Seminario di Linguıstica LyCCMarch/4/2009

The Primitives of Force: Imperative Clauses

Daniela Isac

1 Introduction

Quebec French tu

(1) a. IlIt

faitdoes

-tu-TU

assezenough

beau?nice

‘Isn’t the weather nice?’

b. IlIt

faitdoes

-tu-TU

assezenough

beau!nice

‘Isn’t the weather nice!’

c. IlIt

faitdoes

(*-tu)(-TU)

assezenough

beau.nice

‘The weather is nice enough’

d. FaisDo.2.sg

(*-tu)-TU

tesyour

devoirs!homework

‘Do your homework!’

Such examples suggest that tu does not encode the interrogative Force feature, butrather a more abstract feature, that both interrogatives and exclamatives share.

1.1 Proposal:

• Force as such is not formally represented in the syntax (this is not a newobservation: Zanuttini and Portner 2003 a,b; Portner 2004, etc, but thearguments and the strategy of arguing are new)

• ingredients of Imperative Force: irrealis Modality and deontic Modality

• at least some instances of Head movement should be dealt with in themorpho-phonology

2 Imperatives and Modality

2.1 Some facts: Two contrasts

• Terminological point: Even though virtually any sentence can be used toexpress an order or a command given a particular context, there is a numberof sentences that can only be used as commands, no matter what the contextis. Our use of the term ‘imperative’ will cover this latter type of clauses.

2.2 True vs surrogate/suppletive imperatives.

Joseph and Philippaki Warburton 1987

• Morphologically, in true imperatives, the verb is drawn from a distinct verbalparadigm, which is used exclusively for giving orders, while in surrogateimperatives, the verb is taken from a morphological paradigm which canexpress an order or command, but not not necessarily so, for example thesubjunctive, the indicative or the infinitive. When these forms occur inan embedded clause, they can express both commands and non-commands.However, when these forms occur in a main clause, the expressed meaningis always an order or a command.

• Syntactically, true imperatives are assumed to have distinct structural prop-erties — they undergo raising to a high functional head, one which precedesthe position of clitics and of the negative marker , while surrogate ones adoptthe structural properties of their source morphological paradigms and do notraise as high as true imperatives. (Rivero 1994, Rivero and Terzi 1995)

(2) True Imperatives

a. DiavaseRead.IMP.2S

to!it.

(Greek)

‘Read it!’

b. *Den/Neg

miread.IMP.2S

diavase!

‘Don’t read!’

(3) Surrogate Imperatives

a. NaNA(SUBJ.prt)

tuhim

toit

stilis!send.SUBJ.2sg

(Greek)

‘You should send it to him!’

2

b. NaNA(SUBJ.prt)

minNeg.

tuhim

toit

stilis!send.SUBJ.2sg

‘You should not send it to him!’

2.3 Surrogate imperatives that can vs surrogate im-

peratives that must be negated

(4) Imperative forms that can be negated

a. Sa

SA(SUBJ.prt)

vii!come.SUBJ.2.s

(Romanian)

‘Come!’

b. Sa

SA(SUBJ.prt)

nunot

vii!come.SUBJ.2.s

‘Dont come!’

c. NaNA(SUBJ.prt)

tuhim

toit

stilis!send.SUBJ.2s

(Greek)

‘You should send it to him!’

d. NaNA(SUBJ.prt)

minNeg.

tuhim

toit

stilis!send.SUBJ.2s

‘You should not send it to him!’

(5) Imperative forms that must be negated

a. *Calcastep.INF

peon

iarba!the

(Romanian)grass

’Step on the grass!’

b. Nuneg

calcastep.INF.

peon

iarba!grass

‘Dont step on the grass!’

c. *Grafis!write.SUBJ.2.sg.

(Greek)

‘Write!’

d. Mi(n)neg

grafis!write.SUBJ.2.sg

‘Dont write!’

3

2.4 Towards a unified syntax of imperatives

Syntactically, the position occupied by the negative marker in (5.b,d) can also betaken by other lexical items.

• true imperatives

(6) a. Mi(n)neg

toit

grafis!write.SUBJ.2.sg

‘Don’t write it!

b. DiavaseRead.IMP.2S

to!it.

(Greek)

‘Read it!’

(7) a. NuNeg

teCL.refl.2.sg

ducecarry.INF

‘Don’t go!’

b. Ducarry.IMP.2.sg

-te!-CL.refl.2.sg

(Romanian)

‘Go!’

