The Semantics of Imperatives within a Theory of Clause Types
The Semantics of Imperatives within a Theory of Clause Types
复制标题
从句类型理论中祈使句的语义
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Portner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Portner
要求与份额之间的对比使问题很好。这两种类型在功能上非常相似：当务之急，在收件人身上需要一个要求，而应许的扬声器要求扬声器。然而，必须普遍（至少非常普遍），而份量极为罕见。给出这种对比的功能解释似乎并不容易，因此，询问从句法或语义理论方面的解释是合理的。条款当然可以以多种方式进行分类，因此，对从子句类型系统进行研究的必要前提是要有一个定义，该定义明确了我们要考虑哪些类型的类型。 Sadock＆Zwicky（1 985）提供了合适的定义。根据他们的说法，子句类型是通用的，形成了一个封闭的系统，并且与特定力相关联。我们应该从上述（1）方面了解普遍性的财产；主要类型是通用的，而其他类型具有值得注意的类型特性。说构成封闭系统的子句类型是说每个句子都是一种且仅是一种类型的成员。例如，这意味着指示性情绪不是相关意义上的子句类型，因为根宣言和疑问词通常既是声明性/疑问性又是指示性的。最常调用的力的概念，尤其是在语法文献中，是iellicationary力量的概念，但这不是准确的。 Illocivicleary Force是一种交流的概念，因此（2）以刻板印象的方式使用，具有请求的力量，而不是要求。
The contrast between imperatives and promissives brings out the issue well. These two types are functionally very similar: An imperative places a requirement on the addressee, while a promissive places a requirement on the speaker. Yet imperatives are apparently universal (and at least extremely common), while promissives are extremely rare. It does not seem easy to give a functional explanation for this contrast, and so in is reasonable to inquire into whether an explanation in terms of syntactic or semantic theory is possible. Clauses may of course be categorized in a wide variety of ways, and so it is a necessary precondition to the study of clause type systems to have a definition which makes clear which types of types we have in mind. Sadock & Zwicky ( 1 985) provide a suitable definition. According to them, clause types are universal, form a closed system, and are associated with a specific force. We should understand the property of universality in terms of ( 1 ) above; the major types are universal , whereas the others have noteworthy typological properties. Saying that clause types form a closed system is to say that every sentence is a member of one and only one type. This implies , for example, that the indicative mood is not a clause type in the relevant sense, since root declaratives and interrogatives are typically both declarative/interrogative and indicative. The concept of force most frequently invoked, especially in the syntax literature, is that of illocutionary force, but this is not accurate. Illocutionary force is a communicative-intentional concept, so that (2), used in its stereotypical way, has the force of requesting, not asking.