| Description |
1. Introduction and goal.
A number of recent works have examined the internal composition and extent of the phrasal hierarchies in the left periphery of different clause types, mainly concentrating on the distinction between root, ‘root-like’ subordinates and (diverse) embedded clauses (cf., among others, Haegeman 2002; Heycock 2006). Some works have also focused on the projection of discourse categories, leading to a clause-related distinction for (different types of) Foci, Contrast and Topics, also based on semantic and prosodic interface considerations (cf. Haegeman 2004, 2012; Bianchi & Frascarelli 2010; Bianchi 2012). The data examined generally concern declarative or interrogative clauses, while no such study was ever proposed for imperative clauses.
This presentation intends to provide a contribution in this direction, confident that such a ‘multifactorial investigation’ can shed light on the imperative interpretation and improve our understanding of discourse-related categories in Italian and English.
2. Describing the picture.
The association of Topics and Foci with imperatives. Assuming Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl’s (2007) interface distinction between Aboutness-Shift (AS-)Topics, Contrastive (C-)Topics and Familiar/Given (G-)Topics, it appears that the semantic and discourse properties of AS-Topics should hardly associate with the imperative mood, as shown by examples (1a-b) from Italian, where (1b) involves an AS-Topic in the left periphery:
(1) a. Basta giocare: vai subito a finire i compiti!
‘Stop playing: go and finish your homework immediately!’
b. *Basta giocare: i compiti, vai subito a finirli!
‘*Stop playing: your homework, go and finish it immediately!’
As is argued in Bianchi & Frascarelli (2010) an AS-Topic constitutes a speech act on its own (an ‘initiating speech act’, cf. Krifka 2001), introduced by a dedicated speech act operator and possibly) conjoined to the speech act expressed by the following sentence. Hence, AS-Topics should in principle be associated with an imperative, contrary to the evidence shown in (1). On the other hand, C-Topics (2B) and G-Topics (3) should to be allowed, since the former do not require illocutive force and the latter should be possible in any clause type (also event-modifier adjunct clauses):
(2) A. Dove posso mettere questi fiori? (‘Where can I put these flowers?’)
B. Le rose, mettile nel vaso, il girasole lascialo sul tavolo.
‘The roses put in the vase, the sunflower leave on the table.’
(3) a. A: Ecco il pacco del riso. Che facciamo? B: Dammi retta: il riso, cuocilo a vapore!
b. A: Here you have the rice. What shall we do? B: Listen to me: the rice, steam (it)!
In this respect, English appears to provide some cross-linguistic differences. Cormany (2013) argues that non-contrastive topics are not allowed in English and, in general, left-peripheral GTopics are often unacceptable (from Jensen 2007):
(4) a. *Your essay, leave in my pigeon hole this afternoon.
b. *The weapons leave behind.
However, this is not absolute. Sentences (5a–c), from Haegeman (2012:120), obtain acceptable results, and the context clearly induces a C-Topic interpretation for the fronted constituents. Thus C-Topics (though not G-Topics) seem to be allowed in imperatives:
(5) a. The tie give to Bob, the aftershave give to Don.
b. Anything you don’t eat put back in the fridge.
As far as Focus is concerned, a Mirative appears to ‘clash’ with an imperative meaning (compare declarative (6a) with imperative (6b)), while Contrastive Focus (CF) seems to be unproblematic as long as the focused element remains in situ, as in (7a). The crucial observation is that MF is argued to be connected with a root ‘evaluative’ force (cf. Bianchi 2012), while Correction can be realised in any kind of clause (Frascarelli & Ramaglia 2013).
(6) a. Wow! DUE BOTTIGLIE abbiamo bevuto! (Wow: TWO BOTTLES OF WINE we drank!)
b. *Wow! DUE BOTTIGLIE bevi immediatamente! (*Wow: TWO BOTTLES drink now!)
(7) Bevi L’ACQUA, non il vino!
‘Drink WATER, not wine!’
3. The proposal.
Cormany (2013) proposes that in imperatives V raises to Fin and the ‘subject’ to spec-FinP. Kempchinsky (2009) suggests that imperatives have a semantic operator in Finiteness, which is interpreted as ‘anyone else except the speaker’. The data examined seem to lead toward a different solution. It will be argued that imperative is not an independent illocutionary force but a Mood (associated with a non-finite morphological form), which is the consequence of a ‘hidden’ illocutionary force activated by a (silent) matrix performative verb (through Agree). In other words, Ross’ (1970) ‘performative hypothesis’ is revisited showing that imperatives are in fact subordinate clauses, thereby explaining their interface properties and interpretation.
4. More on G-Topics.
A side, but related question, will be an in-depth consideration of Topics expressing background/familiar information (G-Topics). They are very common in Italian, but
apparently strongly restricted in languages like English, where destressing of given information is preferred to dislocation (as is argued in Bianchi & Frascarelli 2010). Further evidence is provided in that direction, comparing the realization of G-Topics in imperatives vs. declarative clauses and considering their diverse discourse functions in different types of adverbial clauses. Data for the analysis are based on grammatical judgments (provided through online testing) and on intonational evidence (elicited data both from Italian and English).
References
Bianchi, V. 2012. Focus Fronting and the syntax-semantics interface. Ms. U. Siena. Bianchi, V. & M. Frascarelli. 2010. Is topic a root phenomenon? Iberia 2:43-88. Cormany, E. 2013. A preference analysis of imperatives connecting syntax, semantics and pragmatics. PhD U.Cornell. Frascarelli, M. & R. Hinterhölzl. 2007. Types of Topic in German and Italian. In Schwabe K. & S. Winkler (eds) On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Benjamins, 87-116. Frascarelli, M. & F. Ramaglia. 2013. ‘Phasing’ Contrast at the Interfaces: A feature-compositional approach to Topics. In V. Camacho-Taboada et al. (eds.) Information Structure and Agreement, 55-81. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Haegeman, L. 2002. Anchoring to Speaker, adverbial clauses and the structure of CP. Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 2:117–180. Haegeman, L. 2004. Topicalization, CLLD and the left periphery. In ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35: 157–192. Haegeman, L. 2012. Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and the composition of the left periphery. OUP. Heycock, C. 2006. Embedded Root Phenomena. In Everaert M. & H. van Riemsdijk (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 174– 209. Basic Blackwel. Jensen, B. 2007. In favour of a truncated imperative clause structure: evidence from adverbs, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80, 163-185. Kempchinsky, P. 2009. What can the subjunctive disjoint reference effect tell us about the subjunctive? Lingua 119:1788-1810. Krifka, M. 2001. Quantifying into question acts, Natural Language Semantics 9:1–40. Ross, J. R. 1970. On Declarative Sentences. In Jacobs R. & P.S. Rosenbaum (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA.
|
