85), the negative imperative is simply formed by combining the imperative form with the clausal negator (which appears either clause-initially or clause-finally, or in both positions, depending on the dialect). (85)

a. b.

Faz isso! do. this (Não) faz isso (não)! not do this not ‘Don’t do this!’

(imperative) (negative imperative)

One way to deal with these facts would be to deny that Brazilian Portuguese has a true imperative in the sense of Zanuttini (1997) (see Section 2.2.1). In most verbs, the imperative is indeed identical to the second person singular indicative (and the third person indicative). Applying the strict morphological definition would rule these out as true imperatives. However, with the verb ‘be’, the imperative form seja is clearly distinct form the second person indicative é, as illustrated in (86). (86)

a. b. c.

Você é tranquilo. you are quiet Seja tranquilo! be. quiet Não seja muito tranquilo não not be. too quiet not ‘Don’t be too quiet!’

(present indicative) (imperative)

However, the form seja could still be regarded as a suppletive form since is identical to the present tense subjunctive. A similar situation is found with the verbs querer ‘want’ and saber ‘know’. We here observe the same phenomenon as we found in French in Section 2.2.3. We saw there that French could be analysed either as

How to say no and don’t 

having a true imperative or as having a class-dependent suppletion strategy. To the extent that our analysis of French is correct, we are left with an exception to the generalisation in the case of Brazilian Portuguese. Another possible counterexample to our analysis is Afrikaans, which seems to be the mirror image of Brazilian Portuguese. Whereas anaphoric and clausal negation have different lexicalisations (NON-1 = nee; NON-2 = nie), Afrikaans cannot make the negative imperative compositionally. Instead of using the clausal negator nie, it uses the form moet nie or moenie, which appears to have negation incorporated in the auxiliary moe ‘must’. This is illustrated in (87), taken from Robbers (1992). (87)

a. *Gesels nie in die gange nie! talk not in the corridors not b. Moet nie in de gange gesels nie! must not in the corridors talk not ‘Don’t talk in the corridors!’

We can only speculate what is at stake here. A relevant property of Afrikaans negation may be that it is normally expressed by two negative words, as in (88), which is also from Robbers (1992). (88)

Maria het haar moeder nie opgebel nie. M. has her mother not up.called not ‘M. hasn’t called her mother.’

It might be the case that in imperatives, moe is inserted to serve as a host for the first negator, making Afrikaans negative imperatives similar to English negative declaratives (but dissimilar to Afrikaans declaratives, since these do not have this kind of dummy insertion mechanism). Another approach would tie in the existence of (87b) with the reduced inflectional paradigm of Afrikaans, which perhaps enables the [imp]-feature in COMP to be checked by XP-movement of the entire BoulP (skipping ΣP), rather than head-movement of Boul0, as shown in (89a,b). (89)

a. (Moet nie in de gange gesels) nie

t

b. [CP - C0 [IP I0 [ ΣP Σ0 [BoulP moenie [VP ...]]]]] [imp] [imp]

This would cause the negator to end up in clause-final position. This strategy may only be available in languages with reduced inflection, such as Afrikaans, Brazilian Portuguese and perhaps Milanese, which all have clause-final negation. We leave this for further research.

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

.

On suppletive imperative structures

A discussion of negative imperatives is not complete without addressing the structure of suppletive negative imperatives, i.e. the subjunctives, infinitives and other constructions resorted to in languages where NON-1 ∈ NON-2. At least two questions need to be asked about them: 1. how can certain structures function as suppletive strategies for the compositional negative imperative? 2. why are these suppletive structures only used to the extent the language cannot make compositional negative imperatives, i.e. why are such structures not used in, for instance, French, as can be seen from (11b), repeated here as (90)? (90)

Ne va/*ailles pas à la maison! NEG go./ NEG to the house ‘Do not go home!’

As Zanuttini (1997) notes, suppletive imperatives behave just like true imperatives in various syntactic respects. For instance, in the Romance languages at least, they resist embedding and they also have distinct syntax with respect to the position of clitics. In Italian, for example, the infinitive that is used as a suppletive imperative strategy in the second person singular (see (14)) allows for procliticisation, as shown in (91a). As Kayne (1992) argues, the direction of cliticisation here, which is not found in other constructions with an infinitive, can be due to the presence of a silent auxiliary, so that the clitics can be analysed as being proclitic to this silent AUX rather than to the infinitive, as shown in (91b). (91)

a.

b.

Non lo fare! not it. do ‘Don’t do it!’ Non lo-AUX fare

Zanuttini (1997), however, offers another intriguing suggestion: perhaps negation itself takes over the role of the imperative in suppletive imperatives like (91a). In other words, negation has undergone movement to C, to check the [imp] feature, and the clitics are enclitic to negation, as represented in (92). (92)

noni -lo ti fare

This is an attractive idea. Not only can the general checking of [imp] in COMP be retained, it is also understandable why this strategy is used in suppletive imperatives: the verb, (here fare) is not inherently endowed with an [imp] feature as it has a morphological shape that it shares with regular forms (here the infinitive). In other words, the negation that checks the [imp] feature in COMP and the negation that triggers suppletion in negative imperatives are one and the same thing. Still, in Zanuttini’s approach it remains a mystery why negation can check the imperative feature: there is nothing special about negation in imperatives in her

How to say no and don’t 

analysis. The only thing that is special is that MoodP is missing (which, as we noted in 2.2.3, is a counter-intuitive feature of Zanuttini’s implementation of the idea that imperative structures are ‘defective’ in some sense). Our approach, on the other hand, provides a natural account for the ability of negation to check the [imp] feature. As we have seen from Dutch child language data, there exists a specific boulemaeic type of negation, which is (syntactically) of a similar type as the imperative. In the adult language, this negation projection develops into a negative projection with A-bar properties, which causes it to be a relativised minimality barrier for head movement, as shown in (74). It is therefore natural to assume that in languages that need a suppletive strategy for the negative imperative, i.e. in languages that merge the two negation projections, the very merger of these projections enables the negation to check the [imp] feature in COMP. In considering how this happens, we see that it is once again relativised minimality that governs the phenomenon. Consider the structure in (93). (93)

[ CP C0 [.... [+imp]

[NegP Σ0 [NegP

Boul0 [...... NEG [+imp]

If the two negative projections are unmerged, as in French, the boulemaeic negative head, which is the lower NEG, cannot move to COMP to check the [imp] feature there, since it would have to cross the epistemic negative projection on its way. This epistemic NegP forms a minimality barrier, as it has a head ‘of the same type’ (since both represent negation). Alternatively, if the lower NEG moved first to the epistemic negative projection and then to COMP, improper movement would result, since it would amount to an A-bar head moving into an A-projection (ΣP) and then into an A-bar projection (CP). Hence, only languages which merge the two projections of (74) allow for negation to take over the role of checking off the [imp] feature in COMP.

.

Conclusion

We may summarise our results, in pretheoretical terms, as follows: we have demonstrated that there is no a priori general bar against negative imperatives in languages; however, if a language has words for ‘no’ and ‘not’ that are identical, this is reflected in a correspondingly reduced clausal structure, i.e. the merger of forms triggers a merger of structural positions. In the merged and impoverished clause structure, there is less room to accommodate elements of meaning – in particular, imperative and negation cannot be expressed at the same time. Hence, languages with identical words for ‘no’ and ‘not’ generally do not have compositional negative

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff

imperatives, and need to make use of other formal means to convey the relevant meanings. The only exception is languages in which the (imperative) verb and negation can act as one unit and thus circumvent the limitations of structural space caused by the merger of positions. In more technical theoretical terms, we have proposed that UG makes available the structure in (74), in which there are two separate projections accommodating negation, differing in A/A-bar status. In this structure, V-movement to COMP in imperatives can proceed via one of these projections, skipping the other one but causing no relativised minimality violation. In languages in which there is formal identity between the anaphoric and clausal negators, the two projections are merged, with the single combined projection acting as a barrier to V-movement (an element that we adopt from Rivero and Terzi 1995). But the merger of the two projections also opens up extra possibilities: in languages with neg-incorporation, the verb can incorporate into negation on its way to COMP without crossing a relativised minimality barrier, or alternatively, negation itself can do the checking by moving to COMP without causing improper movement. This account, which once again shows the crucial importance of comparative work for uncovering significant linguistic generalisations, explains a number of facts. First, it explains why in some languages the imperative cannot be compositionally negated. Secondly, it explains why there appears to be a cross-linguistic correlation between non-negatability of the imperative and the shape of the anaphoric and clausal negators in the language. Thirdly, it accounts for a number of exceptions to this correlation, in the sense that it allows us to specify in advance what properties we would expect the relevant languages to have. Fourthly, it sheds light on the existence of designated negation markers for imperative clauses, found in a number of languages. Finally, the account proposed in this paper also provides a handle on the syntax of the anaphoric negator, and its relation to negation inside the clause that it is linked with. Therefore, although further data will no doubt necessitate modifications and revisions to our account, we think that it provides a promising avenue for continued study of how people with various language backgrounds go about the business of saying no and don’t.

References Alibert, L. 1976. Grammatica Occitana: Segon los Parlars Lengadocians. Montpellier: Centre d’Estudis Occitans. Allan, R., P. Holmes and T. Lundskær-Nielsen. 1995. Danish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. Barbiers. S. 1995. The Syntax of Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden. Barbiers, S. 2002. “Current issues in modality: An introduction to modality and its interaction with the verbal system”. In: S. Barbiers, F. Beukema and W. van der Wurff (eds) Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System, 1–17. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

How to say no and don’t  Barbiers, S. This volume. “On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and German”. Barnes, M. and E. Weyhe. 1994. “Faroese”. In E. König and J. van der Auwera (eds) The Germanic Languages, 190–218. London: Routledge. Bennis, H. This volume. “Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives”. Beukema, F. and P. Coopmans. 1989. “A Government-Binding perspective on the imperative in English”. Journal of Linguistics 25: 417–436. Beyrer, A., K. Bochmann and S. Bronsert. 1987. Grammatik der rumänischen Sprache der Gegenwart. Leipzig : VEB Verlag Enzyklopaedie. Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik. 1993. “The theory of principles and parameters”. In: J. Jacobs. A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann (eds) Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, 506–569. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Cunha, C. and L. Cintra. 1984. Nova Gramática do Português Contemporâneo. Lisboa: Edições João Sá da Costa. Dardano, M. and P. Trifone. 1985. La Lingua Italiana. Bologna: Zanichelli. Dikken, M. den and M. Blasco. This volume. “Clitic climbing in Spanish imperatives”. Durand, B. 1941. Grammaire Provençale. 3rd edn. Aix-en-Provence: Société de la Revue le Feu. Einhorn, E. 1974. Old French: A Concise Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Emonds. J. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure-Preserving, and Local Transformations. New York: Academic Press. Faarlund, J., S. Lie and K. Vannebo. 1997. Norsk Referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Fox, D. 1999. “Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains”. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157–196. Gestel, F. van, J. Nijen Twilhaar, T. Rinkel and F. Weerman. 1992. Oude Zinnen: Grammaticale Analyse van het Nederlands tussen 1200-1700. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Gillies, W. 1993. “Scottish Gaelic”. In: M. Ball (ed.) The Celtic Languages, 145–227. London: Routledge. Haegeman, L. 1995. The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haiman, J. 1988. “Rhaeto-Romance”. In: M. Harris and N. Vincent (eds) The Romance Languages, 351–390. London: Routledge. Han, C.-H. 2000. The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar. New York: Garland. Harris, J. 1998. ‘Spanish imperatives: Syntax meets morphology.’ Journal of Linguistics 34: 27–52. Hoekstra, T. and P. Jordens. 1994. “From adjunct to head”. In: T. Hoekstra and B. Schwartz (eds) Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar, 119–149. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Holmes, P. and I. Hinchliffe. 1994. Swedish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. Hornstein, N. 1995. Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell. Jaberg, K. and J. Jud. 1928. Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz. Zofingen: Ringier. Jacobs, N., E. Prince and J. van der Auwera. 1994. “Yiddish”. In: E. König and J. van der Auwera (eds) The Germanic Languages, 388–438. London: Routledge. Jones, M. 1988. “Sardinian”. In: M. Harris and N.Vincent (eds) The Romance Languages, 314– 350. London: Routledge. Katz, J. and P. Postal. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

 Gertjan Postma and Wim van der Wurff Kayne, R. 1991. “Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO”. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 647–686. Kayne, R.S. 1992. “Italian negative infinitival imperatives and clitic climbing”. In: L. Tasmowski and A. Zribi-Hertz (eds) De la Musique à la Linguistique: Hommages à Nicolas Ruwet, 300–312. Ghent: Communication and Cognition. Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Koopman, H. 2000. “On the homophony of ‘past tense’ and imperative morphology in Kisongo Maasai”. Ms., UCLA. Koopman, H. This volume. “Topics in imperatives”. Krause, W. 1968. Handbuch des Gotischen. 3rd edn. München: C.H. Beck. Laka, I. 1994. On the Syntax of Negation. New York: Garland. Mulder, R. and M. den Dikken. 1992. “Tough parasitic gaps”. NELS 22: 303–317. Nay, S.M. 1938. Lehrbuch der Rätoromanischen Sprache. Chur: Ligia Romantscha. Paardekooper, P. 1993. “Jaak/Neenik enz.”. TABU 23: 143–170. Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. “Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP”. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424. Postal, P. M. 1966. “On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English”. In: F. Dinneen (ed.) Report of the 17th Annual Round Table Meeting on Languages and Linguistics, 177–206. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. [Reprinted in: D. A. Reibel and S. A. Schane (eds) Modern Studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar, 201–224. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969]. Potsdam, E. 1998. Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative. New York: Garland. Priestly, T. 1993. “Slovene”. In B. Comrie and G. Corbett (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 188–248. London: Routledge. Risselada, R. 1993. Imperatives and Other Directive Expressions in Latin: A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Rivero, M.-L. 1991. “Long head movement and negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech”. The Linguistic Review 8: 319–351. Rivero, M.-L. 1993. “Long head movement vs. V2, and null subjects in Old Romance”. Lingua 89: 113–141. Rivero, M.-L. 1994a. “Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 63–120. Rivero, M.-L. 1994b. “Negation, imperatives and Wackernagel effects.” Rivista di Linguistica 6: 91–118. Rivero, M.-L. and A. Terzi. 1995. “Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood”. Journal of Linguistics 31: 301–332. Rizzi, L. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery”. In: L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Robbers, K. 1992. “Properties of negation in Afrikaans and Italian”. In: R. Bok-Bennema and R. van Hout (eds) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1992, 223–234. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Roberts, I. 1993. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Roberts, I. 1994. “Two types of head movement in Romance”. In: D. Lightfoot and N. Hornstein (eds) Verb Movement, 207–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rohlfs, G. 1968. Grammatica Storica della Lingua Italiana e dei suoi Dialetti. Turin: Einaudi. Ross, J.R. 1970. “On declarative sentences”. In: R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds) Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 222–272. Boston, Mass.: Blaisdell. Sadock, J. and A. Zwicky. 1985. “Speech act distinctions in syntax”. In: T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Structure, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

How to say no and don’t  Scatton, E. 1993. “Bulgarian”. In: B. Comrie and G. Corbett (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 188– 248. London: Routledge. Sheppard, M.M. and M. Golden. 2002. “(Negative) imperatives in Slovene”. In: S. Barbiers, F. Beukema and W. van der Wurff (eds) Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System, 245–259. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Singh, U. 1976. “Negation in Bengali and the order of constituents”. Indian Linguistics 37: 295–303. Smyth, H.W. and G. Messing. 1956. Greek Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Thráinsson, H. 1994. “Icelandic”. In: E. König and J. van der Auwera (eds) The Germanic Languages, 142–189. London: Routledge. Tiersma, P. 1985. Frisian Reference Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Tomid, O.M. This volume. “Pronominal clitics and imperatives in South Slavic”. Wheeler, M. 1988. “Occitan”. In: M. Harris and N. Vincent (eds) The Romance Languages, 246–278. London: Routledge. Wurff, W. van der. This volume. “Imperative clauses in generative grammar: An introduction”. Zanuttini, R. 1994. “Speculations on negative imperatives”. Rivista di Linguistica 6: 119–141. Zanuttini, R. 1997. Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.

Analysing word order in the English imperative* Eric Potsdam University of Florida

Abstract This paper proposes that the syntax of inverted English imperatives such as Don’t you leave! assimilates to that of better studied polar interrogatives: both involve a conservative clause structure in which the subject occupies the specifier of IP and the clause-initial auxiliary has undergone I0-to-C0. Evidence from negation/ quantifier scope interactions and adverb placement argues against an alternative in which the subject is in the specifier of a projection below IP and the auxiliary is no higher than I0.

.

Introduction

The syntax of the English imperative was rather heavily analysed in the early generative linguistic literature (Thorne 1966, Downing 1969, Stockwell, Schachter and Partee 1973, Chomsky 1975, Cohen 1976, Hankamer 1977, Schmerling 1977, 1982, and others). After a long lull in which the imperative received relatively little attention, Beukema and Coopmans (1989) proposed the first comprehensive analysis of the English imperative within the Government-Binding tradition. That work pointed out the relevance of the English imperative to syntactic theory and spurred a wave of renewed interest (Pollock 1989, Zhang 1990, 1991, Zanuttini 1991, Henry 1995, Platzack and Rosengren 1998, Potsdam 1998, Rupp 1999, Moon 1999, Han 2000, Flagg 2001). One of the characteristics of the English imperative that has received much attention is the inverted word order of subject and don’t in negative

* I would like to thank Jeff Runner, Laura Rupp and Wim van der Wurff for helpful comments. I would also like to emphasise that the paper is concerned only with the syntax of English imperatives and that I make no claims about imperatives in other languages. See the other papers in this volume for cross-linguistic observations.

 Eric Potsdam

imperatives: (1)

a. b. c.

Don’t you touch that dial! Don’t everybody talk at once! Don’t anyone get in my way!

The aim of this paper is to explore two existing analyses of this word order and to provide evidence in support of an analysis that assimilates the syntax of the above imperatives to superficially similar polar interrogatives: (2)

a. b. c.

Don’t you help them! Don’t you help them? [CP [C’ don’ti [IP you [I’ ti [help them]]]]]

The paper will defend the claim for English that both clause types have the same structure and derivation with I0-to-C0 head movement, as shown in (2c). This is essentially the analysis in Beukema and Coopmans (1989), which I will argue on empirical grounds is fundamentally correct. The evidence for this analysis comes from scope and adverb placement facts. The syntactic patterns in imperatives parallel those in tensed clauses and we can straightforwardly capture them by giving the two clause types identical structure. The conclusion supports a larger hypothesis that the English imperative has largely unexceptional syntactic behaviour that can be successfully analysed with a conservative conception of English clause structure (Potsdam 1998). The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents two structural hypotheses for the syntax of negative imperatives and lays out the underlying assumptions. Section 3 provides evidence to decide between the hypotheses. Section 4 closes with some discussion of the consequences. .

Two analyses of imperative clause structure

As a starting point for the analysis of English imperative structure, I present some core facts that any analysis must account for. The observations originate in Davies (1986), which systematically documents the word order options in English imperatives. For non-neutral imperatives, imperatives with negative don’t or emphatic do as in (3), she observes that alongside the usual inverted imperative pattern in (4) in which a subject can follow do(n’t), the reverse non-inverted imperative order of a subject preceding do(n’t) is also available, (5).1 . The same word order options are available with formal imperatives, those containing do not: (i)

a. b. c.

Do not walk on the grass! not any of you try that again! ?Somebody do not desert me!

?Do

Analysing word order in the English imperative 

(3)

a. b.

Don’t touch that dial! Do be more careful!

(4)

do(n’t)+SUBJECT a. Don’t you forget! b. Don’t anyone misbehave while we’re gone! c. Do at least some of you give it a try! d. Do someone help him quickly!

(5)

SUBJECT+do(n’t) a. Everybody don’t talk at once! b. You don’t be late! c. Someone do answer the phone! d. Those with children do bring them along!

In Sections 2.1 and 2.2, I present two analyses of this word order alternation. Section 2.3 discusses various background assumptions. .

The CP hypothesis

The CP hypothesis for imperative structure capitalises on the word order similarity between imperatives and tensed clauses: (6)

a. b.

Don’t everybody leave! Didn’t everybody leave?

(7)

a. b.

Everybody don’t leave! Everybody didn’t leave.

The fundamental claim is that the word order parallel is a consequence of identical structure and derivation. I assume that tensed clauses are CPs, with interrogatives undergoing I0-to-C0 (Koster 1975, Koopman 1984, Chomsky 1986). As a result, inverted imperatives have the structure in (8a) and non-inverted imperatives have the structure in (8b). (8) a.

b.

CP IP

C do(n’t)i DP subject

C

IP

DP subject

I’ I ti

CP

VP

I’ I do(n’t)

VP

Although an adequate account of the syntax of English imperatives must ultimately deal with such data, I will not consider them here. Formal imperatives are rather unnatural and consultants have difficulty making judgments on all but the most basic cases in (i a). See Davies (1986), Potsdam (1998: ch. 6) and Rupp (1999: ch. 6) for discussion of the data and overviews of the analytical challenges.

 Eric Potsdam

This analysis is fundamentally Chomsky’s (1975) original proposal that inverted imperatives involve Subject-Auxiliary Inversion (SAI) (see also Emonds 1970, Stockwell et al. 1973, Beukema and Coopmans 1989, Potsdam 1998, and Han 2000). The analysis is conservative in the sense that it posits no mechanisms or structures that are not independently needed in the grammar of tensed clauses. The specifier of IP is the canonical subject position in English and I0-to-C0 head movement has a number of other well-known uses. .

The FP hypothesis

A number of researchers have proposed that imperative subjects and do(n’t) are not as high in inverted imperative structures as they are in tensed clauses (Platzack and Rosengren 1998, Rupp 1999, this volume, Flagg 2001). In order to account for the observed word order in inverted imperatives, an additional projection must be posited. The FP hypothesis capitalises on recent articulated clausal structures which invoke a variety of functional projections (Pollock 1989, 1997, and others). Given this possibility, inverted imperatives have the structure in (9a) and non-inverted imperatives have the structure in (9b). (9) IP

a. I do(n’t)

IP

b. FP

I’

DPi subject

DP subject

I do(n’t)

F’ F

VP

FP ti

F’ F

VP

Like the CP hypothesis, the FP hypothesis invokes two projections above the VP. Following Rupp (1999), the higher projection is IP, as discussed in more detail below. The FP hypothesis asserts, however, that subjects in inverted imperatives are in the specifier of a lower functional projection, FP, and that no head movement takes place. Although the exact nature of FP will not be crucial here, Rupp (1999) identifies it as Aspect and Platzack and Rosengren (1998) identify F as a verbal head into which a null or overt form of do is inserted (see also Pollock 1989).2 The fundamental claim of the FP analysis is that imperative subjects have a special syntax. They have surface-positional options unavailable to tensed clause subjects.3 . Thus Platzack and Rosengren (1998) posit an extra derivational step not shown in (9a) in which do(n’t) moves from F0 to I0. I depart from their terminology and projection labeling without, it is hoped, misrepresenting the fundamental structural aspects of their proposal. . Platzack and Rosengren (1998) present data from other Germanic languages in support of this claim.

Analysing word order in the English imperative 

.

Assumptions

The two hypotheses share a number of theoretical assumptions about English syntax, which I make explicit below. I will not in general defend these assumptions, which are summarised in (10) and commented on in turn, but simply give references where appropriate. (10)

a. b. c. d. e.

tensed clauses have a CP > IP > VP structure; IP stands in for the set of inflectional projection(s); imperative do(n’t) arises from Do-Support; the term ‘subject’ refers to the DP that is the external argument of the main predicate; movement is driven by morphosyntactic features and governed by Minimalist Checking Theory.

For the structure of tensed clauses, I will assume the hierarchy of projections CP > IP > VP with SpecIP the canonical position of the subject. An abstract functional projection immediately above the VP to introduce the external argument (vP of Chomsky 1995 or PredP of Bowers 1993) is not invoked since it is too low in the structure to be of concern here. Similarly, FP may well be present in tensed clauses; however, its presence or absence does not impact the discussion below and I leave it out of the structures. Throughout I will represent the inflectional domain, which contains agreement, tense, mood, negation, polarity, and other verbal morphosyntactic categories, as a unitary projection IP. I do this for expository purposes. If internal structure to IP is necessary or desired, then it can be articulated. I do not believe that this representational simplification interferes with the argumentation or the fundamental claims of the proposals. I assume that the elements do and don’t that appear in non-neutral imperatives result from the same Do-Support operation that inserts do into an inflection head in tensed clauses (Emonds 1970, Chomsky 1975, Lasnik 1981, Davies 1986, Potsdam 1998: ch. 4, Rupp 1999: ch. 4, and to some extent Schmerling 1977 and Pollock 1989). I will not be concerned here with the exact mechanics of DoSupport in the presence of negation or affirmation (see Pollock 1989, Laka 1990, Chomsky 1991, Wilder and Cavar 1994, Bobaljik 1995, and Grimshaw 1997 for recent analyses) but will simply include do(n’t) in the structure when necessary. I use the term ‘subject’ throughout to refer to the noun phrase that functions as the external argument of the matrix predicate. There is some debate over both the theoretical significance of the term ‘subject’ (McCloskey 1997) and whether the noun phrase in imperatives deserves this label (Platzack and Rosengren 1998). I take no stand on this issue here. I assume only that this noun phrase is syntactically integrated into the imperative clause and must receive a non-vocative analysis (Potsdam 1998: 170–185 and references therein).

 Eric Potsdam

Finally, it is evident that in both of the hypotheses there is an optional movement which must be encoded in the grammar. To this end, I adopt the Minimalist assumption that all movement is driven by feature checking and I assume the tenets of Minimalist Checking Theory (Chomsky 1995, see Radford 1997). Features are divided into weak and strong, interpretable and uninterpretable, and all uninterpretable features must be eliminated by being checked off in a core structural relation (head-head or head-specifier) against a corresponding feature. Strong features must additionally be checked overtly, before Spell Out. To implement the optional movement operations, assume that in both analyses there is an optionally-instantiated, strong, uninterpretable feature [F]. In the CP analysis, the target of movement is imperative C0. Therefore, imperative C0 optionally bears the feature [F], which must be eliminated via checking against an I0 head also bearing [F]. If both C0 and I0 are inserted with [F], then movement occurs as in (8a). If neither head bears [F], no movement occurs, (8b). If only one of the heads is inserted with [F], the derivation crashes because the uninterpretable feature cannot be eliminated. In the FP analysis, the subject optionally moves from SpecFP to SpecIP. In this scenario, it is imperative I0 that optionally bears [F], which is checked against a DP bearing [F].4 As in the CP analysis, the derivation only converges if both I0 and DP bear [F] and movement takes place, (9b), or neither I0 nor DP bears [F] and no movement occurs, (9a). In what follows, I will not include [F] in the structures.

.

Evidence for the CP hypothesis

To my knowledge, the literature contains five significant arguments relevant to the above analytical choice for English. First, Rupp (1999) discusses putative theoryinternal difficulties with the CP analysis. She suggests that Minimalist assumptions require that all movement be motivated but that a motivation for I0-to-C0 in the CP analysis is absent. I addressed this issue above and suggested that both hypotheses face comparable challenges in accounting for their respective optional movements. Thus, such theory-internal considerations do not immediately eliminate either hypothesis. Second, Han (2000) and Platzack and Rosengren (1998) discuss the relevance of the claim that imperatives do not occur in embedded environments (Sadock and Zwicky 1985). Platzack and Rosengren (1998) use the fact to argue for an FP analysis. At the same time, Han (2000) explains the observation assuming that imperatives have a CP structure. The argument apparently depends upon particular theory-internal assumptions. Most recently, Platzack (this volume) asserts that embedded imperatives do exist, requiring a rethinking of the argument on both

. Rupp (1999) identifies [F] as the EPP-feature.

Analysing word order in the English imperative 

sides. Third, Zhang (1990, 1991) and Potsdam (1997, 1998: 325–333) discuss the empirical implications of English Topicalisation. Zhang takes Topicalisation patterns in imperatives to argue against the CP analysis but Potsdam (1997, 1998) shows that the facts are identical in imperatives and tensed clauses and do not clearly support one hypothesis over the other. Fourth, Henry (1995) and Potsdam (1997, 1998: 333–346) explore the implications of Negative Preposing. Potsdam (1997, 1998) and Rupp (1999) again conclude that the data are ultimately compatible with both hypotheses. Finally, Rupp (1999) uses previously unaccounted for scope facts to argue for the FP hypothesis. I explore these data below. Ultimately, it is not clear to me that any of the first four arguments is decisive and I will not explore them. The reader is referred to the above references. Instead, in this section I will present two additional empirical arguments, both I claim supporting the CP hypothesis. The first, in Section 3.1, based on scope observations from Schmerling (1982), originates with Rupp (1999), although I reach a different conclusion. The second, in Section 3.2, invokes adverb placement facts deriving from Jackendoff (1972) and Potsdam (1998). .

Scope interactions

Rupp (1999) provides an interesting argument for the FP hypothesis based on the interpretation of negative imperatives with quantified subjects. In this section, I review the argument and the assumptions that it rests on and show that they are not unproblematic. I also suggest that consideration of additional data actually yields an argument in favour of the CP hypothesis. Schmerling (1982) and Potsdam (1998: 278) observe that in negative inverted imperatives the scope of the subject with respect to the preceding don’t is fixed. The surface order of the two elements determines the scope relation, with the quantified subject necessarily taking narrow scope. (11a) for example has only the interpretation in (12a), in which negation scopes over everyone (indicated by the notation  > ) and not the interpretation in (12b). (11)

a. b. c.

Don’t everyone expect a raise! Don’t all the workers take a break now! Don’t two people order the same thing!

(12)

a. b.

=Not everyone should expect a raise. ≠Nobody should expect a raise.

 >   > 

I summarise the observation in (13). (13)

Imperative subjects take narrow scope with respect to preceding negation.

Rupp (1999: 144–154) cleverly argues that this pattern follows from the special syntax of imperative subjects in the FP analysis in conjunction with Hornstein’s (1995) A-movement analysis of scope. Under Hornstein’s analysis, there is no rule

 Eric Potsdam

of Quantifier Raising that covertly raises quantificational DPs (QPs) to scope positions (May 1985). Instead, quantifier scope is determined parasitically from derivational operations that are independently needed for feature checking. A DP can take scope from any A-position in its chain.5 Given Hornstein’s analysis, the structure of (11a) under the FP analysis, in (14), is correctly predicted to be unambiguous. Neither the QP nor any of its possible traces ever c-commands negation in I0 so negation must be construed with wider scope.6 (14)

[IP [I’ don’t [FP everyone [F’ [expect a raise]]]]]

At the same time, the CP analysis of (11a), in (15), incorrectly yields an ambiguous structure under these assumptions. Negation c-commands the subject in SpecIP to yield the  >  reading but the subject also c-commands the trace of negation in I0 to yield the unavailable  >  reading. A crucial assumption here is that Neg Lowering is available; that is, at LF, negation can also be interpreted at the site of its trace. This is necessary to achieve the  >  reading. (15)

[CP [C’ don’ti [IP everyone [I’ ti [expect a raise]]]]]

(16)

Neg Lowering Negation can be interpreted at its trace position.

In summary, the FP analysis seems to correctly account for the generalisation in (13) while the CP analysis does not. When we consider a wider range of scope facts from both imperative and tensed clauses however, it turns out that the FP analysis does not generalise while the CP analysis does. The initial challenge comes from a consideration of the behaviour of quantified objects in imperative and declarative clauses. Examples as in (17) demonstrate that object QPs in declarative clauses may take scope over negation in I0. In particular, (17a), with the structure (17d), has both interpretations in (17b,c) including the  >  reading.7 . Kennedy (1997) and Johnson (2000), however, point out the inadequacy of Hornstein’s analysis in a wide range of cases, including data parallel to (17) below. . Wim van der Wurff (p.c.) points out that in order for this explanation to go through the subject must be prevented from raising covertly to SpecIP. Rupp (1999: 134–135, 165) addresses this issue. . Hornstein (1995: 170, 244) interprets the data differently, indicating that the inverse reading of the quantified object over negation is not available without focal stress on the quantifier. While this may be true, the implications are unclear and the reading is nonetheless possible. I follow Johnson (2000), who concludes that it must be possible for objects in declarative clauses to take scope over negation.

Analysing word order in the English imperative 

(17)

a. b. c. d.

