Clause Types

doi:10.1017/9781009179362.020

18 - Clause Types

from Part II - Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026

Raffaella Zanuttini ,

Paul Portner and

Edited by

Norbert Corver and

Sjef Barbiers: Affiliation:
Universiteit Leiden
Norbert Corver: Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht
Maria Polinsky: Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter introduces the concept of clause type: a syntactic classification of clauses according to the kind of conversational effect (also known as sentential force) they canonically have when used as root sentences. Scholars traditionally identify three major types (interrogatives, declaratives, and imperatives) alongside several minor types. We review different theoretical approaches to clause types, emphasizing two important dimensions that distinguish them: whether they assume classical speech act theory or a version of the dynamic approach to meaning; and how they assume the conversational function of root sentences to arise at the syntax–semantics interface. We then highlight some of the most important morphosyntactic properties of the major clause types. For interrogatives, we discuss polar, wh-, and non-canonical questions. With regard to declaratives, we discuss whether they are in some sense the default type, and what this means for the syntax–semantics interface. In our review of imperatives, we discuss the special properties of their subjects, restrictions on embeddability and on sentential negation, and their verbal morphology.

Keywords

clause type declarative interrogative imperative force speech acts

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 568 - 610

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009179362.020 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2010. Imperatives and Commands [Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2016. Sentence types. In Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood [Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics], 141–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y., and Dixon, R. M. W.. 2017. The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology [Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Altmann, H. 1987. Zur Problematik der Konstitution von Satzmodi als Formtypen. In Meibauer, J. (ed.), Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik, 22–56. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Aoun, J., and Li, Y.. 1993. WH-elements in situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24(2): 199–238.Google Scholar

Austin, J. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bach, E. 1971. Questions. Linguistic Inquiry 2(2): 153–166.Google Scholar

Bach, K., and Harnish, R. M.. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Baker, C. L. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6(2): 197–219.Google Scholar

Bar-Asher Siegal, E. A. 2022. Presentative datives in Modern Hebrew. In Boneh, N., Harbour, D., Matushansky, O., and Roy, I. (eds.), Building on Babel’s Rubble, 337–355. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar

Belletti, A., and Rizzi, L.. 1996. Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Benincà, P. 1996. La struttura della frase esclamativa alla luce del dialetto padovano. In Benincà, P., Cinque, G., De Mauro, T., and Vincent, N. (eds.), Italiano e dialetti nel tempo: Saggi di grammatica per Giulio C. Lepschy, 23–43. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar

Bennis, H. 2006. Agreement, pro and imperatives. In Ackema, P., Brandt, P., Schoorlemmer, M., and Weerman, F. (eds.), Arguments and Agreement, 101–123. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bennis, H. 2007. Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives. In van der Wurff, W. (ed.), Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar: Studies Offered to Frits Beukema [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 103], 113–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Beukema, F., and Coopmans, P.. 1989. A Government-Binding perspective on the imperative in English. Journal of Linguistics 25: 417–436.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bhatt, R. 1999. Covert Modality in Non-Finite Contexts. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Bierwisch, M. 1980. Semantic structure and illocutionary force. In Searle, J. R., Kiefer, F., and Bierwisch, M. (eds.), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, 1–35. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Boër, S. E., and Lycan, W.G.. 1980. A performadox in truth-conditional semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(1): 1–46.CrossRef Google Scholar

Borkin, A. 1971. Polarity items in questions. In Proceedings of the 7th Regional Meeting, 53–62. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society Publications.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. 2000. Sometimes in [Spec,CP], sometimes in situ. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 53–87. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. 2002. On multiple Wh fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 351–383.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bouchard, D. 1988. French voici/voilà and the analysis of pro-drop. Language 64(1): 89–100.CrossRef Google Scholar

Breeze, M. J. 1990. A sketch of the phonology and grammar of Gimira (Benchon). In Hayward, R. J. (ed.), Omotic Language Studies, 1–67. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. 1970. On complementizers: Toward a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6: 297–321.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. 1972. Theory of Complementation in English Syntax. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

Caponigro, I., and Sprouse, J.. 2007. Rhetorical questions as questions. In Proceedings from Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 11, 121–133, Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar

Charlow, N. 2011. Practical Language: Its Meaning and Use. PhD thesis, University of Michigan.Google Scholar

Chen-Main, J. 2005. Characteristics of Mandarin imperatives. In Brandstetter, C. and Rus, D. (eds.), Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, vol. IV, 1–51. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Cheng, L. L.-S. 1991. On the Typology of WH-Questions. PhD thesis, MIT [reprinted as Cheng 1997].Google Scholar

Cheng, L. L.-S. 1997. On the Typology of WH-Questions. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. 1984. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G., and McConnell-Ginet, S.. 1990. Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., and Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N., and Lasnik, H.. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar

Comoroski, I. 1986. Multiple WH movement in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 171–177.Google Scholar

Comorovski, I. 1996. Interrogative Phrases at the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Condoravdi, C., and Lauer, S.. 2011. Performative verbs and performative acts. In Reich, I., Horch, E., and Pauly, D. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, 149–164. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press.Google Scholar

Crnič, L., and Trinh, T.. 2009. Embedding imperatives in English. In Riester, A. and Solstad, T. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 13, 113–127. University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Davies, E. 1986. The English Imperative [Croom Helm Linguistics Series]. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Dayal, V. 1996. Locality in WH Quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dayal, V. 2016. Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

den Dikken, M. 1992. Empty operator movement in Dutch imperatives. Language and Cognition 2: 51–64.Google Scholar

Dol, P. 1999. A Grammar of Maybrat: A Language of the Bird’s Head, Irian Jaya, Indonesia. PhD thesis, University of Leiden, NL.Google Scholar

Donati, C., Barberà, G., Branchini, C., Cecchetto, C., and Quer, J.. 2017. Searching for imperatives in European sign languages. In Van Olmen, D. and Heinold, S. (eds.), Imperatives and Directive Strategies, 111–155. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Downing, B. T. 1969. Vocatives and third-person imperatives in English. Papers in Linguistics 1(3): 570–592.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dryer, M. 2005. Polar questions. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D., and Comrie, B. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures, 470–473. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dudman, V. H. 1970. Frege’s judgment-stroke. The Philosophical Quarterly 20(79): 150–161.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dudman, V. H. 1972. Frege on assertion. The Philosophical Quarterly 22(86): 61–64.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dvořák, B., and Zimmermann, I.. 2008. Imperative subordination in Slovenian. In Smirnova, A. and Curtis, M. (eds.), Issues in Slavic Syntax and Semantics, 14–34. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Everett, D. I. 1986. Pirahã. In Derbyshire, D. C. and Pullum, G. K. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian Languages, vol. 1, 200–325. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Farkas, D. F., and Bruce, K. B.. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27(1): 81–118.CrossRef Google Scholar

Farkas, D. F., and Roelofsen, F.. 2017. Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives. Journal of Semantics 34(2): 237–289.Google Scholar

Frayzyngier, Z. 2016. Modality and mood in Chadic. In Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Frege, G. et al. 1879. Begriffsschrift, a formula language, modeled upon that of arithmetic, for pure thought. In From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1931: 1–82.Google Scholar

Gazdar, G. 1981. Speech act assignment. In Joshi, A., Weber, B. H., and Sag, I.A. (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding, 64–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ginzburg, J., and Sag, I.. 2001. Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Imperatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, J. 1977. English Wh-Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts. Amherst.Google Scholar

Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M., and Veltman, F.. 1996. Coreference and modality. In Lappin, S. (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 179–213. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Guerzoni, E. 2004. Even-NPIs in yes/no questions. Natural Language Semantics 12(4): 319–343.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gunlogson, C. 2003. True to Form: Rising and Falling Declaratives as Questions in English. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. 1997. Negative polarity licensing and the rhetorical interpretation of questions. In Proceedings of the 25th Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL), 47–61, Fresno, CA. California State University.Google Scholar

Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. 2008. Spanish root exclamatives at the syntax/semantics interface. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 7: 117–133.CrossRef Google Scholar

Haas, M. 1940. Tunica. New York: J. J. Augustin.Google Scholar

Hamblin, C. 1971. Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37(2): 130–155.CrossRef Google Scholar

Han, C.-H. 1998. The Syntax and Semantics of Imperatives and Related Constructions. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Han, C.-H. 2001. Force, negation and imperatives. The Linguistic Review 18(4): 289–325.CrossRef Google Scholar

Han, K. 2002. Hyuntay wulimal-uy nopimpep yenkwu (Study on the Honorifics of Modern Korean). Seoul: Yeklak Publishing.Google Scholar

Hasegawa, N. 1991. Affirmative polarity items and negation in Japanese. In Georgopoulos, C. and Ishihara, R. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, 271–284. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D., and Comrie, B.. 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar

Horvath, J. 1981. Aspects of Hungarian Syntax and the Theory of Grammar. PhD thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Horvath, J. 1997. The status of “Wh-expletives” and the partial Wh-movement construction in Hungarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15(3): 509–572.CrossRef Google Scholar

Huang, J. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

Huddleston, R. D., and Pullum, G. K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Iatridou, S. 2021. Negation-licensed commands. Linguistic Inquiry 52(3): 519–550.CrossRef Google Scholar

Iwata, S. 2003. Echo questions are interrogatives? Another version of a metarepresentational analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(2): 185–254.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jensen, B. 2003a. Imperatives in English and Scandinavian. PhD thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar

Jensen, B. 2003b. Syntax and semantics of imperative subjects. Nordlyd 31(1): 150–164.Google Scholar

Katz, J. J., and Postal, P. M.. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kaufmann, M. 2012. Interpreting Imperatives [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 88]. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kaufmann, M. 2014. Embedded Imperatives across Languages: Too Rare to Expect, Too Frequent to Ban. Handout, Colloquium, Department of Linguistics, SUNY Stony Brook.Google Scholar

Kaufmann, M., and Poschmann, C.. 2013. Embedded imperatives: Empirical evidence from colloquial German. Language 89(3): 619–637.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kayne, R. S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 25]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. S. 2005. Movement and Silence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kayne, R. S., and Pollock, J.-Y.. 2001. New thoughts on stylistic inversion. In Hulk, A. and Pollock, J.-Y. (eds.), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, 107–162. New York: Oxford University Press. Reprinted in Kayne 2005, Ch. 1.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kayne, R. S., and Pollock, J.-Y.. 2010. Locality and agreement in French hyper-complex inversion. In Hulk, A. C.-J. and Pollock, J.-Y. (eds.), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, 107–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kellert, O. 2017. Interrogatives. In Dufter, A. and Stark, E. (eds.), Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, 569–602. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kidwai, A. 2000. XP-Adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and Binding in Hindi-Urdu [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax]. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

König, E., and Siemund, P.. 2007. Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1, 276–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Krifka, M. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9: 1–40.CrossRef Google Scholar

Krifka, M. 2014. Embedding illocutionary acts. In Roeper, T. and Speas, M. (eds.), Recursion: Complexity in Cognition, 59–88. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Krifka, M. 2021. Layers of assertive clauses: Propositions, judgements, commitments, acts. In Hartmann, J. M. and Wöllstein, A. (eds.), Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich: Theorie und Empirie / Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues, 115–181. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese language. PhD thesis, MIT. Reprinted as Kuroda 1979.Google Scholar

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1979. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Ladd, R. D. 1981. A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. In Hendrick, R. A., Masek, C. S., and Miller, M. F. (eds.), Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting, 164–171. Chicago, IL. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Ladusaw, W. A. 1980. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lasnik, H., and Saito, M.. 1992. Move Alpha: Conditions on Its Application and Output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Leben, W. 1989. Intonation in Chadic: An overview. In Frayzyngier, Z. (ed.), Current Progress in Chadic Linguistics, 199–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lewis, D. 1970. General semantics. Synthese 22: 18–67.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lohnstein, H. 2007. On clause types and sentential force. Linguistische Berichte 209: 63–86.Google Scholar

Mahajan, A. 1990. The A/A-Bar Distinction and Movement Theory. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

Mastop, R. 2005. What Can You Do? Imperative Mood in Semantic Theory. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Mauck, S. 2005. Notes on the Typology of Imperatives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

McCloskey, J. 1996. On the scope of verb movement in Irish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14(1): 47–104.CrossRef Google Scholar

Medeiros, D. J. 2015. Embedded Ancient Greek imperatives: A feature transfer analysis. Syntax 18(2): 124–156.CrossRef Google Scholar

Michaelis, L. 2001. Exclamative constructions. In Ungeheuer, G. (ed.), Language Typology and Language Universals, vol. 2, 1038–1050. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Michaelis, L. A., and Lambrecht, K.. 1996a. Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72(2): 215–47.CrossRef Google Scholar

Michaelis, L., and Lambrecht, K.. 1996b. The exclamative sentence type in English. In Goldberg, A. (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, 375–389. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Morin, Y.-C. 1985. On the two French subjectless verbs voici and voilà. Language 61(4): 777–820.CrossRef Google Scholar

Morin, Y.-C. 1988. French voici and voilà: A reply to Bouchard. Language 64(1): 101–103.CrossRef Google Scholar

Munaro, N., and Pollock, J.-Y.. 2005. Qu’est-ce que (qu)-est-ce que? A case study in comparative Romance interrogative syntax. In Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, 542–606. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Murray, S. E., and Starr, W. B.. 2021. The structure of communicative acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 44(2): 425–474.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nettle, D. 1998. The Fyem Language of Northern Nigeria. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Nishigauchi, T. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nishigauchi, T. 1999. Quantification and wh-constructions. In Tsujimura, N. (ed.), The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 269–296. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Noh, E.-J. 1998. Echo questions: Metarepresentation and pragmatic enrichment. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(6): 603–628.CrossRef Google Scholar

Obenauer, H.-G. 1994. Aspects de la syntaxe A-barre: Effets d’intervention et mouvements des quantifieurs. PhD thesis, Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar

Obenauer, H.-G. 2004. Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto. In Lohnstein, H. and Trissler, S. (eds.), The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, 343–384. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRef Google Scholar

Olmen, D. V., and van der Auwera, J.. 2016. Modality and mood in standard average European. In Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Oshima, D. Y. 2006. Perspectives in Reported Discourse. PhD thesis, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar

Pak, M. 2008. Types of clauses and sentence end particles in Korean. Korean Linguistics 14: 113–155.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pak, M., Portner, P., and Zanuttini, R.. 2004. Deriving clause types: Focusing on Korean. In Proceedings of Linguistic Society of Korea. 2004 [Yonsei Institute of Language and Information Studies], 359–368, Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar

Pak, M., Portner, P., and Zanuttini, R.. 2008a. Agreement and the subjects of jussive clauses in Korean. In Elfner, E. and Walkow, M. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 37, vol. 2, 127–138, Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar

Pak, M., Portner, P., and Zanuttini, R.. 2008b. Agreement in promissive, imperative, and exhortative clauses. Korean Linguistics 14: 157–175.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pak, M., Portner, P., and Zanuttini, R.. 2024. Restrictions on indexicals in directive clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 55(3): 643–657.CrossRef Google Scholar

Palmer, F. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Perniss, P., Pfau, R., and Steinbach, M.. 2007. Visible Variation: Comparative Studies on Sign Language Structure, vol. 188. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. 1987. Wh-in situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, E. and A. ter Meulen, (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Platzack, C. 2007. Embedded imperatives. In van der Wurff, W. (ed.), Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar: Studies Offered to Frits Beukema [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 103], 181–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Platzack, C., and Rosengren, I.. 1994. On the subject of imperatives. A Minimalist account of the imperative pronoun and negated imperatives. Sprache und Pragmatik 34: 26–67.Google Scholar

Platzack, C., and Rosengren, I.. 1998. On the subject of imperatives: A Minimalist account of the imperative clause. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1(3): 177–224.CrossRef Google Scholar

Porhiel, S. 2012. The presentative voici/voilà: Towards a pragmatic definition. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 435–452.CrossRef Google Scholar

Portner, P. 2004. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In Watanabe, K. and Young, R. B. (eds.), Proceedings from SALT XIV, 235–252, Ithaca, NY. CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Portner, P. 2007. Instructions for interpretation as separate performatives. In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: Generalizations across Languages, 407–425. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Portner, P. 2018. Mood [Oxford Surveys in Semantics and Pragmatics]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Portner, P., Pak, M., and Zanuttini, R.. 2019a. The speaker–addressee relation at the syntax–semantics interface. Language 95(1): 1–36.CrossRef Google Scholar

Portner, P., Pak, M., and Zanuttini, R.. 2019b. The speaker–addressee relation in imperatives. In Bondarenko, T., Davis, C., and Privoznov, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL14), [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 90], 219–238, Cambridge, MA. MITWPL.Google Scholar

Potsdam, E. 1996. Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative. PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar

Potsdam, E. 1998. Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative [Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics]. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Reese, B. 2007. Bias in Questions. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar

Reese, B., and Asher, N.. 2010. Biased questions, intonation, and discourse. In Zimmermann, M. and Féry, C. (eds.), Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives, 139–174. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.Google Scholar

Reis, M. 1999. On sentence types in German: An enquiry into the relationship between grammar and pragmatics. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 4(2): 195–236.Google Scholar

Reis, M. 2003. On the form and interpretation of German wh–infinitives. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15(2): 155–201.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rett, J. 2011. Exclamatives, degrees and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 34(5): 411–442.CrossRef Google Scholar

Richards, N. 2001. Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rivero, M. L., and Terzi, A.. 1995. Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood. Journal of Linguistics 31: 301–332.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rizzi, L., and Roberts, I.. 1989. Complex inversion in French. Probus 1: 1–30. Reprinted in Belletti and Rizzi 1996.CrossRef Google Scholar

Roberts, C. 1987. Modal Subordination, Anaphora, and Distributivity. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Roberts, C. 2004. Context in dynamic interpretation. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics [Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics 16], 197–220. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Rohde, H. 2006. Rhetorical questions as redundant interrogatives. In San Diego Linguistics Papers, vol. 2, 134–168. San Diego, CA: University of California.Google Scholar

Romero, M., and Han, C.-H.. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 609–658.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rooryck, J. 1991. Deriving negative and factive islands without the ECP. In Dobrin, L. M., Nichols, L., and Rodriguez, R. M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Parasession on Negation, CLS 27. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Ross, J. R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 222–272. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar

Ross, J. R. H. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD thesis, MIT. Published 1986 as Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Rudin, C. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple Wh fronting. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6(4): 445–501.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rudin, C. 2013. Aspects of Bulgarian Syntax: Complementizers and WH Constructions. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar

Rupp, L. 1999. Aspects of the Syntax of English Imperatives. PhD thesis, University of Essex.Google Scholar

Rupp, L. 2003. The Syntax of Imperatives in English and Germanic: Word Order Variation in the Minimalist Framework. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rus, D. 2005. Embedded imperatives in Slovenian. In Brandstetter, C. and Rus, D. (eds.), Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, vol. IV, 153–183. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Sabel, J. 2006. Partial wh- movement and the typology of wh- questions. In Lutz, U., Müller, G., and A. von Stechow, (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking, 409–446. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sabel, J. 2020. P and the emergence of the infinitival Left Periphery. In Garzonio, J. and Rossi, S. (eds.), Variation in P: Comparative Approaches to Adpositional Phrases [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax], 313–322. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sadka, Y. 2001. Hinne in Biblical Hebrew. Ugarit-Forschungen 33: 479–493.Google Scholar

Sadock, J. M. 1971. Queclaratives. In Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 223–231. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Sadock, J. M. 1974. Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Sadock, J. M., and Zwicky, A.. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schmerling, S. 1982. How imperatives are special, and how they aren’t. In Schneider, R., Tuite, K., and Chameltzy, R. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Nondeclaratives. Chicago, IL. Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Schwager, M. 2007. Conditionalized imperatives. In Tancredi, C., Kanazawa, M., Imani, I., and Kusumoto, K. (eds.), Proceedings from SALT XVI, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Searle, J. 1965. What is a speech act? In Black, M. (ed.), Philosophy in America, 221–239. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar

Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Searle, J., and Vanderveken, D.. 1985. The Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sheppard, M. M., and Golden, M.. 2002. (Negative) imperatives in Slovene. In Barbiers, S., Beukema, F., and van der Wurff, W. (eds.), Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 47], 245–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Siemund, P. 2018. Speech Acts and Clause Types: English in a Cross-Linguistic Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sobin, N. 2010. Echo questions in the Minimalist Program. Linguistic Inquiry 41(1): 131–148.CrossRef Google Scholar

Speas, M., and Tenny, C. L.. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Di Sciullo, A. M. (ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar, vol. 1, 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. 1978. Assertion. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics, 315–332. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. 2014. Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. 2018. Dynamic pragmatics, static semantics. In Fogel, D., Harris, D., and Moss, M. (eds.), New Work on Speech Acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Starr, W. B. 2020. A preference semantics for imperatives. Semantics and Pragmatics 13: 62020. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.6.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stegovec, A. 2019. Perspectival control and obviation in directive clauses. Natural Language Semantics 27(1): 47–94.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stegovec, A., and Kaufmann, M.. 2015. Slovenian imperatives: You can’t always embed what you want! In Csipak, E. and Zeijlstra, H. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 621–638, Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar

Stenius, E. 1967. Mood and language game. Synthese 17: 254–274.CrossRef Google Scholar

Thomas, G. 2014. Embedded imperatives in Mbyà. In Huang, H.-L., Poole, E., and Rysling, A. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 43, 181–194, Amherst, MA. GLSA Publications.Google Scholar

Thompson, L. C. 1965. A Vietnamese Grammar. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar

Thoms, G., Adger, D., Heycock, C., and Smith, J.. 2019. Syntactic variation and auxiliary contraction: The surprising case of Scots. Language 95(3): 421–455.CrossRef Google Scholar

Truckenbrodt, H. 2006. On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics 32(3): 257–306.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tsai, W. 1994. On nominal islands and LF extraction in Chinese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12: 121–175.CrossRef Google Scholar

van den Berg, H. 1995. A Grammar of Hunzib. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

van der Auwera, J., and Lejeune, L.. 2005. The morphological imperative. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D., and Comrie, B. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures, Ch. 70, 286–287. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Villalba, X. 2017. Exclamatives, imperatives, optatives. In Dufter, A. and Stark, E. (eds.), Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, 603–646. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRef Google Scholar

Villalba, X., and Trotzke, A.. 2020. Expressive insubordination: A cross-linguistic study on that-exclamatives. In Trotzke, A. and Villalba, X. (eds.), Expressive Meaning across Linguistic Levels and Frameworks, 108–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wachowicz, K. A. 1974. Against the universality of a single Wh-question movement. Foundations of Language 11(2): 155–166.Google Scholar

Watanabe, A. 1992. Subjacency and S-Structure movement of Wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 255–291.CrossRef Google Scholar

Watanabe, A. 2001. Wh-in-situ languages. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 203–225. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRef Google Scholar

Watkins, L. 1984. A Grammar of Kiowa. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Wechsler, S. 1989. Verb second and illocutionary force. In Leffel, K. and Bouchard, D. (eds.), Views on Phrase Structure, 177–191. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Wilder, C. 1989. The Syntax of German Infinitives. PhD thesis, University of London.Google Scholar

Wood, J., and Zanuttini, R.. 2023. The syntax of English presentatives. Language 99(3): 563–602.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zanuttini, R. 1997. Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zanuttini, R. 2008. Encoding the addressee in the syntax: Evidence from English imperative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26(1): 185–218.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zanuttini, R. 2017. Presentatives and the left-periphery. In Aboh, E., Haeberli, E., Puskás, G., and Schönenberger, M. (eds.), Elements of Comparative Syntax: Theory and Description [Studies in Generative Grammar 127], 221–256. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zanuttini, R., and Portner, P.. 2003. Exclamative clauses: At the syntax–semantics interface. Language 79(3): 39–81.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zanuttini, R., Pak, M., and Portner, P.. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive and exhortative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(4): 1231–1274.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zhang, S. 1990. The Status of Imperatives in Theories of Grammar. PhD thesis, University of Arizona.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range of users and attains the highest (AAA) level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive accessibility guidelines.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.