Affiliation:
1. Institute for the Languages and Cultures of the Baltic, Vilnius University , Vilnius , Lithuania
Abstract
Abstract
This article is a contribution to the semantic map of imperatives, prompted by an implicational map proposed earlier in the literature. The tentative semantic map proposed here abstracts away from differences in use that can be attributed to pragmatics, like distinctions between commands, requests, suggestions etc. The functional differentiation resulting from person and number value, which determines a different character of the directive speech act, is adopted as the basis for the characterization of polysemy in imperatives, and taken as the nucleus of the semantic map, which is then expanded by taking into account non-directive meanings, which are also differentiated with regard to the person value from which they develop.
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference35 articles.
1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.
3. Bravo, Ana. 2017. Rhetorical imperatives. Reasons to reasoning. In Daniël van Olmen & Simone Heinold (eds.), Imperatives and directive strategies, 79–109. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
4. Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28(2). 195–217.
5. Ebeling, Carl. 1956. On the verbal predicate in Russian. In Morris Halle (ed.), For Roman Jakobson. Essays on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 83–90. The Hague: Mouton.