Pat didn’t believe every rumour. =Pat believed not every rumour. =Pat believed no rumour. [IP Pat [I’ didn’t [believe every rumour]]]

 >   > 

Surprisingly, (18) illustrates that the behaviour of quantified objects in imperatives is different. Object QPs in inverted imperatives must take narrow scope with respect to negation. The wide scope reading of the QP, (18c), is impossible, in contrast to (17). (18)

a. b. c.

Don’t you believe every rumour! =Believe not every rumour! ≠Believe no rumour!

 >   > 

The contrast between (17) and (18) yields a paradox for the FP hypothesis: scope interactions between negation and object QPs differ in inverted imperatives versus declaratives; however, under the FP hypothesis, the syntactic positions of negation and direct objects are identical in the two clause types (see (14) and (17d)). Negation is in I0 and the object is in a lower checking position. Consequently, no structurally-based theory of quantifier scope will be able to handle both patterns if the FP analysis is adopted because there is no relevant structural difference. In order to account for the facts, negation and/or the direct object must have different syntactic behaviour in inverted imperatives versus declaratives. I suggest that there is little reason to believe that objects behave differently across the two clause types and their syntax is not the source of the contrast. Rather, the more likely culprit is the syntax of negation. This is precisely the claim of the CP hypothesis. Negation in the two clause types has distinct syntactic behaviour because in inverted imperatives but not declaratives the negative auxiliary moves to C0. Further facts implicate negation in the contrast. Other VP-internal QPs also cannot take scope over inverted imperative negation. (19) and (20) illustrate this observation for indirect objects and adjuncts. The observation in (20) is from Moon (1999). (19)

(20)

a. b. c.

Don’t you talk to everyone! =Talk to not everyone! ≠Talk to no one!

a. b. c.

Don’t you play football for many years! =You should play football for not many years. ≠You should wait many years before playing football.

 >   >   >   > 

 Eric Potsdam

The scope options of objects, adjuncts and subjects with respect to negation in inverted imperatives appear to be the same:8 (21)

Negation in inverted imperatives always takes widest scope.

(21) directly implicates negation as the source of the scope restrictions. We are led to the conclusion that the original observation about scope in (13) does not require a special syntax for imperative subjects. In fact, the observation in (21) is even more general. Turning to tensed clauses with inverted word order, one encounters exactly the same pattern: negation preceding the subject necessarily takes widest scope over QPs in the clause. I offer evidence for the larger generalisation in (22), which I will call the Inverted Negation Scope Generalisation (INSG). (22)

INSG Inverted negation always takes widest scope.

Two tensed clause constructions with SAI, wh-interrogatives and Negative Preposing, support the INSG.9 (23) exemplifies the claim for wh-interrogatives. The examples are unambiguous and have only the NEG > EVERY reading. For example, (23a) has only the interpretation in (24a), the wide scope reading of negation, and not (24b), the inverse EVERY > NEG reading. (23a) cannot be used to ask why no runner finished. The structure, with I0-to-C0, is as in (24c).10 . The observations here and below apply only to inverted imperatives and the presence of the subject is crucial to ensuring that we are in fact dealing with such a structure. When the subject is missing or appears preceding don’t, the scope options are the same as in tensed clauses. This fact follows in both analyses because non-inverted imperatives have the same structure as declaratives in the relevant respects. . Polar interrogatives cannot be used to test the INSG. As is widely recognised, negation in polar interrogatives is ‘fake negation’ (McCawley 1998: 519), contributing only information about the expected answer. As Quirk et al. (1985: 84, 808–810) state, ‘Logically, negative yes-no questions are equivalent to positive ones, in that they elicit equivalent yes and no answers: they differ from the latter only in indicating that the corresponding negative statement has been implied’. To illustrate, (i a,b) ask for the same information while (ii a,b) clearly do not. (i) (ii)

a. b. a. b.

Does Pat sing? Doesn’t Pat sing? When does Pat sing? When doesn’t Pat sing?

The negation in (i b) serves mainly to indicate that the questioner expects a positive answer. I thus conclude that negative polar interrogatives are not a testing ground for the INSG because there is no negative operator to participate in scope ambiguities. . Rupp (1999: 154) notes in a footnote that such data are problematic for her analysis. She suggests that ‘the possibility of forming negative interrogatives clauses with the free element not may play some role’ in the lack of ambiguity in examples similar to (23a). As I understand

Analysing word order in the English imperative 

(23)

a. b. c.

Why didn’t every runner finish? When doesn’t Harry Potter use every magic spell? Who didn’t John call on every day of his vacation?

(24)

a. b. c.

=Why was it that not every runner finished?  >  ≠Why was it that no runner finished?  >  [CP why [C’ didn’ti [IP every runner [I’ ti [finish]]]]]

The same pattern appears with Negative Preposing, exemplified in (25), which numerous researchers also analyse as involving I0-to-C0, with concomitant fronting of the negative constituent to SpecCP (Koster 1975, Emonds 1976, Radford 1988, Progovac 1994, Haegeman 1995, Rizzi 1996). (25)

a. b. c.

Never have we seen such a mess. Only under duress will Joey share his chewing gum. [CP never [C’ havei [IP we [I’ ti [seen such a mess]]]]]

An inverted negative auxiliary in this construction obligatorily takes wide scope with respect to clause-internal QPs, (26). (26a) has only the wide scope reading of negation in (27a). (26)

a. b.

Only on Fridays doesn’t everybody come. Only on Fridays doesn’t he help every student.

(27)

a. b. c.

= Only on Fridays does [not everybody] come.  >  ≠Only on Fridays does nobody come.  >  [CP only on Fridays [C’ doesn’ti [IP everybody [I’ ti [come]]]]]

The INSG and the fact that declaratives and interrogatives with inverted negation are also unambiguous further indicate that the explanation of the initial imperative data has nothing specifically to do with imperatives or subjects. Instead, it has everything to do with negation. To conclude this section I will suggest that the INSG has a straightforward explanation if we adopt the CP analysis of imperatives. The INSG and the scope facts remain unexplained with an FP analysis. Recall that the structure of the inverted imperative in (28a) is (28b) under the CP analysis. (28)

a. b.

Don’t everyone expect a raise! [CP don’ti [IP everyone [I’ ti [expect a raise]]]]

it, the idea is that the  >  interpretation in (24b) is blocked by the existence of an alternative syntactic structure that expresses this meaning, namely Why did every runner not finish? It is not clear how strong an explanation syntactic blocking is. In any case, it cannot extend to the same lack of ambiguity with a quantified object or adjunct, (23b,c). There is no reasonable alternative that expresses the  >  reading in these cases because freestanding not will still be structurally above these elements. Such an account also necessarily gives up on the idea that all of the scope facts are covered by a single explanation.

 Eric Potsdam

With this structure, imperatives, interrogatives, and Negative Preposing declaratives are structurally identical (compare (24c), (25c), and (28b)). It is thus unsurprising that they show the same scope patterns. This permits a reformulation of the INSG: (29)

Negation in C0 always takes widest scope.

It remains only to explain (29). I propose that it follows from a well-known restriction on QP scope: its clause-boundedness. As has been widely discussed, a QP can generally not take scope outside of its clause (Chomsky 1977, May 1977, Farkas 1981, 1997, Fodor and Sag 1982, Aoun and Hornstein 1985, Beghelli 1993, Abusch 1994, Hornstein 1995, Fox and Sauerland 1996, and numerous others). While this observation is empirically well-grounded, its theoretical basis is less secure. Nevertheless, if we ensure that Quantifier Raising, Hornstein’s A-movement, or whatever operation licenses scope cannot scope a QP outside of the minimal IP containing it, then the INSG follows. With negation in C0, the QP will be not be able to scope above negation. The configuration in (30), which is necessary to get a QP outside the scope of negation in C0, will require an application of QP scoping that violates clause-boundedness. Only when negation is in I0 do we expect and see QP/negation interactions. (30)

*[CP QPi [CP [C’ NEG [IP … ti …]]]]

If these considerations are correct, then Rupp’s argument against the CP structure for negative imperatives must also be flawed. Remember that she pointed out that a structure as in (28b) incorrectly predicted that examples as in (28a) should be ambiguous because the subject in SpecIP c-commands the trace of negation in I0. I consequently reject Neg Lowering in (16), the claim that the trace of a negative head can be used to determine scope relations. If Neg Lowering existed, not only the imperative data, but also the interrogative and Negative Preposing data would incorrectly be predicted to be ambiguous because they less controversially have a trace of the negative auxiliary below the subject (see (24c) and (25c)). I agree with Ladusaw (1988) that the scope of negation is fixed by its surface position. I leave for future work the question of why there is no X0 reconstruction for scope in the case of I0-to-C0 head movement. The argument in favour of the CP hypothesis is that it allows us to capture the INSG in (22) because constructions with the same scope characteristics (inverted imperatives, interrogatives, and Negative Preposing declaratives) have the same syntactic structure. The FP analysis cannot provide a uniform analysis of the INSG because it assigns distinct structures to inverted imperatives and inverted tensed clauses. The FP analysis can only account for the limited facts involving negation and subject QPs. That explanation does not extend to the rest of the imperative data because the relevant structure of such imperatives is the same as in declarative clauses but the scope facts are not. In conclusion, I have claimed that the CP

Analysing word order in the English imperative 

hypothesis more adequately captures the surprising scope facts in imperatives because they are due not to a special syntax of imperative subjects but, rather, to the structural position of imperative negation. . Adverb placement In this section I use adverb placement to provide a second argument for the CP analysis.11 I first use tensed clauses to determine the structural distribution of a particular class of adverbs. I then demonstrate that these adverbs have the same distribution in imperatives relative to the subject and auxiliaries. The CP hypothesis correctly predicts the identical behaviour but the FP hypothesis does not. In addition to the two well-known syntactic classes of adverbs, S(entence)- and VP-adverbs, Jackendoff (1972) describes a third class of adverbs which have the positional distribution of neither of the two former classes. Adverbs like merely, hardly, and scarcely do not assimilate into either category on syntactic or semantic grounds. Potsdam (1998) calls them ()- since they approximately describe the extent or degree to which a situation holds. They are a subset of what Ernst (1984) calls Degree adverbs. E-adverbs have unified syntactic behaviour and Jackendoff (1972) summarises their distribution in declarative clauses as follows: they necessarily occur somewhere between the subject and the main verb. This pattern is schematised in (31) and is supported by the data in (32) through (36). In (32), the adverb immediately follows the subject but precedes a finite auxiliary. In (33) the adverb immediately follows the finite auxiliary. (34) illustrates that E-adverbs may also immediately follow any non-finite auxiliary when multiple auxiliaries are present. Finally, (35) and (36) illustrate two impossible positions for these adverbs: they cannot appear clause-initially or clause-finally. As Jackendoff observes, only clause-internal positions and not clause-peripheral ones are acceptable for E-adverbs. (31)

* SU AUX AUX VERB *

(32)

a. b. c. d.

He simply is incapable of it. The raccoons scarcely have touched our garbage. They hardly should worry about that. We already don’t have enough.

(33)

a. b. c. d.

He is simply incapable of it. The raccoons have scarcely touched our garbage. They should hardly worry about that. We don’t already have that one.

. The material is based on Potsdam (1998: 320–322), which used similar examples as evidence against a VP-internal position for imperative subjects. That work did not explore the implications of the adverb data for the two hypotheses under investigation here.

 Eric Potsdam

(34)

a. b. c. d.

They must have simply become disoriented. John will be merely annoyed with Bill. They should have hardly worried about that. We shouldn’t be simply abandoning them.

(35)

a. *Simply he is incapable of it. b. *Scarcely the raccoons have touched our garbage. c. *Hardly they should worry about that.

(36)

a. *He is incapable of it simply. b. *The raccoons have touched our garbage scarcely. c. *They should worry about that hardly.

These examples illustrate E-adverbs with be, have, a modal, and a negative auxiliary. There are thus no inherent co-occurrence restrictions between such adverbs and any of these elements; in particular, there is no restriction against E-adverbs co-occurring with negation. (37) repeats the structure that I assume for such declarative clauses. AuxP* stands for zero or more verbal projections for non-finite auxiliaries. (37)

[IP SU [I’ I [AuxP* Aux [VP ]]]]

The finite auxiliary, if there is one, is in I0 and non-finite auxiliaries are in head positions below IP.12 Whether FP is present and contains an auxiliary or not is not relevant to the argument to follow and it is not shown. Unlike auxiliaries, main verbs are not in I0 but remain in VP. As for the integration of adverbs into this syntactic structure, I assume without argument that adverbs are base-generated in adjoined positions. I do not assume that adverbs appear in dedicated specifier positions of additional functional projections interspersed in the clause (Kayne 1994, Alexiadou 1997, Cinque 1999). The adjunction analysis follows numerous researchers, some of whom explicitly argue against Cinque’s system (Pollock 1989, Iatridou 1990, Johnson 1991, Bowers 1993, Ernst 1998, Shaer 1998, Haider 2000). In order to capture the distribution of E-adverbs with the structure in (37), they must be allowed to adjoin to I’, AuxP or Aux’, and VP or V’ (see Potsdam 1998). The relevant positions are indicated in the tree in (38), which corresponds to the grammatical examples above. The I’-adjoined position is crucial to placing the adverb between the subject and finite auxiliary, (32).13 The adverb positions . Whether the finite auxiliary reaches I0 via V0-to-I0 head movement as is standardly assumed (Klima 1964, Jackendoff 1972, Emonds 1976, Pollock 1989, Chomsky 1991, Rohrbacher 1994, and many others) or via base-generation (Radford 1997, Lobeck 1999) need not concern us. . The proper analysis of English adverbs in the pre-finite-auxiliary position has been much debated. If IP is assumed to contain both the subject in SpecIP and the finite auxiliary in I0, then there seems to be little alternative to an analysis with adjunction to I’.

Analysing word order in the English imperative 

immediately following a finite auxiliary or non-finite auxiliary, (33) and (34), are adjunction to AuxP/Aux’ or VP/V’ (only the Aux’ and V’ options are shown). Adjunction to IP must be impossible in order to prevent the clause-initial position in (35). Likewise, rightward adjunction must be prohibited, (36). The statements in (39) summarise the syntactic distribution.14 (38) IP DP they

I’ (hardly)

I’ I should

AuxP

Aux’ (hardly)

Aux’ Aux have

VP V’ (hardly)

V’ worried about that

Adjunction to I’ could be avoided if one adopts a split Infl scenario. Pollock (1997) analyses the pre-finite-auxiliary adverb position in English with a split Infl structure in which IP is replaced by MoodP, TP, and AgrP. The adverb position results when the auxiliary does not move all the way to Mood°: (i)

[MP SU [M’ M° [TPADV [TP [T’ AUX [VP ]]]]]]

Since there is no expository advantage to adopting Pollock’s analysis, I will not introduce it here. Belletti (1990) proposes a second alternative analysis of the pre-finite-auxiliary adverb position based on French and Italian facts. She suggests that the word order is derived by Topicalisation of the subject over an IP-adjoined adverb: (ii)

[IP SUi [IP ADV [IP ti [I’ AUX [VP ]]]]]

Pollock (1997: 276) provides a number of arguments against this analysis for English. Eadverbs provide an additional problem. A claim of the proposal is that an adverb can appear between the subject and finite auxiliary if and only if it can also be adjoined to IP, clauseinitially. E-adverbs however contradict this: they only appear in the post-subject position, not clause-initially. Thus the structure in (ii) with an E-adverb would be illicit because adjunction to IP is impossible although the corresponding word order is acceptable. . Space considerations do not permit providing a theoretical basis for the distribution. See Travis (1988), Rochette (1990), Potsdam (1998), and Ernst (1998) for theories of adverb licensing.

 Eric Potsdam

(39)

syntactic distribution of E-adverbs a. left adjunction to I’ b. left adjunction to AuxP or Aux’ c. left adjunction to VP or V’

The structural distribution statements receive independent support from the placement of E-adverbs in interrogatives. The data in (40), schematised in (41), are precisely those expected given (39) and an I0-to-C0 analysis of interrogatives. (40)

a. Couldn’t they simply have become disoriented? b. Couldn’t they have simply become disoriented? c. *Hardly should they have worried about that? d. *Should hardly they have worried about that? e. *Should they have worried about that hardly?

(41)

[CP [ *ADV [C’ AUXi [IP *ADV [IP SU [I’ ADV [I’ ti [AuxP [ ADV [Aux’ AUX [VP [ ADV [V’ ]]]]]]]]]]]]]

(40a) illustrates the I’- or AuxP/Aux’-adjoined position. (40b) is the VP/V’adjoined position. (40c) and (40d) are ungrammatical because adjunction to CP/ C’ or IP is not permitted for E-adverbs. (40e) confirms that right adjunction is still not available. Given the description of the positions in which E-adverbs occur, I turn to imperatives and the predicted positions for such adverbs under the CP and FP structures. The options for E-adverbs in negative inverted imperatives are illustrated in (42). (42)

a. Don’t you simply stand there! b. Don’t you have simply ignored my advice! c. *Simply don’t you stand there! d. *Don’t simply you stand there! e. *Don’t stand there simply!

The most immediate observation is that the judgments exactly parallel the interrogative data in (40). The facts clearly support the CP analysis since this is what we expect if interrogatives and inverted imperatives have identical structures. Further, the data are problematic for the FP hypothesis. Because the FP analysis places the subject in a specifier below the canonical subject position, the imperative subject should be able to appear to the right of an E-adverb, unlike in finite clauses. In particular, the FP hypothesis predicts that (42c) should be grammatical, with the following structure: (43)

*[IP [I’ simply [I’ don’t [FP you [F’ F [VP stand there]]]]]]

The adverb is licitly adjoined to I’ as I argued above is independently necessary.15 The sentences in (44), from Potsdam (1998: 321), are similar ungrammatical . Laura Rupp (p.c.) offers a potential counterexample to the claim that the patttern in (42c) is ungrammatical (her judgment shown):

Analysing word order in the English imperative 

examples without the potential interference of negation. The subject still cannot appear below an E-adverb. (44)

a.

There’s plenty of room. *Simply everyone move to his right a little!

b.

Be careful when you dust that machinery. *Barely everyone touch it!

I conclude that only the CP hypothesis accounts for the correct positioning of E-adverbs in imperatives. Before closing, I would like to address an apparent complication. Curiously, non-neutral imperative examples with clause-initial E-adverbs are grammatical if the subject is unpronounced: (45)

a. b.

Simply don’t do it! Just don’t stand there!

This challenge is readily resolved with the CP hypothesis once it is remembered that the full derivation involves I0-to-C0, which is optional. A primary motivation for the two hypotheses under consideration was that they could account for both imperative word orders repeated in (46). Only in (46a) does I0-to-C0 take place. (46)

a. b.

Don’t everybody leave! Everybody don’t leave!

If I0-to-C0 is optional, then the examples in (45) have the following structure in which it has not applied: (47)

[CP [C’ [IP pro [I’ simply [I’ don’t [VP do it]]]]]]

If the subject is realised, we transparently obtain the grammatical option in (48) in which the subject precedes the adverb and the auxiliary: (48)

(i)

a. b.

Everybody simply don’t do it! [CP [C’ [IP everybody [I’ simply [I’ don’t [VP do it]]]]]]

(group of friends at a party) So far, Bill hasn’t shown up and we’re really glad. Whenever you say one word to him, he won’t stop talking. But what if he’s only late? (speaker) Well, simply don’t anyone say a word when he comes in! That way he won’t feel invited to speak.

The example seems strained to my ear and little better than the following interrogative:

(ii)

(group of friends) Bill is very shy but we can’t figure out why he left the party without talking to anyone. Usually if people engage him in conversation he stays for a while. (speaker) ?? Simply didn’t anyone talk to him when he arrived?

I leave such data for future investigation.

 Eric Potsdam

In summary, the argument against the FP hypothesis is that it places the imperative subject lower in the structure than in corresponding tensed clauses and predicts that the imperative subject will be able to follow adverbs that tensed clause subjects cannot. For E-adverbs, this expectation is not borne out. The CP hypothesis in contrast correctly predicts that the positional distribution of E-adverbs in imperatives will be exactly the same as in corresponding tensed clauses with the same word order, because they have identical structure.

. Consequences The FP hypothesis for English imperative structure, if correct, would be significant because it would provide substantive, empirically-based support that otherwise seems to be lacking for a more articulated clause structure in English. While there has been much work on the nature and content of functional projections since Pollock’s (1989) work, the lion’s share of results has come from other languages in which word order is freer and verbal morphology is richer. English, with its relatively rigid word order and impoverished morphology, has yielded little conclusive support for the proposals (see for example Iatridou 1990). Extension of articulated clause structure to English is typically done based on simple assumptions about a fixed universal clause structure; however, one would ideally like language-internal evidence for such structures. One result of this paper has been to show that inverted imperative word order does not yet provide the desired independent evidence for these functional projections in English. The main goal of this paper has been to argue for the claim that English nonneutral imperatives have the same clause structure and derivation as superficially similar and better studied interrogatives and declaratives. The support came from parallel facts in the domain of scope and adverb placement. The significant similarities do not seem accidental and are straightforwardly captured if the two clause types receive the same structural analysis. If this conclusion is on the right track, it indicates that English imperatives, at least the ones under investigation here, have a rather conventional syntax that uses a canonical clause structure and derivation. Such imperatives do not require exceptional derivational strategies or structures unsupported elsewhere in English. If this result holds, syntactic theory is closer to providing a truly integrated treatment of English imperatives.

References Abusch, D. 1994. “The scope of indefinites”. Natural Language Semantics 2: 83–115. Alexiadou, A. 1997. Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Analysing word order in the English imperative  Aoun, J. and N. Hornstein. 1985. “Quantifier types”. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 623–637. Beghelli, F. 1993. “A minimalist approach to quantifier scope”. In: A. Schafer (ed.) The Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society 23, 65–80. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA. Belletti, A. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier. Beukema, F. and P. Coopmans. 1989. “A Government-Binding perspective on the imperative in English”. Journal of Linguistics 25: 417–436. Bobaljik, J. 1995. Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Bowers, J. 1993. “The syntax of predication”. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656. Chomsky, N. 1975 [1955]. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum. Chomsky, N. 1977. Essays on Form and Interpretation. New York: North-Holland. Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1991. “Some notes on economy of derivation and representation”. In: R. Freidin (ed.) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, 417–454. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cohen, A.-R. 1976. “Don’t you dare!”. In: J. Hankamer and J. Aissen (eds) Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 2, 175–196. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Davies, E. 1986. The English Imperative. London: Croom Helm. Downing, B. 1969. “Vocatives and third-person imperatives in English”. Papers in Linguistics 1: 570–592. Emonds, J. 1970. Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Emonds, J. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press. Ernst, T. 1984. Towards an Integrated Theory of Adverb Position in English. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Ernst, T. 1998. “The scopal basis of adverb licensing”. In: P. Tamanji and K. Kusumoto (eds) The Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 28, 127–142. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA. Farkas, D. 1981. “Quantifier scope and syntactic islands”. In: R. Hendrick, C. Masek and M. Miller (eds) The Proceedings of the 17th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 59–66. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Farkas, D. 1997. “Evaluation indices and scope”. In A. Szabolcsi (ed.) Ways of Scope Taking, 183– 216. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Flagg, E. 2001. “‘You’ can’t say that! Restrictions on overt subjects in the English imperative”. Paper presented at the 37th meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Fodor, J.D. and I. Sag. 1982. “Referential and quantificational indefinites”. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–398. Fox, D. and U. Sauerland. 1996. “The illusive scope of universal quantifiers”. In: K. Kusumoto (ed.) The Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 26, 71–85. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA. Grimshaw, J. 1997. “Projections, heads, and optimality”. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373–422. Haegeman, L. 1995. The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haider, H. 2000. “Adverb placement: Convergence of structure and licensing”. Theoretical Linguistics 26: 95–134. Han, C.-H. 2000. The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar. New York: Garland. Hankamer, J. 1977. “Multiple analyses”. In: C. Li (ed.) Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, 583–607. Austin: University of Texas Press. Henry, A. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Eric Potsdam Hornstein, N. 1995. Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell. Iatridou, S. 1990. “About Agr(P)”. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 551–577. Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Johnson, K. 1991. “Object positions”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 577–636. Johnson, K. 2000. “How far will quantifiers go?” In: R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 187–210. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kennedy, C. 1997. “Antecedent-contained deletion and the syntax of quantification”. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 662–688. Klima, E. 1964. “Negation in English”. In J.A. Fodor and J. Katz (eds) The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language, 247–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Koopman, H. 1984. The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb-Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Koster, J. 1975. “Dutch as an SOV language”. Linguistic Analysis 1: 111–136. Ladusaw, W. 1988. “Adverbs, negation, and QR”. In: The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.) Linguistics in the Morning Calm 2, 481–488. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing. Laka, I. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Lasnik, H. 1981. “Restricting the theory of transformations: A case study”. In: N. Hornstein and D. Lightfoot (eds) Explanation in Linguistics: The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition, 152–173. London: Longman. Lobeck, A. 1999. “VP ellipsis and the minimalist program: Some speculations and proposals”. In: S. Lappin and E. Benmamoun (eds) Fragments: Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping, 98–123. New York: Oxford University Press. May, R. 1977. The Grammar of Quantification. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. May, R. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. McCawley, J. 1998. The Syntactic Phenomena of English. 2nd edn. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. McCloskey, J. 1997. “Subjecthood and subject positions”. In: L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Moon, G. 1999. “Don’t imperatives”. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 93–107. Platzack, C. This volume. “Embedded imperatives”. Platzack, C. and I. Rosengren. 1998. “On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause”. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 177–224. Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. “Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP”. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424. Pollock, J.-Y. 1997. “Notes on clause structure”. In: L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, 237–279. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Potsdam, E. 1997. “The parallel structure of English questions and imperatives”. In: B. Agbayani and S.-W. Tang (eds) The Proceedings of the Fifteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 397–412. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford Linguistics Association. Potsdam, E. 1998. Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative. New York: Garland. Progovac, L. 1994. Negative and Positive Polarity: A Binding Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Analysing word order in the English imperative  Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Radford, A. 1997. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rizzi, L. 1996. “Residual verb second and the Wh-Criterion”. In: A. Belletti and L. Rizzi (eds) Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax, 63–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rochette, A. 1990. “The selectional properties of adverbs”. In: M. Ziolkowski, M. Noske and K. Deaton (eds) Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 1: The Main Session, 378–391. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Rohrbacher, B. 1994. The Germanic VO Languages and the Full Paradigm: A Theory of V to I Raising. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Rupp, L. 1999. Aspects of the Syntax of English Imperatives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex. Rupp, L. This volume. “‘Inverted’ imperatives”. Sadock, J. and A. Zwicky. 1985. “Speech act distinctions in syntax”. In: T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 1: Clause Structure, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmerling, S. 1977. “The syntax of English imperatives”. Ms., University of Texas at Austin. Schmerling, S. 1982. “How imperatives are special, and how they aren’t”. In: R. Schneider, K. Tuite and R. Chametzky (eds) Papers from the Parasession on Nondeclaratives, 202–218. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Shaer, B. 1998. “Adverbials, functional structure, and restrictiveness”. In: P. Tamanji and K. Kusumoto (eds) The Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 28, 391–407. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA. Stockwell, R., P. Schachter and B. Partee. 1973. The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Thorne, J. P. 1966. “English imperative sentences”. Journal of Linguistics 2: 69–78. Travis, L. 1988. ”The syntax of adverbs”. In McGill Working Papers in Linguistics: Special Issue on Comparative German Syntax, 280–310. Montreal: McGill University. Wilder, C. and D. Cavar. 1994. “Word order variation, verb movement, and economy principles”. Studia Linguistica 48: 46–86. Zanuttini, R. 1991. Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Zhang, S. 1990. The Status of Imperatives in Theories of Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. Zhang, S. 1991. “Negation in imperatives and interrogatives: Arguments against inversion”. In: L. Dobrin, L. Nichols and R. Rodriguez (eds) The Proceedings of the 27th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part Two: The Parasession on Negation, 359–373. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

On participial imperatives* Johan Rooryck and Gertjan Postma University of Leiden & Meertens Institute, Amsterdam

Abstract Apart from bare imperatives and infinitival imperatives, Dutch features a third type, the participial imperative, with a syntax quite different from the other types. First we present an inventory of the properties of the participial imperative. It will turn out that (the core set of) these imperatives observe pragmatic restrictions (they are restricted to the here-and-now), semantic restrictions (having to do with temporal and locational specification; incompatibility with negation), syntactic restrictions (they instantiate a distinctive type of verb fronting), morphological restrictions (they tend to be particle verbs with the particle op), and lexical restrictions (they comprise only ‘go away’ and ‘look out’ verbs). We will show that these imperatives contain the ‘speaker-oriented particle (SOP)’ op, first discovered by den Dikken (1998). We hold the presence of this particle responsible for most of the restrictions on these imperatives. We will argue that den Dikken’s identification of this SOP as being speaker-oriented should be modified to a speech-act orientation, i.e. it is oriented to the speaker and the here-and-now.

.

Introduction

In Dutch, participles can to a limited extent be used as root sentences. Examples include Wh-sentences as in (1) and underlying passives with performative import as in (2). (1)

a.

Waarom zo ver gereden? why so far driven? ‘Why would we/you drive so far?’

b.

Wat nu gedaan? what now done? ‘What shall we do now?’

* We would like to thank Berend Hoff, Marjo van Koppen and Jeroen Van Craenenbroeck for discussion and Marcel den Dikken for extensive written suggestions and comments, and for reminding us of Wh-participial root constructions. Special thanks go to Ronald Landheer for useful discussion and for pointing out the existence of other negative nominal imperatives. Our thanks also extend to the audience at the ‘TIN-dag’ 2001.

 Johan Rooryck and Gertjan Postma

(2)

a.

(Je wordt) bedankt! (you are) thanked ‘Thank you.’

c.

(Je wordt) gefeliciteerd/ gelukgewenst! (you are) congratulated ‘My/our congratulations!’

b.

(Je wordt) gecondoleerd (you are) sympathised-with ‘My deepest sympathies.’

In addition to these cases, there is a set of participles that may be used with imperative or exhortative force. We will call these participial imperatives.They are exemplified in (3)–(7). (3)

a.

Gegroet! greeted ‘Goodbye.’

b.

Onder ons gezegd (en gezwegen), dat is onzin. between us said (and kept-silent) that is nonsense ‘Between you and me, that’s just rubbish.’

(4)

a.

Afgelopen! off-walked ‘Be done with it!’

b.

Gedaan! (Southern Dutch) done ‘Be done with it!’

(5)

a.

Opgepast! up-taken-care ‘Watch out!’

b.

Opgelet! up-looked ‘Pay attention!’

c.

?Eventjes

d.

?Eventjes

a.

Ingerukt! in-pulled ‘Dismiss!’ (military)

b.

Opgesodemieterd! up-sodomised ‘Sod off!’

c.

Opgerot! up-rotted! ‘Fuck off!’

d.

Opgekrast! up-scratched ‘Buzz off!’

e.

Opgehoepeld! up-hooped ‘Get out!’

f.

Opgedonderd! up-thundered ‘Get out!’

g.

Opgestaan! up-stood ‘Get up!’

(6)

uitgekeken nu! for-a-moment looked-out now ‘Let’s just watch out now!’ acht geslagen op laaghangende takken nu! for-a-moment attention paid to low-hanging branches now ‘Please pay attention for a moment to low branches now!’

On participial imperatives 

(7)

*(Niet) getalmd/getreuzeld/getreurd nu! (not) delayed/hung-around/lamented now ‘Get on with it now!/Don’t wait now!/Don’t be sad now!’

This set of participial imperatives can be subdivided on the basis of their alternation with other verbal forms with imperative force. Only the forms in (5)–(7) show an alternation with bare imperatives and infinitival imperatives, as can be seen in (8)–(10), where for each verb first the bare imperative is given and then the infinitival imperative. (8)

(9)

(10)

a.

Pas op/Oppassen! take-care/take-care ‘Watch out!’

b.

Let op/Opletten! look up/up-look ‘Pay attention!’

c.

Kijk uit/Uitkijken! look out/out-look ‘Watch out!’

d.

Sla acht/Acht slaan op laaghangende takken nu! pay attention/attention pay to low-hanging branches now ‘Please pay attention to low branches now!’ a.

(*)Ruk in, jullie/ Inrukken! Pull in you/in-pull ‘Dismiss!’ (military)

b.

Sodemieter op/Opsodemieteren! sodomise up/up-sodomise ‘Sod off!’

c.

Rot op/Oprotten! rot up/up-rot ‘Fuck off!’

d.

Kras op/Opkrassen! scratch up/up-scratch ‘Buzz off!’

e.

Donder op/ Opdonderen! thunder up/up-thunder ‘Get out!’

f.

Hoepel op/Ophoepelen! hoop up/up-hoop ‘Get out!’

g.

Sta op/Opstaan! stand up/up-stand ‘Get up!’

Talm/treuzel/treur *(niet)!/*(niet) talmen/treuren/treuzelen delay/hang-around/lament (not)/(not) delay/hang-around/lament ‘Get on with it now!/Don’t wait now!/Don’t be sad now!’

The other participial imperatives do not alternate with bare imperatives or infinitival imperatives in this way, as shown in (11) and (12). (11)

a.

*Groet/*Groeten! greet/greet ‘Goodbye.’

b. *Zeg/*Zeggen (en zwijg*(en)), dat is onzin say/say and keep-silent, that is nonsense ‘Between you and me, that’s just rubbish.’

 Johan Rooryck and Gertjan Postma

(12)

a.

*Loop af!/ *Aflopen! walk off/off-walk ‘Be done with it!’

b. *Doe!/*Doen!1 (Southern Dutch) do/do ‘Be done with it!’

The lack of alternation with other imperative verb forms of the participial imperatives in (3) and (4) suggests that these cases are rather restricted. This is corroborated by the fact that they are limited to an extremely small set of lexical items. The cases in (13)–(14), for example, are semantically minimally different from (3)–(4), but they cannot be used as imperatives. (13)

a.

*Begroet greeted

b.

*Onder ons verteld, dat is onzin between us told that is nonsense

(14)

a.

*Beëindigd! finished

b.

*Gestopt! stopped

By contrast, the cases in (5)–(7) are relatively productive. Even less felicitous cases such as (5c,d) are not entirely ungrammatical. In addition, the cases in (3)–(4) can be regarded as shortened versions of longer sentences containing an imperative auxiliary or an impersonal construction. Examples (3)–(4) are interpretatively entirely equivalent to the longer (15)–(16): both (3) and (15) involve an imperative, and both (4) and (16) have exclamative force. However, the sentences in (5) do not interpretatively correspond to (17): (5) is an imperative, but (17) is an exhortative. For (6), a corresponding longer form does not even exist (cf. (18)), as unaccusative verbs can never undergo impersonal passivisation in Dutch. (15)

a.

Wees gegroet! ‘Be greeted!’ b. Onder ons zij gezegd en gezwegen, dat is onzin between us be said and kept-silent that is nonsense ‘Let it be said between the two of us, that’s just rubbish.’ (16) Het moet nu maar eens even afgelopen/gedaan zijn! it must now PRT once for-a-while finished/done be ‘This should really be the end of it!’ (17) Nu moet er even opgelet/opgepast worden! now must there for-a-while up-taken-care/up-taken-care be ‘Now attention should be paid!’ (18) *Er moet nu ingerukt/opgesodemieterd worden! there must now in-pulled/up-sodomised be ‘Now they should dismiss/sod off.’ . The infinitival form doen ‘do’ can be used as an imperative, but not with the meaning of (4b).

On participial imperatives 

In this article, we will therefore restrict our attention to the productive set of cases in (5)–(7). Among the set of participial imperatives in (5)–(7), a further distinction needs to be made on the basis of syntactic and semantic properties. The cases in (5)–(6) include positive participial imperatives, while (7) includes only negative participial imperatives. Interestingly, this syntactic difference corresponds to a lexical difference. Negative participial imperatives can be made with any verb, while positive participial imperatives are restricted to a semantically coherent set of verbs. As a first approximation, we can say that the verbs in (5) all involve a call to attention, and those in (6) a call to move off. Moreover, the set in (6) has aggressive connotations. This semantic restriction holding for positive participial imperatives is rather unusual. Other tenseless verb forms, such as infinitives, do not exhibit any restriction of this type. In languages where infinitival forms can function as imperatives, a verb that can take the imperative form can just as readily occur in the infinitive with imperative force, but this is not true for the participial form, as (19) illustrates.

(19)

a.

Loop! run. ‘Run!’

Lopen! run.. ‘Run!’

*Gelopen! run.. ‘Run!’

b.

Schrijf! write. ‘Write!’

Schrijven! write.. ‘Write!’

*Geschreven! write.. ‘Write!’

It has been observed that Dutch has three forms to express the imperative: finite, infinitive and participial (Duinhoven 1984, Proeme 1984). Hoeksema (1992) takes the restricted occurrence of non-finite imperatives, i.e. infinitival and participial imperatives, as an indication that this phenomenon is just a lexical, idiomatic quirk of Dutch. We think, however, that this observation is not entirely correct. The class of infinitival imperatives is virtually unrestricted, although Hoeksema is correct in pointing out that some infinitives do not easily occur with negation ((*niet)uitkijken ‘(don’t) look out’), while some others do not occur without negation ((*niet) aankomen ‘(don’t) touch’). The participial class, however, is much more strongly restricted, as observed above. But in this case too, it would be premature to attribute the restriction to an idiomatic quirk of Dutch, as participial imperatives also occur in other languages. Spanish, for instance, has an equivalent of (5), French a counterpart to (4a,b), and German military terminology features an expression close to (6). Portuguese productively has change-of-location counterparts to (6) as well. Examples are given in (20).

 Johan Rooryck and Gertjan Postma

(20)

a.

Cuidado! taken care ‘Be careful!’

(Sp.)2

b.

Fini! (Fr.) finished ‘Stop!’

d.

Sentado! seated ‘Sit down!’

(Port.)

e.

Deitado! (Port.) lain-down ‘Lie down!’

c.

Aufgesessen! (Germ.) up-sat ‘Mount your horses!’

The Portuguese examples in (20d,e) have, just like the Dutch examples in (6), aggressive overtones: they are used when people talk to dogs. The fact that participial imperatives also occur in other languages is a strong indication that they do not result from some lexical idiosyncrasy. In what follows, we will present an analysis of why the set of participial imperatives is nevertheless so restricted.

.

Negative participial imperatives

The negative participial imperatives in (7) can be compared with a productive set of nominal imperatives. These nominal imperatives share a basic structure consisting of the adnominal negator geen ‘no’, the participial morpheme ge-, and a verbal stem.3 In English, the equivalent cases involve a gerund. (21)

a. *(Geen) gepraat!/gepruts!/getreuzel!/getoeter!/gedans!… no talking/fidgeting/hanging.around/honking/dancing b. *(No) smoking!/trespassing!/honking!/talking in the classroom!…

These nominal imperatives always refer to a manner of saying or acting which is experienced as troublesome or undesirable by the speaker, and which therefore must be terminated. The events of talking or honking, for example, are not intrinsically troublesome, but the context of the negative imperative makes it clear that they are interpreted as such. It seems, however, that the curious relation between negation and an imperative reading is not exclusive to nominal imperatives. The same observation applies to

. Admittedly, this Spanish form no longer functions as a participle. Instead, it has become a noun, as is clear from its use with the imperative form of tener ‘take’ (ten cuidado ‘be careful’), and its occurrence in the complement of prepositions (con cuidado ‘with care’). The point in the argument in the text, however, is that cuidado seems to have started out diachronically as a participle, and that origin is what is of interest to us here. Importantly, the Dutch participial forms with imperative force do not function as nouns in the sense of Spanish cuidado. . Thanks to Ronald Landheer for drawing our attention to the relation between these constructions and participial imperatives.

On participial imperatives 

impersonal passives, in which stressed negation yields an imperative reading, as in (22b): (22)

a.

b.

Er wordt hier gedanst/geroddeld/gelezen. declarative/*?imperative there is here danced/gossiped/read ‘There is dancing/gossiping/reading going on here.’ Er wordt hier niet//NIET gedanst/geniesd/gelezen(!) declarative//imperative there is here not//NOT danced/sneezed/read ‘There is no dancing/gossiping/reading going on here// No dancing/gossiping/reading here!’

Such negative impersonal passives need not spell out the impersonal subject and the auxiliary. They can take the form of the bare participial imperatives observed above in (7): (23)

a.

b.

Eventjes niet gedanst/gezeurd/gepraat nu! for-a-while not danced/nagged/talked now! ‘No dancing/nagging/talking right now!’ Niet getalmd/getreuzeld/getreurd nu! not delayed/hung.around/lamented now ‘Get on with it now!/Don’t wait now!/Don’t be sad now!’

We assume that the relation between the negative participial imperative in (23) and its longer form in (22) is one of discourse ellipsis. The possibility of suppressing both subject and auxiliary also occurs in other, non-imperative sentence types in Dutch. (24)

a.

b.

c.

d.

(Ben je) naar de kapper geweest? (are you) to the hairdresser’s been ‘Did you go to the hairdresser’s?’ Nee, (ik heb) de verkeerde shampoo gebruikt. no (I have) the wrong shampoo used ‘No, I used the wrong shampoo.’ (Je wordt) bedankt! (you are) thanked ‘Thanks.’ (Is er) nog wat post voor mij? (is there) still some mail for me ‘Is there any mail for me?’

It appears that the imperative reading of participles in impersonal passives, as well as in their shortened versions as participial imperatives, is dependent on negation. This observation does not extend to standard declaratives generally: declaratives in the past or present tense do not receive an additional imperative reading by adding negation: (25)

a.

Jij komt (niet/NIET). you come (not/NOT) ‘You (do not) come.’

declarative/*?imperative

 Johan Rooryck and Gertjan Postma

b.

Jij bent (niet/NIET) gekomen. you are (not/NOT) come ‘You have (not) come.’

declarative/*?imperative

However, it seems that not only impersonal constructions, but passives generally interact with negation to yield imperative readings which are unavailable in the corresponding non-negated sentences: (26)

a.

b.

Zulke boeken worden hier gelezen. declarative/*?imperative such books are here read ‘Such books are read here.’ Zulke boeken worden hier niet/NIET gelezen(!) declarative/imperative such books are here not/NOT read ‘Such books are not read here/It is not allowed to read such books here.’

We may therefore conclude that on the imperative reading of (22b) and (26b), there is an interaction between negation and passive morphology that is reponsible for the emergence of imperative force. This relation between passive and negation extends to the geen ge-V ‘no V-ing’ cases in (21). It should be noted that deverbal nouns share with the passive participle not only the ge-particle but also the fact that they select an agent PP introduced by door ‘by’: (27)

a.

b.

Gepraat/gepruts/getreuzel/getoeter/gedans door dat soort mensen talking/fidgeting/hanging.around/honking/dancing by that kind of people is vervelend. is annoying Er wordt gedanst/gepraat/geprutst/getreuzeld/getoeterd door die mensen. there is danced/talked/fidgeted/hung.around/honked by those people4 ‘Those people dance/talk/fidget/hang.around/honk.’

In the remainder of this article, we will compare the negative nominal and participial imperatives in (21) and (23) with the non-negated participial imperatives in (5)–(6). The question arises as to why negative nominal and participial imperatives are highly productive, while the participial imperatives in (5)–(6) are extremely restricted in their distribution. We would like to propose that the meaning of the participial imperatives in (5)–(6) inherently contains the negation that is syntactically expressed in the verbal and nominal negative imperatives of (21) and (23). The opgesodemieterd ‘sod off ’ class of participial imperatives (cf. (6)) can be paraphrased as ‘do not remain here’, while the opgepast ‘pay attention’ class (cf. (5)) can be assigned an interpretation ‘do not continue this way’. In other words, while the nominal and participial imperatives of (21) and (23) display overt syntactic negation, we argue that the restricted set of participial imperatives in (5)–(6)

. See Postma (1996: 207) for further similarities between ge- nominalisations and passives. Postma takes ge- as the nominal counterpart of passive SE in Romance.

On participial imperatives 

feature covert negation. We discuss this relation between participial imperatives and negation more fully in Section 3.

.

The syntactic configuration of participial imperatives

It is widely assumed that bona fide imperatives move to C via head movement (Beukema and Coopmans 1989, Rooryck 1992, Rivero 1994, Postma and van der Wurff, this volume). The question now arises whether participial imperatives are similarly licensed by an imperative feature in the C0 domain. We would like to suggest that this is indeed the case although in a slightly modified way: we suggest that participial imperatives involve movement of some participial projection to a specifier position in the C-domain rather than to a head in the C-domain. This yields an analysis of (5)–(6) along the lines of (28). (28)

[CP [PartP opgepast/opgerot]i C0 [IP ti ]]

The main reason to asume that XP-movement rather than head movement is involved comes from word order facts in participial imperatives. It appears that participial imperatives can be modified by adverbs which also occur in nonimperative (exhortative) impersonal constructions, such as nu ‘now’ and even ‘for a moment’. Interestingly, the order of these adverbs changes dramatically between the longer forms of (17), repeated here, and the participial imperative forms in (29). (17)

(29)

Nu moet er even opgelet/opgepast worden! now must there for-a-while up-taken-care/up-taken-care be ‘Now attention should be paid!’ a. Even opgepast/opgelet nu! for-a-while up-taken-care/up-taken-care now ‘Now pay attention for a second.’ b. Nu *(even) opgepast/opgelet! now (for-a-while) up-taken-care/up-taken-care

Importantly, the adverb even ‘for a while’ modifying the participle in (17) remains in front of the participle in (29a,b), while the sentence initial adverb nu ‘now’ in (17) becomes sentence final in (29a). In configurational terms, the cluster adverb + participle, which we will refer to as PartP, appears to move to a syntactic position beyond the position of nu ‘now’ in (29a). In addition, PP complements to verbs such as oppassen ‘watch out’ and opletten ‘pay attention’ obligatorily appear after the participle and cannot appear in front of it (opgepast voor de hond/*voor de hond opgepast ‘beware of the dog’). This suggests that the PP has scrambled out of PartP before movement of PartP to SpecCP. The basic pattern in (28) can therefore be elaborated further as in (30).

 Johan Rooryck and Gertjan Postma

(30)

a. b.

[CP [PartP even opgepast/opgelet]i C0 [IP [voor de hond] nu [ ti ]]] [CP [PartP even opgepast/opgelet]i C0 [IP nu [voor de hond] [ ti ]]]

The case in (29b) is interesting, as even ‘for a while’ seems to be required to make the sentence grammatical. There is an interpretative difference between (29a) and (29b) which can explain this: (29b) can only be interpreted as a polite imperative while (29a) is more direct. It seems that the adverb even ‘for a while’ licenses this ‘polite imperative’ reading, and is therefore required. Syntactically, we suggest that the imperative force of (29b) is achieved by moving PartP to SpecCP at LF. Note that non-participial imperatives cannot similarly take the adverb with them to the C-domain, as the following sentences show:5 (31)

a.

Let nu even op!/Let even op nu! pay-attention now for-a-while up/pay-attention for-a-while up now ‘Pay attention now!’ b. *Even let nu op!/*Even let op nu! for-a-while pay-attention now up/for-a-while pay-attention up now ‘Pay attention now!’

This impossibility is of course compatible with a classical analysis of imperatives in which the verb head-moves to C0, leaving behind all adverbial material on its way up. The analysis in (28) can now be extended to (6), the opgesodemieterd class. These verbs can be modified by the same adverbs as the other participial imperatives, with the same word order restrictions: (32)

a.

b.

Eventjes opgedonderd/opgekrast nu! for-a-while up-thundered/up-scratched now ‘Now buzz off for a while!’ Nu *(eventjes) opgedonderd/opgekrast! now (for-a-while) up-thundered/up-scratched

In other words, the basic syntactic structure of the opgesodemieterd class in (6) is identical to that of the other participial imperatives. In all cases, a PartP moves to a Specifier position in the C-domain. We take the absence of a productive alternation of these constructions with an overt auxiliary, illustrated in (17)–(18), as an

. Note that these constructions are quite different from the Dutch construction exemplified in (i) which was described by den Dikken (1992, 1998): (i)

Leg (niet) neer die/*een/*de bal! put not down that/a/the ball ‘(do not) put that ball down!’

These constructions are compatible with negation, and require a distal determiner on their object. See den Dikken (1992, 1998), Barbiers (this volume) and Koopman (this volume) for analysis.

On participial imperatives 

indication that the participial imperatives in (5)–(6) have no underlying auxiliary or deontic modal to begin with. This implies that the sentential structure between C0 and Part0 in (28) and (30) is truly empty. We would like to assume that participial imperatives derive their imperative force from the C0 head whose specifier PartP moves into. In this way, we can not only account for the word order of adverbs in participial imperatives but also relate their imperative force to the imperative force of non-participial imperatives which involve head movement to C0. In other words, we claim that the imperative force of C0 can be licensed in two ways: either by head movement of the verb to C0 or by movement of PartP to SpecCP, as shown in (33a,b). (33)

a. b.

[CP ___________________

[C0 pas/rot]i

[IP ti op ]]]

[CP [PartP opgepast/opgerot]i

C0

[IP ti ]]]

This analysis is corroborated by the syntax of infinitival imperatives. The position of adverbs in infinitival imperatives, illustrated in (34), patterns with that in participial imperatives as in (30), (33b), and not with that of standard imperatives subject to head movement as in (33a). (34)

a.

b.

Even oppassen nu! for-a-while up-pay-attention now ‘Now watch out for a moment!’ Nu even oppassen! now for-a-while up-pay-attention

This means that infinitival imperatives share the syntactic configuration of participial imperatives: in both cases, an extended projection of VP is moved to the Specifier of a C0 with imperative force. This should not come as a surprise: participial and infinitival imperatives are both untensed verb forms which are compatible with imperative interpretations without being inherently imperative themselves. The syntactic structure of participial imperatives does not give us an explanation for the strict lexical restrictions observed: only verbs of change of location and verbs of warning can function as non-negative participial imperatives. In terms of the analysis advocated here, we observe that imperative formation via head movement to C0 is much more productive than via PartP movement to SpecCP. In and of themselves, the syntactic mechanisms described here do not account for the lexical limitations on the participial imperatives of (5)–(6).

.

Interpretative restrictions on participial imperatives

Let us now take a look at the interpretative restrictions holding of the participial imperatives in (5)–(6), as compared to their non-participial counterparts. Both

 Johan Rooryck and Gertjan Postma

oppassen ‘pay attention’ and opletten ‘pay attention’ take internal arguments introduced by the prepositions voor ‘for’ or met ‘with’. Interestingly, while both participial and non-participial imperatives take definite complements, participial imperatives strongly resist indefinite DPs in their complement.6 (35)

a.

b.

c.

(36)

a. b. c.

Pas/let op voor die overstekende eland! take.care/take.care up of that crossing moose ‘Watch out for that moose crossing the road!’ Pas/let op voor overstekende elanden! take.care/take.care up of crossing moose ‘Watch out for moose crossing the road!’ Let op met dat mes/met messen, jongens! take.care up with that knife/with knives boys ‘Be careful with that knife/with knives, guys!’ Opgepast voor die overstekende eland! up-taken.care of that moose crossing the road *Opgepast voor overstekende elanden! up-taken.care of moose crossing the road!’ Opgelet met dat mes/*met messen, jongens! up-taken.care with that knife/with knives boys ‘Be careful with that knife/with knives, guys!’

This impossibility of using true indefinites correlates with the selection of temporal adverbs. Participial imperatives resist quantificational adverbs such as altijd ‘always’ or distal temporal adverbs such as op dat moment ‘at that time’. Unlike true imperatives, they only allow temporal adverbs such as nu ‘now’, as shown in (37). (37)

a.

b.

Pas/let (nu even /altijd/op dat moment) op take-care/take-care (now for-a-moment/always/at that moment) up voor die overstekende eland! for that crossing moose ‘(Now/always/then) watch out for that moose crossing the road.’ Opgepast (nu/*altijd/*op dat moment) voor die overstekende eland! up-taken-care (now/always/at that moment) for that crossing moose ‘(Now/always/then) watch out for that moose crossing the road!’

The same observations about temporal adverbs extend to the other participial imperatives: (38)

a.

Rot in zo’n geval altijd op! /Rot (nu/op dat moment) maar op! rot in such-a case always up/rot (now/at that moment) PRT up ‘Always sod off in such a case! /Just sod off (now/then)!’

. Some speakers of the Northern standard dialect of Dutch do not accept prepositional complements with participial imperatives, while admitting them freely with non-participial imperatives.

On participial imperatives 

b.

c.

Opgesodemieterd (nu/*in zo’n geval altijd/*op dat moment) maar! rotted.up (now/in such.a case always /then) just ‘Always sod off in such a case! /Just sod off (now/then)’ Afgelopen (nu/*op dat moment)! finished (now/at that moment) ‘Stop it now/at that moment!’

The resistance to both indefinite DP complements and to non-proximate temporal adverbs suggests that the participial imperative is incompatible with generic tense, or with a ‘future’ interpretation of the imperative which is invited by distal temporal adverbs such as op dat moment ‘at that time’. In other words, the time reference of participial imperatives is restricted to the immediate ‘here and now’. This means that the tense of participial imperatives obeys a very strict ‘present tense’ requirement. Non-participial imperatives do not exhibit this restriction and have a present tense that is compatible with generic and ‘future’ interpretations. So far then, we have observed four restrictions on participial imperatives, which are lexical, morphological, semantic and functional in nature. Lexically, participial imperatives that alternate with other imperatives are restricted to a small set of verbs, essentially those mentioned in (5)–(6). Morphologically, they are systematically formed with particle verbs, in most if not all cases containing the particle op. Semantically, they are not combinable with negation. And functionally, participial imperatives display a curious restriction to the immediate ‘here and now’. These restrictions need to be explained further. Let us start with the particle restricion. As den Dikken (1998) shows, the particle op in Dutch imperatives has a curious function, not observed before. It may serve as a speaker-oriented particle. Consider (39). (39)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Geef op (dat boek)! give up (that book) ‘Give me that book!’ Kom op met dat boek! come up with that book ‘Give me that book!’ Zeg op! say up ‘Say it to me!’ Vertel op! tell up ‘Tell me!’

The examples in (39) are all bona fide imperatives. Curiously, an unidentified opparticle is present in all of them. The structures do not derive from fixed particleverb combinations, since those, if they exist, have different meanings (compare opgeven ‘give up’, opkomen ‘emerge’, opzeggen ‘cancel’, *opvertellen). The examples in (39) have simpex verbs to which op is added. The function of op seems to be

 Johan Rooryck and Gertjan Postma

that it saturates the argumental dative position ‘to me’; this happens only in the imperative construction. It can be compared with the word hier ‘here’, which has a similar function in imperatives (van Riemsdijk 1978). Den Dikken shows that these constructions only occur with (some) triadic predicates and that they all represent the meaning ‘give to me’. This is so lexically in (39a) and semantically in (39b), while the act of giving is verbal in (39c,d). What den Dikken does not point out is that these constructions are strongly tied to the here-and-now. They do not combine with temporal adverbs denoting a remote time or place, as shown in (40). Moreover, they cannot be combined with negation, cf. (41). In these respects the op-constructions are very similar to participial imperatives. (40)

(41)

a. *Geef (straks) op dat boek (straks)! give (later) up that book (later) ‘Give me that book later!’ b. *Zeg (morgen) op (morgen)! say (tomorrow) up (tomorrow) ‘Tell me tomorrow!’ a. *Geef niet op dat onleesbare boek! give not up that unreadable book ‘Don’t give me that unreadable book!’ b. *Zeg niet op wat ik niet wil weten! say not up what I not want know ‘Don’t tell me what I don’t want to know!’

For this reason it seems more appropriate to call op a speech-act oriented particle (SOP) rather than just speaker-oriented particle, as den Dikken (1998) does. In (42) we summarise the similarities between the SOP-construction and the participial imperative. (42)

Similarities between participial imperative and SOP-constructions – both use the particle op – both are imperatives – both are tied to the here-and-now – both fall in semantically uniform verb classes – both are incompatible with negation

It is attractive to hold a speech-act oriented particle uniformly responsible for these properties. If so, the SOP-particle should have the following properties: (43)

Speech-act oriented particle – usually (exclusively?) op – realized in imperatives only (true imperatives and participial imperatives) – has a ‘here-and-now’ reading – has a ‘to-me’ or ‘away-from-me’ reading – restricted to semantically uniform classes (‘give to me’, ‘pay attention to me or to a third object’, ‘go away from me’) – incompatible with negation

On participial imperatives 

It may be clear that (43) raises many questions. For instance, to what extent does the element op in opletten ‘pay attention’ force it to occur in imperative contexts only? To what extent is opletten incompatible with negation? Some of these issues will become clear in the next section, where we discuss the semantic composition of participial imperatives.

.

The semantic composition of participial imperatives

.

The functional elements inside participial imperatives

The limited productivity of participial imperatives suggests that they might be very close to functional elements. In other words, participial imperatives could be viewed as grammaticalised items, portmanteau morphemes which spell out (a combination of) functional elements. Let us therefore explore what the basic atoms composing these participial imperatives could be. One striking semantic property of participial imperatives is their relation with negation, as we have already observed. The participial imperatives with verbs of movement involve the wish that the addressee should leave, i.e. the wish for a situation in which the addressee is not near the speaker any more. The participial imperatives with verbs expressing a call for attention express a wish that the addressee should not involve herself in an imminent situation. It is significant that these paraphrases of the participial imperatives all involve no more than three elements (apart from the imperative force): negation, an aspectual predicate (remain/ continue) and a proximate deictic element. We can represent these as in (44). (44)

a. b.

DON’T REMAIN HERE (cf. (6), the opgesodemieterd ‘sod off ’ class) DON’T CONTINUE THIS WAY(cf. (5), the opgepast ‘watch out’ class)

Note that remain and continue are essentially equivalent, as remain equals continue to be.7 The choice between remain and continue seems to be a function of the deictic element in their complement. Let us now examine whether the semantic composition of these atoms takes place at a lexical level or at the syntactic level. If the semantic composition is lexical, we expect participial imperatives to be relatively insensitive to syntactic operations. If the semantic composition is syntactic, syntactic operations will interact with the functional components of participial imperatives. Above, we noted the curious restriction on temporal reference in participial imperatives to the immediate ‘here and now’, and also the definiteness restriction . In many languages, continuative aspectual verbs are ambiguous between a stative and a dynamic reading. An example is Dutch blijven ‘stay’: (i) Jan bleef in de kamer ‘Jan stayed in the room’

(ii) Jan bleef praten ‘Jan continued to talk’

 Johan Rooryck and Gertjan Postma

of DPs in their complement. We would like to attribute these restrictions to the proximate deictic component inside the semantic structure of participial imperatives. Proximate and distal deictic elements are inherently definite. We claim that the proximate deictic element inside the participial imperative is syntactically active and therefore restricts temporal and deictic reference in the entire syntactic domain of the participial imperative. Another indication of the syntactic transparency of participial imperatives comes from negation. The contrasts in (45)–(46) show that participial imperatives strongly resist syntactic negation, while non-participial imperatives do not display this restriction to the same extent.8 (45)

?Pas/let

a.

nu liever even NIET op! pay-attention./pay-attention. now rather for-one-moment NOT up ‘(I’d rather you) didn’t pay attention now.’ ?Liever even NIET/niet opletten/passen nu! rather one-moment NOT/not up-pay-attention./up-pay-attention. now ‘(I’d rather you) didn’t pay attention now.’ *Liever even NIET/niet opgelet/opgepast nu! rather one.moment NOT/not up-paid-attention/up-paid-attention now ‘(I’d rather you) didn’t pay attention now.’ ?Rot nou niet meteen op, joh, doe niet zo flauw! rot. now not immediately up man act not so lame ‘Don’t sod off right away now, man, don’t spoil things!’ ?Nou niet meteen oprotten, joh, doe niet zo flauw! now not immediately up-rot. man act not so lame ‘Don’t sod off right away now, man, don’t spoil things!’ *Niet meteen opgerot nu, joh, doe niet zo flauw! not immediately up-rotted now man act not so lame ‘Don’t sod off right away now, man, don’t spoil things!’

b.

c.

(46)

a.

b.

c.

These facts lead us to conclude that the combination with negation of non-participial imperatives seems to be pragmatically infelicitous, while the

. In this respect, non-participial imperatives resemble certain adjectival admonitions, as in (i). (i)

a.

Voorzichtig! ‘Careful!’

*Niet voorzichtig (Hoeksema 1992: 129 ex. (18)) ‘Not careful!’

b.

Vlug! ‘Quick!’

*Niet vlug ‘Not quick!’

Hoeksema (1992:129) marks the negative counterpart of (i) as ungrammatical, but observes that the examples in (ii) are fine: (ii)

a.

Niet al te voorzichtig nu, jongens! ‘Not too careful now, boys!’

b.

Niet te vlug! ‘Not too fast!’

On participial imperatives 

ungrammaticality of negated participial imperatives appears to be more syntactic in nature. So we are left with two interactions between negation and imperatives. In deverbal ge-nouns of the type in (21), negation is required. In participial imperatives and SOP-constructions, negation is excluded. We would like tie these effects to one phenomenon. The resistance to overt syntactic negation can be related to the presence of negation inside the semantic structure of participial imperatives. It is well known that monoclausal double negations are ungrammatical in the absence of strong contrastive stress:9 (47)

a.

b.

… dat Jan niet NIET/*niet leest. … that Jan not NOT/not reads ‘that Jan doesn’t NOT/*not read.’ Niet NIET/*niet lezen nu! not NOT/not read now! ‘Don’t NOT/*not read now!’

If we assume that the negation inside the semantic structure of participial imperatives is syntactically active, the ungrammaticality of negated participial imperatives can be attributed to the general ungrammaticality of syntactic double negations. Note that it is not uncommon for negation to be syntactically incorporated into functional elements: Latin nolle ‘not want’ and Old English nabban ‘not have’ are examples of this in the verbal domain, and in the nominal domain we can refer to Dutch neg+ iemand ‘someone’ > niemand ‘nobody’. In the same way, negation inside participial imperatives should be viewed as syntactic negation incorporated inside a functional complex. Thus, overt syntactic negative incorporation (or covert negative incorporation in the sense of Klima 1964) only occurs with functional elements. Importantly, it never occurs with lexical elements: alongside Dutch niemand ‘neg+ someone’ and Old English nabban ‘neg+have’, we don’t find Dutch *naap ‘neg + ape’, or Old English *netan ‘neg + eat’. . At this point, we must come back to the nominal and verbal negative imperatives that were noted in Section 2. It is not clear to us why exactly the interaction between (stressed) negation and passive should yield an imperative reading. It is possible that the Focus feature on negation ensures LF movement of NegP to SpecFocP, thus enabling the imperative force in the C-domain to come to bear on the entire sentence. Such an analysis has the merit of relating the negated impersonal constructions with imperative force in (22b) to the participial imperatives in a straightforward manner. While participial imperatives incorporate negation (and possibly a deictic element) before moving overtly to SpecCP, impersonal constructions are overtly negated, and move to SpecCP (SpecFocP) covertly. Both operations are sketched out in (i–ii): i. [CP [NegP [V DON’T REMAIN HERE ]] C0 [IP nu [NegP [V DON’T REMAIN HERE ]]] opgesodemieterd ii. [CP [NegP NIET [PartP gedanst]] C0 [IP er wordt hier [NegP NIET [PartP gedanst]]]] It may be clear that more research on these constructions is needed before this conjecture can be confirmed.

 Johan Rooryck and Gertjan Postma

This means that we can even make the claim stronger: if a verb contains negation that is syntactically active, then this verb must be a functional element or a combination of functional elements. In other words, the syntactic transparency of the negation present in participial imperatives is an argument for their functional nature, which in turn explains their limited productivity. Let us now turn to the question why negation and a deictic element should occur together in the semantic composition of participial imperatives proposed in (44). In principle, there is no reason why participial imperatives should be restricted in this manner: why doesn’t a counterpart of (44) exist with distal deictic elements instead of proximate ones? The answer to this riddle lies in the nature of the negation ensconced in (44). We would like to propose that the type of negation involved is boulemaeic negation, i.e. a modal type of negation meaning ‘I do not want’. Hoekstra and Jordens (1994) show that Dutch children’s grammar displays two types of negation. These include a non-modal negation niet which negates a description, and a modal negation nee predominantly expressing boulemaeic negation (cf. also Postma and van der Wurff, this volume). (48)

a.

b.

Die niet goed. (cf. Hoekstra and Jordens 1994: 130 ex. (14b)) that not good ‘That one is not good.’ Nee poes hier zitten. (cf. Hoekstra and Jordens 1994: 126) no pussy here sit ‘I don’t want the cat to sit here.’