• subjunctive particles or infinitive particles

(8) NaSUBJ.prt

tuCL.3.s.Dat

toCL.3.s.Acc

stilissend.SUBJ.2.s

! (Greek)

‘Send it to him!’ (Philippaki-Warburton, 1998)

(9) a. SaSUBJ.prt

teCL.refl.2.sg

ducicarry

!

‘Go!’

b. AINF.prt

seCL.refl

manevrahandle

cuwith

grija!care

‘Handle with care!’

all the verbal forms illustrated in (6) to (9) share another property: they can allbe preceded by Focus constituents.

(10) a. MARIAMaria.FOC

saSUBJ.prt

vinacome

lato

sedinta,meeting,

nunot

Petre!Petre

(Romanian)

‘Its Mary who should come to the meeting, not Peter!’.

4

b. PeAcc.prt

MARIAMARIA.FOC

trimite-osend.IMP.2.sg-her

lato

cumparaturi,shopping,

nunot

peAcc

Petre!Petre

‘Send Maria shopping, not Petre!’

c. CAFEACOFFEE.FOC

nuneg

beadrink.INF

preatoo

multa!much

((

CeaiTea

potican.2.sg

saSUBJ.prt

beidrink

cathow-much

vrei)want.IND.2.sg)

‘It’s coffee you shouldn’t drink too much! (Tea you can drink as muchas you like)’

(11) a. ESIYOU.FOC

grapsewrite-IMP

to!it

(Greek)

‘You write it!’

b. TIACC

MARIAMARIA.FOC

proseche!watch-out-for.IMP

‘It is Mary you should watch out for’ (Philippaki-Warburton 1998)

c. ONon

WALLSwalls

minneg

grafis!write.SUBJ.2s

‘It’s on walls you shouldn’t write!’

To sum up:

• There is a set of items— true imperatives, subjunctive and infinitive par-ticles, as well as the negative marker— which occupy the same syntacticposition: in between Focus and the pronominal clitic. Let us call the pro-jection that hosts these items XP, a label that will be revised later on.

• all the sentences that contain an item in this position have a similar inter-pretation, i.e. they are all interpreted as expressing orders and this is theonly interpretation they can get.

3 Irrealis/realis Modality features

It doesn’t seem likely that what all these items share is an Imperative Force feature,since subjunctive particles like sa/na or infinitive particles like a, or the negativemarker can show up without an imperative interpretation when embedded.

5

(12) a. LeCL.3.pl.DAT

placelike.IND

saSUBJ.prt

seCL.refl.ACC

tundahair-cut.IND.3.pl

scurt.short

(Romanian)

‘They like to cut their hair short’

b. Ebe.3sg.Pres

posibilpossible

(ca(that

Ion)Ion)

saSUBJ.prt

fiebe.SUBJ.

laat

servici.(Romanian)work

‘It could be that Ion is at work’

c. AINF.prt

gresierr.INF

eis

omenestehuman

(Romanian)

‘To err is human’

d. Fandazomeimagine.1S.PRES

tonACC

KostaKostas

naPRT

tighanizifry.3S.IND

psaria.fishes

(Greek)

‘I vizualize Kostas frying fish.’ (Iatridou 1993)

e. Borican.3.sg

naSUBJ

minneg

exunhave.3.pl

kimiθislept

(Greek)

‘It is possible that they haven’t gone to bed yet’. (Janda and Joseph,p4, ex (4a))

f. Minneg

iδessaw.2.sg

tothe

peδichild

(Greek)

‘Did you perhaps (happen to) see the child’ (Janda and Joseph, p4, ex(4f))

The claim is that the relevant feature hosted in X0 and shared by all the itemsillustrated above is a Modality feature that comes to be valued as irrealis.Modality features can be valued either as

• realis—placing the event described by the verb in the real world, or

• irrealis, in which case the event described by the verb is evaluated againsta set of possible worlds (Roberts 1990:367).

The claim that negation is modal is supported by three observations.

• negation in Greek (and other languages).

Giannakidou 1997: den negates indicative clauses, whereas min negatessubjunctive and gerund clauses.

6

• Sasahira 2007: negative sentences lack any existential commitment to theexistence of the situation described by the clause that is being negated andas such they are modal. In particular, negative sentences are compatiblewith a whatever phrase, which lacks any commitment to the existence ofthe members of the domain of quantification. Such quantifiers have beendubbed by Dayal 1998 as essential quantifiers.

