Conditionalized Imperatives
Conditionalized Imperatives
复制标题
条件命令
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hong Zhou
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Schwager;Ede Zimmermann;Adrian Brasoveanu;Nicholas Asher;Tim Fernando;Michael Franke;James Higginbotham;Utpal Lahiri;Rick Nouwen;Hong Zhou
在讨论条件化祈使句之前，我想确保对“祈使句”有一个共同的理解，即作为Sadock和Zwicky（1985）意义上的一种从句类型。这意味着，对于给定的语言L，命令式将被用来表示L在句子级别上的一种形式类型，也就是说，其中的一个标记被原型地用于请求或命令。因此，它们被陈述句（用于断言），疑问句（用于信息查询问题）和某些语言的感叹句以及更多。解释这种小句类型系统的一个自然选择是假设它是语义编码的，在这个意义上，分配给特定句子层次形式的语义对象决定了它的原型用法。然后，通过说出该类型的标记所执行的实际言语行为由所表达的语义对象与话语的上下文的交互来确定。祈使句是众所周知的语义处理的问题，因为他们缺乏一个直接的链接到静态和动态语义的锚，即真/假和信息增长的概念。在这一点上，它们与疑问句不同，后者通过回答的概念与两者都成功地联系在一起。另一方面，与祈使句相关联的言语行为类型变化太大，以至于无法直接将它们与言语行为（理解为语义元素）或替代更新类型（因为它可以在动态框架中提出，参见。eg. Zarnic（2002），Mastop（2005））。当然，这种不明确的、最有可能是非命题性的状态，在将祈使句整合到更大的复合词中时是最有问题的，这确实是非常罕见的。例如，很少有语言允许祈使句出现在间接引语中（参见。Schwager（2005年b）供讨论）。祈使句是少数几种（跨语言）能很自然地出现的复杂句子类型之一，它是条件句：
Before talking about conditionalized imperatives, I want to ensure a common understanding of ‘imperative’, namely as a clause type in the sense of Sadock and Zwicky (1985). That means that for a given language L , imperative will be taken to denote one of L ’s form types at sentence level, namely the one tokens of which are prototypically used for REQUESTs or COMMANDs. As such they are paralleled by declaratives (used for ASSERTIONs), interrogatives (for informationseeking QUESTIONs) and for some languages also exclamatives and perhaps more. A natural choice for explaining this clause type system is to assume that it is encoded semantically, in the sense that the semantic object assigned to a particular sentence level form determines its prototypical usage. The actual speech act performed by uttering a token of that type is then determined by the interaction of the semantic object expressed with the context of utterance. Imperatives are wellknown to pose problems for a semantic treatment because they lack a straightforward link to both the anchor of static and dynamic semantics, namely the concepts of truth/falsity and of information growth. In that, they differ from interrogatives that have been linked quite successfully to both via the concept of answerhood. On the other hand, the speech act types associated with imperatives vary too widely in order to associate them in a straightforward way with a speech act (understood as a semantic element) or an alternative update type (as it can be proposed in a dynamic framework, cf. eg. Zarnic (2002), Mastop (2005)). This unclear and most likely non-propositional status is of course most problematic when it comes to (compositional) integration of imperatives into larger compounds, something which is very rare indeed. For example, very few languages allow for imperatives to occurr in indirect speech (cf. Schwager (2005b) for discussion). One of the very few complex sentence types in which (cross-linguistically) imperatives occur quite naturally are conditionals: