Natural Language Semantics 15 (4):351-383 (2007)

Authors
Abstract
Imperatives may be interpreted with many subvarieties of directive force, for example as orders, invitations, or pieces of advice. I argue that the range of meanings that imperatives can convey should be identified with the variety of interpretations that are possible for non-dynamic root modals (what I call ‘priority modals’), including deontic, bouletic, and teleological readings. This paper presents an analysis of the relationship between imperatives and priority modals in discourse which asserts that, just as declaratives contribute to the Common Ground and thus provide information relevant to the interpretation of epistemic modals in subsequent discourse, imperatives contribute to another component of the discourse context, the addressee’s To-Do List, which serves as a contextual resource for the interpretation of priority modals. This analysis predicts that the interpretation of imperatives and modals in discourse is constrained in surprising ways; these predictions are borne out.
Keywords Imperatives  Modality
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11050-007-9022-y
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,259
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals.David Kaplan - 1989 - In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press. pp. 481-563.
Themes From Kaplan.Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.) - 1989 - Oxford University Press.
Assertion.Robert Stalnaker - 1978 - Syntax and Semantics (New York Academic Press) 9:315-332.

View all 24 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

A Preference Semantics for Imperatives.William B. Starr - 2020 - Semantics and Pragmatics 20.
Abominable KK Failures.Kevin Dorst - 2019 - Mind 128 (512):1227-1259.
The Problem with the Frege–Geach Problem.Nate Charlow - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (3):635-665.

View all 80 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Expressivism Concerning Epistemic Modals.Benjamin Schnieder - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):601-615.
Fallibilism and the Flexibility of Epistemic Modals.Charity Anderson - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (3):597-606.
A Preference Semantics for Imperatives.William B. Starr - 2020 - Semantics and Pragmatics 20.
Suppose Yalcin is Wrong About Epistemic Modals.Joshua D. Crabill - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 162 (3):625-635.
Wondering What Might Be.Moritz Schulz - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 149 (3):367 - 386.
More on Epistemic Modals.Seth Yalcin - 2009 - Mind 118 (471):785-793.
Epistemic Modals in Context.Andy Egan, John Hawthorne & Brian Weatherson - 2005 - In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 131-170.
Realizing What Might Be.Malte Willer - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 153 (3):365 - 375.
On the Interaction of Aspect and Modal Auxiliaries.Valentine Hacquard - 2009 - Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (3):279-315.
Modals Without Scales.Amy Rose Deal - 2011 - Language 87 (3):559-585.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-01-25

Total views
320 ( #33,280 of 2,518,488 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #116,900 of 2,518,488 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes