MoL-2005-04: Pseudo-Imperatives

MoL-2005-04: Franke, Michael (2005) Pseudo-Imperatives. [Report]

Preview	Text (Full Text) MoL-2005-04.text.pdf Download (231kB) | Preview
	Text (Abstract) MoL-2005-04.abstract.txt Download (6kB)

Abstract

Pseudo-imperatives are compound sentences where an imperative sentence
is followed by 'and' or 'or' and a declarative
sentence. Schematically, pseudo-imperatives are of the form:

an imperative I + 'and' | 'or' + a declarative sentence D

Following Schwager's (2004) terminology, I will refer to
pseudo-imperatives with a conjunction as IaDs and to
pseudo-imperatives with a disjunction as IoDs. It is already a matter
of interest that imperative sentences and declarative sentences can be
grammatically combined in this way. The case becomes even more
interesting if we look at the meaning of pseudo-imperatives. My basic
concern will therefore be the particular meaning asymmetries of the
following paradigm where it is assumed that being killed is
unconditionally undesirable and being kissed is unconditionally
desirable for the addressee and that this is common knowledge among
the interlocutors:

(1) a. Close the window and I will kill you.
b. Close the window and I will kiss you.
c. Close the window or I will kill you.
d. ? Close the window or I will kiss you.
What meanings are associated with these sentences? - All of the
examples in (1) are surely associated with some kind of conditional
assertive force. For instance, (1a) and (1c) do not announce an
unavoidable murder, and (1b) commits the speaker to a kiss conditional
only upon the addressee's closing the window. In particular, the
declarative sentence of an IaD makes an assertion only about those
situations in which the content referred to by the imperative sentence
holds. In contrast to that, the declarative sentence of an IoD makes
an assertion only about those situations in which the content referred
to by the imperative sentence does not hold. Under the assumption that
the addressee does not want to be killed, sentences (1a) and (1c) are,
or contain, conditional threats. Under the assumption that the
addressee wants to be kissed, sentences (1b) and (1d) are, or contain,
conditional promises.

Not only do all the sentences in (1) have a particular assertive
force, they also have a particular directive force associated with
them. This directive force coincides with or differs from the
directive force associated with the plain imperative 'Close the
window'. In (1b) and (1c) we interpret positively, i.e. the
pseudoimperative as a whole has the same directive impact as the plain
imperative form which it contains. Borrowing terminology from Clark
(1993), I will speak of positive IaDs or POS-ANDs to refer to examples
like (1b) and of positive IoDs or POS-ORs to refer to examples like
(1c). In contrast to positive interpretations, (1a) is interpreted
negatively, since an utterance of (1a) directs the opposite of the
plain imperative form which it contains. I will speak of negative IaDs
or NEG-ANDs to refer to examples like (1a). It is important to see
that the directive force associated with the utterance of a
pseudo-imperative depends on the desirability of the declarative
sentence which it contains.

Finally, we note that (1d) is pragmatically odd, if being kissed is
desirable for the addressee. (1a) conjoins an undesirable proposition
to yield a negative interpretation, (1b) conjoins a desirable
proposition to yield a positive interpretation and (1c) disjoins an
undesirable proposition to yield a positive interpretation. So, from
symmetry one might expect that in (1d) where a desirable proposition
is disjoined we would obtain a negative interpretation. But this is
clearly not the case. Also a positive interpretation is odd. In fact,
it is not possible to maintain that being kissed is desirable for the
hearer and to make sense of an utterance of (1d) in either way. This
observation can safely be generalized. Examples which should be NEGORs
for reasons of symmetry are pragmatically infelicitous. In particular,
there are no negatively interpreted IoDs. Although there are NEG-ANDs,
there are no NEG-ORs. This is the main problem which is going to be
addressed in this thesis.

I will refer to the basic explanandum of this thesis as NEG-OR
Problem. Upon closer look, the NEG-OR Problem comprises two aspects
which are to be distinguished. For one, we ask why there are no
negatively interpreted IoDs. I will speak loosely here and say that
the impossibility or non-existence of NEG-ORs has to be accounted
for. For another, we ask why IoDs with a positively connoted second
disjunct are pragmatically odd. I will say that the pragmatic
infelicity of NEGORs has to be accounted for, and what is meant here
is that forms which should for reasons of symmetry be negatively
interpreted IoDs are pragmatically infelicitous.

In a nutshell the problem to be dealt with in the following is this:
NEG-OR Problem: The basic task in connection with pseudo-imperatives
is to explain (i) why there are no negatively interpreted IoDs and
(ii) why IoDs with a positively connoted second disjunct are
pragmatically infelicitous.

Unfortunately, the literature is not unanimous about what the best
description of our intuitions about the meanings of pseudo-imperatives
should be. In section 2 I therefore argue extensively for such a
description. In particular, I argue that we should acknowledge the
full asymmetry in the pattern (1) and distinguish IaDs and IoDs more
than we should subsume them under the label pseudo-imperatives. I
argue in section 2 that IaDs are assertions of conditionals and that
IoDs are speech act conjunctions.

It will transpire that if this description of the meanings of
pseudo-imperatives is correct we have thereby solved the NEG-OR
Problem in both its aspects already at the end of section 2. The
critical challenge will be to find further justification for the
suggested view on pseudo-imperatives. That means that especially an
adequate explanation for the meaning contribution of natural language
conjunction 'and' and natural language disjunction 'or' has to be
provided. This I try to give in section 3. The basic question to be
addressed in section 3 is how it is possible for 'and' and 'or' in
pseudo-imperatives to yield the intuitive meanings for which I have
argued in section 2.

Item Type:	Report
Report Nr:	MoL-2005-04
Series Name:	Master of Logic Thesis (MoL) Series
Year:	2005
Uncontrolled Keywords:	compound sentences, pseudo-imperatives
Date Deposited:	12 Oct 2016 14:38
Last Modified:	12 Oct 2016 14:38
URI:	https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/758

Actions (login required)

View Item