Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 39:3 (2015) ► pp.555–593

Subject versus addressee in Dogon imperatives and hortatives

| University of Michigan
| Institute of Linguistics (Moscow)
Indicative sentences in Dogon have a subject of S/A type identifiable by convergent criteria. However, Dogon imperatives diverge from English in lacking full-fledged referential subjects. Specifically, covert imperative actors (“subjects”) cannot bind transpersonal reflexive pronominals the way indicative subjects do. Instead, Dogon imperative verbs morphologically index addressee number. Dogon hortatives have both overt first-person plural subjects and imperative-like second-person addressees. We must therefore tease apart (referential) subjecthood and addresseehood. Crosslinguistic comparisons (Basque allocutives, Russian transpersonal reflexives) bring out similarities and differences. A cultural focus on immediate observation as opposed to projected result, also observed in action verb semantics, may be behind the Dogon difference.
Keywords: allocutive, ethical dative, subject, reflexive, Dogon, transpersonal, addressee, referentiality, imperative, hortative, impersonal
Published online: 29 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.3.02hea
References (41)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2010. Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alcázar, Asier & Mario Saltarelli. 2014. The syntax of imperatives (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1962. The Menomini language. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 253–76. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrushina N.R. 2003. Imperative deictic reduction. In Pirkko Suihkonen & Bernard Comrie (eds.), International Symposium on Deictic Systems and Quantification in Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia, collection of papers, 66–83. Izhevsk, Russia: Udmurt State University/Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Dept. of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Downes, William. 1977. The imperative and pragmatics. Journal of Linguistics 13(1). 77–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, Bruce. 1969. Vocatives and third-person imperatives in English. Papers in Linguistics 11. 570–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drogosz, Anna. 2005. The conceptual distinction between Polish markers of reflexivity: siebie and się . Acta Neophilologica 71. 108–118.Google Scholar
. 2012. English and Polish: Two faces of the reflexivity. In Agata Rozumko & Dorota Szymaniuk (eds.), Directions in English-Polish contrastive research, 21–38. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda. 2006. Subjects and universal grammar: An explanatory theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1972. Social context and semantic feature: The Russian pronominal usage. In John Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 270–300. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Gusev, V. 2013. Tipologiya imperativa [“Typology of imperatives”]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Lillian. 2012. Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and composition of the left periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 151. 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey & Laura McPherson. 2011. Cognitive set and lexicalization strategy in Dogon action verbs. Anthropological Linguistics 51(1). 38–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Tonosyntax and reference restriction in Dogon NPs. Language 89(2). 265–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Toward a universal definition of subject. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Khokhlova, Liudmilla. 1998. Some notes on reflexivization in Russian and Hindi. In Khokhlova & Atul Daswani (eds.), Vaagbhaaratii: Proceedings of the International Conference on South Asian Languages , 88–103. Moscow: Moscow University Publications.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 1111. 315–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knyazev, Yuri & Vladimir Nedyalkov. 1985. Refleksivnye konstrukcii v slavyanskih yazykah [“Reflexive constructions in Slavic languages”]. In Nedyalkov (ed.). Refleksivnye glagoly v indojevropejskih yazykah [“Reflexive verbs in Indo-European languages”], 29–39. Kalinin: KGU.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siegmund. 2007. Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Tim Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 11, 276–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruspe, Nicole. 2004. A grammar of Semele (Cambridge Grammatical Descriptions). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lafon, René. 1959. Place de la 2ème personne du singulier dans la conjugaison basque. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 541. 103–29.Google Scholar
Medová, Lucie. 2009. Reflexive clitics in the Slavic and Romance languages: A comparative view from an antipassive perspective. Princeton: Princeton University dissertation.Google Scholar
Moreau, J.-L. 1972. La corrélation du sujet et de l’objet en finnois. Études finno-ougriennes 81. 193–202.Google Scholar
Ntahokaja, Jean-Baptiste. 1994. Grammaire structurale du kirundi. Bujumbura: Université du Burundi – ACCT.Google Scholar
Rebuschi, Georges. 1980. Autour des formes allocutives du basque. Iker-1, 307–22. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia.Google Scholar
Rennison, John. 1997. Koromfe (Routledge Descriptive Grammars). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 1974. Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1930. Southern Paiute language: A Shoshonean language. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 65(1).Google Scholar
Schadeberg, Thilo. 1977. Der Kohortativ “Dual” und Plural in den Bantusprachen. In Wolfgang Voigt (ed.), XIX. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 28. September bis 4. Oktober 1975 in Freiburg im Breisgau: Vorträge. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement 3(2). 1502–1507. [URL]Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan. 1982. How imperatives are special, and how they aren’t. Chicago Linguistic Society, Parasession on nondeclaratives, 202–18.Google Scholar
Tabakowska, E. 2003. Those notorious Polish reflexive pronouns: A plea for middle voice. Glossos 41. [URL]Google Scholar
Thorne, J.P. 1966. English imperative sentences. Journal of Linguistics 2(1). 69–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toldova, Svetlana. 2011. Tipologija konstrukcij s vozvratnym mestoimeniem seb’a [“Typology of constructions with reflexive pronoun seb’a ”]. Read at Conference on Constructional and Lexical Semantic Approaches to Russian, Saint Petersburg.
Van Valin, Robert & Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaele. 2008. Encoding the addressee in the syntax: Evidence from English imperatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 261. 185–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaele, Miok Pak & Paul Portner. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(4). 1231–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Heath, Jeffrey & Vadim Dyachkov
2023. Dogon pseudo-subjects with or without true subjects. Studies in Language 47:2 ► pp. 392 ff. DOI logo
Hantgan, Abbie
2020. Dogon reported discourse markers: The Ben Tey quotative topicalizer. Folia Linguistica 54:3 ► pp. 581 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Ahrim & Iksoo Kwon
2020. Hortatives, imperatives, and the directive speech-act continuum: A usage-based approach to the Korean -ca hortative construction. Lingua 245 ► pp. 102928 ff. DOI logo
Heath, Jeffrey
2016. Type-ology or typ-ology?. Linguistic Typology 20:3 DOI logo
Heath, Jeffrey
2019. Caught in the middle. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 34:1 ► pp. 126 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.