The meaning of boulemaeic negation of course comes very close to a negative imperative. Moreover, boulemaeic negation is deictic in nature: the meaning ‘I don’t want’ is predicated of the here and now. We therefore would like to propose that the negation inside the syntactic composition of participial imperatives is boulemaeic in nature. The boulemaeic nature of negation in this context thus accounts for three properties of participial imperatives that in principle have no intrinsic relation to each other: negation, imperative force and the temporal restriction to the here and now. Syntactically, it could be proposed that this boulemaeic negation is generated as an empty morpheme in C0, and that movement of PartP to SpecCP occurs to satisfy the Neg criterion, i.e. the negation inside the participle must be checked off against the negative boulemaeic feature in C0.10 There is a further . If negation inside participial imperatives is syntactically active, as is argued here, we expect it to license negative polarity items. This is not the case: compare participial imperatives (i) with overtly negative imperatives (ii): i. ii.

*Ook maar voor even opgesodemieterd/afgelopen nu! even only for a-while off-sodden/finished now Blijf daar niet voor ook maar een ogenblik! stay there not for even only a moment ‘Don’t stay there for even a single minute.’

The question is why this should be so. It could be that boulemaeic negation does not license negative polarity items. We will leave this point for further research.

On participial imperatives 

point to make here. As Hoekstra and Jordens (1994) argue, the epistemic negator niet is only used with verbal forms. The boulemaeic negator, on the other hand, is never used with finite forms. It seems more nominal in nature. Only nominal sentences seem appropriate to carry the pure boulemaeic negation. From this pont of view it is not so strange that nominal constructions such as dat gedoe ‘that doing/those doings’ and imperatives taking the form of a participle, which is traditionally considered a nominal form of the verb, are hospitable to boulemaeic negation. .

Participial imperatives and verb meaning

We have already observed above that there seem to be two semantic subsets of participial imperatives: the opgesodemieterd ‘sod off ’ class, cf. (6), and the opgepast ‘watch out’ class, cf. (5). The question arises why precisely these verbs can function as participial imperatives and not other, semantically quite close predicates. We would like to propose that a single factor underlies this restriction: the ability to shed the primary verb meaning. For one set of participial imperatives, this property is quite obvious. The opgesodemieterd ‘sod off ’ class only consists of movement verbs containing an element that has lost its original lexical meaning. Following Postma (1995), we will say that these elements are in zero-semantics. A word in zero-semantics is not a word that does not mean anything. Rather, it involves a word that means something because of a specific configurational position and not because of its lexical specification. Postma (1995) observes that (49a) involves the perception of an actual ball or dog, while (49b) has two interpretations. The first and least interesting interpretation of (49b) is one in which the sentence simply refers to the fact that one doesn’t see an actual ball or dog, (49b.i). In the second interpretation, (49b.ii), the nouns bal ‘ball’ and hond ‘dog’ have lost their fully referential meaning to function as negative polarity items with universal meaning. In Postma’s (1995) terms, the nouns lapse into zero-semantics in the context of negation. (49)

a. b.

Ik zie een bal/hond. ‘I see a ball/a dog.’ Niemand ziet een bal/hond. i. ‘Nobody sees a ball/dog.’ ii. ‘Nobody sees anything/anyone.’

It is important to note that lapsing into zero-semantics does not mean that the lexeme has no meaning at all. Only the meaning that represents knowledge of the world disappears. Formal features usually remain, e.g. the ±animate feature of bal/hond is retained in its variable status of ‘anything/anyone’. Zero-semantics makes the way free for a lexeme to be interpreted quantificationally. Now, in (6), the elements ruk ‘pull’, sodemieter ‘sodomizer’, kras ‘scratch’, donder ‘thunder’, rot ‘rotten’, and hoepel ‘hoop’ have completely lost their lexical meaning. In this respect, these imperatives are very close to English fuck/sod off, where fuck and sod have also lost their lexical meaning. The only apparent exception to this

 Johan Rooryck and Gertjan Postma

generalization is (6g) opgestaan. However, the verb staan ‘stand’ can be argued to be an auxiliary, since it can express aspectual meaning besides its meaning as a movement verb. In addition, it is striking that almost all verbs in this construction start with the preposition op ‘on’. It seems then that the following generalisation can be formulated: (50)

Participial imperatives are restricted to verbs whose constituent morphemes can shed their original lexical meaning.

This generalisation explains the lexical restrictions on the set of participial imperatives in (6). More in particular, it explains why the following verbs, which involve a change of location, nevertheless are ungrammatical as participial imperatives: (51)

*Vertrokken!/*Neergelegen! left/lain-down ‘Leave!/Lie down!’

The participial imperatives in (51) involve the verbs vertrekken ‘leave’ and neerliggen ‘lie down’ which cannot, or the constituent parts of which cannot, shed their original lexical meaning. For the participial imperatives in (5), opgepast/opgelet ‘watch out/pay attention’, it is not immediately clear that they contain an element in zero-semantics. Semantically, these participles are quite close to the original meaning of the verb. Nevertheless, it should be observed that the original meaning of oppassen and opletten is not ‘be careful’, but rather ‘take care of ’ and ‘keep an eye on’, respectively. Even the subcategorisation structures of the core lexical meanings of these verbs are quite different: (52)

a.

b.

(53)

a.

b.

Jan past op de hond. Jan takes-care of the dog ‘Jan watches/takes care of the dog.’ Jan let op de hond. Jan watches on the dog ‘Jan watches the dog.’ Je moet voor die hond oppassen! You must for that dog look-out ‘You must be careful with that dog.’ Je moet opletten voor die man! you must up-care for that man ‘You must watch out for that man.’

As the examples indicate, in the original verb meaning (52), the preposition takes a DP complement, while in the derived meaning (53), the preposition op ‘on’ has incorporated into the verb which now selects a PP introduced by voor ‘for’. It is this latter derived meaning that is the source for the participial imperatives in the

On participial imperatives 

opgepast class. In fact, the construction is very limited. It is only felicitously used in MUST constructions, such as with moeten + infinitive in (53). Present tenses are very strange, if not ungrammatical, cf. (54).11 Not surprisingly, true imperatives are well-formed, cf. (55). (54)

(55)

a. *Jan past op voor de hond. Jan takes-care up for the dog ‘Jan watches out for/is careful with the dog.’ b. *Jan let op voor de hond. Jan watches up for the dog ‘Jan watches out for the dog.’ a. Pas op voor die man! watch up for that man ‘Beware of that man!’ b. Let op voor overstekende elanden! look up for crossing moose ‘Beware of crossing moose.’

An interesting case is (5c), repeated here: (5)

c.

?Eventjes

uitgekeken nu! for-a-moment looked-out now ‘Let’s just pay attention now!’

The verb uitkijken ‘look out’ too has a number of meanings, with different subcategorization structures, as shown in (56). (56)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

Jan kijkt uit het raam. Jan looks out the window ‘Jan looks out of the window.’ Jan kijkt uit naar de feestdagen. Jan looks out to the holidays ‘Jan looks forward to the holidays.’ Jan kijkt uit voor subsidiegelden/*voor honden. Jan looks out for grants/for dogs ‘Jan is in search of grants/dogs.’ Je moet uitkijken voor honden! You must look.out for dogs ‘You must be careful with dogs.’ Kijk uit voor honden! look out for dogs ‘Be careful with dogs!’

. The judgements are not extremely strong. Perhaps the sentences are grammatical, but cannot be felicitously used. We did not find any instances of sentences of this type on the internet, which we used as a megacorpus of modern Dutch.

 Johan Rooryck and Gertjan Postma

While the meanings in (56a) and to a lesser extent in (56b) are related to visual perception, the meaning of uitkijken in (56c) has lost its link with visual perception and only retains the psychological meaning of ‘search’. The final step is the one in (56d). It is only used in auxiliary constructions with MUST and in true imperatives, (56e). The complement is an undesired object. Not accidentally, it narrows down to one of the meaning classes of the participial imperative. Once again, then, only verbs which can shed (part of) their original meaning can function as participial imperatives. We can safely conclude that only verbs which have already lost (part of) their original meaning, and therefore have little meaning of their own, can become portmanteau morphemes for the combination of functional elements presented in (44). As in other cases of zero-semantics, a formal meaning arises. To make the theory consistent, the loss of meaning must be tied to the rise of boulemaeic negation, DON’T, as represented in (44). We can partly trace this jump in the examples in (56), featuring the verb uitkijken, the meaning of which ranges from fully lexical ‘look out’ to a meaning that can only be used in imperatives, i.e. ‘beware’. The crucial transition occurs between (56c), which can be used in a completely productive way, and (56d,e), which not only display a distinct meaning but are also semantically limited to imperative contexts. One hypothesis would be that the verb here changes from an ordinary particle verb into a SOP particle-verb. In other words, uit in uitkijken and op in opletten and oppassen convert into a SOP. As den Dikken (1998) argues, SOP particles are tied to a dative-shifted argument. In the case of uitkijken, oppassen en opletten, this would be the PP voor de hond ‘for the dog’. Instead of selecting de hond directly, uit/op select it prepositionally as voor de hond. The question then arises: what property changes in the particle? To answer this question, it is useful to consider the findings of Bennis and Wehrmann (1990). Bennis and Wehrmann discuss the systematic alternation shown by some psych verbs between selecting an object and a prepositional complement in their present participles. An example with the verb opvallen ‘up-fall, i.e. strike’ is given in (57). (57)

a.

b.

Een mij OPvallende jongen. a me striking boy ‘A boy that strikes me.’ Een voor mij opVALLende jongen. a to me striking boy ‘A boy that strikes me.’

In (57a), the experiencer is realized as a bare DP, in (57b) it is realized by a dative PP. The interesting thing in this case is that a particular stress pattern correlates with the alternation. The stress shifts from the particle in (57a) to the verbal stem in the PP construction in (57b). Bennis and Wehrmann show that this stress pattern is an indication of the categorial class of the participle. In (57a) opvallend is verbal, while in (57b) it is nominal (adjectival). This only happens with particle verbs.

On participial imperatives 

What we would like to suggest is that there is a categorial jump in the particle, or triggered by the particle, when seclecting a voor-PP. (58)

a particle verbs that transforms into a SOP-verb undergoes a categorial transformation [-nom] −> [+nom]

Evidence for this claim is that these verbs can only be used in uninflected forms, such as infinitives, participles and bare imperatives. Moreover, as we hypothesised before, their use as imperatives is licensed by the use of boulemaeic negation. At that point, it was not clear where the boulemaeic operator was licensed, as it only occurs in non-verbal constructions in child language. Apparently, it is the categorial jump from verbal to nominal that licenses the boulemaeic feature.

.

Conclusion

In this article, we have argued that Dutch has a restricted set of participial imperatives which involve a syntactic configuration with PartP-to-SpecCP movement. The syntactic and semantic restrictions on these participial imperatives can be related to a number of independent factors. First of all, the semantic composition of these imperatives appears to consist of a combination of functional elements: negation, an aspectual predicate (CONTINUE) and a deictic element (HERE, THIS WAY). The differences in the syntactic nature of the deictic element yield two distinct semantic classes of participial imperatives. We have argued that semantic elements of participial imperatives are syntactically active. This suggests that the combination of functional elements that is argued for takes place in the syntactic component of the grammar. The unproductive nature of participial imperatives can be related to the fact that only verbs which have already lost part of their original lexical meaning qualify for construal as participial imperatives.

References Bennis, H.J. and P. Wehrmann. 1990. “On the categorial status of present participles”. In: R. BokBennema and P. Coopmans (eds) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1990, 1–11. Dordrecht: Foris. Beukema, F. and P. Coopmans. 1989. “A Government-Binding perspective on the imperative in English”. Journal of Linguistics 25: 417–436. Dikken, M. den. 1992. “Empty operator movement in Dutch imperatives”. In: D. Gilbers and S. Looyenga (eds) Language and Cognition 2, 51–64. Groningen: Research Group for Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation. Dikken, M. den. 1998. “Speaker-oriented particles in Dutch imperatives”. Glot International 3.9/10: 23–24. Duinhoven, A.M. 1984. “Ban de bom! Over vorm en betekenis van de imperatief ”. De Nieuwe Taalgids 77: 148–156.

 Johan Rooryck and Gertjan Postma Hoekstra, T. and P. Jordens. 1994. “From adjunct to head”. In: T. Hoekstra and B. Schwartz (eds) Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar, 119–149. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hoeksema, J. 1992. “Bevelende zinnen zonder polaire tegenhanger”. In: H. Bennis and J.W. de Vries (eds) De Binnenbouw van het Nederlands: Een Bundel Artikelen voor Piet Paardekooper, 125–131. Dordrecht: ICG Publications. Klima, E. 1964. “Negation in English”. In: J. Fodor and J.J. Katz (eds) The Structure of Language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Postma, G. 1995. Zero-Semantics: A Study of the Syntactic Construction of Quantificational Meaning. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden. Postma, G. 1996. “The argumental licensing of perfect tense”. In: H. Thraínsson, S. Epstein and S. Peters (eds) Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax II, 197–226. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Postma, G. and W. van der Wurff. This volume. “How to say no and don’t: Negative imperatives in Romance and Germanic”. Proeme, H. 1984. “Over de Nederlandse imperativus”. Forum der Letteren 25: 241–258. Riemsdijk, H. van. 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. Rivero, M.-L. 1994. “Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 63–120. Rooryck, J. 1992. “Romance enclitic ordering and Universal Grammar”. The Linguistic Review 9: 219–250.

‘Inverted’ imperatives* Laura Rupp Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Abstract Imperatives in English occur with Subject do(n’t) order as well as with the reverse order do(n’t) Subject. Well-established assumptions about inverted order in interrogatives have led previous studies to assume that in apparently inverted imperative constructions, do(n’t) has similarly been placed in C above the subject in SpecIP. I argue that the (non-)inverted orders rather occur because there is variation in the position of subjects in imperatives. This analysis is shown to account for a cluster of other properties that characterise the imperative. The syntax of imperatives is relevant to a number of current issues in syntactic theory, such as the status of the EPP, the motivation for Move and the apparent problem of optional displacement.

.

Introduction: The puzzle

The examples in (1) and (2) show that negative imperatives closely resemble interrogative clauses to the extent that they may be expressed with an inverted don’t Subject order. (1) (2)

Didn’t you try again? Don’t you try again!

The standard assumption for English is that the surface position of subjects is fixed in SpecIP, whilst inverted orders in interrogatives arise from I-to-C movement (or: Subject-Auxiliary Inversion), as a result of which auxiliaries like don’t

* This contribution is based on the author’s Ph.D. dissertation (1999). I especially thank Andrew Radford, Alison Henry, Mike Jones, Eric Potsdam, Marcel den Dikken and Johan Rooryck for discussion of the material.

 Laura Rupp

show up in front of the subject.1 Given the word order correspondence between (1) and (2) above, then, the minimal hypothesis is that essentially the same analysis carries over to negative imperatives (Davies 1986; Potsdam 1998, this volume; Han 2000, among others). Straightforward as things might seem, an analysis along these lines faces the problem that this is as far as the similarity goes. Consider first the case of negative interrogative clauses. Assuming that the bound morpheme n’t and the free element not are both independent  heads of a NegP (on the model of Pollock 1989), negative interrogatives can be derived in the following two ways. Alongside the derivation of (3a) in which the auxiliary do carries n’t along on its way to C, the alternative is to use not and raise do alone, as illustrated in (3b). (3)

a. b.

Didn’t you try again? Did you not try again?

Hence, if imperatives were formed in an interrogative-type fashion, we would expect there to be imperative equivalents with not. This is not the case: (4)

*Do you not try again!

Another apparent difference between the two types of sentence is that do is obligatory in positive interrogatives, but ungrammatical in affirmative imperatives. (5)

a. Did you try again? b. *Do you try again!

Different suggestions as to how to interpret these contrasts have been made in the past. Without discussing previous accounts in any great detail, there is quite general agreement that the specifics of imperatives relate to the element don’t in this construction. For example, Zhang (1990) and Henry (1995) suspect that don’t in imperatives is not the auxiliary do, but might best be analysed as a lexically unitary negative imperative particle (a proposal originally put forward by Cohen 1976).2 As indicated in (6) below, Henry (1995) in addition posits with others (Beukema and Coopmans 1989, Zanuttini 1991) that in imperatives don’t is generated directly in COMP. (6)

[CP [C don’t][IP you [I I][VP [V try] again]]]

. In view of the controversy about AGR(eement) phrases as first postulated by Pollock (1989) in his ‘split-INFL’ framework, I will assume a basic phrase marker with no AgrPs and use the label IP informally to refer to the highest ‘inflectional’ projection present (see Iatridou 1990 and Chomsky 1995: ch. 4 for discussion). . In Pollock (1989) and Platzack and Rosengren (1998), don’t is an idiosyncratic imperative verb. As will become clear directly, I find there is no need to assume such an exceptional element.

‘Inverted’ imperatives 

The basic idea pursued by these ‘imperative do(n’t)-analyses’, then, is that interrogatives and inverted imperatives are both CPs, but the word order derives differently. While imperatives may accordingly be expected to exhibit different behaviour, in Rupp (1999) I show that the data do not immediately fall out more naturally. In this contribution, I will present a new way of looking at the matter. I envisage that rather than an idiosyncrasy of don’t, the determinant factor in the syntax of imperatives is the particular distribution of subjects. .

The status of don’t in imperatives

To decide whether or not the element don’t in imperatives is special in any sense, we shall first examine the possibility that it is in fact none other than the dummy auxiliary. As a starting point, I will briefly review the configurations in which the auxiliary do occurs in other clause types. By the Economy Principle (Chomsky 1989 and later), the English-particular rule of do-insertion only operates as a ‘last resort’. That is, do serves to satisfy a grammatical requirement, such as feature checking, which cannot be met otherwise. For interrogatives, it is assumed that do-insertion must apply invariably to check off some ‘strong’ verbal feature of C because verbs are immobile in the overt syntax of English and thus unable to reach C before Spell-Out. This situation is shown in (7). (7)

a. *Criticised she (not) him? b. Did she (not) criticise him? c. [CP [C didi][IP she [I ti] (not) [VP [V criticise] him]]]

In finite declarative clauses, by contrast, do is confined to negative and emphatic structures, which implies that its use there is not driven by a strong feature. (8a–d) are illustrative examples. (8)

a. Ivy (always) criticises him. b. *Ivy does criticise him. c. Ivy doesn’t / does not criticise him. d. Ivy DOES criticise him.

Pollock (1989) and Laka (1990), respectively, have proposed that sentential negation and emphatic affirmation are functional heads in their own right, situated between V and INFL. In the framework of Chomsky (1995: ch. 4), the reason why do is used in the presence of these heads (subsumed under the label Σ in (9) below) is that they block covert feature raising from V to INFL. (9)

[ IP Ivy [ I [3SG]][ΣP[Σ n’t / not / EMPH][ VP ……………..× does

[ V criticises] him]]] [3SG.PRES.IND]

 Laura Rupp

As a consequence, some non-interpretable features (e.g. verbal ϕ-features) fail to be checked. However, these cannot remain in the derivation and the only way to save the derivation from crashing at LF is to insert do in INFL. In non-emphatic declaratives, on the other hand, there is nothing stopping this V-to-I feature raising process, rendering do-insertion unnecessary and hence impossible. Observe now that do(n’t) occurs in essentially the same environments in imperatives as it does in finite declarative clauses. (10)

a. b. c. d. e.

Support him! You support him! *Do support him! *Do you support him! Don’t criticise him! Don’t you criticise him! Do not criticise him! *Do you not criticise him! DO support him! (If the others won’t,) DO AT LEAST YOU support him!

This patterning suggests that in imperatives, too, don’t is simply the do of Last Resort do-insertion (Potsdam 1998 comes to the same conclusion). The examples in (10d,e) show that do is certainly not uniformly absent from imperatives. It appears in emphatic imperatives, and also co-occurs with not if the subject is covert. I see no good reason to assume that the status of don’t in imperatives is different from elsewhere. In section 6, I will address the question of why (do) not is not fully available in imperative structures with an overt subject.

.

The syntax of do(n’t) in imperatives

In an attempt to come to terms with the contradictory behaviour of imperatives in comparison with interrogative clauses, proponents of ‘imperative do(n’t)analyses’ have suggested that do(n’t) is not first inserted into INFL and then raised to COMP, but gets generated straight under the C-node. The motivation which Zanuttini (1991) offers for this unusual procedure is that in imperatives, INFL is an ‘inert’ head in the sense that it is void of typical inflectional material such as agreement features, leaving nothing for do(n’t) to check there. That imperative INFL is inert is reflected, the claim goes, by examples like the following, which show that verbs do not inflect for agreement in imperatives. (11)

a. b. c.

Somebody call(*s) my wife! Don’t/*Doesn’t that boy over there move! You be/*are quiet now!

‘Inverted’ imperatives 

From the current theoretical perspective, however, it seems hard to sustain the postulation of syntactically inactive categories. It is neither consistent with the principle of Full Interpretation nor reconcilable with the concept of structural economy, which together dictate that functional heads are present in structural descriptions only if their presence is somehow motivated or contributes to interpretation at LF (Chomsky 1989; 1995: ch. 4). What is more, below I shall present a set of diachronic, cross-linguistic and morphosyntactic facts which are consistent with, or perhaps even suggest, the presence of (imperative) ϕ-features in INFL (though these are evidently not associated with any agreement morphology).3 .

INFL(Agr)

First, whereas verbs are not overtly marked for agreement in imperative clauses nowadays, this was different in older stages of the English language. Into the Early Modern English period (c.1450–1700), verbs had distinctive imperative forms, with no ending for the second person singular, as in (12b,d) (compare the nonimperative example in (12a), which shows -(e)st) and with a regular -th ending for the second person plural, as in (12c,e).4 (12)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Wherfore criest thou? why cry.2.. you.2. ‘Why do you cry?’ Boy, a boke anon thou bryng me! boy a book immediately you.2. bring.2. me ‘Boy, you bring me a book immediately!’ Fy on yow! goyth hence / Out of my presence fie on you go.2. hence out of my presence ‘Fie on you! Now (you) get out of my sight.’ O goddesse immortal! Be helping now, [...]. oh goddess immortal be.2. helping now ‘Oh immortal goddess! (You) be helping now.’

. In the literature on imperatives, opinions are somewhat divided as to whether or not imperative clauses have tense specification. For a variety of different views, see, amongst others, Culicover (1971; 1976), Stockwell et al. (1973), Ukaji (1978), Akmajian et al. (1979), Lasnik (1981; 1994), Davies (1986), Pollock (1989), Beukema and Coopmans (1989), Zhang (1990), Zanuttini (1991), Henry (1995) and Platzack and Rosengren (1998). Since this matter does not affect the essence of the argument, I shall leave it open. For present purposes, it suffices to show that imperatives are specified for agreement (at least). . The examples in (12) have been taken from Visser (1963–1973), who cites the following sources for (a–e), respectively: (a) c1479 Earl Rivers, The Cordyal (ed. Mulders) 92, 22 (p.1550); (b) c1450 Cov. Myst., Mary Magd. (Pollard) 1181 (p.18); (c) 1460 Towneley Myst. ii, 204 (p.16); (d) c1402 Lydgate, Complaint of the Black Knight (ed. Krauser) 90, 628 (p.1960); (e) 1480 Caxton, Chron. Eng. cxcvii, 175 (p.16).

 Laura Rupp

e.

Bethe ware sirs. be.2. aware gentlemen ‘(You) be careful, gentlemen!’

Conceivably, then, the apparent absence of subject-verb agreement in imperative sentences is only apparent. It might simply be ascribed to the ‘accidental’ fact that English, whose morphology as a whole is well known to have impoverished over time, lost the imperative inflectional paradigm. This loss does not necessarily imply that imperatives also ceased to be specified for agreement on the more abstract level of features. Note that the ungrammaticality of the agreeing forms in (11a–c) comes as no surprise given that the -s inflection and the form are have always exclusively belonged to the paradigm of the present indicative (cf. the chapters on morphology in Hogg 1992– ). Hence, one cannot expect to find them in imperative clauses in the first place, or draw any inferences from their absence. The minimal pairs in (11) only demonstrate that imperatives (no longer) show overt agreement marking, but they do not rule out the possibility that INFL is still associated with some (imperative) ϕ-feature matrix. In other words, historical and present-day English imperatives might be regarded as differing with respect to the phonetic realisation of their (otherwise identical) INFL head only. The hypothesis that imperatives in English have an INFL head carrying covert (imperative) ϕ-features is also credible from a cross-linguistic point of view. There are languages which have retained relatively rich agreement morphology and in imperatives use verb forms that are unique to the paradigm of the imperative (that is, they are distinct from any other verb form, for the same person, in the indicative, subjunctive, etc.). Platzack and Rosengren (1998) report that within Germanic, this is the case in at least German and Icelandic.5 (13) contains examples from German. (13)

a.

b.

c.

Du hilfst mir. you help.2.. me ‘You help (are helping) me.’ Hilf (du) mir! help.2. (you) me ‘(You) help me!’ Helft (ihr) ihm! help.2. (you) him ‘(You) help him!’

Above all, that subjects of imperatives appear to bear nominative Case is suggestive of their having an agreement specification (cf. also Beukema and Coopmans . It is also true of many members of the Romance (e.g. Italian, Spanish) and Balkan (e.g. Greek, Rumanian, Albanian) families, cf. Zanuttini (1991; 1994; 1997), Rivero (1994a; 1994b) and Rivero and Terzi (1995). I refer to these studies for a description and analysis of some of the interesting properties of imperatives in such languages.

‘Inverted’ imperatives 

1989). It is true that, on the face of it, their Case seems difficult to determine. The limited range of subject DPs that can freely be used in English imperatives, such as the standard addressee pronoun you, all happen to be morphologically opaque.6 Yet historically, the form of the second person pronoun varied not only for number but also for Case (viz. singular thou (NOM) / thee (ACC), and plural ye (NOM) / you (ACC)). Earlier imperative data, like (12b) above, exhibit unambiguously nominative forms. Likewise, Germanic languages which have kept a richer system of Case distinctions use nominative subjects in imperatives, as illustrated by the following example from Icelandic.7 (14)

Kom thu/*thig/*ther/*thin ekki! come.2. you./you./you./you. not ‘Don’t you come!’

Furthermore, some English native speakers (A. Radford p.c.) allow for third person pronouns as subjects of imperatives, most favourably in conjunction structures or when accompanied by a modifying clause, and these must be nominative and cannot be accusative. Examples are: (15)

a. b.

You stand by the door and she/*her watch the window! He/*Him who carries the machine gun step away from the car!

The point is that nominative Case often seems to go hand-in-hand with agreement specification (as Chomsky already argued in 1981 and Schütze 1997 has shown more extensively). As for English, simple examples such as those in (16) show that an agreeing INFL (in the form of an inflected auxiliary) takes a nominative subject, whereas the subject of a non-agreeing INFL (like the particle to) is accusative (or PRO).

. Broadly speaking, the condition seems to be that subject DPs must lend themselves to an addressee interpretation (Bolinger 1967, Downing 1969, Stockwell et al. 1973, Ukaji 1978, Schmerling 1982, Davies 1986, Zhang 1990, Platzack and Rosengren 1998, and many others). Expressions that can be construed in this way include quantifiers, demonstratives, partitives, bare noun plurals and certain definite phrases, whereas first and third person pronouns and indefinites are normally out. (i)

(ii)

a. b. c. d. e. a. b.

Everybody listen to me! Those in the front row stop giggling! The whole lot of you get out of here at once! (New) students (among you) sign up at the front door! The boy in the corner stand up! *We/*I take a look at this! *He/*They/*A man come here!

Potsdam (1998) offers more detailed discussion and some qualifying observations. . Again, this is the same in the Romance and Balkan languages mentioned in note 5.

 Laura Rupp

(16)

a. b.

She/*Her [I is] watching the window. I don’t want [him/PRO/*he [I to] carry a machine gun]

If the idea that subjects of present-day English imperatives have nominative Case is correct, this would hint at (covert) specification for agreement features on the INFL head and the verb. While the argument cannot be but indirect due to the poverty of the current English morphological system, I take the data in this section to provide sufficient justification for assuming that INFL carries covert imperative ϕ-features (which historically were spelt out by imperative inflections).

.

The trigger for do-insertion in imperatives: INFL(Agr)

I turn now to the position of the auxiliary do at Spell-Out. Analyses according to which do(n’t) in imperatives is inserted straight under C, as shown in (17), cannot easily be upheld in respect of Checking Theory. They assume at least one functional projection FP between CP and VP in the imperative clause structure, whose specifier is filled by the subject. I have identified the functional head F with INFL in the diagram below, which, as I just argued, is presumably specified for agreement. I take (imperative) ϕ-features to be carried by the auxiliary when present, as happens in finite declarative clauses. (17)

Don’t you try again! CP C Don’t [2.IMP]

IP D you [2.NOM]

I’ I [2.IMP, NOM]

VP try again

The problem is that if do(n’t) is not at any stage of the derivation adjoined to INFL, it is unclear how non-interpretable ϕ-features are checked with the subject. Lowering the features of do(n’t) by LF is, of course, not an option because of the c-command condition on Move. If one were to allow for feature raising from INFL to do(n’t) in C, the question that arises is why in imperatives do-insertion would not target INFL for ϕ-feature checking directly. It seems improbable that do(n’t) occurs in C at all in imperatives anyway. COMP has been regarded as a semantically meaningful category in being the locus of illocutionary force. This entails that the category is inherently specified for

‘Inverted’ imperatives 

interpretable features such as Chomsky’s (1995: ch. 4) feature Q for interrogatives (see also Rizzi 1997) which contribute to the sentence’s interpretation and therefore are to survive to LF. Suppose (in the spirit of Katz and Postal 1964) that imperatives have an equivalent force-indicating feature in C, which we may call Imp. Given the presumed interpretability of Imp, do(n’t) would have to adjoin to C in the overt syntax just in case Imp, like Q in interrogatives, is accompanied by some strong verbal feature (otherwise, in conflict with Last Resort, there would be no trigger for do(n’t) to raise to C, rather than being left-adjoined to INFL where it checks its ϕ-features). By this reasoning, however, we would make the incorrect prediction that do should also be obligatory and occur before the subject in non-emphatic imperatives on a par with interrogatives (compare again (10a) and (10b) above). From the fact that do(n’t) need not be resorted to in non-emphatic imperatives, it can only be concluded that the use of the auxiliary in other configurations is not induced by a strong feature. Therefore I will not adopt the assumption that do(n’t) is in C at Spell-Out. Particulars of adverb placement appear to support this view empirically. Jackendoff (1972) noted that there is a certain class of English adverbs (including merely, just and simply) which cannot occur sentence-initially. In the structure of the finite declarative sentences below, they may be adjoined to I’ and a projection of V, but adjoining them to IP is not possible. (18)

(19)

a.

She simply did not give them his address. She [I’ simply [I did] not give them his address] b. She did not simply give them his address. She did not [VP simply [V give] them his address] c. *Simply she did not give them his address. Simply [IP she did not give them his address] (*Just) he (just) doesn’t (just) believe what she says.

As the next few examples demonstrate, sentence-initial positioning is an option in imperatives, however. If the highest adjunction-site of these adverbs is I’, then do(n’t) cannot occupy C but must be in the lower head INFL.8 (20)

a. b.

Do not simply give them your address! Do not [VP simply [V give] them your address] Simply do not give them your address! [IP [I’ Simply [I do] not give them your address]]

. The relevance of the syntax of these adverbs for the analysis of imperatives was recognised by Potsdam (1998). Potsdam (this volume) cites anomalous examples with Adv-don’t-Subject order as evidence against the present account and in favour of his CP-analysis of inverted constructions. However, (20b) and (21) demonstrate that the order is not in fact strictly ill-formed. I suspect that non-syntactic factors may bear on the acceptability of such data. These need to be considered more carefully.

 Laura Rupp

(21)

(Just) don’t anyone (just) believe what she says!

We may now ask the question: how are the imperative facts to be interpreted, then? An analysis which has suggested itself all along is that in imperatives, do has the same syntax not as in interrogatives (or the obligatory absence of the auxiliary in non-emphatic constructions does not make sense) but as in finite declarative clauses (which is plausible since imperatives correspond to finite declaratives in all the relevant respects). Hence, do is inserted into INFL only where a negation or emphasis head intervenes between V and I so as to ensure that imperative ϕfeature checking with INFL can take place, but it is not forced to – and will therefore never – occur any higher than this in the imperative clause structure. The configuration I will henceforth be assuming for do-insertion in imperatives is as exemplified in (22) below (note that a possible covert CP-system has been left out for ease of exposition and that the position of the subject has deliberately been omitted here). (22)

Do not try again! IP

Do

I [2.IMP, NOM]

NEGP NEG not ×

V try [2.IMP]

To recognise that with respect to the position of do(n’t), imperatives pattern with finite declarative clauses seems to be a step in the right direction, but it now becomes an interesting question as to why imperatives are nonetheless very much interrogative-like where the relative ordering of do(n’t) and the subject is concerned. The pattern is shown in (23). (23)

a. b. c.

You didn’t try again. Didn’t you try again? Don’t you try again!

[IP You [I didn’t] try again] [CP Didn’ti [IP you ti try again]] [IP [I Don’t] you try again]

Viewing things from the present perspective, it emerges that the inverted word order in imperatives arises by virtue of the absence of subject-raising to SpecIP. The impression that there has been subject-auxiliary inversion is therefore illusory and the parallelism with interrogatives clauses does not in fact exist. The following sections explore this hypothesis.

‘Inverted’ imperatives 

.

The syntax of subjects in imperatives

.

Against a SpecVP analysis

With the subject occupying a position below INFL, a possibility that immediately springs to mind is that in imperative do(n’t) Subject strings, the subject follows the auxiliary because it stays in situ in SpecVP, as indicated in (24) below. (24)

Don’t you try again! IP I Don’t

VP D you

V’ try again

However, I agree with Potsdam (1998) that from all the relevant diagnostics it is evident that this cannot be the case (some of the examples below have been taken from his work). First, on the assumption that aspectual auxiliaries head a separate Aspect projection outside the theta-marking domain of VP (cf. e.g. Ouhalla 1991), the SpecVP analysis predicts that imperative subjects should appear to the right of them. The examples in (25) show that the opposite is true: they precede them. (25)

a. *Don’t be [VP anyone waiting up for me all night]! b. Don’t anyone be [VP waiting up for me all night]! c. *DO have [VP everyone of you done your hair before we go]! d. DO everyone of you have [VP done your hair before we go]!

Secondly, the subject does not elide in VP-ellipsis constructions, which suggests that it is VP-external at Spell-Out. (26)

a. b.

Rick walked out of the lecture, but don’t everyone else _____, please! Bill didn’t tell Mom what I did, so don’t YOU ______ either!

In addition, example (27) demonstrates that it is possible to strand quantifiers in imperatives, which (after e.g. Sportiche 1988) can be taken as an indication that the subject has been moved out of the VP away from the quantifier. (27)

Don’t you ever both talk to me like that again! Don’t youi ever [VP [both ti] [V’ talk to me like that again]]

Furthermore, imperatives can be passivised. If passive participles lack an external argument position, then passivisation must involve DP-movement from the canonical object position to a position outside the VP.

 Laura Rupp

(28)

a. b.

Everyone be checked over by a doctor! Everyonei be [VP [V checked over] ti ] by a doctor Don’t you be fooled t by her behaviour!

A final piece of counter-evidence derives from the syntax of adverbs. A speakeroriented adverb like certainly may precede but not follow a VP-adverb like completely in the following examples, which shows that certainly does not attach to VP (after Bowers’ 1993 restrictive assumption that different adverb classes are licensed by separate heads). (29)

a.

Marianne has certainly completely solved the problem. Marianne has certainly [VP completely solved the problem] b. *Marianne has completely certainly solved the problem.

As (30b) below shows, imperative subjects can appear to the left of adverbs like certainly, once again indicating that they are not in SpecVP. (30)

a. b.

Certainly everyone do at least the assigned problems! Everyone certainly [VP do at least the assigned problems]!

In sum, a SpecVP analysis of subject positioning in imperatives is inadequate. .

A SpecFP analysis

Accepting that ‘inverted’ imperative subjects do not occur in a VP-internal position, the logical possibility left to contemplate is that they are displaced no further than the Spec position of some intermediate functional projection higher than VP but lower than IP in the structure of (31). (31)

Don’t you try again! IP I Don’t

FP D youi

F’ F

VP ti try again!

Scope facts in imperatives (from Schmerling 1982) have received little attention in the literature in the past, and yet they seem to provide evidence for the nonoccurrence of movement into SpecIP. Consider the examples in (32) and (33), which illustrate a difference in scope between quantified subjects and negation in finite declaratives and imperatives. (32)

We all worked extremely hard over the past year, still everyone didn’t get a raise. a. = nobody got a raise every > not b. = not everyone got a raise not > every

‘Inverted’ imperatives 

(33)

I know all of you worked extremely hard over the past year, but don’t everyone expect a raise! a. ⫽nobody expect a raise! *every > not b. =not everyone should expect a raise not > every

Though scope judgements may be subject to some variation, most of my consultants agree that the finite declarative example (32) can in principle be assigned two different readings; one in which the quantifier (QP) everyone has scope over negation (paraphrased in (32a)), and one where negation has scope over the QP (paraphrased in (32b)) (for some speakers, necessarily with focal stress on everyone). Significantly, the reading on which the QP takes widest scope is strictly unavailable for the corresponding imperative sentence. That is, the example cannot be understood in the sense of (33a). It has long been standard to assume with May (1977; 1985) that for QPs to take scope over other elements in the sentence, they must raise and adjoin to some appropriate XP at LF. A sentence like everyone didn’t get a raise, for example, would then be assigned the LF structure given in (34), in which the QP has adjoined to IP. (34)

[IP [QP everyone]i [IP ti didn’t get a raise]]

However, Hornstein (1995) argues that a separate rule of quantifier raising is no longer tenable in minimalism, and outlines a different approach to quantifier scope which aims to eliminate the rule from the grammar. He points out that if movement only occurs for the sake of checking morphosyntactic features, there is little reason for an element to move to an A’-position unless it must do so for feature checking, which is not obviously the case for quantified subjects. This said, Hornstein notes that quantified subjects are to undergo movement from SpecVP to SpecIP at any rate to check features with INFL, and that this operation automatically extends their scope domain. This way, operator scope can simply be a function of A-movement. In other words, A-movement, triggered by the requirements of checking theory, may simultaneously serve to expand a QP-subject’s ccommand domain, thereby enabling it to take scope over the remainder of the sentence. Accordingly, an appropriate LF representation of the example sentence would look like (35) instead. (35)

[IP [QP everyone]i [I didn’t][VP ti get a raise]]

Combining this idea with the ‘copy theory’ of movement (Chomsky’s 1993 minimalist analogue of reconstruction at LF), the every > not reading for the finite declarative sentence derives when at LF, the quantifier is interpreted in its surface position SpecIP, as in (36a). The not > every reading derives when, as in (36b), the copy of the quantifier in SpecVP is interpreted. (36)

a. b.

[IP everyone didn’t [VP teveryone get a raise]] [IP everyone didn’t [VP teveryone get a raise]]

 Laura Rupp

A CP analysis of imperatives assumes a SpecIP position for imperative subjects, with subsequent auxiliary inversion from I to C. Note that this analysis predicts quite wrongly that negative imperatives also are ambiguous. In the higher C position negation should always have scope over the QP, whilst the QP could take scope over negation from SpecIP if the latter were ‘LF-reconstructed’. Compare (37a) and (37b): (37)

a. b.

[CP don’t [IP everyone tdon’t [VP teveryone expect a raise]]] [CP don’t [IP everyone tdon’t [VP teveryone expect a raise]]]

Crucially, for the every > not reading to become available, negation must fall within the scope domain of the quantifier. In finite declarative clauses, a quantified subject c-commands, hence bears scope over, everything contained within I’ from its derived position in SpecIP, which includes do(n’t) under INFL. The reading being absent from ‘inverted’ imperatives implies that while there may be movement to an intermediate Spec position, subjects are not moved as far as the Spec position of IP. In this case it makes no difference whether the higher or the lower link of the chain is interpreted in (38). The QP will always be in the scope of negation. (38)

a. b.

[IP don’t [FP everyone [F F][VP teveryone expect a raise]]] [IP don’t [FP everyone [F F][VP teveryone expect a raise]]]

The analysis of ‘inverted’ imperatives pursued here is in its essentials similar to the derivation of expletive-associate constructions of the type illustrated in (39) below (cf. e.g. Felser and Rupp 2001). In these constructions, the associate/ thematic subject (many students) similarly fails to occur in SpecIP, which is filled by the expletive (there). As expected under the FP analysis, ‘inverted’ imperatives and existential sentences behave alike with respect to scope restrictions on their QP-subjects. (39)

There aren’t many students waiting outside. a. ⫽many students are not waiting outside b. = not many students are waiting outside

*every > not not > every

Eric Potsdam (p.c.) has suggested to me that the argument becomes unpersuasive once interrogatives are taken into consideration. As indicated in (40a,b) below, on the above assumptions these should be ambiguous between a narrow and a wide scope reading for quantified subjects. (40)

Didn’t everyone get a raise? a. [CP didn’t [IP everyone tdidn’t [VP teveryone get a raise]]] (‘Did nobody get a raise?’) b. [CP didn’t [IP everyone tdidn’t [VP teveryone get a raise]]] (‘Did not everyone get a raise?’)

every > not not > every

In actual fact, the narrow scope reading given in (40b) is the only possible reading of the example. This seemingly removes the ground for claiming that the absence

‘Inverted’ imperatives 

of wide quantifier scope in ‘inverted’ imperatives reveals that the CP analysis is incorrect. However, I suspect that the possibility of forming negative interrogative clauses with not may play some role here. As in the case of (40), the derivation of (41) is predicted to result in scope ambiguity. Similarly but conversely, the example can only be understood with the wide scope reading for the QP in (41a). (41)

Did everyone not get a raise? a. [CP did [IP everyone tdid [NEGP not [VP teveryone get a raise]]]] every > not (‘Did nobody get a raise?’) b. [CP did [IP everyone tdid [NEGP not [VP teveryone get a raise]]]] not > every (‘Did not everyone get a raise?’)

That the QP and negation apparently are interpreted in their surface position in (40) and (41) could be related to the fact that in interrogatives, the respective negative elements (Aux)n’t and not occur in different structural positions at Spell-Out (above, hence taking scope over, and below, hence in the scope of, the subject in SpecIP). If the two interpretations are made available by the syntax, LF-reconstruction is arguably unmotivated. Wide quantifier scope cannot be yielded in ‘inverted’ imperatives in a similar way because contrary to interrogatives, they cannot be negated with not. This contrast is not straightforward under an interrogative-type CP analysis, but will be shown to fit the FP approach. Potsdam (this volume) objects that this account necessarily gives up on the idea that all of the scope facts can be covered by a uniform explanation. I am not sure that it does: reconstruction in negative interrogatives for scope purposes is only thought to lack motivation. Potsdam argues that, with don’t-interrogatives and don’t-imperatives showing the same scope pattern, they must have identical CP-structures.9 Though his contribution does not focus on quantified subjects, . Potsdam backs up his argument by showing that other I-to-C structures are similarly unambiguous. Thus, (i) involves Negative Preposing. Note that with not, as in (i’), the scope relation is again reversed. (i) (i’)

Only on Fridays doesn’t everybody come. Only on Fridays does everybody not come.

(not > every only) (every > not only)

Note also that some CP constituents, like inverted conditionals, do in fact seem to show scope ambiguity (Mike Jones p.c.): (ii)

a. b.

Hadn’t everyone got a raise, they would all have gone on strike. (every > not) (‘If everyone hadn’t got a raise, …’) Hadn’t everyone got a raise, some employees would have felt undervalued. (not > every) (‘If not everyone had got a raise, …’)

Potsdam further argues that his CP analysis is superior to the FP analysis with respect to scope interactions between negation and quantified objects or adjuncts. On his assumptions, the CP analysis can – but the FP analysis cannot – capture the observation that interrogatives and ‘inverted’ imperatives only have a NEG > QP reading, whereas finite declaratives in addition can

 Laura Rupp

I understand that he would explain the scope contrast between ambiguous finite declaratives and non-ambiguous interrogatives/imperatives by assuming that, unlike raised QPs, I-to-C moved negation cannot reconstruct. Consequently, the scope of don’t in interrogatives/imperatives is fixed by its surface position in C. Such an account still allows for non-uniformity. An issue that I will leave to be settled is the identity of FP. The existence of a functional layer between V and I in English clause structure (different from the object-oriented AGRoP-type) has been argued for on independent grounds. It is identified with the projection of an ASP(ect) head in Tenny (1987) and Ouhalla (1991). While in the remainder of this contribution I will stick to the neutral label FP, AspP would seem a suitable candidate. First, it is consistent with the absence of wide scope for quantified subjects in ‘inverted’ imperatives. In order for the data to fall out, don’t should at no stage in the derivation be in the scope of the QP in SpecFP. As far as I know, the auxiliary do has not been associated with aspectual features, in which case do-insertion need only apply to the higher INFL head for the checking of imperative ϕ-features. Second, in overtly aspectual imperative constructions, like (25b,d), the subject shows up between do(n’t) and the aspectual auxiliary. Thirdly, the possibility of an AspP receives some semantic motivation from interesting work by Flagg (2001) on differences between overt subject imperatives and covert subject imperatives at the syntax-semantics interface. One of the observations Flagg makes is that there is a restriction against overt subjects with certain predicates, exemplified by (42) versus (43). (42) (43)

a. Keep doing your homework! b. You keep doing your homework! a. Love your doggy! b. *You love your doggy!

be construed with QP > NEG. One of the examples that he cites for illustration is from Moon (1999). (iii)

(iv)

He didn’t play football for many years. a. = He played football for not many years not > many b. = For many years, he did not play football many > not Don’t you play football for many years! a. = You should play football for not many years not > many b. ⫽You should wait many years before playing football *many > not

However, sometimes creating an appropriate context can make a reading available, as in: (v)

Concerned coach to player: Your injury is very serious. I am warning you. You have to be careful or it will only get worse. So, Don’t you play football for many years! (Then we’ll see.)

Furthermore, my consultants did not fully agree with the way Potsdam judges some of his examples, and in particular found the interrogatives to be ambiguous. Since these judgements are not my own, I refer the reader to Potsdam’s contribution in this volume.

‘Inverted’ imperatives 

She characterises the contrast as one between stage-level predicates and individual-level predicates. Flagg goes on to note that the felicity conditions for the examples in (42) differ. In a situation in which a child is sitting at the kitchen table doing homework when the doorbell rings, a parent can say (42a) as a word of encouragement if the child shows no sign of stopping as the parent goes to the door. Example (42b), on the other hand, is odd for this situation. But if the child stops doing the homework, or even shows signs of being about to stop, (42b) becomes appropriate. Flagg argues that the felicity of using an overt subject depends in part on whether the event being ordered has a specific starting-point. She suggests that in such contexts, the subject might stay low because it is to be licensed by an aspectual feature [+start].

.

Subject positioning revisited

It is common knowledge that English has a rigid word order in respect of the surface position for subjects. So far, I have concentrated on ‘inverted’ imperative constructions, arguing that subjects in imperatives have an exceptional distribution in that they may not be placed in SpecIP. On closer inspection, it appears that their syntax is even more unusual and the data more complicated. As previously noted by Davies (1986), imperatives cannot only be expressed with inverted do(n’t) Subject strings, which are perhaps most familiar, but also with non-inverted Subject do(n’t) sequences. Under the FP analysis, the source of this word order variation must lie in variation in the position of the subject. While the subject can occur in some intermediate A-position, apparently it may undergo subsequent movement to a higher Spec position at the left-hand side of the structure, very much like SpecIP in fact. Consider the negative examples in (44) and (45) (inspired by Davies 1986): (44)

a. b. c.

(45)

a. b. c.

Don’t you go to the party! [IP [I Don’t][FP youi [F F][VP ti [V go] to the party]]] Don’t anyone with a mobile phone use it during the flight! (I remember John being very upset last year, so please) don’t both of you forget his birthday this time! OK, you don’t go to the party, then! (If that’s what you want.) [IP Youi [I don’t][FP t’i [F F][VP ti [V go] to the party]]] Anyone with a mobile phone don’t use it during the flight! Both of you don’t forget John’s birthday this time!10

. One could be inclined to think (with Thorne 1966) that these sentence-initial DPs really are vocatives. However (as argued extensively by Potsdam 1998), while DPs may, of course, be used as vocatives in imperatives, and vocatives and imperative subjects seem to have a very similar function of identifying the addressee(s), there are good reasons for making a distinction.

 Laura Rupp

Subject position likewise varies in emphatic imperatives. For illustration, compare the inverted orders in (46) to the non-inverted orders in (47): (46)

a.

(47)

b. c. a. b. c.

(Bill, I am begging you,) DO YOU support him! [IP [I DO][FP YOUi [F F][VP ti [V support] him]]] DO SOMEone open the door! DO EVERYbody give it a try! You DO support him! (Or I’ll never speak to you again.) [IP Youi [I DO][FP t’i [F F][VP ti [V support] him]]] Someone DO open the door! Everybody DO give it a try!

Interestingly, it turns out that such variability is not merely an idiosyncrasy of standard English imperatives, but also characterises imperatives in some other English varieties and Germanic languages. The data in (48) below are from a Belfast English variety studied by Henry (1995). She argues that on the assumption that the position of adverbs is fixed, the alternative orderings of you and carefully must arise from the subject distributing quite freely. (48)

a. b.

Write carefully you that letter! Write you carefully that letter!

The sentence in (49) is an example from Swedish where, according to Platzack and Rosengren (1998), imperative subjects can surface in a range of different positions. (49)

Spring (DU) alltså (DU) hem (DU) meddetsamma (DU)! run (you) thus (you) home (you) immediately (you) ‘Thus, you run home immediately!’

Thus, flexibility in the distribution of subjects would appear to be a more general feature of imperatives across Germanic languages.

Note, for example, (1) that vocatives must be pronounced with an intonation break, orthographically indicated by a comma (cf. (i a,b)), while DPs in imperatives need not be (cf. (45c) above); (2) that there are DPs which may serve as the subject of an imperative but cannot occur as vocatives (the classic example being nobody, cf. the contrast between (ii a) and (ii b)); and (3) that (as the examples in (iii) show) in imperatives some grammatically third person DPs can bind both third and second anaphors, whereas the binding potential of vocatives is restricted to second person. (i) (ii) (iii)

a. b. a. b. a. b.

Both of you, John’s birthday is tomorrow. *Both of you John’s birthday is tomorrow. Nobody move! *Nobody, move! [Passengers with luggage]i don’t leave theiri / youri valuables unattended! [Ladies and gentlemen]i, please look after *theiri / youri personal belongings!

‘Inverted’ imperatives 

.

Marking negation: the limits of not

Finally, I would like to show that the FP analysis I am proposing seems to go some way towards explaining the (non-)availability of not. Some data are given in (50)– (51) below (adapted from Postdam 1998). I know I’ve done wrong but I can’t survive on my own. Oh please, (50)

(51)

a. Don’t you/anyone desert me! b. Those with a heart don’t desert me! c. Don’t desert me! a. *Do you/somebody not desert me! b. *Do not you/anyone desert me! c. Do not ALL of you desert me! d. One of you do not desert me! e. Do not desert me!

These examples show that while (1) all types of imperative constructions can freely be negated by means of don’t (cf. (50a–c)), (2) negating ‘inverted’ imperatives with not, which is comparatively rare anyway, yields acceptable results only in certain contexts (compare (51a,b) with (51c)), whereas (3) structures in which the subject occurs sentence-initially or is covert are not restricted in this way. The FP analysis assumes that imperative do not constructions have the following basic structure: (52)

[IP (Subji) [I do][NEGP [NEG not][FP (Subji) F [VP ti V ...]]]]

As a beginning, the non-occurrence of do Subject not sequences (which poses an immediate problem for the CP analysis) is not unexpected. As a matter of fact, it follows directly from the proposed configuration for the trivial reason that a sentence like (51a) cannot be assigned a legitimate structural description. There is no suitable (A-)slot between IP and the FP for the subject to be moved into, as indicated below.11 (53)

*Do you not desert me! IP I Do

NEGP youi NEG ? not

FP D t’i

F’ ti desert me

. As Potsdam (1998) points out, well-formed examples like (i) do not involve clausal negation but constituent negation. (i)

DO AT LEAST SOME of you not snub our guest! [IP [I Do][FP [AT LEAST SOME of you]i [F F][VP not [VP ti [V snub] our guest]]]]

 Laura Rupp

The really pertinent question is why do not Subject strings are only marginally possible when the subject occurs in the Spec position of FP (cf. (51b) versus (51c)). Following Chomsky (1995: ch. 4), I assume that where the subject is raised no further than SpecFP (as in ‘inverted’ constructions), the checking of, for example, nominative Case must be achieved by adjoining the subject’s features to INFL (do) by LF. The chain yielded by this procedure does not fit the ‘traditional’ notion of A-chain in any straightforward way as it involves (feature) raising from an A-position to a head node. It may be, then, that the ill-formedness of (51b) and many similar examples derives from the same locality condition that disallows movement to a head skipping another head in the case of verbs. I take it that headadjunction cannot succeed across an intermediate syntactic head, and suggest that structures like (54) are ruled out because not breaks the necessary adjacency between IP and the FP. (54)

*Do not you desert me! IP I

NEGP I NEG Do [NOM] not

FP D youi [NOM]

F’ ti desert me

Consider now (51c) (repeated in (55) below) and notice that the most natural reading of the example is not (55a), but (55b), which has constituent negation. (55)

I know I’ve done wrong but I can’t survive on my own. Oh please, do not ALL of you desert me! a. I request that all of you not desert me b. I request that not all of you desert me

In this function, not has a crucially different distribution: in the structure of (55), it adjoins to the QP, as shown in (56). (56)

Oh please, do not ALL of you desert me! IP I

FP I Do [NOM]

[NOM]

F’

QPi Adv not

QP Q all

F PP

of you

VP ti desert me

‘Inverted’ imperatives 

Here, not does not interfere with the head-adjunction procedure because constituent not is not a syntactic NEG head. What seems to be crucial for do not Subject constructions to be felt acceptable, then, is whether or not not can receive a constituent negation interpretation. The acceptability of these constructions declines according to how readily such a reading is available. Where an appropriate context is difficult to construe, as in the case of (54), do not Subject strings are judged to be bad.12 Clausal not may, on the other hand, be used in structures with a sentence-initial overt subject or a covert subject. This contrast is accommodated in a system in which pre-do and post-do subjects are not only distinguished with respect to their distribution, but also have different checking mechanisms. As with finite declarative subjects, one of you in (57) A-moves into SpecIP, where it can enter into an ‘ordinary’ Spec-head agreement relation with INFL (do). Where checking happens in this manner, the presence of not does not affect the derivation.13 (57)

One of you do not desert me! IP D One of youi [NOM]

I’ I do [NOM]

NEGP NEG not

FP ti desert me

. During the presentation of this paper at Imperatives and Functional Projections: A Workshop for Frits Beukema (26 June 2001, University of Leiden), Bob Rigter noted that an example like (54) is in fact fine with a sentential negation reading if the subject is stressed and understood contrastively. Eric Potsdam noted that this is also true of (55). In her (1986) work, Davies observed that post-do(n’t) subjects often (though certainly not exclusively) have a contrastive interpretation, as in: (i)

a. b. c. d.

(For heaven’s sake, of all people,) DO YOU give me some support! (I don’t care what the rest of you do, but) DO THOSE WITH CARS turn up, please! Don’t YOU LOT go, the others go! (The girls can run about as much as they like, but) don’t THE BOYS move around!

Marcel Den Dikken pointed out to me that stressed DPs are more generally known to behave exceptionally syntactically. I am currently inquiring into the apparent correlation and the way this may be regulated at the relevant interface (see also Section 7). . Since pro occurs in nominative positions in typical pro-drop languages, I assume that the covert imperative subject is pro, and that pro is in SpecIP in grammatical do not constructions such as Do not desert me!. I refer to Zhang (1990), Henry (1995) and Potsdam (1998) for views on how pro might be licensed in imperatives in an otherwise non-pro-drop language like English.

 Laura Rupp

The fact that negative ‘inverted’ constructions with don’t are not restricted implies that in the syntactic representation of (58), don’t in INFL and the subject in SpecFP are adjacent. This in turn suggests that the bound morpheme n’t is not an independent NEG head, but that Auxn’t forms rather are unitary elements in the lexicon, which get generated under INFL directly.14,15,16 (58)

Don’t you desert me! IP I

FP I Don’t [NOM]

[NOM]

D you

F’ ti desert me

Expletive-associate constructions may again serve for comparison. Similar to what I assume for ‘inverted’ imperative subjects, it has been proposed that the features of the low thematic subject are checked when they adjoin to INFL. Hence, existential sentences should equally be sensitive to the Auxn’t/not distinction (in addition to the absence of wide quantifier scope that they share with ‘inverted’ imperatives). This expectation is borne out (Andrew Radford p.c.): (59)

a. *There is not anyone waiting outside.17 [IP There [I is][NEGP [NEG not] anyone waiting outside]]

. This account is, in a sense, reminiscent of the solution proposed by Beukema and Coopmans (1989) within a GB-model. . In conformity with the minimalist assumption that words are drawn from the lexicon fully inflected. See Zwicky and Pullum (1983) for convincing arguments that n’t is an affix, not a clitic. . On this account, I have to assume that the phrase marker of don’t constructions does not include a NEGP, or else it should have some blocking impact. While this assumption may not be problematic in relation to Checking Theory (as any negative features carried by don’t are arguably interpretable, exempted from checking), it is true that it leads to different LFrepresentations for synonymous examples like (i a) and (i b), which is inconsistent with the idea that semantically equivalent expressions have the same structure at LF. I will have to leave this matter unresolved. (i)

a. b.

Do not desert me! [IP pro [I do][NEGP [NEG not] desert me]] Don’t desert me! [IP pro [I don’t] desert me]

. As in examples like (56), not in (i) below presumably expresses adjoined constituent negation.

‘Inverted’ imperatives 

b.

.

There isn’t anyone waiting outside. [IP There [I isn’t] anyone waiting outside]

Conclusions

It appears that many of the problems traditionally associated with English imperatives have arisen from the occurrence of (potentially misleading) do(n’t) Subject sequences. This gives the impression that imperatives are derivationally similar to interrogatives and makes their quite different behaviour look odd. I have proposed an alternative analysis which treats the syntax of do(n’t) in imperatives in a fashion maximally analogous to finite declarative clauses, and argues that there are more advantages to analysing the inverted order as a reflex of the scope of subject raising. Such an approach becomes feasible in a framework which admits several functional projections (cf. e.g. Ouhalla 1991), like AspP, whose specifiers may each serve as a potential A-position. The proposed account was shown to allow for an explanation of the particulars of quantifier scope and not in ‘inverted’ imperatives, in which they pattern similarly with ‘low subject’ expletive-associate constructions. The FP analysis raises the following issues for future research: 1. What is the precise nature of the different surface positions for subjects in imperatives? 2. To what extent do subjects distribute freely over these positions, or is their distribution conditioned in any way? When do they occur in which designated position and why? 3. Is the distribution of subjects flexible in Germanic imperatives crosslinguistically? If not, why not? (see Bennis, this volume, who shows that the possibilities for subjects in imperatives in Dutch are much more restricted than in English.) The variation found in the syntax of imperative subjects in English challenges the narrow position in Chomsky (1995: ch. 4) that an element’s distribution is strictly determined by its morphosyntactic properties, and it exposes the limits of the mechanism of feature strength. Morphosyntactic features are assigned every time a certain syntactic structure is created, and should they force movement to occur, then displacement must be obligatory. In this sense, all cases of apparently optional movement are problematic. The otherwise rigid SpecIP positioning of subjects in English has been formalised by assigning INFL an EPP-feature. As I

(i)

There are not many students waiting outside. [IP There [I are][VP [not many students] waiting outside]]

 Laura Rupp

understand it, the EPP only imposes that sentences have a subject, however. In its original formulation, it has rather little (if anything) to say about the actual position of the subject in the structure, but EPP-features have very much come to be used as a movement-triggering tool. One could resort to saying that depending on whether the imperative subject occurs in SpecIP or SpecFP, an EPP-feature is optionally present in INFL or F. Needless to say, such a statement of the facts is theoretically unsatisfactory because of its descriptive nature and lack of explanatory qualities. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of studies arguing for relations between syntactic positions and semantic interpretations or discourse functions/ prosody (Diesing 1992, de Hoop 1992, Barbiers 1995, Reinhart 1995, Rizzi 1997 and others). This line of research is proving very fruitful; it is in effect promoted by the very minimalist working hypothesis that any imperfections in an optimal syntax (such as displacement) are ultimately due to properties of the PF and LF interfaces. Interface-related approaches seem to have a better prospect of explaining optional movement in principled terms as intended readings or discourse roles may vary from context to context. It will be worthwhile to inquire into the distribution of subjects in imperatives from this perspective. It may not be a coincidence that languages in which the subject can be dropped more generally are also known for the distribution of subjects being quite variable, and to be interrelated with semantic/discourse/ prosodic notions (Zubizarreta 1995, Grimshaw and Samek-Lodovici 1998, Pinto 1997, Costa 1998, among others). Further study of the data is needed to establish whether there are such correlations in imperatives. For some findings to this effect, I refer the reader to Davies (1986), Platzack and Rosengren (1998), Flagg (2001) and Rupp (2003).

References Akmajian, A., S. Steele and T. Wasow. 1979. “The category AUX in universal grammar”. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 1–64. Barbiers, S. 1995. The Syntax of Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden. Bennis, H. This volume. “Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives”. Beukema, F. and P. Coopmans. 1989. “A Government-Binding perspective on the imperative in English”. Journal of Linguistics 25: 417–436. Bolinger, D. 1967. “The imperative in English”. In: M. Halle, H. Lunt, H. McClean and C. van Schooneveld (eds) To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, Vol. 1, 335–362. The Hague: Mouton. Bowers, J. 1993. “The syntax of predication”. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. 1989. “Some notes on economy of derivation and representation”. In: I. Laka and A. Mahajan (eds) Functional Heads and Clause Structure [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10], 1–32. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

‘Inverted’ imperatives  Chomsky, N. 1993. “A minimalist program for linguistic theory”. In: K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds) The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cohen, A.-V. 1976. “Don’t you dare!”. In: J. Hankamer and J. Aissen (eds) Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics 2, 174–196. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University. Costa, J. 1998. Word Order Variation: A Constraint-Based Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden. Culicover, P. 1971. Syntactic and Semantic Investigations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Culicover, P. 1976. Syntax. New York: Academic Press. Davies, E. 1986. The English Imperative. London: Croom Helm. Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Downing, B. 1969. “Vocatives and third-person imperatives in English”. Papers in Linguistics 1: 570–592. Felser, C. and L. Rupp. 2001. “Expletives as arguments: Evidence from existential sentences in Germanic”. Linguistische Berichte 187: 289–324. Flagg, E. 2001. “You can’t say that: Restrictions on overt subjects in the English imperative”. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Grimshaw, J. and V. Samek-Lodovici. 1998. “Optimal subjects”. In: P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis and D. Pesetsky (eds) Is The Best Good Enough: Optimality and Competition in Syntax, 193–219. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Han, C.-H. 2000. The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar. New York: Garland. Henry, A. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hogg, R.M. (general ed.). 1992– . The Cambridge History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoop, H. de. 1992. Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen. Hornstein, N. 1995. Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell. Iatridou, S. 1990. “About Agr(P)”. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 551–577. Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Katz, J. and P. Postal. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Laka, I. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Lasnik, H. 1981. “Restricting the theory of transformations: A case study”. In: N. Hornstein and D. Lightfoot (eds) Explanation in Linguistics: The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition, 152–173. London: Longman. Lasnik, H. 1994. “Verbal morphology: Syntactic Structures meets the Minimalist Program”. Ms., University of Connecticut. May, R. 1977. The Grammar of Quantification. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. May, R. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Moon, G. 1999. “Don’t imperatives”. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 93–107. Ouhalla, J. 1991. Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. London: Routledge. Pinto, M. 1997. Licensing and Interpretation of Inverted Subjects in Italian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.

 Laura Rupp Platzack, C. and Rosengren, I. 1998. “On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause”. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 177–224. Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. “Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP”. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424. Potsdam, E. 1998. Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative. New York: Garland. Potsdam, E. This volume. “Analysing word order in the English imperative”. Reinhart, T. 1995. “Interface strategies”. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics, OTS/Utrecht University. Rivero, M.-L. 1994a. “Negation, imperatives and Wackernagel effects”. Rivista di Linguistica 6: 91–118. Rivero, M.-L. 1994b. “Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 63–120. Rivero, M.-L. and A. Terzi. 1995. “Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood”. Journal of Linguistics 31: 301–332. Rizzi, L. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery”. In: L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rupp, L. 1999. Aspects of the Syntax of English Imperatives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex. Rupp, L. 2003. The Syntax of Imperatives in English and Germanic: Word Order Variation in the Minimalist Framework. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Schmerling, S. 1982. “How imperatives are special, and how they aren’t”. In: R. Schneider, K. Tuite, and R. Chametzky (eds) Papers from the Parasession on Nondeclaratives, 202–218. University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Schütze, C. 1997. INFL in Child and Adult Language: Agreement, Case and Licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Sportiche, D. 1988. “A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure”. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449. Stockwell, R., P. Schachter and B. Partee. 1973. The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Tenny, C. 1987. Grammatical Aspect and Affectedness. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Thorne, J. 1966. “English imperative sentences”. Journal of Linguistics 2: 69–78. Ukaji, M. 1978. Imperative Sentences in Early Modern English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Visser, F. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. (3 parts, 4 vols.). Leiden: Brill. Zanuttini, R. 1991. Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Zanuttini, R. 1994. “Speculations on negative imperatives”. Rivista di Linguistica 6: 119–141. Zanuttini, R. 1997. Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zhang, S. 1990. The Status of Imperatives in Theories of Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. Zubizaretta, M.-L. 1995. Word Order, Prosody and Focus. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Zwicky, A. and K. Pullum. 1983. “Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t”. Language 59: 502–513.

Pronominal clitics and imperatives in South Slavic Olga Mišeska Tomid University of Novi Sad/University of Leiden

Abstract This paper argues that the position of clitics in South Slavic imperative clauses follows from the strength of a Mood operator to the left of AgrP, where the imperative mood feature of the verb is checked. In Serbian/Croatian and Bulgarian this operator is weak and the position of the clitics relative to the imperative verb is analogous to their position relative to an indicative verb. In Macedonian and Slovenian, however, Mood is strong and the position of the clitics in imperative clauses differs from their position in indicative clauses. In negated imperatives, the position of the clitics in Serbian/Croatian, Slovenian and Standard Macedonian is the same as in their non-negated counterparts, which points to a weak Neg operator. In North-Western Macedonian, however, the clitics precede the imperative verb and encliticise to the strong negation operator. In Bulgarian, the clitics also occur to the left of the imperative verb. Nevertheless, they are not phonologically hosted by it. In this language, the inherently proclitic negation operator leans upon the first inherently enclitic pronominal clitic to its right, forming a phonological word with it.

.

Introduction

Tomid (2002) argues that the post-verbal position of clitics in Macedonian positive imperative clauses follows from the strength of a Mood node where the imperative mood is checked, while dialectal differences in the behaviour of the clitics in negative imperative clauses in this language result from the interaction between the strength of Mood and Negation. In this paper, the analysis of Macedonian pronominal clitics in imperative clauses in Tomid (2002) is extended to the other South Slavic languages, thus providing an account of the structural similarities and differences between them. In Section 2 the relevant data are examined. In Section 3 arguments are given for the presence of a Mood operator in the structure of South Slavic imperative

 Olga Mišeska Tomid

clauses and the role of this operator in the positioning of the pronominal clitics is dealt with. In Section 4 the relationship of Mood to Neg is discussed. In Section 5 several alternative treatments of imperatives in South Slavic are looked at. In Section 6, some general conclusions are drawn.

.

The data

In Macedonian imperative clauses, pronominal clitics always follow the verb. Some examples are given in (1):1 (1)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Daj mu go! (Mac) give.2.. him.. it.. ‘Give it to him!’ Ne davaj mu go! (Mac) not give.2.. him.. it.. ‘Don’t give it to him!’ Ti daj mu go! (Mac) you. give.2.. him.. it.. ‘You give it to him!’ Ti ako sakaš daj mu go. (Mac) you. if want.2 give.2.. him.. it.. ‘You give it to him, if you please/want!’

As shown, the position of the pronominal clitics relative to the verb does not change, whether the verb is clause-initial, as in (1a); preceded by a negation operator, as in (1b); or preceded by other lexical material, as in (1c–d). In Bulgarian, pronominal clitics occur to the right of the imperative verb only if the verb is in clause-initial position, as in (2a); otherwise, they precede the verb: (2)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Daj mu go! give.2.. him.. it.. ‘Give it to him!’ Ne mu go davaj! not him.. it.. give.2.. ‘Don’t give it to him!’ Ti mu go daj! you. him.. it.. give.2.. ‘You give it to him!’ Ti ako iskaš mu go daj. you. if want.2 him.. it.. give.2.. ‘You give it to him, if you please/want!’

(Bg)

(Bg)

(Bg)

(Bg)

. South Slavic imperatives are sensitive to the aspectual form of the verb. Positive imperatives are preferably formed from perfective verb forms and negative imperatives from imperfective ones – hence the different verb forms in (1a) and (1b).

Pronominal clitics and imperatives in South Slavic 

In Serbian/Croatian imperative clauses, pronominal clitics occur to the left of the verb when the verb is preceded by not-heavy XPs, as in (3c); otherwise, we find them to the right of the verb. The Serbian/Croatian equivalents of the Macedonian sentences (1a–d) and the Bulgarian sentences (2a–d) are as follows:2 (3)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Daj mu ga! give.2.. him.. it.. ‘Give it to him!’ Ne daj mu ga! not give.2. him.. it.. ‘Don’t give it to him!’ Ti mu ga daj! you. him.. it.. give.2SG.IMP ‘You give it to him!’ Ti ako hodeš daj mu ga. you. if want.2 give.2. him.. it.. ‘You give it to him if you want.’

(SC)

(SC)

(SC)

(SC)

In (3a) and (3b), where there is no overt subject and no XP occurs in clause-initial position, the clitics are to the right of the verb. In (3d), where we have a heavy XP in clause-initial position, we also find the clitics to the right of the verb. In (3c), however, the clause begins with a not-heavy XP – a pronominal subject – and the clitics occur to the left of the verb. In Slovenian imperative clauses, pronominal clitics occur to the left of the verb whenever the verb is preceded by a non-clitic constituent. Consider the Slovenian equivalents of the Macedonian, Bulgarian and Serbian/Croatian examples in (1)–(3): (4)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Daj mu ga! give.2. him.. it.. ‘Give it to him!’ Ne daj mu ga! not give.2. him.. it.. ‘Don’t give it to him!’ Ti mu ga daj! you him.. it.. give.2. ‘You give it to him!’ Ti ce želiš mu ga daj. you if want.2 him.. it.. give.2. ‘You give it to him if you want.’

(Sl)

(Sl)

(Sl)

(Sl)

As shown, the clitics occur to the right of the verb only when the subject is nonovert and there are no XPs in clause-initial position, as in (4a) and (4b). In clauses . The imperfective and perfective imperative forms of the Serbian/Croatian verb dati ‘give’ are identical.

 Olga Mišeska Tomid

with XPs in initial position, whether heavy or not, the clitics occur to the left of the verb. Thus, the position of pronominal clitics in Slovenian imperative clauses with heavy XPs in clause-initial position differs from that in Serbian/Croatian: in such clauses the Slovenian clitics occur to the left of the verb, whereas their Serbian/Croatian counterparts occur to its right.

.

The Mood operator

The position of pronominal clitics in Macedonian imperative clauses differs from their position in prototypical indicative clauses, in which V is instantiated by a tensed verb or l-participle. As exemplified in (5), in the former case pronominal clitics follow the verb, whereas in the latter they precede it: (5)

a.

b.

Daj mu go podarokot! give.2. him.. it.. present-the ‘Give him the present!’ Mu go dade podarokot. him.. it.. gave.3 present-the ‘(S)he gave him the present.’

(Mac)

(Mac)

In Tomid (1997, 2000) I argue that the behaviour of clausal clitics depends on the morphological features of the head of its clause. Tensed lexical verbs and l-participles, which are [+V, –N] categories, form extended local domains with the clitics to their left, to the extent that, when the verb moves, the clitics get a free ride with them.3 Nouns have a positive value for N, negative for V; when acting as heads of clauses (in nominal predicates), they do not form extended local domains with clitics and the latter do not procliticise to them, but rather encliticise to an element

. This is exemplified in (i) and (ii), where an l-participle and a tensed verb, respectively, have moved to the left of the interrogative clitic li, which in the Slavic languages that have it is typically located in C: (i)

(ii)

Bi si mu go dala (Mac) would.. are.2.. him.. it.. given...l- li podarokot? . present-the ‘Would you be willing to give him the present?’ Ke mu go dadeš li podarokot? (Mac) will.. him.. it.. give.2 . present-the ‘Will you give him the present?’

The clitics in these cases are typical verbal clitics, i.e. they are syntactically oriented towards the verb and procliticise to it.

Pronominal clitics and imperatives in South Slavic 

to their left.4 Predicate adjectives, passive participles and past participles, which are [+V, +N] categories, have dual behaviour: when occurring in the position of clausal heads, they may form extended local domains with the clitics to their left, like the tensed verbs and l-participles, but more often they do not, so that we find them in clause-initial position, to the left of the clausal clitic cluster.5 At first glance, one might assume that Macedonian imperative verbs behave like predicate nouns. Nevertheless, the imperative verb always appears to the left of pronominal clitics, whereas predicate nominals do so only when there are no other constituents to the left of the clitics. Thus, while (6a) and (6b) are well-formed, (6c) is not: (6)

a.

Na PETko si mu TATko. to Petko are.2. him.. father ‘You are Petko’s father (not anybody else’s).’ b. TATko si mu. father are.2. him.. ‘You are his father!’ c. *Na PETko TATko si mu. to Petko father are.2. him.. ‘You are Petko’s father.6

(Mac)

(Mac)

(Mac)

. Examples of sentences with predicate nouns are given in (i) and (ii); the arrows denote direction of cliticisation. (i)

(ii)

Petre ← mi ← e Peter me.. is. ‘Peter is my father.’ Tatko ← mu ← e. father him.. is. ‘He is his father.’

tatko. father

(Mac)

(Mac)

. The behaviour of clitics in clauses headed by past participles is illustrated in (i) and (ii) (the arrows again indicate directionality of cliticisation while the capital letters mark stressed syllables). (i)

(ii)

Mu → e → SKInato PALtoto. him.. is. torn.... coat-the ‘His coat is torn.’ SKInato ← mu ← e PALtoto. torn.... him.. is. coat-the ‘His coat is torn.’

(Mac)

(Mac)

The dual behaviour of clitics in Macedonian clauses whose heads are past participles, passive participles or adjectives follows from the influence of their [+V] and [+N] features: while the former “pushes for” the formation of extended local domains and procliticisation, the latter “pulls the clitics back” towards the second or Wackernagel position, typical of earlier stages of the language. . Either the predicate nominal tatko, or the object na Petko, should be in the focus position to the left of the clitics as in (i) and (ii), respectively.

 Olga Mišeska Tomid

The position of the Macedonian clitics relative to the imperative verb is due to the strength of a Mood operator, which in imperative clauses is to the left of AgrSP.7 Accordingly, the structure of (1a), for convenience repeated as (7a) would be (7b): (7)

a. DAJ mu give.2. him.. ‘Give it to him!’ b. AgrSP Spec pro

go! it..

(Mac)

AgrS’ Agr

MoodP Mood

AgrIOP AgrIO mu

AgrOP AgrO

VP

go

daj

In Tomid (2002) I envisaged the following scenario: the imperative verb is a [+V, +N] head and as such it does not form an extended local domain with the clitics to its left and is free to long-head move to Mood (cf. Rivero 1991), attracted by its strong features. Subsequently, in PF, the moved imperative verb and the pronominal clitics, which in syntax sit in their base-derived positions, form a single phonological word with the antepenultimate stress pattern characteristic of the language. My syntactic analysis is supported by the fact that the strength of Mood has a distinct phonological reflex. Namely, whereas in indicative clauses the pronominal clitics procliticise to a V whose stress is the same as in clauses without clitics, in imperative clauses the verb and the clitics form a single antepenultimately stressed phonological word,8 and the stress of the verb is often different from the stress it has when not followed by clitics. Compare the stress pattern of the indicative

(i)

(ii)

TATKO si mu na PETko. father are.2. him.. to Petko ‘You are a FATHER to Petko.’ NA PETKO si mu TATko. to Petko are.2. him.. father ‘You are a father to PETKO (not to anyone else).’

(Mac)

(Mac)

. In the structure of subjunctive clauses, Mood is to the left of AgrS/Tense; but in imperative clauses there is no Tense node. .

In Macedonian, the stress, as a rule, falls on the antepenultimate syllable of the word.

Pronominal clitics and imperatives in South Slavic 

clauses in (8) with that of the imperative clauses in (9):9 (8)

a.

b.

(9)

a.

b.

Ana mu → go → POkaza. Ana him.. it.. showed.3SG ‘Ana showed it to him.’ Ana POkaza edno PISmo. Ana showed.3 a letter ‘Ana showed a letter.’ PokaŽI – mu – go! show.2. him.. it.. ‘Show it to him!’ POkaži NEkoja SLIka! show.2. some picture ‘Show some picture!’

(Mac)

(Mac)

(Mac)

(Mac)

In both (8a) and (8b) the verb is antepenultimately stressed. That is not the case with the verb in (9). In (9a), where the verb is followed by the pronominal clitics mu and go, the stress falls on the last syllable of the verb, whereas in the cliticless sentence (9b) it falls on its initial syllable. In (9a) the verb and the clitics actually form a single phonological word, in which the stress falls on the antepenultimate syllable.10 The mood operator also occurs to the left of Tense in the structures of the other South Slavic languages. As shown in Section 2, the imperative verb in Bulgarian occurs to the left of the clitics only when it is in clause-initial position; otherwise, it follows them. As can be concluded by comparing (10a) with (10b) and (11a) with (11b), the behaviour of clitics in Bulgarian positive imperative clauses is exactly the same as in indicative clauses. (10)

a.

b.

. .

Daj ← mu knigata! give.2. him.. book-the ‘Give him the book!’ knigata. Dade ← mu gave.2/3 him.. book-the ‘You/(s)he gave him the book.’

(Bulg)

(Bulg)

The dashes in (9a) connect the elements that form a single phonological word. If the verb was followed by just one clitic, the stress would fall on its second syllable: (i)

(ii)

PoKAži – show.2. ‘Show him!’ PoKAži – show.2. ‘Show it!’

mu! him..

(Mac)

go! it..

(Mac)

 Olga Mišeska Tomid

(11)

a.

b.

Ti ← mu daj knigata! you.2 him.. give.2. book-the ‘You give him the book!’ dade knigata. Ti ← mu you.2 him.. gave.3 book-the ‘You gave him the book.’

(Bulg)

(Bulg)

The analogous behaviour of Bulgarian pronominal clitics in imperative and indicative clauses can be explained through the assumption that Bulgarian has a weak Mood operator. Whatever the analysis of the behaviour of the clitics in this language, the presence of the Mood operator introduces no changes. In Serbian/Croatian, the behaviour of pronominal clitics is also analogous to their behaviour in indicative clauses: in either case they occur to the left of the verb when the verb is preceded by a not-heavy lexical constituent, and to the right of the verb when there is no constituent to the left of the verb or when the constituent to its left is heavy. The analogy in the behaviour of pronominal clitics in Serbian/ Croatian imperative and indicative clauses is illustrated in (12), (13) and (14): (12)

a.

b.

(13)

a.

b.

(14)

a.

b.

Ti ← mu daj knjigu! you.2 him.. give.2. book. ‘You give him the book!’ ← mu dao knjigu. Ti ← si you.2 are.2. him.. given... book. ‘It was you who gave him the book.’ ← mu knjigu! Daj give.2. him.. book. ‘Give him the book!’ ← si ← mu knjigu. Dao given... are.2. him.. book. ‘You gave him the book.’ ← mu knjigu! Ti ako hodeš daj you.2 if want.2 give.2. him.. book. ‘You give the book to him, if you want!’ si ti to hteo, Da ← . are.2. you.2SG that wanted... bi ← mu knjigu. dao ← given... would. him.. book. ‘Had you wanted to do it, you would have given him the book.’

(SC)

(SC)

(SC)

(SC)

(SC)

(SC)

Serbian/Croatian clitics occur in what has been referred to as ‘second position’. Whether they move to this position as free riders of the verb, which always moves to its highest extended projection, as argued by Franks (1998, 2000), or else are placed after the first constituent to the right of a prosodic pause, as argued by Boškovid (2000, 2001), the analogy of the behaviour of clitics in imperative and indicative clauses points to a weak Mood operator.

Pronominal clitics and imperatives in South Slavic 

Both Franks (1998, 2000) and Boškovid (2000, 2001) claim that the differences between the behaviour of Serbian/Croatian clausal clitics and that of their Slovenian counterparts can be relegated to phonology. Yet the behaviour of Slovenian clitics in imperative clauses differs from their behaviour in indicative and interrogative clauses. As pointed out by Sheppard and Golden (2002), while in indicative and interrogative clauses the clitics can appear in initial position, in imperative clauses that is never the case. Thus, we have the following acceptability contrast: (15)

a.

Mu ga boš pokazal? him.. it.. will.2. shown... ‘Will you show it to him?’ b. Sem mu ga že pokazal. am. him.. it.. already shown... ‘I have already shown it to him.’ c. *Mu ga pokaži! him.. it.. show.2. ‘Show it to him!’

(Sl)

(Sl)

(Sl)

Since Slovenian clitics are neutral with respect to direction of cliticisation, one would expect them to be able to procliticise to imperative verbs, as they do to indicative ones. Yet, they do not do so, most probably because the strong Mood operator attracts the lexical features of the verb along with its formal features, so that the verb is pronounced to the left of the clitics. There is one problem for the analysis of Slovenian as having a strong Mood operator, however. In imperative clauses with a topicalised phrase the clitics can either follow or precede the verb: (16)

a.

b.

Knigo vrni mu še book. return.2. him.. already ‘Return the book to him already today!’ Knigo mu vrni še book. him.. return.2. already ‘Return the book to him already today!’

danes! today

(Sl)

danes! today

(Sl)

This problem merits further study.

.

Negative imperatives

In all the South Slavic languages, imperative verbs can be negated. In some cases the presence of the negation operator changes the cliticisation strategy of the pronominal clitics, while in others it does not. In Standard Macedonian, the clitics follow the imperative verb, whether or not it is negated; as exemplified in (17), in this language the negation operator occurs

 Olga Mišeska Tomid

to the left of the verb and forms an antepenultimately stressed single phonological word with the verb and the pronominal clitics. (17)

a.

b.

c.

d.

NE – pij – go! not drink.2. it.. ‘Don’t drink it!’ Ne – DAvaj – mu not give.2. him.. ‘Don’t give him anything!’ Ne – daVAJ – mu – not give.2. him.. ‘Don’t give it to him!’ Ne – davajTE – mu – not give.2. him.. ‘Don’t give it to him!’

(Mac)

NIšto! nothing

(Mac)

go! it..

(Mac)

go! it..

(Mac)

In (17a) the negation operator is followed by a monosyllabic verb and a clitic; the stress falls on the negation operator, which constitutes the antepenultimate syllable of the phonological word made up of the negation operator, the verb and the clitic. In (17b), where the negation operator is followed by a disyllabic verb and a pronominal clitic, the stress falls on the first syllable of the verb, since this is the antepenultimate syllable of the phonological word. In (17c), where the disyllabic verb is followed by two pronominal clitics, the stress falls on the second syllable of the verb, which in this case represents the antepenultimate syllable of the phonological word. In (17d), we have a trisyllabic verb preceded by the negation operator and followed by two pronominal clitics; the stress falls on the third and last syllable of the verb, which again constitutes the antepenultimate syllable of the phonological word. This pattern does not obtain in all Macedonian dialects. Thus, in North-Western Macedonian the pronominal clitics occur between the negation operator and the verb; they actually encliticise to the negation operator, which is stressed independently of the head of the clause. The North-Western Macedonian counterparts of (17a–d) are given in (18a–d). (18)

a.

b.

c.

NE ← go pij! not it.. drink.2. ‘Don’t drink it!’ DAvaj NIšto! NE ← mu not him.. give.2.. nothing ‘Don’t give him anything!’ go DAvaj! NE ← mu ← not him.. it.. give.2.. ‘Don’t give it to him!’

(NWMac)

(NWMac)

(NWMac)

Pronominal clitics and imperatives in South Slavic 

d.

NE ← mu ← not him.. ‘Don’t give it to him!’

go it..

DAvajte! give.2..

(NWMac)

As argued in Tomid (2001), the difference between the positions of the clitics in Standard Macedonian and North-Western Macedonian negated imperative clauses follows from a difference in the strength of the negation operator.11 In Standard Macedonian Neg is weak and occupies the head position of NegP, to the left of AgrS. In PF, it forms a single phonological word with the imperative verb, which has raised overtly to AgrS, via the strong Mood, as well as with the clitics, which in syntax sit in object agreement nodes. In North-Western Macedonian, on the other hand, Neg is strong and, as argued in Tomid (2001), occupies the specifier position of NegP. Mood, on the other hand, is weak. The functional features of the verb move to Mood and AgrS with the clitics left-adjoined to them. The clitics are spelled out in AgrS and make up a single morphological object with the strong Neg. The lexical features of the imperative verb remain in situ and that is where the imperative verb is spelled out.12 Since in Bulgarian negated imperative clauses pronominal clitics occur between the negation operator and the verb, one might be led to assume that in this language they procliticise to a strong negation operator, as in North-Western Macedonian. Note, however, that in Bulgarian negated imperative clauses with pronominal clitics Neg is never stressed; whether the negation operator occurs in clause-initial position or is preceded by other elements, it forms a single word with the clitic to its immediate right, which always carries stress, while the verb is

. I am grateful to Lisa Cheng for pointing out that my analysis of the structural difference between Standard Macedonian and North-Western Macedonian negated clauses is reminiscent of Zanuttini’s (1991, 1997) analysis of the differences between a variety of Italian dialects, thus turning my attention to the possibility of analysing the strong North-Western Macedonian negation operator as an XP in the Spec of NegP. . In this connection, note that the difference in the behaviour of the negation operator in Standard Macedonian and North-Western Macedonian is not restricted to imperative clauses. As shown in (i) and (ii), whether the negation operator is preceded by another element or occurs initially, in Standard Macedonian negative indicative clauses the negation operator, the pronominal clitics and the verb form a single antepenultimately stressed word, while in NorthWestern Macedonian the clitics encliticise to the negation operator, leaving the verb by itself. (i)

(ii)

(TOJ) ne – mu – GI – he not him.. them.. ‘He is not giving him the apples.’ ← gi (TOJ) NE ← mu he not him.. them.. ‘He is not giving him the apples.’

dava gives

jaBOLkata. apples-the

DAva jaBOLkata. gives apples-the

(StMac)

(NWMac)

 Olga Mišeska Tomid

stressed independently.13 Some examples are given in (19): (19)

a.

b.

Ne MU gi DAvaj! not him.. them.. give.2.. ‘Don’t give them to him!’ Sbs TEzi neŠTA ne SE igRAJ! with these things not . play.2. ‘Don’t play with such things!’

(Bulg)

(Bulg)

There have been analyses in which the Bulgarian negation operator ne is treated as an inherently stressed (non-clitic) word, assuming that in negated clauses with clitics the stress is transferred to the clitic to the immediate right of ne (cf. Rudin 1994, 1997; Rudin et al. 1999). I am, however, inclined to treat the Bulgarian Neg as a weak operator. In the spirit of Inkelas (1989), I take it that the non-stressed inherently proclitic ne leans upon an inherently enclitic pronominal clitic. At PF the two prosodic subcategorisations “cancel” each other and we have a phonological word in which the stress is placed according to the rules of the language. In Serbian/Croatian, the negation operator ne is always left-adjacent to the verb and forms a phonological unit with it.14 Pronominal clitics follow the negated verb when it is clause-initial or preceded by a heavy constituent and occur to the left of the verb otherwise. In the latter case, the negation operator-plus-verb complex is stressed distinctly from the constituent that hosts the clitics. Examples can be seen in (20a–c). (20)

a.

b.

c.

NE – daj ← mu ← ga! (SC) not give.2. him.. it.. ‘Don’t give it to him!’ mu ← ga! (SC) TI ako NEdeš NE – daj ← you.2 if not-want.2 not give.2. him.. it.. Don’t you give it to him if you don’t want.’ mu ← ga NE – daj! (SC) TI ← you.2 him.. it.. not give.2. Don’t you give it to him!’

The negated verb actually behaves in the same way as its non-negated counterpart. This behaviour can be accounted for by assuming that Neg is weak and at PF forms a single phonological word with the verb. This account gives some support to Boškovid’s (2000, 2001) analysis of clitic movement over Frank’s (1998, 2000)

. Any clitics that may occur between the stressed clitic and the verb encliticise to the phonological word made up of the negation operator and the stressed clitic. . The stressing of the negation operator in Serbian/Croatian follows the rule of stress shift when a prefix is added to a root. (Note that from the point of view of morphology the negation operator behaves like a prefix).

Pronominal clitics and imperatives in South Slavic 

analysis, since under Frank’s analysis it would be difficult to explain why the negative clitic remains left-adjacent to the verb, while all other clitics follow the functional features of the verb to its highest projection.15 In Slovenian, the negation operator ne is also left-adjacent to the verb, but it procliticises to the verb, rather than forming a single phonological word with it, as in Serbian/Croatian. The position of the Slovenian pronominal clitics relative to negated imperative verbs is basically the same as their position relative to their indicative counterparts. In both cases, the clitics (a) follow the ne-plus-verb complex, when it is clause-initial; (b) precede the ne-plus-verb complex when the clause has an overt subject or a non-complex topicalised constituent in clauseinitial position; and (c) either follow or precede the ne-plus-verb complex if this complex occurs to the right of a heavy constituent. This is illustrated by the pairs in (21), (22), (23) and (24): (21)

a.

b.

(22)

a.

b.

(23)

a.

b.

(24)

a.

b.

Ne – DAJ ← mu ← ga! (Sl) not give.2. him.. it.. ‘Don’t give it to him!’ ga. (Sl) Ne – DAjem ← mu ← not give.1 him.. it.. ‘I am not giving it to him.’ ← ga ne – DAJ! (Sl) TI ← mu you.2 him.. it.. not give.2. Don’t you give it to him!’ ← mu ← ga ne – DAješ. (Sl) TI you.2 him.. it.. not give.2 ‘You aren’t giving it to him.’ mu ← ga! (Sl) Ce NOceš ne – DAJ ← if not-want.2 not give.2. him.. it.. ‘Do not give it to him if you don’t want!’ mu ← ga (Sl) Ce NOceš ne – BOM ← if not-want.2 not will.1. him.. it.. DAla. given... ‘I won’t give it to him if you don’t want.’ → ga → ne – DAJ! (Sl) Ce NOceš mu if not-want.2 him.. it.. not give.2. ‘Do not give it to him if you don’t want!’ → ne – BOM DAla. (Sl) Ce NOceš mu → ga if not-want.2 him. it.. not will.1 given... ‘I won’t give it to him if you don’t want.’

. Note, however, that if one accepts Frank’s theory, it might be possible to assume that operator clitics do not move along with other clitics.

 Olga Mišeska Tomid

However, like their positive counterparts, negated imperatives never host clauseinitial pronominal clitics:16 (25) *Mu → ga → him.. it.. ‘Don’t give it to him!’

ne – DAJ! not give.2.

(Sl)

The phonological behaviour of ne can be explained if we assume that it is weak. The distinction between the behaviour of ne and that of pronominal clitics could be taken care of by distinct feature marking in the lexicon. But a task for the future must be the explanation of the occurrence of pronominal clitics in clause initial position to the left of a non-negated indicative verb, compared with their nonoccurrence in clause-initial position to the left of either positive or negative imperative verbs. The problem raised by the analysis of Slovenian imperatives actually undermines all existing analyses of the behaviour of Slovenian clitics in general (cf. Sheppard and Golden 2002).

5. Alternative analyses At this point, some critical discussion of alternative analyses of South Slavic negative imperatives – those by Rivero and Terzi (1995) and Han (1998) – is in order. For further discussion of these two analyses, also see Postma and van der Wurff (this volume). For critical discussion of a third analysis, the one by Franks (1998), the reader is referred to Tomid (2002). Rivero and Terzi (1995) account for the contrast between Spanish and Modern Greek, on the one hand, and Serbo-Croatian and Ancient Greek, on the other, through the blocking potential of Neg. They argue that in Spanish and Modern Greek, negative imperatives are unavailable, since Neg blocks the raising of the verb to C, where the strong mood feature is located, and its mood feature therefore remains unchecked. In Serbo-Croatian and Ancient Greek, however, the strong mood feature is located in I, which is below Neg, and the verb can raise to it without crossing Neg. Rivero and Terzi’s assumption that the illocutionary force of the sentence can be checked at two different places is shaky, however.17 Moreover, the raising of . As pointed out in Section 3, and illustrated in (15), indicative verbs can host clause-initial clitics. . They argue that, in Serbo-Croatian and Ancient Greek, C cannot be in the position associated with imperative force, since in these languages C is reserved as the last-resort landing site for verb movement, in order to rescue Wackernagel (or second-position) clitics from occurring in clause-initial positions.

Pronominal clitics and imperatives in South Slavic 

the Serbo-Croatian negated imperative from I, where it checks its imperative feature, to C, is in need of motivation. Recent research has undermined not only the assumption that constituents can be moved in order to support clitics,18 but also the assumption that the Wackernagel clitic cluster is always formed in C.19 In her analysis of the relation between negation and mood, Han (1998) posits C as the only locus of the imperative operator. She argues that negative imperatives are unavailable in some languages because they have syntactic configurations in which negation takes syntactic scope over the imperative operator in C, which would lead to semantic incoherence. Her explanation for the compatibility of negation and imperatives in languages such as Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian can be summarised as follows: in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian the imperative verb is not in C at surface level, but lower in the clause. Having raised overtly to T, to check its T-feature, it attaches to Neg, the two forming a single complex head, which subsequently raises to AgrS for phi-feature checking. The weak imperative feature of the verb is then checked in C at LF.20 As for the post-verbal placement of clitics, this is taken care of by a Morphological Merger (Marantz 1989) – a lastresort post-syntactic mechanism, which affixes the clitics onto the imperative verb, thus resolving the clitic’s leftward phonological dependency. Han herself admits that she has a problem with the obligatory encliticisation in Serbo-Croatian negative clauses and attributes it to some independent constraint of the language. But her theory has a problem with encliticisation in Slovenian and Macedonian imperative clauses, in general – whether in positive or negative clauses. As pointed out by Sheppard and Golden (2002), since Slovenian clitics can be prosodically either enclitic or proclitic, the leftward phonological dependency of the imperative in this language cannot be resolved by a post-syntactic mechanism of Morphological Merger. The problem Han’s theory has with Macedonian is even more serious. A weak imperative feature predicts that imperative verbs behave like indicative verbs with respect to negation and clitic placement. In Macedonian, however, indicative tensed verbs follow the clitics, whereas imperative verbs precede them – in Standard Macedonian always, in North-Western Macedonian only in non-negated contexts.

. Among other things, this movement presupposes that syntax looks into phonology. . Boškovid (2000, 2001) argues that the Wackernagel clitic cluster is formed in different positions in the structure, the host being provided by the phonology. Franks (1998) contends that Wackernagel clitics move to the highest available site in the extended projection of the verb, head to head, leaving copies at all intermediate sites; at PF the highest clitic copy is pronounced that satisfies the clitic’s phonological requirement for encliticisation. . Since morphological/phonological constraints do not apply at LF, the imperative verb can move while stranding the clitic-like preverbal negation.

 Olga Mišeska Tomid

.

Concluding remarks

In the structure of the South Slavic languages, there is a Mood operator. In Serbian/Croatian and Bulgarian this operator is weak and the position of clitics relative to the imperative verb is analogous to their position relative to the indicative verb. In Macedonian and Slovenian, however, Mood is strong and the position of the clitics in imperative clauses differs from their position in indicative clauses. In all the South Slavic languages, imperatives can be negated. In Serbian/Croatian and Slovenian negated imperative clauses, the position of clitics is analogous to their position in positive imperative clauses. That analogy is due to the fact that in these languages the Neg operator to the left of Mood is weak and forms a phonological word with the imperative verb (in the case of Serbian/Croatian) or procliticises to it (in the case of Slovenian). In Macedonian, there is a dialectal distinction in the position of pronominal clitics relative to the imperative verb: whereas in Standard Macedonian the clitics encliticise to the verb, which itself forms a phonological word with the negation operator to its left, in North-Western Macedonian the clitics encliticise to the negation operator, leaving the imperative verb to their right by itself. This distinction follows from a difference in the strength of the negation operator: in Standard Macedonian, Neg is weak, while in North-Western Macedonian it is strong. In Bulgarian, the clitics also occur to the immediate right of the negation operator. Nevertheless, the Bulgarian non-stressed inherently proclitic negation operator does not host the pronominal clitics, but rather leans upon the first inherently enclitic pronominal clitic to its right and forms a phonological word with it. Any other clitics to the right of this word encliticise to this word.

