22.1613, Review: Typology; Sociolinguistics; Syntax

Mon Apr 11 16:51:44 UTC 2011

LINGUIST List: Vol-22-1613. Mon Apr 11 2011. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 22.1613, Review: Typology; Sociolinguistics; Syntax

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Veronika Drake, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
       <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, 
and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Anja Wanner <anja at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/

This LINGUIST List issue is a review of a book published by one of our
supporting publishers, commissioned by our book review editorial staff. We
welcome discussion of this book review on the list, and particularly invite
the author(s) or editor(s) of this book to join in. If you are interested in 
reviewing a book for LINGUIST, look for the most recent posting with the subject 
"Reviews: AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW", and follow the instructions at the top of the 
message. You can also contact the book review staff directly.

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 11-Apr-2011
From: Hugo Garcia [jhgarcia at unm.edu]
Subject: Imperatives and Commands

-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:44:24
From: Hugo Garcia [jhgarcia at unm.edu]
Subject: Imperatives and Commands

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=22-1613.html&submissionid=4510735&topicid=9&msgnumber=1

Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=4510735

Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/21/21-3264.html 

Author: Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
Title: Imperatives and Commands
Series Title: Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory 
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Published: 2010

Hugo García, Department of Linguistics, University of New Mexico, USA
Department of Literature, University of Guadalajara, Mexico

SUMMARY

This book approaches the study of imperatives from a typological perspective, and 
it is organized as a comprehensive description of the features that imperatives 
share crosslinguistically.  Due to the exhaustiveness of the information covered, 
the author gives a limited amount of examples in the body of the text, and the 
information is complemented with more observations and examples in endnotes at 
the end of each chapter.
Chapter 1 presents the methodology and scope of the work. Here the author states
that the book is the result of the examination of nearly 700 grammars (p. 12),
complemented by her firsthand knowledge of languages as Tariana (Aikhenvald,
2003), a language spoken in the Amazon region, and Manambu, a language spoken in
Papua New Guinea (Aikhenvald, 2008). Aikhenvald opts for not constructing a
sample of any kind or for giving statistical counts. The author bases this
methodological decision on the fact that the number of documented languages is
relatively small compared to those languages yet not described: "what appears
rare to us at the present stage of knowledge may turn out to be frequent when we
start learning more about hitherto little-known languages and areas" (p. 12).
This first chapter also introduces two important pairs of distinctions. First,
there is the form-function distinction between imperatives and commands, the
former being a formal category in any language and the latter being the speech
act or the function of commanding. The second distinction is between canonical
and non-canonical imperatives. Only those imperatives that are directed towards
the addressee are considered canonical, and more specifically, only those that
use the second person singular. All other imperatives forms are seen as
non-canonical. 
The aforementioned distinction between canonical and non-canonical imperatives
is developed and justified in chapter 2, which presents us with numerous
examples of canonical imperatives. The author shows that they are
crosslinguistically more frequent and less marked than other imperative forms.
As a concluding remark, the author elaborates on some inferential universals,
e.g.: if a language has third person imperatives, we expect it to have at least
a hortative form as well (this is, an imperative form directed towards the
speaker and the addressee, see p. 76). In addition, other structural facts are
accounted for: e.g., how changing the subject can cause a change of the function
of the form (a change of the speech act). 
Chapter 3 describes the main properties that distinguish imperatives from other
sentence types. In summary, in the languages of the world the following specific
characteristics are often found: a) a special intonation contour; b) a different
order of constituents from that of interrogative and declarative sentences, and
c) the fact that verbal categories in imperatives can acquire meanings or
overtones of politeness and pragmatic force (p. 113). Following her
methodological principle, the author does not give any statistical count, but
only mentions those features as the most relevant in her corpora.
Chapter 4 discusses grammatical categories that tend to accompany imperative
forms. Crosslinguistically, imperatives tend to code fewer grammatical
categories than their corresponding declarative sentences. The most relevant
grammatical features found in imperatives are aspect, time, spatial distance,
directionality of action, and evidentiality, but all these categories appear in
a more limited fashion than in declarative utterances. For example, the
evidential markers that can appear in imperatives are often limited to those
reporting secondhand information (pp. 138ff.).
Chapter 5 is dedicated to the study of negative imperatives (also known as 
'prohibitives'). Here, the author observes that prohibitives can either resemble 
more closely positive imperatives or declarative sentences. They can also be 
more elaborate than positive imperatives, or they may be more grammatically 
simplified (p. 190). 
Chapter 6 approaches imperatives from the perspective of their relations to speech 
acts and politeness. The author notices that bare imperatives have the potential to 
express many different speech acts. She also observes that bare imperative forms 
tend to be less polite and have urgency overtones. Haiman's principle of iconicity 
is referred to several times throughout the book: "'the greater the politeness, the 
longer the message'" (p. 46, see also Haiman, 1983 and 1985). Systems of 
honorifics are also covered in this chapter.
Chapter 7 focuses on imperative usages other than commanding, such as blessings,
curses, greetings, statements, etc. One salient instance of those cases is the
'dramatic imperative' in Russian, which is used in narratives to "refer to
unexpected and spontaneous actions, without any implication whatsoever of a
command" (p. 248).  After presenting a survey on the diversity of imperative
functions across languages, the author concludes that many of these functions
reflect "a directive speech act," although not all them are commands (p. 252-253). 
Chapter 8 describes strategies for performing commands other than by using
imperative forms. The author concludes that it is "not the case that 'anything
goes' in any language" (p. 288) but that each language has its own pragmatic
conventions for performing indirect commands.
Chapter 9 expands on cultural relativity by showing how the use of imperatives can 
diverge across cultures. The author demonstrates that the pragmatics and 
semantics of imperatives are not universal, but usage of imperative forms varies 
according to the politeness conventions that each community has. This chapter 
also includes information on how children acquire commands.  She concludes that 
"early acquisition of command forms, including imperatives themselves and 
command strategies, is related to their frequency in carers' speech and to their 
formal simplicity" (p. 329). Thus, early acquisition of imperative forms is due to 
children's frequent exposure to these forms. 
Chapter 10 explains diachronic processes that produce imperative forms or cause
grammaticalization into imperative markers. Special attention is paid to the
formation of prohibitives and non-canonical imperatives, since it is considered
that canonical forms tend to resist change (p. 362). The author distinguishes
five sources of imperative formation: 1) desiderative and optative forms; 2)
future and intentional modality; 3) expressions of ability; 4) subjunctive and
hypothetical modal forms, and 5) processes of desubordination and incomplete
speech (p. 363).
Chapter 11 approaches the phenomenon of language contact. The author shows how
the tendency to being able to say what members of a neighboring speech community
can say in their language often urges a community to develop a more complex
imperative system than the one available through their own language. This
scenario is profusely illustrated with languages such as Tariana and its strong
contact with other languages in the Amazonian area. Another situation described
is that of a language losing some features of its imperatives because of
language contact. This is, for example, the case of Nivkh, a Siberian language,
which has lost its first person dual imperative because of its contact with
Russian (p. 383).
Chapter 12 summarizes the book's findings and provides some suggestions 
describing imperatives in a language. These suggestions are complemented with 
an appendix mainly addressed to field linguists. 

EVALUATION

This is an ambitious work which contains an impressive amount of data on many 
world languages. It is undoubtedly a valuable addition to a field of study which, 
surprisingly, has not been very well explored. The classic paper on speech acts in 
grammar by Sadock and Zwicky (1985) addressed some of the topics that are 
treated by Aikhenvald, such as the frequency of the elision of subject pronouns in 
imperatives, or the formal distinctions between prohibitives and positive 
imperatives. 
A further elaboration of these topics is König and Siemund's study (2007), which
describes other imperative-related constructions, such as hortatives and
optatives, which are also discussed in Aikhenvald's work. Xrakovskij (ed.)
(2001) had been so far the only existent volume on the topic of imperatives. It
contains two theoretical papers and 24 articles describing imperatives in
particular languages. The articles are arranged according to the structural
characteristics of imperatives in the languages in question: languages with
person and number paradigms in the imperative only and not in other moods, such
as Modern Japanese and Mongolian; languages with person and number paradigms in
both imperative and other moods, such as Javanese and Turkic languages;
languages with imperative paradigms which include the verb forms of other moods
as well, such as Modern Hebrew and German; languages with imperative paradigms
which include verb forms comprising auxiliary verbs, such as English and French,
and finally, languages without imperative paradigms, such as Vietnamese and
Cambodian. This book is more limited in scope, but also more straightforward
than Aikhenvald's work, which presents the data in a less organized manner, by
accumulating examples of the linguistic diversity she wants to convey. 
More decisive are the differences in the theoretical approaches taken in both
books: the first paper in Xrakovskij's volume is about the theoretical problems
in the study of imperative sentences. In this paper, Birjulin and Xrakovskij
challenge the traditional conception of imperatives as utterances directed to a
second-person who is also the agent of the verb and define imperatives more
broadly,  as a sentence that has 'prescription' as its semantic content.
Further, the other theoretical article included in this book (Dolinina, 2001),
argues that the imperative is not a verbal mood, but rather a speech act
category which 'frames' a proposition from the outside. Thus, from a theoretical
perspective, these papers can be considered more innovative than Aikhenvald's
more conservative approach. 
Methodologically,  Aikhenvald's decision of not constructing a sample clearly
limited the generalizations that could be extracted from the data. Her argument
for doing so is that our knowledge of the languages of the world is still very
poor, and any insights gained from the study of languages we know therefore
cannot be representative (p. 12). However, this argument can be reduced to the
following typological skepticism: If we had the descriptions of all languages of
the world, we still would be missing descriptions of languages that have already
disappeared, or even of languages that will exist in the future. Therefore, we
would never be able to make any generalizations at all. Not creating a sample
seems even more unusual if one notices that other monographs in the same series
(Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory) contain constructed samples
(e.g. Haspelmath, 1997; Cristofaro, 2003). 
In spite of her skepticism, the author makes some generalizations, e.g.: "No 
languages have been found which would have first person singular imperatives - 
but not non-singular or inclusive first person imperatives" (p. 53). These
generalizations can appear along with ad hoc explanations. For example, the
former statement is explained by a "predilection for including the addressee in
an imperative" (p. 53); and the occurrence of the verb in the first position in
many imperatives is attributed to the fact that  "the action should be more
important than the identity of those who are to perform it" (p. 93). 
Other explanations use more elaborated linguistic theories and concepts. However, 
the author tends to limit herself to the exposition of the main argument without 
exploring further implications. For example, on the issue of the grammaticalization 
of imperatives, the author observes that verbs "may evolve into grammatical 
markers" (p. 346) and cites some instances, without explaining the paths of 
grammaticalization that give rise to imperative forms.  
In summary, the extension of the topics and the amount of data covered give this
book the character of a handbook more than that of a monograph. It is
undoubtedly a very insightful reading, which will be of interest not only for
typologists but also for readers interested in the study of politeness,
(inter-cultural) pragmatics, and other formal and functional aspects of
imperatives and commands.

