yesterday
Examples
(68) (a) You said he saw + who(m) yesterday?
(b) You said • who saw him yesterday?
(c) You said he saw him t when?
(d) ?You said + what?
Ungrammatical and disallowed
(69) *Did you say he saw t who(m) yesterday? (Possibly grammatical, but only as a reply to: Did I say he saw (inaudible) yesterday?, in which case it is derived from: You said, did I say he saw t whom yesterday?) Related examples
(70) (a) tWho(m) did you say he saw yesterday?
(b) +Who did you say saw him yesterday?
(c) tWhen did you say he saw him?
(d) +What did you say?
INTERROG - 29
Grammatical but not Related to this Rule:
(71) (a) Did you say he saw him yesterday?
2 3 1+
(b) Who(m) did you say he saw yesterday?
2 3 1+
(c) What did you say?
Justification
(i) The underlying structure of WH-questioned quotes is differ- entiated from that of other questioned quotes in two ways: (a) the WH-questioned quotes are derived from declaratives, rather than interrogatives, with you SAY in the matrix S; (b) the WH-questioned quotes obligatorily include WH in the object of SAY. The reason for
(a) is that sentences like (68) and (71.a) are grammatical, while sentences like (69) are not.
(ii) The ordinary WH FRONTING and AUX ATTRACTION transformations operate optionally on (68.a,b,c) to yield (70.a,b,c) respectively.
In the case of (68.d) the WH QUESTION transformations perhaps operate obligatorily to yield (70.d).
(iii) The need to distinguish SAY from the ordinary verb say becomes clear through a comparison of (70.a) with (71.b) and (70.d) with
(71.c). (71.b,c) are simple WH questions, while (70.a,d) are WH questions based on WH-questioned quotes.
b. You-said Deletion
SI: # you [+PAST] SAY XtX [+WH] X
SC: Delete 1
COND: The rule is optional.
INTERROG - 30
Example in Tree Format:
(72) (a) (The input tree equals the output tree for the above Intonation Introduction rule, (67.b).) (b)
NP MOD
AUX
he[+PAST] see t [+WH] [+HUM]
[+INDEF] [+H]
[+PR0]
yesterday
Examples
(73) (a) He saw • who(m) yesterday?
(b) • Who saw him yesterday?
(c) He saw him + when?
(d) + What?
Related Examples
(7k) (a) + Who(m) did he see yesterday?
(b) + When did he see him?
Grammatical but not Related to this Rule
(75) (a) 2 3 1+
Who(m) did he see yesterday?
3 1+
(b) What?
INTERROG - 31
Justification
(i) Examples like (73) are derived by optional deletion of
'You said' from the examples (68) respectively given for Intonation- Introduction rule above. This derivation is justified on the grounds of semantics as well as on the basis of intonation.
(ii) Examples like (7*0 reflect the optional operation of the ordinary WH-QUESTION transformations upon (73.a,c) respectively.
(iii) (7k) may be contrasted with (75). The latter are simple WH questions, while the former are WH questions based upon WH-questioned quotes that have undergone 'you-said' deletion.
7. Declared Quote
SI: 0 I [+PAST] SAY 0 X (CONT) 0 12 3
SC: Delete 2 and k COND: 1. 3 4 X + CONT
2. The rule is optional.
Example in Tree Format
(76) (a)
0
I [+PAST] SAY [-PAST] he PROG go ing
I
INTERROG - 32
(76) (b)
Examples
2 3 1+
(77) (a) Is he going?
(b) He's going. (As reduction of I said, "He's going.") (c) Who's going? (As reduction of I said, 'Who's going?") Grammatical but not Generated by this Rule
(78) (a) 2 3 3+
Is he going?
(b) He's going. (As non-quoted statement.) (c) Who's going? (As non-quoted WH question.) Justification
(i) Examples like (77) are derived by optional deletion of "I said" from the sentences "I said (77)." Semantic and intonational arguments for this derivation may be adduced.
(ii) When the declared quote is a yes-no question, it differs intonationally from a non-quoted yes-no question—compare (77.a) with (78.a). In other cases, declared quotes are homophonous with their non-quoted counterparts—compare (77.b) with (78.b) and (77.c) with (78.c).
(iii) Condition (l) on the rule guarantees that if CONT is indeed present, it must be chosen as element h of the S.I. and hence must be deleted.