(13) Whatever the situation was, Peter didn’t eat Mary’s cookies.

• inter-sentential anaphora. Roberts 1989: a successful anaphoric linkage ispossible across a sentential boundary if the mood of both sentences is non-assertive, i.e. it does not commit the speaker to the existence of the referentsintroduced in the sentences (modal subordination).

(14) a. If john bought a booki , he’ll be home reading iti by now.

b. #Iti ’s a murder mystery.

(15) a. If John bought a booki , he’ll be home reading iti by now.

b. Iti ’ll be a murder mystery.

In both (14.a) and (15.a) the antecedent for the pronoun it is introduced ina non-assertive, non-factual context, i.e. in the antecedent of a conditional.If the continuation in the (b) sentence is in the same non-factual mood, asin (15.b), anaphoric linkage is possible, but if it is in an assertive mood, asin (14.b), anaphoric linkage is not possible.

(16) a. John didn’t buy a mystery novel i .

b. He would be reading it i by now.

c. # He is reading it i now.

(17) a. Peter might have bought a Porsche i .

b. There isn’t anyone who saw him driving it i though.

c. There is someone who saw him driving it i .

The pronoun in (16.b) can be interpreted as anaphorically related to theindefinite a mystery novel in (16.a), but it can’t in (16.c). Similarly, thepronoun in (17.b) can be anaphorically linked to the indefinite a Porschewithout assuming that Peter actually bought a Porsche or that there is aPorsche that Peter is associated with. In contrast, (17.c) can be felicitouslyuttered only if there is a Porsche that Peter is associated with.

7

• assume that all the items in XP in (6) to (9), as well as all the subjunctiveparticles, infinitive particles, and negative markers in the non-imperativecontexts in (12) share, namely a modality feature.

this captures what all these items have in common, but does not tell us anythingabout why only some of these forms (namely the ones in (6) to (9), but not theones in (12)), express orders or commands. Two factors contribute to this:

• First, the syntactic position of the respective form; only verbal forms thatreach a particular syntactic position —XP— carry the meaning of an orderor command.

• Second, notice that all the irrealis verbal forms in non-imperatives—(12)—occur in embedded clauses. This restriction will be reduced to a selectionalfeature on the matrix verbs. Thus, even if in some embedded clauses itcan be shown that the subjunctive or infinitive particle for example occura high position in the structure—in particular, that they are in the XP ofthe embedded clause— the embeded clause is not necessarily an imperativebecause the matrix verb selects for an XP with different features.

4 Accounting for the contrasts

4.1 Phases and edge features

Jayaseelan 2001, Starke 1993, 2001, Hallman 1997, 2000, Beghelli and Stowell1997, Sportiche 2002, Beletti 2003, Jelinek and Carnie 2003, Brody and Szabolcsi2003, Butler 2003, 2004:

• the the structure of a clause contains more than one phase: the layer offunctional structure that sits on top of the clause is reiterated lower downin the clause, at least on the top of the extended verbal layer (vP).

• each phase includes a predicative root, dominated by functional heads encod-ing variables (little v encodes a situational, temporally unachored variable,and little t a propositional variable) dominated in turn by a periphery (CP)layer containing operators that bind the situation or propositional variableand giving it referential status.

• a similar periphery layer can be found on top of the Aspectual Phrase.

8

(18) CP

C0 tP

t0 TP

T0 CP

C0 aspP

asp0 AspP

Asp0 CP

C0 vP

v0 VP

V0

• the CP layer contains quantificational projections: negation and modality.

4.1.1 Modality Phrases

McDowell 1987; Picallo 1990; Poletto 1993, Bresnan 1997; Roussou 1998; Cinque1999; Butler 2004, etc

• The lowest modality head will be assumed to host a Mood feature valuedas possibility, or root—[Mood: possibility], and quantifying over temporallyunanchored situations.

• the intermediary modality projection hosts a Modality feature which canbe valued either as realis—[Mod: realis]—or as irrealis—[Mod: irrealis],depending on whether the expressed proposition is factual or not. Giventhat imperatives are always non-factual, I will focus on irrealis Modality.

In addition, I will assume that the intermediary M also hosts a strong un-interpretable Mood feature—[*uMood: ]

• the highest Modality head quantifies over truth evaluable propositions andhosts a strong uninterpretable Modality feature—[*uMod:], as well as aspeaker oriented modality feature that I will call S(peaker) Mod(ality). This

9

latter feature encodes the speaker’s attitude towards the proposition ex-pressed by the clause, the speaker’s commitment to whether the expressedproposition is believable, obligatory, desirable, etc. I will take the two pos-sible values of SMod to be epistemic and deontic. If the speaker has evi-dence or is certain of the truth of the expressed proposition, then the valueof SMod is epistemic—epistemic modality operates over a truth evaluableproposition. If, on the other hand, the speaker has no evidence to committo the truth of the expressed proposition, but he commits to the realizationof the expressed proposition, or he requires or desires that the expressedproposition should be realized, SMod is valued as deontic.

Taking deontic and epistemic modality to be encoded morpho-syntactically,as values of the higher SMod feature, is not a view that all researchers agreewith. An alternative would be to take S(peaker) Modality to be contextdependent, by generalizing Kratzer’s 1979, 1981 account of modals as itemswhich are interpreted relative to the context or Conversational Background.In this view, the modal must in (19) below can be interpreted either asepistemic or as deontic, depending on the implicit assumptions taken forgranted in the context of utterance.

(19) John must not be the student who failed the exam.

If this sentence is uttered in a context in which the speaker makes a conclu-sion from what he/she knows, the modal is interpreted as epistemic. If, onthe other hand, this sentence is uttered in a situation in which the speakermakes a conclusion from the set of John’s responsibilities assumed in thecontext, the interpretation of the modal will be deontic.

Problem with Kratzer’s view: it leaves open the possibility of inter-preting any Modality as either epistemic or as deontic, depending on theproperties of the Conversational Background. However, in imperatives thereis no flexibility in the interpretation of Speaker Modality: the S Modalityof an imperative is always deontic, and never epistemic. Under a contex-tual view, it is unclear why the Conversational Background never inducesan epistemic interpretation of imperatives. This restriction can on the otherhand be easily accounted for under the view adopted here, that the SModof imperatives is valuated as deontic in the lexicon.

To conclude: imperatives have a deontic Modality feature which is partof the lexical specification of the higher Modality head, rather than an in-terpretation assigned in the course of relating the imperative clause to the

10

Conversational Background. The part that we believe is worked out by prag-matics, i.e. by relating the respective clause to the context/discourse, is theexact degree of commitment on the part of the speaker, i.e. whether it’s aweak commitment, like a desire of promise, or permission, or agreement, orwhether it is a stronger commitment like a request, or a threat. The com-mitment itself that the speaker has to the realization of the event, is encodedas a morpho-syntactic feature in our view, rather than as a pragmatic effect.

4.1.2 Negative Phrases

• Zanuttini 1991 discusses cross linguistic evidence for the existence of twopositions for negation—one higher than TP and one lower.

both of these positions give us sentential negation, i.e they both scope overpropositional domains—the T phase and the Asp phase.

• the lowest Neg will be assumed to be constituent negation since it operatesover temporally unanchored situations (little v introduces a situational, tem-porally unachored variable).

• the relevant projection hosting the negative marker is actually a PolarityPhrase, rather than a Negative Phrase.

• The features of the low Polarity head:

– a [Pol] feature, which will be set either as affirmative or as negative.

– an uninterpretable modality feature — [uMod:]

– an uninterpretable Mood feature —[uMood: ]

• [Pol:aff], [*uMod:], [uMood:]

• [Pol:aff], [uMod:], [uMood:]

• Head movement: triggered by uninterpretable strong features (Chomsky1993, 1995), or, by an affixal (morpho-phonological) feature?

• The higher Pol head:

– a Pol feature (valued either as affirmative or as negative)

– an uninterpretable modality feature—[uMod:].