References Boškovid, Z. 2000. “Second position cliticization: Syntax and/or phonology?” In: F. Beukema and M. den Dikken (eds) Clitic Phenomena in European Languages, 71–119. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Boškovid, Z. 2001. On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface: Cliticisation and Related Phenomena. New York: Elsevier. Franks, S. 1998. “Clitics in Slavic”. Position Paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Bloomington: Indiana University, June 1998. (downloadable at http:// www.indiana.edu/~slavconf/linguistics/index.html) Franks, S. 2000. “Clitics at the interface”. In: F. Beukema and M. den Dikken (eds) Clitic Phenomena in European Languages, 1–46. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Han, C.-H. 1998. “Cross-linguistic variation in the compatibility of negation and imperatives”. In: S. Blade, E.-S. Kim and K. Shahin (eds) Proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 1–17. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Inkelas, S. 1989. Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon. Ph. D. dissertation, Stanford University. Marantz, A. 1989. “Clitics and phrase structure”. In: M. Baltin and A. Kroch (eds) Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, 99–116. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pronominal clitics and imperatives in South Slavic  Postma, G. and W. van der Wurff. This volume. “How to say no and don’t: Negative imperatives in Romance and Germanic”. Rivero, M.-L. 1991. “Long head movement and negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech”. The Linguistic Review 8: 319–351. Rivero, M.-L. and A. Terzi. 1995. “Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood”. Journal of Linguistics 31: 301–332. Rudin, C. 1994. “On focus position and focus marking in Bulgarian questions”. In: A. Davison, N. Maier, G. Silva and W.S. Yan (eds) Papers from the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Midamerica, 252–265. Iowa City: University of Iowa. Rudin, C. 1997. “Kakvo li e li: Interrogation and focusing in Bulgarian”. Balkanistica 10: 335–346. Rudin, C., C. Kramer, L. Billings and M. Baerman. 1999. “Macedonian and Bulgarian li questions: Beyond syntax”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 541–586. Sheppard, M.M. and M. Golden. 2002. “(Negative) imperatives in Slovene”. In: S. Barbiers, F. Beukema and W. van der Wurff (eds) Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System, 245–259. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Tomid, O.M. 1997. “Non-first as a default clitic position”. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 5.2: 1–23. Tomid, O.M. 2000. “On clitic sites”. In: F. Beukema and M. den Dikken (eds) Clitic Phenomena in European Languages, 293–317. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Tomid, O.M. 2001. “The Macedonian negation operator and cliticisation”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 647–682. Tomid, O.M. 2002. “Modality and mood in Macedonian”. In: S. Barbiers, F. Beukema and W. van der Wurff (eds) Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System, 261–277. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Zanuttini, R. 1991. Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Zanuttini, R. 1997. Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.

Index of languages

A Afrikaans, , , , ,  Ancient Greek, , , , , , , , –, ,  Arabic, ,  B Bengali, –, , , , , , ,  Brazilian Portuguese, – Bulgarian, , , , , , –, , , , , – C Chinese, , ,  Cypriot Greek,  D Danish, , , , , , , , , ,  Dutch, , , –, –, –, , , , , –, – passim, , , , – passim, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , – passim, ,  E English, , , , , , , , , , , –, –, , –, , , , , , , , , , –, –, , , –, , –, –, , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , – passim, , , , , – passim

F Faroese, , , , ,  French, , , , –, , , , , , –, , , , –, ,  Frisian, , , , , , , , , , ,  G German, , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , – passim, , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Gothic, , ,  Greek, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Greenlandic,  H Hawaiian,  Hebrew, , , ,  Hopi, , ,  Hungarian, , , , , –, , – I Icelandic, , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , ,  Italian, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , ,  J Japanese, 73

L Latin, , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , ,  Luo,  M Maasai, , , , , ,  Macedonian, , , , –, –, – Malagasy, , , , ,  Middle Dutch, , , , , , ,  N Norwegian, , , , , , ,  O Occitan, , , , ,  Old Danish, , ,  Old French, , –, ,  Old High German, , ,  Old Icelandic, , , – ,  Old Italian, , ,  Old Scandinavian, , , , , –, , ,  Old Swedish, , , – P Piedmontese, , ,  Portuguese, , , , , , , , ,  Proto-Indo-European,  R Raetho-Romance,  Romagnolo,  Rumanian, , , , ,  Russian, , , , 

 Index of languages S Sardinian, , , ,  Serbian/Croatian, , , , , , , , , , , ,  Serbo-Croatian, , –, , , , , , ,  Slovene, , , , , , , , , , , 

Slovenian, , , , , – Spanish, , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , – passim, , , , , , , , , , , ,  Surmeiran, –, , , 

Swahili,  Swedish, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Y Yakut, ,  Yiddish, , , ,  Yokuts, 

Index of names

A Aarts, F.G.A.M., 8, 31, 33, 86 Abraham, W., 181, 195 Abusch, D., 262, 268 Akmajian, A., 19, 20, 31, 66, 75, 86, 301, 320 Al-Daifallah, A.S., 2, 86 Alexiadou, A., 24, 86, 99, 111, 185, 202, 264, 268 Alibert, L., 224, 246 Allan, R., 222, 225, 246 Anagnostopoulou, E., 99, 111, 168, 179, 185, 202 Anderson, S., 42, 86 Andersson, E., 203 Anipa, K., 43, 86 Aoun, J., 262, 269 Arbini, R., 6, 86 Ascoli, C., 5, 16, 86 Austin, J.L., 4, 86 Auwera, J. Van Der, 247 B Baerman, M., 339 Baker, M., 149, 151 Bakker, W.F., 2, 45, 86 Baldi, P., 1, 43, 44, 86 Barbiers, S., 76, 79, 85, 86, 95, 104, 105, 111–113, 119, 134, 135, 159, 160, 179, 214, 220, 231, 232, 236, 246, 247, 282, 295, 320 Barnes, M., 222, 247 Bartos, H., 141, 151 Bat-el, O., 42, 86 Baum, D., 2, 86 Beghelli, F., 262, 269 Belletti, A., 265, 269 Bennett, M.E., 41, 45, 86 Bennis, H., 34, 36–38, 56, 88, 95, 98, 99, 107, 113, 119, 130, 134, 153, 160, 179, 206, 214, 247, 294, 295, 319, 320

Bergh, B., 7, 86 Besten, H. den, 97, 112 Beukema, F., 21, 31, 34, 35, 85, 86, 98, 112, 120, 122, 134, 135, 138, 145, 150, 151, 190, 202, 205, 215, 241, 247, 251, 252, 254, 269, 281, 295, 298, 301, 302, 317, 318, 320 Beyrer, A., 222, 247 Billings, L., 339 Blasco, M., 21, 46, 83, 87, 135, 215, 247 Bobaljik, J., 255, 269 Bochmann, K., 222, 247 Bolinger, D., 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 86, 105, 112, 303, 320 Bolkestein, A.M., 23, 86 Boogaart, R., 29, 30, 31, 86, 87 Bošković, Ž., 330, 331, 334, 337, 338 Bosque, I., 3, 45, 46, 48, 87, 144, 145, 146, 151 Bouton, L.F., 6, 13, 87 Bowen, J.D., 3, 93 Bowers, J., 255, 264, 269, 308, 320 Bowman, E., 17, 87 Brinton, L.J., 43, 87 Bronsert, S., 222, 247 Büring, D., 153, 176 C Cavar, D., 255, 271 Cecchetto, C., 169, 170, 171, 179 Chomsky, N., 2, 3, 33, 87, 97, 98, 106, 112, 115, 128, 131, 133, 134, 141, 151, 182, 183, 185, 201, 202, 236, 247, 251, 253–256, 262, 264, 269, 298, 299, 301, 303, 305, 309, 316, 319, 321 Christensen, K.R., 65, 87 Cinque, G., 167, 179, 215, 233, 234, 247, 264, 269

Cintra, L., 222, 247 Clark, B., 2, 28, 29, 32, 55, 56, 87 Cohen, A.-R., 66, 87, 251, 269, 298, 321 Cole, P., 8, 87 Collins, P., 13, 57, 87 Comrie, B., 44, 87 Coopmans, P., 21, 31, 34, 35, 51, 85–87, 98, 112, 120, 122, 134, 138, 145, 150, 151, 190, 202, 215, 241, 247, 251, 252, 254, 269, 281, 295, 298, 301, 302, 318, 320 Costa, J., 320, 321 Craenenbroeck, J. Van, 273 Culicover, P.W., 10, 65, 87, 301, 321 Cunha, C., 222, 247 D Dardano, M., 212, 222, 247 Davies, E.E., 2, 10, 14, 31, 55, 56, 66, 87, 252, 253, 255, 269, 298, 301, 303, 313, 317, 320, 321 Davison, A., 23, 87 Delsing, L.-O., 181, 195, 197–200, 2002 Depraetere, I., 24, 87 Diehl, J.F., 2, 87 Diesing, M., 320, 321 Dikken, M. den, 21, 35, 45, 52, 74, 78, 79, 83, 85, 87, 89, 95, 96, 100, 106–108, 112, 114, 134, 135, 140, 142, 148, 151, 153, 154, 156, 162–164, 166–168, 179, 215, 247, 248, 273, 282, 285, 286, 294, 295, 297, 317 Downes, W., 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 33, 36, 38, 73, 87 Downing, B., 11, 12, 87, 251, 269, 303, 321

344 Index of names Duinhoven, A.M., 53, 87, 277, 295 Durand, B., 222, 247 E Egbe, I., 2, 88 Egerland, V., 184, 202 Einhorn, E., 222, 247 Emonds, J., 230, 247, 254, 255, 261, 264, 269 Erb, C., 95 Ernst, T., 263–265, 269 Evers, A., 30, 88 F Faarlund, J., 38, 39, 88, 222, 247 Falk, H., 195, 200, 202 Fanselow, G., 153 Farkas, D., 262, 269 Felser, C., 310, 321 Ferguson, C.A., 43, 88 Flagg, E., 251, 254, 269, 312, 313, 320, 321 Fodor, J.D., 262, 269, 270 Fortuin, E.L., 2, 27, 88 Fox, D., 236, 247, 262, 269 Franks, S., 330, 331, 336–338 G Geerts, G., 134 Gestel, F. van, 100, 112, 222, 247 Gillies, W., 233, 247 Golden, M., 26, 27, 62, 92, 182, 203, 220, 249, 331, 336, 337, 339 Goodwin, W.M., 23, 88 Green, G.M., 8, 88 Greenbaum, S., 270 Grimshaw, J., 255, 269, 320, 321 Grohmann, K., 168, 179 Gysi, M., 2, 88 H Haaften, T. van, 168, 179 Haan, S. de, 31, 88 Haegeman, L., 73, 74, 78, 88, 229, 247, 261, 269 Haeseryn, W., 114, 134 Haider, H., 264, 269 Haiman, J., 215–217, 222, 247 Hallman, P., 170, 179 Hamblin, C.L., 4, 88 Han, C.-H., 2, 20, 21, 28–30, 32, 35, 64, 88, 218–221, 228, 247, 251, 254, 256, 269, 298, 321, 336–338

Hankamer, J., 251, 269 Hansen, E., 182 Harkema, H., 153 Harris, J., 41, 43, 88, 212, 247 Hellberg, S., 203 Henry, A., 35, 71, 72, 75, 88, 251, 257, 269, 297, 298, 301, 314, 317, 321 Hicks, G., 33, 74, 88 Hinchliffe, I., 222, 247 Hirschbühler, P., 81, 88 Hoeksema, J., 53, 54, 88, 277, 288, 296 Hoekstra, E., 2, 30, 38, 89 Hoekstra, T., 205, 232, 233, 247, 290, 291, 296 Hoff, B., 273 Hogg, R. M., 302, 321 Holmberg, A., 8, 71, 89, 194, 202 Holmes, P., 222, 246, 247 Hoop H. de, 320, 321 Hopper, P., 23, 89 Hornstein, N., 24, 44, 89, 236, 247, 257, 258, 262, 269, 270, 309, 321 Hróarsdóttir, Th., 197, 200, 202 Huang, J., 129, 134 Huddleston, R., 18, 23, 32, 89 Hulk, A., 81, 89 Huntley, M., 18, 31, 89 Hyams, N., 139, 150, 151 I Iatridou, S., 264, 268, 270, 298, 321 Inkelas, S., 334, 338 J Jaberg, K., 216, 247 Jackendoff, R., 257, 263, 264, 270, 305, 321 Jacobs, N., 222, 247 Jaeggli, O., 129, 134, 139, 150, 151 Janssen, Th.A.J.M., 41, 43, 89 Jensen, B., 2, 21, 22, 31, 36, 39, 40, 41, 62, 65, 70, 72, 74, 79, 89 Johnson, K., 188, 202, 258, 264, 270 Jones, M., 222, 247, 297, 311 Jordens, P., 205, 232, 233, 247, 290, 291, 296 Josefsson, G., 188, 202 Jud, J., 216, 247

K Katz, J.J., 4, 9, 16, 21, 22, 25, 89, 237, 247, 296, 305, 321 Kayne, R., 52, 82, 89, 137–139, 148, 151, 157, 169, 171, 172, 179, 214, 215, 219, 239, 244, 248, 264, 270 Kennedy, C., 258, 270 Kirsner, R.S., 55, 89 Kiss, K.É., 142, 152 Kitahara, H., 68, 89 Klima, E.S., 2, 90, 264, 270, 289, 296 Köpcke, K.M., 39, 91 Koizumi, M., 184, 188, 202 Koopman, H., 43, 51, 76–78, 85, 89, 90, 96, 100, 106, 108, 112, 153, 154, 160, 163, 165, 167, 172, 173, 179, 190, 202, 205, 206, 227, 232, 248, 253, 270, 282, 296 Koppen, M., van. 273 Koster, J., 253, 261, 270 Kramer, C., 339 Krause, W., 222, 248 Kreidler, C.W., 7, 12, 90 Kühner, R., 23, 90 L Labelle, M., 81, 88 Ladusaw, W., 262, 270 Laka, I., 59, 90, 212, 232, 233, 248, 255, 270, 299, 321 Landheer, R., 273 Larsson, C., 197, 202 Lasnik, H., 66, 90, 236, 247, 255, 270, 301, 321 Law, P., 24, 86 Lawler, J.M., 14, 90 Leech, G., 270 Lees, R.B., 2, 90 Levenston, E.A., 12, 90 Lie, S., 247 Lipták, A., 135 Lobeck, A., 264, 270 Long, R.B., 6, 9, 90 Luelsdorff, P., 6, 90 Lundin, K., 181 Lundskær-Nielsen, T., 246 Lyons, J., 16, 17, 18, 90 M Manning, C.D., 2, 90 Marantz, A., 337, 338 Martin, J.W., 3, 93 Massam, D., 73, 74, 90

Index of names 345 Mastop, R.J., 2, 90 May, R., 258, 262, 270, 309, 321 McCawley, J., 4, 5, 90, 260, 270 McCloskey, J., 255, 270 McConvell, P., 59, 90 Meer, G. van der, 15, 90 Meinunger, A., 24, 86 Messing, G., 23, 92, 233, 249 Mikkelsen, K.R., 195, 202 Millward, C.M., 2, 90 Mörnsjö, M., 181 Moon, G.G.-S., 2, 36, 38, 90, 251, 259, 270, 312, 321 Morgan, J.L., 8, 87 Moutafakis, N.J., 2, 90 Mulder, R., 215, 248 N Nay, S.M., 216, 248 Nijen Twilhaar, J., 112, 247 O Otheguy, R., 135 Ouhalla, J., 60, 90, 307, 312, 319, 321 Overdiep, G.S., 36, 90 P Paardekooper, P., 229, 248 Pakendorf, B., 44, 90 Palmer, F., 1, 9, 23, 26, 44, 45, 46, 91 Panther, K.-U., 39, 91 Partee, B.H., 9, 10–12, 18, 65, 93, 251, 271, 322 Pearson, M., 166, 179 Pesetsky, D., 182–184, 186, 193, 194, 201, 202 Pinto, M., 320, 321 Pintzuk, S., 197, 198, 202 Piperek, K., 2, 91 Pirvulescu, M., 2, 91 Platzack, C., 20–22, 26, 27, 31, 33, 39, 42, 45, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 70, 72, 91, 97, 98, 112, 120, 128, 134, 172, 179, 181, 182–185, 187, 188, 190–194, 196, 200–203, 251, 254–256, 270, 298, 301–303, 314, 320, 322 Poletto, C., 175, 179 Pollock, J.-Y., 20, 66, 91, 175, 179, 235, 248, 251, 254, 255, 264, 265, 268, 270, 298, 299, 301, 322 Portner, P., 31, 91

Postal, P.M., 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, 21, 22, 25, 89, 91, 213, 237, 247, 248, 305, 321 Postma, G., 30, 45, 54, 55, 59, 64, 65, 79, 85, 91, 92, 95, 96, 100, 109, 112, 114, 134, 205, 273, 280, 281, 290, 291, 296, 336, 339 Potsdam, E., 2, 20, 24, 31, 33, 34, 36, 39, 56, 57, 66–70, 75, 77, 87, 91, 98, 112, 120, 134, 190, 203, 241, 248, 251–255, 257, 263–266, 270, 297, 298, 300, 303, 305, 307, 310–313, 315, 317, 322 Pride, J.B., 8, 91 Priestly, T., 241, 248 Prince, E., 247 Prinzhorn, M., 153 Proeme, H., 29, 37, 46, 48, 50, 91, 277, 296 Progovac, L., 261, 270 Pullum, K., 318, 322 Q Quirk, R., 260, 270

Rohlfs, G., 223, 248 Rohrbacher, B., 264, 271 Romijn, K., 134 Rooij, J. de, 134 Rooryck, J., 20, 36, 45, 50, 54, 55, 79–81, 85, 92, 95, 96, 112, 113, 114, 134, 205, 273, 281, 296, 297 Rosengren, I., 19–21, 22, 26, 27, 31, 39, 42, 45, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 70, 72, 75, 76, 91, 92, 96–98, 112, 119, 134, 155, 172, 179, 181, 182, 190, 191, 203, 251, 254, 255, 256, 270, 298, 301–303, 314, 320, 322 Ross, J.R., 4, 6, 7, 92 Rudin, C., 334, 339 Runner, J., 251 Rupp, L.M., 2, 21, 22, 36, 66, 68–70, 92, 98, 112, 120, 126, 127, 134, 182, 190, 194, 203, 251, 253–258, 260, 262, 266, 271, 297, 299, 310, 320, 321, 322 Russell, B., 4, 92 Rycker, T. De, 2, 92

R Radford, A., 256, 261, 264, 271, 297, 303, 318 Rahardi, K., 2, 91 Reintges, C., 95 Reinhart, T., 320, 322 Reis, M., 19, 75, 76, 91, 96, 112, 119, 134, 155, 179 Riemsdijk, H. van, 163, 168, 179, 286, 296 Rigter, B., 317 Rinkel, T., 112, 247 Risselada, R., 2, 45, 91, 222, 248 Rivero, M.-L., 20, 23, 43, 57, 59, 61–63, 65, 80, 91, 182, 190, 203, 205, 208–213, 215–217, 220–222, 228, 236–238, 241, 246, 248, 281, 296, 302, 322, 328, 336, 339 Rizzi, L., 20–22, 92, 138, 141, 152, 154, 171, 172, 176–180, 185, 191, 203, 231, 248, 261, 271, 305, 320, 322 Robbers, K., 60, 92, 243, 248 Roberts, I., 71, 92, 236, 248 Rochette, A., 265, 271 Rögnvaldsson, E., 181, 195, 197–200, 203

S Sadock, J.M., 4–8, 11, 16, 19, 22, 23, 33, 41–43, 57–59, 73, 92, 233, 248, 256, 271 Safir, K., 129, 134 Sag, I., 262, 269 Samek-Lodovici, V., 320, 321 Sauerland, U., 262, 269 Scatton, E., 241, 249 Schachter, P., 9–12, 18, 65, 93, 251, 271, 322 Schaeffer, J., 153 Schalley, E., 44, 90 Schmerling, S.F., 1, 7, 8, 18, 31, 33, 34, 37, 38, 41, 59, 65, 92, 251, 255, 257, 271, 303, 308, 322 Schutter, G. de, 36, 92, 114, 134 Schütze, C., 303, 322 Searle, J.R., 8, 92 Seely, C., 44, 92 Seppänen, A., 13, 56, 92 Shaer, B., 264, 271 Sheppard, M.M., 26, 27, 62, 92, 182, 203, 220, 249, 331, 336, 337, 339 Sigurðsson, H., 190, 197, 203 Simonyi, Zs., 141, 152

346 Index of names Singh, U., 206, 249 Smith, C.S., 24, 92 Smith, W.L., 45, 92 Smits, R., 168, 179 Smyth, H.W., 23, 92, 233, 249 Snyder, S., 53, 93 Späth, A., 2, 93 Sperber, S., 28, 31, 55, 93 Sportiche, D., 141, 152, 167, 170, 180, 307, 322 Steele, S., 320 Stegmann, C., 23, 90 Stenius, E., 16, 93 Sternefeld, W., 97, 112 Stockwell, R.P., 3, 9, 10–12, 18, 65, 93, 251, 254, 271, 301, 303, 322 Stroh-Wollin, U., 191 Svartvik, J., 270 Szabolcsi, A., 146, 147, 154, 172, 173, 179 T Teleman, U., 201, 203 Tenny, C., 312, 322 Terzi, A., 20, 23, 43, 59, 61–63, 65, 80, 91, 145, 147, 149, 152, 190, 203, 205, 208–210, 212, 213, 215–217, 220, 221, 228, 236–238, 241, 246, 248, 302, 322, 336, 339 Thierfelder, A., 23, 90 Thorne, J.P., 11, 93, 251, 271, 313, 322 Thráinsson, H., 222, 249 Tiersma, P., 15, 93, 222, 249

Tomaselli, A., 201, 203 Tomić, O.M., 59, 82, 93, 323, 326, 328, 333, 336, 339 Toorn M.C. van den, 134 Torp, A., 195, 200, 202 Torrego, E., 182–184, 186, 193, 194, 201, 202 Tóth, I., 135 Traugott, E.C., 23, 43, 87, 89 Travis, L., 115, 118, 134, 265, 271 Trifone, P., 212, 222, 247 Trnavac, R., 30, 87 U Ukaji, M., 2, 7, 10, 12, 13, 23, 93, 301, 303, 322 V Vairel-Carron, H., 2, 93 Vannebo, K., 247 Vat, J., 168, 179 Verheijen, R., 85, 86 Visser, F., 193, 203, 301, 322 Voelz, J.W., 2, 93 Vries, M. de, 25, 88, 93 W Wachtel, T., 17, 18, 93 Waltereit, R., 43, 93 Wasow, T., 320 Weerman, F., 100, 101, 112, 247, Wehrmann, P., 294, 295 Wenning, A., 203 Wessén, E., 200, 203

Weyhe, E., 222, 247 Wheeler, M., 222, 249 Wilder, C., 24, 86, 255, 271 Wilson, D., 28, 31, 55, 93 Winter, W., 42, 93 Wobst, S.G., 2, 93 Wolf, H., 48, 49, 93, 145, 152 Wratil, M., 16, 34, 36, 51, 54, 69, 93 Wurff, W. van der, 1, 23, 64, 65, 91, 93, 95, 113, 125, 134, 144, 153, 180, 181, 182, 205, 225, 249, 251, 258, 281, 290, 296, 336, 339 Y Yamaguchi, H., 23, 93 Z Zanuttini, R., 2, 20, 21, 60–65, 81, 93, 145, 146, 152, 212–219, 221, 222, 228, 230, 238, 241, 242, 244, 245, 249, 251, 271, 298, 300–302, 322, 333, 339 Zeijlstra, H., 2, 21, 61, 63–65, 93 Zhang, S., 2, 22, 33, 42, 66, 75, 93, 94, 190, 203, 251, 257, 271, 298, 301, 303, 317, 322 Zubizarreta, M.–L., 320, 322 Zwart, J.-W., 97, 112, 115, 118, 134 Zwarts, F., 168, 179 Zwicky, A.M., 19, 22, 33, 34, 41–43, 57, 58, 92, 94, 233, 248, 256, 271, 318, 322

Index of terms

A A-

head, 236 movement, 34, 69, 141, 236, 257, 262, 309 position, 40, 74, 141, 168, 258, 313, 316, 319 A-bar head, 236, 245 movement, 34, 207, 236, 237 position, 235, 309 accusative, 56, 156, 161, 162, 164, 165, 168, 188, 190, 303 addressee, 5, 12, 13, 21, 22, 31, 32, 36, 38–43, 48, 49, 74, 79, 80, 84, 113, 116, 122, 125– 127, 130, 133, 160, 161, 176, 177, 190, 191, 287, 303, 313 adjunct, 26, 33, 60, 63, 122, 154, 170, 177, 247, 261 adjunction, 34, 173, 174, 214, 215, 264–266, 305, 316, 317 adverb, 70, 108, 160, 178, 234, 235, 263–268, 281, 282, 305, 308 placement, 251, 252, 257, 263, 268, 305 see also E(xtent)-adverb, VP-adverb affirmation, 9, 223, 255, 299 affirmative, 54, 57, 60–63, 65, 80–82, 298 Agree, 128–131, 133, 183, 185 agreement, 1, 7, 40, 42, 99, 113, 115, 116, 126–129, 131–133, 140–142, 146, 158, 172, 185, 188, 189, 192, 197, 199, 220, 228, 229, 234, 255, 298, 300–304, 317, 333 AgrP, 61, 265, 323 ambiguity, 4, 131, 236, 260, 261, 311 ambiguous, 8, 116, 131, 258, 262, 287, 310, 312

anaphor, 12, 13, 74, 116, 123, 131, 132, 167, 168 anaphoric negator, 23, 65, 205, 207, 221, 223, 226, 227, 229–232, 237, 239, 241, 242, 246 aspect, 1, 27, 42, 125, 146, 149, 184, 186, 242, 254, 307 AspP, 27, 148, 312, 319 AUX, 4, 10, 19, 30, 244, 263–266, 311 auxiliary, 1, 3, 10, 20, 30, 39, 46, 51–53, 55, 56, 59, 62, 66–68, 75, 82, 124, 144, 187, 189, 191, 229, 241, 243, 244, 251, 254, 259, 261–265, 267, 276, 279, 282, 283, 292, 294, 297–299, 303–307, 310, 312 B bare stem, 36, 100, 139, 146, 181 barrier, 61, 63, 65, 148, 149, 207, 210, 215, 228, 238, 245, 246 binding, 6, 24, 33, 78, 113, 122, 131, 132, 167, 168, 314 see also condition C blocking, 69, 105, 141, 207, 209, 215, 228, 238, 261, 318, 336 boulemaeic negation, 205, 207, 233–235, 238, 245, 290, 291, 294, 295 BoulP, 232, 233, 235, 237–239, 243 C case marking, 133 case-marked, 1, 35 c-command, 25, 64, 173, 219, 220, 304 clausal negation, 59, 70, 221, 232, 243, 315 clause, 1, 2, 4–7, 10, 13–31, 33, 35–37, 39–41, 44, 52, 55–57,

61, 63, 66, 67, 70–72, 74–76, 78–81, 84, 85, 96, 97, 99, 100, 103, 113, 114, 119, 120, 124–127, 133, 136, 138, 141, 146, 148, 149, 151, 154–158, 162, 167, 169–172, 175–178, 183, 184, 186, 188, 190–192, 194, 196, 197, 201, 210, 214, 215, 228–230, 232, 234, 236–238, 242, 243, 245, 246, 251, 252, 254, 255, 259–265, 267, 268, 299, 303, 304, 306, 312, 324–327, 329, 332–337 type, 1, 2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 30, 36, 41, 57, 72, 119, 154, 171, 172 typing, 158, 175, 176, 177, 178 union, 138, 148, 151 see also embedded clause, matrix clause, reason clause, root clause, subordinate clause, wh–clause clitic, 64, 80–83, 135–152 passim, 166, 167, 170, 193, 195, 208–211, 213, 214, 216, 218–221, 238, 318, 323, 325–327, 329, 332–335, 337, 338 climbing, 82, 83, 135–152 passim comma intonation, 108, 158 command, 4, 5, 6, 8–10, 17, 31, 51, 143–146, 219 compositionality, 206, 207, 221 compositional, 29, 206, 207, 209, 211, 213, 214, 221–227, 238–242, 244, 245 see also non-compositional condition C, 168–170 conditional, 5, 14, 15, 17, 28–32, 36

348 Index of terms ConjP, 25, 81 conjunction conjugated, 229 reduction, 5 consistency condition, 186, 187 constituent negation, 61, 69, 70, 315–318 control, 33, 35, 39, 40, 85, 113, 122, 123, 147, 236 coordination, 25, 28 copy theory, 167, 309 counterfactual, 46, 47 CP, 20, 22, 26, 30, 61, 62, 67, 68, 71, 75, 81, 97–99, 102–105, 108, 109, 113, 119, 120, 148, 149, 154, 183, 184, 192, 194, 196, 214, 219, 229, 238, 243, 245, 252–259, 261–263, 266–268, 281–283, 289, 290, 298, 299, 304–306, 310, 311, 315 D dative, 78, 106, 141, 157, 163, 165, 169, 170, 286, 294 declarative, 4, 19, 21, 27, 29, 40, 51, 68–70, 72, 73, 78, 79, 84, 95, 100, 103, 107, 111, 119, 155, 159–161, 171, 172, 177, 181, 182, 185, 190, 194, 196, 215, 258, 262–264, 279, 280, 299, 300, 304–306, 309, 310, 317, 319 see also non-declarative, peremptory declarative deictic, 79, 287–290, 295 deletion, 3–7, 10, 14, 17, 24, 33, 34, 37, 51, 74, 95, 101, 103–107, 111 see also ellipsis demonstrative, 78, 79, 95, 101, 105, 107–111, 157–159, 198 feature, 79, 95, 101, 110 deontic, 55, 65, 233, 283 direct object, 79, 140, 168, 259 directive, 7–9, 18, 29, 31, 32, 36, 38, 48, 50, 84 desirability, 28, 31, 32, 55 disjunct, 26 dislocation, 100–103, 111, 113, 125, 127, 154, 157–159, 16–164, 166–169, 171, 178 see also left-dislocated, right–dislocated do support, 1, 11, 66, 88, 255, 300, 314

see also dummy auxiliary doubly filled C filter, 77, 173, 174 DP, 25, 26, 39, 40, 41, 61, 68, 69, 74, 108, 125, 156–159, 163, 164, 166–171, 175, 176, 186–190, 192, 196, 253–256, 258, 265, 285, 292, 294 D-pronoun, 95, 101–108, 110, 111, 154, 157–159, 161–163, 166–168, 170, 171, 177 dummy auxiliary, 66–68, 299 E economy, 68, 185, 186, 192, 269, 299, 301 condition, 186 principle, 186, 299 ECP, 61, 81 ellipsis, 41, 56, 69, 279, 307 see also deletion, VP–ellipsis embedded clause, 19, 30, 76, 96, 97, 100, 133, 194, 196, 197, 230 embedded imperative, 4, 9, 18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30, 46, 47, 84, 181–203 passim, 256 emphasis, 13, 68, 306 emphatic, 1, 9, 20, 28, 36, 46, 60, 66, 68, 122, 252, 299, 300, 314 empty, 1, 18, 33–35, 69, 73–75, 77, 78, 98, 99, 107, 115, 122, 123, 128, 129, 156, 157, 163, 166, 167, 187, 215, 283, 290, 295 category, 18, 33, 128, 129 topic, 34, 35, 73, 78 see also null enclisis, 8, 80, 82, 83, 136, 137, 208, 211, 213 enclitic, 63, 80, 82, 214, 244, 323, 334, 337, 338 epistemic, 55, 65, 235, 236, 245, 291 epistemic negation, 205, 233, 234 EPP feature, 27, 99, 155, 178, 183, 185–189, 191–194, 196–201, 256, 297, 320 equi NP, 5, 7 exclamative, 19, 41, 46, 47, 236, 276 existential, 310, 318

expletive-associate, 310, 318, 319 E(xtent)-adverb, 263–268 external argument, 188, 255, 307 F feature, 11, 18, 20–22, 26, 27, 32–35, 37, 40, 49, 52, 57, 60–64, 68–72, 76, 79–81, 84, 85, 95, 96, 98–101, 105–107, 110, 111, 113, 115, 116, 119–121, 128–131, 133, 139, 155, 181, 183–197, 200, 201, 207, 209, 210, 218, 220, 221, 228, 237, 238, 243–245, 255, 256, 258, 281, 289–291, 295, 299, 300–302, 304–306, 309, 312, 313, 316, 318–320, 323, 326–328, 331, 333, 335–337 checking, 21, 26, 70, 210, 256, 258, 299, 309 strength, 71, 72, 319 strong, 21, 68, 71, 72, 210, 256, 299, 305, 323, 328, 333, 336, 338 weak, 69, 71, 72, 210, 256, 333, 334, 337, 338 see also demonstrative feature, EPP feature, wh-feature FinP, 20, 22, 26, 39, 42, 60, 61, 70, 81, 171, 172, 177, 178, 191 FocP, 20, 177 focus, 74, 79, 104, 154, 166, 171, 174–177, 185, 289, 327 ForceP, 20, 21, 173, 175, 231 fronting, 77, 96–100, 105, 157, 230, 232, 261, 273 functional category, 42, 68, 183 projection, 18, 21, 22, 27, 42, 43, 59, 60, 79, 80, 84, 113, 118–120, 205, 207, 210, 212, 214, 232, 233–235, 237, 254, 255, 264, 268, 304, 308, 319 see also AgrP, AspP, BoulP, ConjP, CP, DP, FinP, FocP, ForceP, ImpP, IP, MoodP, NegP, PartP, PolP, QP, TP, vP, ΣP future, 3, 7, 13, 14, 21, 42–45, 48, 49, 51, 58, 206, 238, 285 G generative semantics, 4 generic, 14, 28, 36, 49, 50, 285