December 1968
IMPERATIVE Contents
Page I. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 II. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 1 A. The Range of Phenomena Treated 1 1. Included in the UESP Rules 2 2. Not Dealt with in the Verb Rules 3 B. The Underlying Subject of Imperatives 6
1. Constraints on Imperative Subjects in
Respect to Person 6 2. A Note on the Vocative 15 C. Imperatives and Peremptory Declaratives. . . . lo D. Imperatives, Requests and Questions 17
1. Behaviour Common to Imperatives and
Requests IT 2. Differences between Imperatives and
Requests 19 3. Behaviour Common to Requests and Questions 23 k. Differences between Requests and Questions 2U 5. Conclusion 2b E. The Underlying Auxiliary of Imperatives. ... 26 1. The Presence of a Modal 26 2. The Choice of a Modal 27 F. Tagged Imperatives 29 G. Blocking Problems 31 III. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES 33
IMPERATIVE I. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bolinger, D. (1967c) "The Imperative in English"
Boyd, J. and J. Thome (1968) "The Deep Grammar of Modal Verbs"
Chomsky, N. (1955) The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory esp. pp. 691-69U
Hasegawa, K. (1965) "English Imperatives"
Hornby, A.S., E.V. Gatenby and H. Wakefield (1963) The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English
Katz, J. and P. Postal (196^b)An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions, esp. pp. 7^-79
Kiparsky, P. (1963) "A Note on the English Imperative"
Klima, E. (l96Uc) "Negation in English", esp. pp. 258-260 Lakoff, G. (1965) On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity Lees, R. (l96Ub) "On Passives and Imperatives in English"
Thorne, J. (1966) "English Imperative Sentences"
II. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
A. The Range of Phenomena Treated
The UESP grammar provides rules for only a small proportion of the constructions which have at various times been regarded as imperatives or as closely related to them. In some cases this is because too little is known about the construction in question.
However, in the case of forms like:
(l) (a) John, come here.
(b) Will you come here!
(c) You will come here!
all of which have been regarded by one or another transformational grammarians as directly related to imperatives, there are good
arguments against postulating a direct transformational relationship between any of these forms and true imperatives like:
(1) (d) Come here.
Immediately below are examples of the construction-types which our rules account for, including embedded imperatives (i.e.
"subjunctives"). These are followed by examples of types not in- cluded in the rules. The question of possible constraints on the deep structure subject of non-embedded sentences is then discussed.
IMP - 2
In the course of this discussion we separate vocatives from other sentences which appear to be imperative. What we have called peremptory declaratives are claimed to be declarative sentences which in appropriate context may be interpreted as embodying a wish or command, while requests are a kind of question open to a similar interpretation. Vocatives, requests and peremptory declaratives have been regarded as typical imperative forms in some earlier works.
The underlying auxiliary of imperatives is examined next, adopting a position close to that of Lees (196U): the appropriate base rule introduces an element, which we represent as SJC, disjunctive with both modals and tense. Thus, we do not generate a modal such as will in the deep structure of imperatives, but a separate form which be- haves in certain respects like modals (in AUX-INVERSION) and in
certain respects like affixes ( in AFFIX-SHIFT and DO-SUPPORT ). In connection with this argument, it is necessary to consider briefly the significance of tagged imperatives, for which we do not provide rules—in fact the grammar does not generate tags, for reasons set out here and in INTERROG.
This treatment of imperatives may be open to the objection that it fails to relate them to a number of constructions which appear to be semantically or syntactically similar. For example, the grammar does not provide directly for the fact that certain readings of (l.a-c) are close paraphrases of (l.d) and that all
these, together with (2.a-c) may perhaps incorporate a common semantic element, in contrast with declaratives and questions.
(2) (a) Go home now and I'll never see you again.
(b) Let's go home.
(c) May he go safely.
We claim that imperatives (like (l.d)) are syntactically distinct from all the other examples in (l) and (2); it may be possible in the future to give a more unified account of some of the exemplified constructions, but we consider that any such treat- ment must recognize the syntactically distinct class of imperatives.
1. Included in the UESP Rules (a) Plain Imperatives
These rules account directly for plain imperatives and sub- junctives (which are here regarded as equivalent to embedded imperatives).
(3) (a) Go there.
(b) You go there.
(c) Somebody go there.
(d) Don't go there.
(e) Don't you go there.
(f) Don't anybody go there.