• [Pol:aff], [*uMod:]

• [Pol:neg], [uMod:]

11

4.1.3 Summing up on edge features

Affirmative Polarity:

• low:

(20) MP

M0

[*uMod:][S.Mod:deontic]

TP

T0 MP

M0

[Mod:irrealis][*uMood:]

PolP

Pol0

[Pol:Aff][*uMod:][uMood:]

AspP

Asp0 MP

M0

[Mood:possib] vP

v0 VP

V0

• high:

(21) MP

M0

[*uMod:][S.Mod:deontic]

PolP

Pol0

[Pol:Aff][*uMod:]

TP

T0 MP

M0

[Mod:irrealis][*uMood:]

AspP

Asp0 MP

M0

[Mood:possib]

vP

v0 VP

V0

Negative Polarity:

• low:

12

(22) MP

M0

[*uMod:][S.Mod:deontic]

TP

T0 MP

M0

[Mod:irrealis][*uMood:]

PolP

Pol0

[Pol:Neg][uMod:][uMood:]

AspP

Asp0 MP

M0

[Mood:possib] vP

v0 VP

V0

• high:

(23) MP

M0

[*uMod:][S.Mod:deontic]

PolP

Pol0

[Pol:Neg][uMod:]

TP

T0 MP

M0

[Mod:irrealis][*uMood:]

AspP

Asp0 MP

M0

[Mood:possib]

vP

v0 VP

V0

Before we go through the derivations, three remarks are in order:

(i) I am assuming that Tense and Aspect do project in imperatives.

The assumption that Tense projects in imperatives is not uncontroversial.Zanuttini 1991 and Han 2000 for instance argue that Imperatives do notproject a TP, and Baltin 1993 argues that TP does not project in infinitiveseither. For the alternative view on the presence of Tense in infinitives, seeChomsky 1981, Stowell 1982, Pollock 1989, Zanuttini 1991.

13

On the other hand, the presence of Aspect in imperatives is supported by theexistence of perfect imperatives, as in (24.a,b), or of progressive imperatives,as in (24.c).

(24) a. Do at least have tried it before you begin to criticize (Davies1986, ch.1, 88)

b. Don’t have eaten everything before the guests arrive (Davies1986, ch.1, 89)

c. Be waiting for me in front of the gate (Han 2000, fn 8)

Moreover, in Classical Greek and Sanskrit, imperatives can be used not onlywith a simple, default aspect, but also in the aorist— an aspectual featureexpressing the momentary nature of the event.

(ii) there is a Mod feature that is shared by both Modality heads and Negativeheads in both the higher and in the intermediary phases.

(iii) none of the heads in the trees above hosts an Imperative Force feature perse. The [S.Mod:deontic] feature cannot be equated with an imperative Forcefeature, since not all deontic clauses are imperatives.

(25) a. They must clean their room before their parents allow them togo out.

b. Children must go to school at 5 years of age.

The examples above express obligation, and as such are interpreted as de-ontic. However, (25.a) is not interpreted as an imperative, and (25.b) couldbe interpreted as an imperative, but not necessarily so. Crucially, as dis-cussed in Zanuttini 2007, Potsdam 1998, Rupp 1999, 2003, Jensen 2003, etc.directives or imperatives involve a speaker as a source of obligation and anaddressee or set of addressees as the recipient of the request. Even if the im-perative contains an (overt) subject which is not 2nd person, the request isstill made to the addressee; the addressee is asked to see to it that a certainstate of affairs comes to hold.

In contrast, the source of obligation in the examples above is not the speaker,as in an imperative. In (25.a) the obligation springs from the parents, whilein (25.b) the source of obligation is, say, the law.

14

4.2 Accounting for the contrast between true vs sur-

rogate imperatives

• Whatever item raises to the highest M will end up incorporating the [S.Mod:deontic] feature, one of the features that is crucial for a clause to be inter-preted as imperative.

• all imperatives involve movement to the higher Mod, rather than simplymerging an item in the higher M. This claim extends not only to true im-peratives but also to surrogate ones.

• With true imperatives, the Mod feature is part of the feature matrix of theverb, and so it is the verb itself that raises to the higher M

• with surrogate imperatives, the Modality feature is part of the feature spec-ification of some other item (either a subjunctive or infinitive particle, or anegative marker). Suppletive forms thus show a division of labor betweenthe verb and an independent particle— the verb itself does not bear a Modal-ity feature and raises to a lower head, while the particle does bear such afeature, is merged in the intermediary M and raises to the high MP.

• In addition, a true imperative verb will be assumed to have a [SpeakerModality] feature which surrogate imperatives don’t have. This will capturethe fact that subjunctives and infinitives can occur without imperative force,whereas true imperative verbs can never be interpreted otherwise but withdirective, imperative force.