Index of terms 349 grammaticalisation, 55 H habitual, 49, 50 head movement, 61, 149, 151, 173, 210, 221, 236, 239, 245, 252, 254, 262, 264, 281, 283 heavy NP shift, 156, 158, 165, 166, 169 hortative, 49 hypersentence, 4, 6, 9, 22 hypothetical, 17, 32 hypotheticality, 31 I IMP, 4, 9, 20, 21, 27, 37, 40, 54, 61–64, 68, 71, 72, 74, 76, 80, 81, 84, 85, 99, 119, 120, 130, 132, 161, 169, 172–178, 185, 191, 196, 209, 210, 216, 219–221, 223, 231, 232, 237, 239, 243–245, 304–306, 325 imperative operator, 35, 64, 76, 77, 95, 99, 101, 103, 105, 110, 155, 207, 220, 231, 235, 237, 238, 337 see also embedded imperative, particial imperative, retrospective imperative, whimperative, whimperative impersonal, 276, 279–281, 289 implicature, 29 ImpP, 113, 119, 120, 169, 171–176 inclusive, 12, 55, 57, 213 incorporation, 149, 150, 151, 218, 220, 239–241, 246, 289 indicative, 18, 38, 44, 57, 58, 65, 83, 95, 98–100, 135, 141, 143, 144, 146, 213, 214, 216–218, 240, 242, 302, 323, 326, 328–331, 333, 335–338 indirect object, 7, 11, 79, 107, 163, 165, 168 ineffability, 59, 60, 64, 65, 80 ineffable, 59, 63, 65 inference, 29 infinitival, 15, 16, 19, 33, 51–55, 74, 96, 114, 117, 121, 135–137, 139, 143, 144, 148–150, 165, 189, 273, 275–277, 283 infinitive, 3, 7, 13, 15–18, 30–32, 35, 42, 46, 51, 52, 57, 74, 75, 82, 117, 135, 136, 139,

142, 143, 146, 182, 222, 238, 244, 277, 293, 295 inflection, 13, 17, 41, 100, 113–121, 124, 128–130, 141, 142, 146, 243, 255, 302, 304 inflectional, 56, 115–120, 128, 129, 139, 141, 148, 149, 243, 255, 298, 300, 302 inhibitive, 13 instruction, 5, 16, 17, 32 interpretable, 95, 98, 100, 101, 105, 107, 111, 113, 119, 128, 129, 183, 185–187, 191–193, 220, 256, 305, 318 see also non-interpretable, uninterpretable interrogative, 41, 19, 21, 37, 70, 185, 231, 262, 266, 267, 297, 298, 300, 306, 311, 326, 331 intonation, 11, 13, 14, 75, 108, 114, 119, 154, 157–159, 161, 169, 172, 175, 237, 314 see also comma intonation inversion, 1, 8, 20, 76, 77, 98, 99, 153, 254, 297, 306, 310 inverted, 13, 251–254, 257, 259–262, 266, 297–322 passim IP, 20, 34, 67, 68, 71, 74, 75, 98, 99, 101, 148, 149, 154, 155, 171, 175, 177, 219, 234, 236, 238, 243, 251, 252–255, 258, 259, 261, 262, 264–267, 281–283, 289, 298, 299, 304–311, 313–319 irrealis, 14, 20, 31, 32, 35, 50, 84, 85, 124 iterative, 14, 49, 50 L last resort, 210, 241, 299, 300, 305 left-dislocated, 95, 98, 99, 102, 108–111, 119, 158, 170 left-peripheral, 155, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 174, 177 let, 13, 23, 55–57, 141, 147 let’s, 10, 13, 55–57 lexical meaning, 55, 291, 292, 295 lexicalisation, 30, 234 lexicalised, 53–55, 233 LF, 32, 69, 119, 128, 129, 133, 154, 220, 258, 282, 289, 300, 301,

304, 305, 309–311, 316, 318, 320, 337 licensing, 24, 36, 52, 62, 73, 79, 84, 104, 105, 161, 265, 269, 296 long head movement, 210, 211 M matrix clause, 5, 19, 25, 26, 76, 96, 97, 99, 136, 138, 141, 146, 149 merged projection, 238 minimal link condition, 185, 186, 193 minimal marking, 41 minimalism, 247, 309 minimality, 61, 69, 81, 141, 205, 207, 208, 210, 212, 215, 216, 228, 236–239, 245, 246 modify, 185, 187, 194, 232 mood, 1, 18, 21, 42, 62, 63, 82, 107, 146, 215, 255, 265, 323, 324, 326, 328–331, 333, 336–338 MoodP, 22, 42, 62, 63, 215, 232, 245, 265, 328 morphological, 18, 42, 43, 67, 76, 146, 150, 151, 190, 208, 213, 220, 238, 242, 244, 273, 285, 304, 326, 333, 337 morphology, 1, 23, 41, 43, 80, 99, 115, 127, 139, 146, 166, 189, 191, 192, 196, 199, 268, 280, 301, 302, 334 morphosyntactic feature, 111, 127, 128, 129, 131, 139, 255, 309, 319 movement, 6, 20, 22, 30, 33, 34, 43, 56–61, 63, 65, 67–72, 75–78, 81, 83–85, 95, 96, 99, 101, 103, 104, 107–111, 114, 119, 120, 128, 130, 138, 141, 147–151, 153, 155–157, 160, 167–169, 171, 173, 175, 178, 186, 194, 205, 207, 209, 210, 211, 214–216, 218, 220, 221, 228, 230, 231, 235–241, 243–246, 252, 254–257, 262, 264, 281, 283, 287, 289–292, 295, 297, 307–310, 313, 316, 319, 320, 334, 336, 337 see also A-movement, A-bar movement, head movement, long head movement, successive cyclic movement,

350 Index of terms Wackernagel movement, wh-movement N Neg criterion, 229, 290 negated, 8, 20, 28, 57, 58, 62, 63, 145, 190, 206, 214, 215, 219, 221, 226, 227, 240, 246, 280, 289, 311, 315, 323, 331, 333–338 negation, 6, 7, 13, 20–22, 24, 51, 54, 56, 57, 59–65, 68–70, 82, 84, 145, 146, 190, 205–249 passim, 251, 255, 257–264, 267, 273, 277–282, 285–291, 294, 295, 299, 306, 308–312, 315–318, 323, 324, 331–335, 337, 338 see also boulemaeic negation, clausal negation, constituent negation, epistemic negation negative, 9, 13, 24, 28, 53–70, 77, 80–82, 84, 143–145, 205–249 passim, 251, 252, 257, 259–262, 264, 266, 273, 277–280, 283, 288– 291, 297–299, 310, 311, 313, 318, 323, 324, 326, 331, 333, 335–337 concord, 63 operator, 64, 82, 235, 260 polarity item, 24, 28, 290, 291 preposing, 257, 260, 261, 262, 311 negator, 23, 57–61, 63–65, 81, 82, 205–207, 215, 216, 219–224, 226, 227, 229–234, 237, 239, 241–243, 246, 278, 291 see also anaphoric negator NegP, 18, 59, 60, 61–63, 65, 68, 69, 207, 212, 220, 228–230, 235, 238, 239, 245, 289, 298, 306, 311, 315–318, 333 nominative, 42, 56, 121, 124, 127, 133, 154, 177, 178, 188, 190, 193, 302–304, 316, 317 non-compositional, 57, 222– 225, 240 non-declarative, 23 non-interpretable, 113, 300, 304 see also uninterpretable norm setting, 50 null, 33, 34–36, 38, 52, 55, 66, 73–76, 78, 79, 82, 84, 95,

98, 99, 101–103, 105, 110, 134, 137, 138, 190, 191, 254 anaphor, 74 object, 73, 74, 78 subject, 36, 74, 84, 190, 191, 331 topic, 35, 74, 78 number, 1, 7, 107, 116, 123, 128, 130, 140, 184, 217, 303 O object, 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 27, 39, 55, 71–75, 77–79, 84, 102, 105–108, 133, 135, 140–143, 148, 149, 153, 154, 156, 158–163, 165–170, 174, 178, 181, 186–190, 197–201, 258–261, 282, 286, 294, 307, 311, 312, 327, 333 shift, 71, 72 see also direct object, indirect object, null object operator, 35, 61, 64, 74, 76–78, 82, 95, 98, 99, 101–103, 105, 110, 119, 155–157, 163, 166, 167, 174, 205, 207, 210, 218, 220, 221, 228, 231, 232, 235–238, 260, 295, 309, 323, 324, 326, 328–335, 337, 338 see also imperative operator, negative operator optative, 13, 55, 56, 124, 195 overt subject, 8, 12, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 30, 33–36, 42, 46–50, 56, 57, 65, 68, 74, 75, 155, 160, 161, 176, 178, 190, 191, 195, 269, 300, 312, 313, 317, 321, 325, 335 P paradigm, 18, 43, 98, 99, 100, 113, 115, 117, 119, 120, 128, 129, 190, 208, 212, 213, 229, 243, 302 parameter, 61, 71, 82, 134 parasitic gap, 24, 25, 73, 78, 107, 156, 166 participial imperative, 45, 53, 54, 79, 96, 121, 273, 274, 273–296 passim particle, 13, 41, 43, 47, 54, 56, 66, 79, 104, 124, 158, 273,

280, 285, 286, 294, 295, 298, 303 see also speaker-oriented particle, speech-act oriented particle PartP, 281–283, 289, 290, 295 passive, 7, 33, 39, 71, 167, 280, 289, 307, 327 past, 7, 14, 15, 17, 29, 30, 45–51, 117, 124, 125, 142, 145, 279, 298 peremptory declarative, 3, 6, 8 performative, 4, 5, 7–12, 15–17, 22, 84, 273 person, second, 12, 13, 17, 22, 33, 35–38, 40, 41, 46, 47, 55, 74, 76, 80, 98, 99, 113–118, 120, 121, 123–127, 129–133, 140, 141, 143, 144, 160, 176, 181, 192, 193, 195, 196, 200, 201, 206, 213, 217, 242, 244, 301, 303, 314 third, 12, 38, 47, 117, 126, 131, 132, 139, 146, 242, 303, 314 phi feature, 127–129, 337 see also φ-feature plural, 11, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, 57, 98, 113, 116, 117, 120, 121, 123, 124, 127, 129, 130, 140, 143–146, 213, 229, 301, 303 polar interrogative, 251, 260 polarity, 13, 24, 28, 214, 232, 233, 255, 290, 291 PolP, 60, 214 portmanteau morpheme, 140, 287, 294 postverbal, 60, 63–65, 104, 125, 126, 198, 214–216, 218, 219, 221, 224 pragmatic, 5, 7, 8, 17, 51, 55, 65, 66, 69, 113, 119, 127, 129, 130, 133, 145, 185, 273 preposition stranding, 52, 73, 74, 157–159, 163, 164, 166 preverbal, 60, 62, 64, 65, 99, 103–105, 110, 198, 199, 214–216, 218–221, 224, 337 pro, 18, 33–39, 41, 42, 52, 57, 113, 121–125, 127–133, 141, 215, 317 PRO, 18, 34, 35, 303 probe, 131, 185, 193 proclisis, 81, 208, 211, 213

Index of terms 351 proclitic, 244, 323, 334, 337, 338 prohibitive, 13, 90 pronominal, 1, 71, 84, 117, 122, 129, 160, 161, 168, 171, 176, 208, 209, 214, 323–338 pronominalisation, 11 pronoun, 8, 14, 24, 36–38, 41, 82, 95, 101–111, 113, 116, 120–124, 126, 127, 129–131, 133, 154, 157, 158–164, 166– 168, 170, 171, 176, 177, 192, 193, 195, 196, 198, 200, 201, 303 see also D-pronoun. strong pronoun, weak pronoun pseudo-OV, 181, 197, 199, 201 psych verb, 294 Q QP, 258, 259, 262, 309–312, 316 quantified, 158, 159, 168, 257–259, 261, 308–312 quantifier, 24, 69, 98, 123, 168, 258, 303, 307, 309, 310 float, 34 raising, 258, 262, 309 scope, 70, 251, 258, 259, 309, 311, 318, 319 R reanalysis, 16, 27, 29, 149 reason clause, 26 reconstruction, 153, 167–169, 171, 178, 262, 309, 311 reduplication, 41 reflexive, 5, 12, 33, 123, 131 reflexivisation, 3, 10 relative, non-restrictive, 23–25, 27 restructuring, 83, 138–140, 146, 148–151 retrospective imperative, 45– 48, 144–146 right-dislocated, 109, 125–127, 158, 159, 161, 164–166, 169–171, 178 right-peripheral, 77, 78, 121, 127, 153, 154, 156–170, 175, 178 RIM, 4, 16 root clause, 25, 62, 84, 113, 114, 171, 178, 194, 230 S scope, 64, 70, 218–221, 236, 251, 252, 257–263, 268, 308–312,

319, 337 narrow, 257, 259, 310 wide, 259–261, 310–312 see also quantifier scope singular, 11, 17, 36–38, 41, 42, 47–49, 76, 98, 99, 115, 116, 118, 121, 123, 130, 131, 139–141, 143, 144, 146, 206, 212, 213, 242, 244, 301, 303 speaker-oriented particle, 273, 285, 286 spec-head agreement, 220, 228, 317 speech act, 14, 25, 79, 207, 235, 236 speech-act orientation, 79, 273 speech-act oriented particle, 286 stress, 11, 37, 38, 66, 67, 142, 158, 169, 258, 289, 294, 309, 328, 329, 332–334 strong pronoun, 122 subject, 1–3, 5, 6–8, 11, 12–14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 33–42, 46–50, 52, 55–57, 59, 65, 66, 68–75, 77, 78, 99, 102, 105–107, 113–134 passim, 140–142, 144, 147, 154, 155, 160, 161, 169, 170, 177, 178, 181, 186, 187, 190–192, 195, 196, 200, 201, 215, 229, 251–258, 260, 262–268, 270, 279, 283, 297–322 passim, 325 see also null subject, overt subject subjunctive, 8, 9–11, 18, 27, 30, 57, 66, 100, 143, 145, 195, 206, 208, 209, 211, 213, 217, 222, 224, 242, 302, 328 subordinate clause, 23 successive cyclic movement, 75 suppletive, 206, 213–215, 217, 218, 224, 242, 244, 245 T tag, 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14 tense, 1, 13, 17–19, 21, 24, 42–45, 49, 50, 58, 60, 61, 83, 84, 99, 100, 117, 124, 125, 128, 135, 138, 140, 142–151, 184–186, 189, 190, 193, 200, 214, 215, 255, 285, 301, 328, 329

thematic role, 34 tone, 169 topic, 20, 34, 35, 73–78, 97, 100, 110, 119, 120, 153–155, 157, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169–172, 174–178, 185, 230, 232 continuity, 35 drop, 100–107, 111, 118, 119, 153–155, 157, 159–163, 166, 167, 171, 173, 174, 176, 178 see also null topic topicalisation, 34, 64, 65, 73, 75–77, 95, 97, 100, 108, 118–120, 153, 257, 265 TP, 20–22, 40, 42, 44, 60, 61, 83, 102, 103, 105, 148, 183, 186–189, 191, 192, 196, 215, 265 trace, 33–35, 81, 85, 200, 258, 262, 294 transitive, 186, 188, 199 truncation, 42, 58 U unaccusative, 71, 276 uninterpretable, 76, 95, 128– 130, 133, 183–187, 189, 190, 192–194, 200, 201, 220, 256 V verb, 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15–18, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 35– 43, 46–49, 51, 52, 54–65, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 79–85, 95, 96, 98–105, 111, 113– 121, 124, 126–133, 135–143, 145–147, 149–151, 153–155, 157, 160–162, 166, 171, 172, 174–178, 181–184, 186, 188–201, 206, 207, 209– 221, 224, 226, 228, 229, 231, 238–242, 244, 246, 263, 273, 275–277, 282, 283, 285, 286, 290–295, 298, 302, 304, 323–338 initial, 21 second, 30, 76, 101–103, 118, 154, 155, 178, 188, 197, 271 vocative, 10, 11, 23, 39, 40, 42, 66, 93, 125, 255, 313, 314 volitional, 4, 7, 232 vP, 40, 41, 63, 70, 74, 106, 107, 110, 160, 167, 186, 188–190, 192, 193, 196, 201, 255

352 Index of terms VP-adverb, 263, 308 VP-ellipsis, 307 W Wackernagel movement, 210 weak pronoun, 124, 113, 118, 122, 154, 175, 177, 178 whclause, 76, 236 constituent, 96, 99, 101, 102, 105 element, 19, 95–99, 110 feature, 96, 100, 220

imperative, 19 interrogative, 260 movement, 33, 76, 77 phrase, 19, 76 question, 100, 101, 103, 118 sentence, 273 word, 19, 76 whimperative, 5, 19 wish, 5, 17, 46, 47, 52, 287 word order, 7, 8, 15, 16, 21, 30, 52, 61, 66, 68–71, 73, 80–82, 103, 111, 136, 148, 183, 188, 193, 197, 198, 200,

221, 251–255, 257, 259–261, 263, 265, 267, 268, 281–283, 298, 299, 306, 313 see also dislocation, left-peripheral, postverbal, preverbal, pseudo-OV, right-peripheral, verb-initial, verb-second zero-semantics, 291, 292, 294 φ-feature, 300, 302, 304–306, 312 ΣP, 59, 212, 214, 215, 232, 233, 237–239, 243, 245, 299

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com 110 Rothstein, Susan (ed.): Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Expected October 2007 109 Chocano, Gema: Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form. Scrambling in the Germanic languages. 2007. x, 333 pp. 108 Reuland, Eric, Tanmoy Bhattacharya and Giorgos Spathas (eds.): Argument Structure. v, 241 pp. + index. Expected September 2007 107 Corver, Norbert and Jairo Nunes (eds.): The Copy Theory of Movement. 2007. vi, 388 pp. 106 Dehé, Nicole and Yordanka Kavalova (eds.): Parentheticals. xii, 310 pp. + index. Expected August 2007 105 Haumann, Dagmar: Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. 2007. ix, 438 pp. 104 Jeong, Youngmi: Applicatives. Structure and interpretation from a minimalist perspective. 2007. vii, 144 pp. 103 Wurff, Wim van der (ed.): Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar. Studies in honour of Frits Beukema. 2007. viii, 352 pp. 102 Bayer, Josef, Tanmoy Bhattacharya and M.T. Hany Babu (eds.): Linguistic Theory and South Asian Languages. Essays in honour of K. A. Jayaseelan. 2007. x, 282 pp. 101 Karimi, Simin, Vida Samiian and Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.): Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. 2007. vi, 424 pp. 100 Schwabe, Kerstin and Susanne Winkler (eds.): On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Generalizations across languages. 2007. vii, 570 pp. 99 Martínez-Gil, Fernando and Sonia Colina (eds.): Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. 2007. viii, 564 pp. 98 Pires, Acrisio: The Minimalist Syntax of Defective Domains. Gerunds and infinitives. 2006. xiv, 188 pp. 97 Hartmann, Jutta M. and László Molnárfi (eds.): Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. From Afrikaans to Zurich German. 2006. vi, 332 pp. 96 Lyngfelt, Benjamin and Torgrim Solstad (eds.): Demoting the Agent. Passive, middle and other voice phenomena. 2006. x, 333 pp. 95 Vogeleer, Svetlana and Liliane Tasmowski (eds.): Non-definiteness and Plurality. 2006. vi, 358 pp. 94 Arche, María J.: Individuals in Time. Tense, aspect and the individual/stage distinction. 2006. xiv, 281 pp. 93 Progovac, Ljiljana, Kate Paesani, Eugenia Casielles and Ellen Barton (eds.): The Syntax of Nonsententials. Multidisciplinary perspectives. 2006. x, 372 pp. 92 Boeckx, Cedric (ed.): Agreement Systems. 2006. ix, 346 pp. 91 Boeckx, Cedric (ed.): Minimalist Essays. 2006. xvi, 399 pp. 90 Dalmi, Gréte: The Role of Agreement in Non-Finite Predication. 2005. xvi, 222 pp. 89 Velde, John R. te: Deriving Coordinate Symmetries. A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match. 2006. x, 385 pp. 88 Mohr, Sabine: Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions. Impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages. 2005. viii, 207 pp. 87 Julien, Marit: Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. 2005. xvi, 348 pp. 86 Costa, João and Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva (eds.): Studies on Agreement. 2006. vi, 285 pp. 85 Mikkelsen, Line: Copular Clauses. Specification, predication and equation. 2005. viii, 210 pp. 84 Pafel, Jürgen: Quantifier Scope in German. 2006. xvi, 312 pp. 83 Schweikert, Walter: The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. 2005. xii, 338 pp. 82 Quinn, Heidi: The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. 2005. xii, 409 pp. 81 Fuss, Eric: The Rise of Agreement. A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection. 2005. xii, 336 pp. 80 Burkhardt, Petra: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Representing and interpreting dependency. 2005. xii, 259 pp. 79 Schmid, Tanja: Infinitival Syntax. Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. 2005. xiv, 251 pp.

78 Dikken, Marcel den and Christina M. Tortora (eds.): The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. 2005. vii, 292 pp. 77 Öztürk, Balkız: Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. x, 268 pp. 76 Stavrou, Melita and Arhonto Terzi (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. 2005. viii, 366 pp. 75 Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and computation. 2005. xviii, 398 pp. 74 Heggie, Lorie and Francisco Ordóñez (eds.): Clitic and Affix Combinations. Theoretical perspectives. 2005. viii, 390 pp. 73 Carnie, Andrew, Heidi Harley and Sheila Ann Dooley (eds.): Verb First. On the syntax of verbinitial languages. 2005. xiv, 434 pp. 72 Fuss, Eric and Carola Trips (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004. viii, 228 pp. 71 Gelderen, Elly van: Grammaticalization as Economy. 2004. xvi, 320 pp. 70 Austin, Jennifer R., Stefan Engelberg and Gisa Rauh (eds.): Adverbials. The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. 2004. x, 346 pp. 69 Kiss, Katalin É. and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. 2004. vi, 514 pp. 68 Breul, Carsten: Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. 2004. x, 432 pp. 67 Mišeska Tomić, Olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004. xvi, 499 pp. 66 Grohmann, Kleanthes K.: Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003. xvi, 372 pp. 65 Manninen, Satu Helena: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. xii, 275 pp. 64 Boeckx, Cedric and Kleanthes K. Grohmann (eds.): Multiple Wh-Fronting. 2003. x, 292 pp. 63 Boeckx, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. xii, 224 pp. 62 Carnie, Andrew, Heidi Harley and MaryAnn Willie (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar. In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp. 61 Schwabe, Kerstin and Susanne Winkler (eds.): The Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. 2003. vi, 403 pp. 60 Trips, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. xiv, 359 pp. 59 Dehé, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp. 58 Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition. 2003. vi, 309 pp. 57 Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003. vi, 405 pp. 56 Coene, Martine and Yves D’hulst (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. 2003. x, 295 pp. 55 Coene, Martine and Yves D’hulst (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp. 54 Baptista, Marlyse: The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. The Sotavento varieties. 2003. xxii, 294 pp. (incl. CD-rom). 53 Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter and Werner Abraham (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 26–27, 2000). 2002. xiv, 407 pp. 52 Simon, Horst J. and Heike Wiese (eds.): Pronouns – Grammar and Representation. 2002. xii, 294 pp. 51 Gerlach, Birgit: Clitics between Syntax and Lexicon. 2002. xii, 282 pp. 50 Steinbach, Markus: Middle Voice. A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. 2002. xii, 340 pp. 49 Alexiadou, Artemis (ed.): Theoretical Approaches to Universals. 2002. viii, 319 pp. 48 Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Sjef Barbiers and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.): Dimensions of Movement. From features to remnants. 2002. vi, 345 pp. 47 Barbiers, Sjef, Frits Beukema and Wim van der Wurff (eds.): Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System. 2002. x, 290 pp. 46 Panagiotidis, Phoevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. ‘Pronominality’ and licensing in syntax. 2002. x, 214 pp.

45 Abraham, Werner and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. 2002. xviii, 336 pp. 44 Taylan, Eser Erguvanlı (ed.): The Verb in Turkish. 2002. xviii, 267 pp. 43 Featherston, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001. xvi, 279 pp. 42 Alexiadou, Artemis: Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. 2001. x, 233 pp. 41 Zeller, Jochen: Particle Verbs and Local Domains. 2001. xii, 325 pp. 40 Hoeksema, Jack, Hotze Rullmann, Víctor Sánchez-Valencia and Ton van der Wouden (eds.): Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. 2001. xii, 368 pp. 39 Gelderen, Elly van: A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Person, Self, and Interpretability. 2000. xiv, 279 pp. 38 Meinunger, André: Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. 2000. xii, 247 pp. 37 Lutz, Uli, Gereon Müller and Arnim von Stechow (eds.): Wh-Scope Marking. 2000. vi, 483 pp. 36 Gerlach, Birgit and Janet Grijzenhout (eds.): Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. 2001. xii, 441 pp. 35 Hróarsdóttir, Thorbjörg: Word Order Change in Icelandic. From OV to VO. 2001. xiv, 385 pp. 34 Reuland, Eric (ed.): Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. 2000. xii, 255 pp. 33 Puskás, Genoveva: Word Order in Hungarian. The syntax of Ā-positions. 2000. xvi, 398 pp. 32 Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, André Meinunger and Chris Wilder (eds.): The Syntax of Relative Clauses. 2000. vi, 397 pp. 31 Svenonius, Peter (ed.): The Derivation of VO and OV. 2000. vi, 372 pp. 30 Beukema, Frits and Marcel den Dikken (eds.): Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. 2000. x, 324 pp. 29 Miyamoto, Tadao: The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. The role of the verbal noun. 2000. xiv, 232 pp. 28 Hermans, Ben and Marc van Oostendorp (eds.): The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory. 2000. viii, 322 pp. 27 Růžička, Rudolf: Control in Grammar and Pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study. 1999. x, 206 pp. 26 Ackema, Peter: Issues in Morphosyntax. 1999. viii, 310 pp. 25 Felser, Claudia: Verbal Complement Clauses. A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. 1999. xiv, 278 pp. 24 Rebuschi, Georges and Laurice Tuller (eds.): The Grammar of Focus. 1999. vi, 366 pp. 23 Giannakidou, Anastasia: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. 1998. xvi, 282 pp. 22 Alexiadou, Artemis and Chris Wilder (eds.): Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. 1998. vi, 388 pp. 21 Klein, Henny: Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. 1998. x, 232 pp. 20 Laenzlinger, Christopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Adverbs, pronouns, and clause structure in Romance and Germanic. 1998. x, 371 pp. 19 Josefsson, Gunlög: Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax. Word formation in Swedish. 1998. ix, 199 pp. 18 Alexiadou, Artemis: Adverb Placement. A case study in antisymmetric syntax. 1997. x, 256 pp. 17 Beermann, Dorothee, David LeBlanc and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.): Rightward Movement. 1997. vi, 410 pp. 16 Liu, Feng-hsi: Scope and Specificity. 1997. viii, 187 pp. 15 Rohrbacher, Bernhard Wolfgang: Morphology-Driven Syntax. A theory of V to I raising and prodrop. 1999. viii, 296 pp. 14 Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Henk van Riemsdijk and Frans Zwarts (eds.): Materials on Left Dislocation. 1997. viii, 349 pp. 13 Alexiadou, Artemis and T. Alan Hall (eds.): Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation. 1997. viii, 252 pp. 12 Abraham, Werner, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.): Minimal Ideas. Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework. 1996. xii, 364 pp. 11 Lutz, Uli and Jürgen Pafel (eds.): On Extraction and Extraposition in German. 1996. xii, 315 pp. 10 Cinque, Guglielmo and Giuliana Giusti (eds.): Advances in Roumanian Linguistics. 1995. xi, 172 pp. 9 Gelderen, Elly van: The Rise of Functional Categories. 1993. x, 224 pp.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Fanselow, Gisbert (ed.): The Parametrization of Universal Grammar. 1993. xvii, 232 pp. Åfarlí, Tor A.: The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. 1992. xii, 177 pp. Bhatt, Christa, Elisabeth Löbel and Claudia Maria Schmidt (eds.): Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. 1989. ix, 187 pp. Grewendorf, Günther and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.): Scrambling and Barriers. 1990. vi, 442 pp. Abraham, Werner and Sjaak De Meij (eds.): Topic, Focus and Configurationality. Papers from the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen, 1984. 1986. v, 349 pp. Abraham, Werner (ed.): On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks (3e Groninger Grammatikgespräche), Groningen, January 1981. 1983. vi, 242 pp. Ehlich, Konrad and Jürgen Rehbein: Augenkommunikation. Methodenreflexion und Beispielanalyse. 1982. viii, 150 pp. With many photographic ills. Klappenbach, Ruth (1911–1977): Studien zur Modernen Deutschen Lexikographie. Auswahl aus den Lexikographischen Arbeiten von Ruth Klappenbach, erweitert um drei Beiträge von Helene MaligeKlappenbach. (Written in German). 1980. xxiii, 313 pp.

Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar: Studies in honour of Frits Beukema (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 103)

Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Causatives in Minimalism (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Continuity and Change in Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication And Equation (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Focus (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Focus (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Experimental Pragmatics Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Multiple Wh-Fronting (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Parentheticals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 106)

Argument Structure (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Phase Theory (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Emergence of Order in Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Cyclical Change (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Quantifier Scope in German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Grammaticalization As Economy (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 71)

The Linguistics Enterprise: From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Verbal Complement Clauses: A Minimalist Study of Direct Perception Constructions (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today

The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Copy Theory of Movement (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Structure of Stative Verbs (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Movement Theory of Control (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Syntatic Aspects of Topic and Comment (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Repetition: Nupe grammar at the syntax-phonology interface (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol 1: Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar: In Honor of Eloise Jelinek (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 62)

Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol 2: Morphology, Phonology, Acquisition (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives (Oxford Linguistics)

Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar: Studies in honour of Frits Beukema (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 103)

Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Causatives in Minimalism (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Continuity and Change in Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication And Equation (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Focus (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Focus (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Experimental Pragmatics Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Multiple Wh-Fronting (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Parentheticals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 106)

Argument Structure (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Phase Theory (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Emergence of Order in Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Cyclical Change (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Quantifier Scope in German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Grammaticalization As Economy (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 71)

The Linguistics Enterprise: From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Verbal Complement Clauses: A Minimalist Study of Direct Perception Constructions (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today

The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Copy Theory of Movement (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Structure of Stative Verbs (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Movement Theory of Control (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Syntatic Aspects of Topic and Comment (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Repetition: Nupe grammar at the syntax-phonology interface (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol 1: Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar: In Honor of Eloise Jelinek (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 62)

Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol 2: Morphology, Phonology, Acquisition (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives (Oxford Linguistics)

Recommend Documents