REFERENCES

Aikhenvald, A., Yuamali Ala, J., & Luma Laki, P. (2008). The Manambu language 
of East Sepik, Papua New Guinea. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Aikhenvald, A. (2003). A grammar of Tariana, from northwest Amazonia. 
Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Birjulin, L. A., & Xrakovskij, V. S. (2001). Imperative sentences: theoretical 
problems. In V. S. Xrakovskij (Ed.), Typology of imperative constructions (pp. 3-
50). München: Lincom Europa.

Cristofaro, S. (2003). Subordination. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Dolinina, I. B. (2001). The imperative paradigm: meaning and form. In V. S. 
Xrakovskij (Ed.), Typology of imperative constructions (pp. 501-509). München: 
Lincom Europa.

Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic and economic motivation. Language. 59(4), 781-819.

Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax : iconicity and erosion. Cambridge; New York: 
Cambridge University Press.

Haspelmath, M. (1997). Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press
König, E., & Siemund, P. (2007). Speech act distinctions in grammar. In T. 
Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 
276-324). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sadock, J. M., & Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. 
Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (Vol. 1, pp. 155-196). 
Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Xrakovskij, V. S. (Ed.). (2001). Typology of imperative constructions. München: 
Lincom Europa. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Hugo García is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Department of Linguistics at the
University of New Mexico, USA. He is also an Associate Professor of
Linguistics on leave at the Department of Literature at the University of
Guadalajara, Mexico. He received his M. A. in Applied Linguistics at the
University of Guadalajara and is currently completing his Doctorate in
Linguistics at the University of New Mexico. He is also a Teaching
Associate at the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of
New Mexico. His research has been mainly focused on pragmatics and more
specifically, on speech acts. He is currently working on an investigation
on the typology of sentence types. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $67,000. This money will go to help 
keep the List running by supporting all of our Student Editors for the coming year.

See below for donation instructions, and don't forget to check out Fund 
Drive 2011 site!

http://linguistlist.org/fund-drive/2011/

There are many ways to donate to LINGUIST!

You can donate right now using our secure credit card form at  
https://linguistlist.org/donation/donate/donate1.cfm

Alternatively you can also pledge right now and pay later. To do so, go to: 
https://linguistlist.org/donation/pledge/pledge1.cfm

For all information on donating and pledging, including information on how to 
donate by check, money order, or wire transfer, please visit: 
http://linguistlist.org/donation/

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Eastern Michigan University and as 
such can receive donations through the EMU Foundation, which is a registered 
501(c) Non Profit organization. Our Federal Tax number is 38-6005986. These 
donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your state tax return 
(U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact 
your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that they will match 
any gift you make to a non-profit organization. Normally this entails your 
contacting your human resources department and sending us a form that the 
EMU Foundation fills in and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple 
administrative procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without 
costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if your company 
operates such a program.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!

-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-22-1613	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/