True imperatives in the affirmative:[*uMood:], [Mod: irrealis], and [*uS.Mod:].If the low Pol is projected:

• step 1: The [*uMood:] feature of the true imperative verb ([*uMood:], [Mod:irrealis], [*uS.Mod:]) can be checked and valued as possibility by the [Mood]feature of the lowest M head—[*uMood:possib]. Given that this feature isstrong, it will trigger V movement to the lowest M.

• step 2: Once in the low M position, the verb ([*uMood:possib], [Mod: ir-realis], [*uS.Mod:]) will be at the edge of the little v phase, from where itcould access the intermediary Pol ([Pol:aff], [*uMod:], [uMood:]) to checkthe latter’s [*uMod:] feature. The [*uMod:] feature of the low Pol willbe checked and valued as irrealis by the matching [Mod:irrealis] feature onthe verb— [*uMod:irrealis], and the [uMood:] feature of the low Pol willbe checked by Agree with the matching [Mood:possib] feature of the lowestM—[uMood:irrealis].

15

• step 3: The V ([*uMood:possib], [Mod: irrealis], [*uS.Mod:]) will be fur-ther attracted by the intermediary M ([Mod:irrealis],[*uMood:]), in order tocheck the latter’s [*uMood:] feature. This feature is checked and valued aspossibility by the matching Mood feature on the verb—[*uMood: possibility]

• step 4: The V ([*uMood:possib], [Mod: irrealis], [*uS.Mod:]) is furtherattracted to the highest M ([*uMod:], [SMod:deontic]) to check the latter’s[*uMod:] feature and value it as irrealis—[*uMod:irrealis]. In addition, the[*uSMod:] feature on the verb is checked and valued as deontic.

• the derivation converges

If the high Pol is projected, the derivation is the same, with the exceptionthat steps 2 and 3 above are reversed.

True imperatives in the negative:If the low Pol is projected:

• step 1: the same as above

• step 2: Once in the low M position, the verb ([*uMood:possib], [Mod: irre-alis], [*uS.Mod:]) will not be attracted by the low Pol ([Pol:neg], [uMod:],[uMood:]), given that nothing motivates this movement (the features of thenegative Pol head are all weak, and the strong uninterpretable [*uS.Mod:] onthe verb is not matched by any feature in the Pol head. The derivation willmerge the Pol head and the uninterpretable [uMod:] and [uMood:] featuresof Pol will be checked by Agree with the matching [Mod:irrealis] feature onthe verb and the [Mood:possibility] feature on the lowest M, respectively—[uMod: irrealis], [uMood:possib].

• step 3: the intermediary M ([Mod:irrealis],[*uMood:]) is merged and theclosest head with a matching interpretable Mood feature is attracted to theintermediary M, namely Pol ([Pol:neg], [uMod: irrealis], [uMood:possib]).

• step 4: the highest M is merged ([*uMod:], [SMod:deontic]) and its [*uMod:]feature attracts the closest head bearing a matching valued Mod feature,namely Pol ([Pol:neg], [uMod: irrealis], [uMood:possib]).

• the derivation crashes since the [*uSMod:] feature on the imperative verbremains unchecked.

If the high Pol is projected, the derivation is the same, except that steps 2 and 3are reversed.

16

The prediction of this analysis is that true imperatives cannot be negated, regard-less of whether Pol is projected high or low. The intuition is the same as thatexpressed in earlier works on imperatives (Rivero and Terzi 1995 for example),namely that negation has a blocking effect on the raising of a true imperative.

cases that seem to fall outside of this generalization.What is interesting is that although the clitic normally follows the imperative(Bulgarian and Cypriot are Tobler Mussafia languages, while for Macedonian thisorder applies only for nonfinite verbs), the clitic precedes the verb when negationis present. This indicates that the imperative verb stays low in the sequences[neg+CL+V] and that it is the high Pol head that raises to the higher M.

(26) a. Ceti-read.IMP-

ja!it.CL

(Bulgarian)

‘Read it!’

b. Neneg

jait.CL

ceti!read.IMP

‘Don’t read it!’

(27) a. NosiBring.IMP

mime.CL.DAT

goit.CL.ACC

! (Macedonian)

‘Bring it to me!’

b. *Mime.CL.DAT

goit.CL.ACC

nosi!bring.IMP

‘Bring it to me!’

(28) a. NeNeg

mime.CL.DAT

goit.CL.ACC

nosi!bring.IMP

‘Dont bring it to me!’

b. NeNeg

nosibring.IMP

mime.CL.DAT

go!it.CL.ACC

‘Dont bring it to me!’

The way in which these languages differ from languages in which true imper-atives cannot be negated is in the strength of the [uSMod:] feature on the trueimperative V. Given that this feature is weak, Agree will be enough in order tocheck it, and the derivation will converge.

17

Surrogate imperatives in the affirmativeSubjunctive and infinitive particles will be assumed to merge in the intermediaryM head and to bear a [Mod:irrealis] feature. The subjunctive/infinitive verb willbe assumed to bear a [*uMood:] feature which will be checked and valued by the[Mood:possibility] feature of the low M head.

If a low Pol ([Pol:aff], [*uMod:], [uMood:]) projects:

• step 1: the subjunctive/infinitive verb raises to the lowest M head to checkthe verb’s [*uMood:] feature and value it as possibility— [*uMood:possib].

• step 2: the low Pol ([Pol:aff], [*uMod:], [uMood:]) is merged. Its [uMood:]feature is checked by Agree with the [Mood:possib] feature in the lowest Mhead, and its [*uMod:] feature is put on hold.

• step 3: the intermediary M ([Mod:irrealis], [*uMood:]) is merged. Thestrong [*uMod:] feature on the low Pol is attracted by the matching [Mod:irrealis]feature on the intermediary M and checks it as irrealis—[*uMood:irrealis].The strong [*uMood:] feature on the intermediary M has the same effect,i.e. it attracts the closest head with a matching valued feature—the low Pol.

• step 4: the highest M is merged

• the derivation converges

if the low Pol is negative, the derivation is similar, except for the strength of the[uMod:] feature on Pol. Low Pol is attracted to the intermediary M anyway, giventhe latter’s strong [*uMood:] feature.

for these derivations, the intermediary M is phonologically instantiated as a sub-junctive or infinitive particle.

If a high Pol ([Pol:aff], [*uMod:]) projects:

• step 1: the same as above

• step 2: the intermediary M ([Mod:irrealis], [*uMood:]) is merged. Thestrong [*uMood:] feature on the intermediary M attracts the closest headwith a matching valued feature—the lowest M.

• step 3: the high Pol ([Pol:aff], [*uMod:]) is merged. Its [*uMod:] featureattracts the closest head with a matching feature, i.e. the intermediary M(which has already attracted and incorporated the lowest M)

18

• step 4: the resulting complex head is further attracted to the highest M

• the derivation converges

If the high Pol is set as negative, its [uMod:] feature does not attract theintermediary M, but is checked by Agree with the matching feature in intermediaryM—[uMod: irrealis]. The negative Pol head is then attracted to the highest M.

(29) a. Vreawants.IND

nunot

saSUBJ.PRT

vinacome

cibut

saSUBJ.PRT

plecego

(Macedonian)

‘He wants not to come but to leave’

b. *NuNot

oFUT

saSBJ.PRT

plecleave

‘I won’t leave’

The differences between true and surrogate imperatives in this analysis:

(i) True imperatives have an [S.Mod] feature, while surrogate ones don’t. Thiscaptures the fact that subjunctives and infinitives, but not true imperatives,can occur without imperative force.

(30) a. E posibil sa pleci la mare.

b. *E posibil pleaca la mare

At the same time, the presence of a [uS.Mod:] feature means that trueimperatives need to raise to a higher position than the landing position of araised surrogate verbal form (a subjunctive or an infinitive verb).

(ii) Both true imperatives and surrogate imperative forms eventually reach thesame (high) M position, but while in the case of true imperatives it is the verbitself that reaches this position, in the case of surrogate imperatives there isa division of labor between the verb itself, which raises to a lower M, and aModality particle which raises to the high M. This split between a verbal partand a particle explains why surrogate imperatives can be negated. Underthe assumption that these particles are merged higher than the negativemarker, negation does not interfere with the movement of the particle to thehigh M. On the other hand, a true imperative verb is merged very low, asthe head of the lexical VP, and in order to reach the higher M it will raiseto a number of intervening positions. If negation is present, it introduces arelativized minimality effect, as detailed above.

19

4.3 Loose ends:

• Not all surrogate imperatives are irrealis. Indicatives can also be used withimperative Force and their modality is realis rather than irrealis.

(31) a. Mananci

Eat.IND.2sgtot!all

‘You’ll eat everything!’

b. Teyou.Refl.CL

imbracidress.IND.2sg

inin

55

minute!minutes

‘You’re dressed up in 5 minutes!’

c. Beidrink.IND.2sg

bere!beer

‘You’ll drink beer!’

If the indicative is negated, the negative marker occurs in front of the in-dicative verb and in front of pronominal clitics. Taking the position ofpronominal clitics to be TP, this suggests that the verb itself does not raiseall the way up to the high M in these examples, but rather that it stays ina position which is at most as high as T.

4.4 Accounting for the contrast between impera-

tives that must vs imperatives that need not benegated

the Affirmative Polarity head is a clitic that needs a host that is phonologi-cally overt.

the position of the clitics in front of the infinitive verb and to the rightof the negative marker (if the latter is present) confirms this analysis. Asobserved by Zanuttini 1997, infinitives in Italian can be used as surrogateimperatives, and when they are, they allow for procliticization, unlike inother constructions with the infinitive.

(32) Nonnot

loit.CL

fare!do.INF

‘Dont do it!’

In languages in which such a contrast doesn’t exist, such as French, Italian,Dutch and German, the Affirmative head is not a phonological clitic.

20

(33) a. NichtNot

aufon

denthe

Rasengrass

Treten!step.INF

(on a grass lawn) (German)

Do not step on grass! (Sequeiros, 2002, p.109)

b. Hierhere

Klingen!ring.INF

(on a door bell)

Ring here! (German, Sequeiros, 2002, p.109)

(34) a. Fairemake.INF

developperdevelop

immediatementimmediately

lethe

filmfilm

expose!exposed

(French)

Immediately develop the exposed film! (Sequeiros, 2002, p.110)

b. NeNEG

pasNEG

fumer!smoke.INF

No smoking!

(35) BelichtingsmeterExposure-meter

opat

1000/211000/21

instellen!set.INF

(Dutch)

Set.inf your exposure meter to 1000/21! (Sequeiros, 2002, p.110)

(36) a. Osservareobserve.INF

lethe

istruzzoniinstructions

allegateattached

all/apparecchio!to-the

(Italian)camera

Follow the instructions provided with your camera! (Sequeiros,2002, p.110)

b. Nonneg

distruggeredestroy.INF

lethe

istruzzoniinstructions

allegateattached

all/apparecchio!to-the

camera

‘Dont destroy the instructions provided with your camera!’

4.5 Other loose ends

in the languages in the second group, the imperative reading of the infinitiveform obtains only if the subject of the infinitive is interpreted generically.This can be related to the absence of any inflectional morphology (including

21

phi features like person, gender or number) on the verb which is in theinfinitive. The subject of this infinitive verb is interpreted as a ‘default’arbitrary, generic one. And this is true both about the affirmative infinitivesand the negative ones.

(37) a. Osservareobserve.INF

lethe

istruzzoniinstructions

allegateattached

allto-the

apparecchio!camera

Follow the instructions provided with your camera! (Italian, Se-queiros, 2002, p.110)

b. Nonneg

distruggeredestroy.INF

lethe

istruzzoniinstructions

allegateattached

allto-the

apparecchio!camera

‘Dont destroy the instructions provided with your camera!’

(38) a. *Parlare!speak.INF.

(Italian)

‘Talk!’

b. Nonneg

parlare!speak.INF

‘Dont talk!’

(39) a. *Parler!speak.INF.

(French)

‘Talk!’

b. Neneg

pasneg

parler!speak.INF

(French)

‘Dont talk!’

5 Conclusions:

– Force as such is not formally represented in the syntax (this is not anew observation: Zanuttini and Portner 2003 a,b; Portner 2004, etc,but the arguments and the strategy of arguing are new)

– ingredients of Imperative Force: irrealis Modality and deontic Modality

– at least some instances of Head movement should be dealt with in themorpho-phonology

22

6 Bonus

Spanish subjunctives can be used with imperative force as in (40).

(40) Quethat

loit

escribais!write.SUBJ.2pl.

‘You just wite it!’

Crucially, subjunctives can be used in matrix clauses with imperative forceonly if they are precceded by que. Compare (40) to (42).

(41) *loit

escribais!write.SUBJ.2pl.

‘You just wite it!’

However, constructions like (42) can be ‘saved’ not only by que, but also bynegation.

(42) Noneg

loit

escribais!write.SUBJ.2pl.

‘Don’t write it!’

23