46th annual meeting of the societas linguistica europaea ... · pdf file46th annual meeting of...
TRANSCRIPT
Mood, modals and modification The imperative in English and Dutch
Daniël Van Olmen
Lancaster University
46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea
Split, 18-21 September 2013 – Workshop 9
Introduction
• earlier research into the imperative in English and Dutch
• many formalist studies (e.g. Potsdam 1998, Rupp 2003, Mastop 2005, Van der Wurff 2007, Kaufmann 2012), fewer functionalist ones (e.g. Davies 1986, Takahashi 2012)
• only a few corpus-based investigations of English (e.g. De Rycker 1990, De Clerck 2006), none of Dutch
Introduction
• present paper
• complementing the corpus-based work on English
• questions
• the imperative’s distribution?
• its illocutionary profile?
• its correlation with modifiers?
• its ‘alternatives’ in the other language?
Introduction
• two issues in the limited contrastive literature
• modification (e.g. Vismans 1995, Hendriks 2002)
• fewer modifiers in English than in Dutch
• also used less often
• English preference for indirectness? (see House 1996 too)
• here: corpus evidence to verify/refute these hypotheses
Introduction
• alternatives and modals in particular (e.g. Hendriks 2002, Nuyts et al. 2010, Mortelmans 2010)
• on the one hand: due to the relative lack of modifiers, fewer ‘permissive’ imperatives in English and more permissive modals?
• on the other hand: moeten more multifunctional than must, including a highly grammaticalized, speaker-oriented type of modality?
• here: corpus evidence from the perspective of the imperative
Preliminaries
• imperative
• excluding cases (cf. De Clerck 2006)
• with little or no illocutionary flexibility
• allowing little or no formal variation
• i.e. idiomatic phrases, DMs, etc.
• including cases
• with explicit subjects (cf. De Schutter & Van Hauwermeiren 1983 vs Fortuin 2004)
• such as good wishes in English, success imperatives in Dutch, etc.
Preliminaries
• modification
• utterance-internal elements which mitigate or boost the force with which the point of the imperative is made (cf. Holmes 1984)
• these elements do not necessarily have mitigation or boosting as its primary meaning, though
• including
• MPs
• tags
• courtesy subjuncts
• emphatic do
• subjects
• vocatives
Preliminaries
• corpora
• comparable corpus
• British English
• private dialogues of ICE-GB (Survey of English Usage 2006)
• 205,627 words
• Northern Dutch
• similar selection of the syntactically annotated spontaneous face-to-face conversations and phone calls in CSD (Dutch Language Union 2004)
• 100,048 words
Preliminaries
• parallel corpus
• drama texts
• high frequency of imperatives (cf. Vismans 1994)
• ‘similar’ to private dialogues (cf. Culpeper & Kytö 2000)
• ‘recent’ BrE plays written by different authors & translated by different NoD translators + vice versa
• size
• SE 96,452 words – SD 70,280 words
• TE 73,503 words – TD 99,113 words
Preliminaries
• methodological remarks
• translationese? (cf. Teubert 1996 vs Mauranen 2002)
• “make it possible to investigate how the same content is expressed in two languages” (Aijmer & Altenberg 1996: 13)
Preliminaries
• analytical framework (cf. De Rycker 1990, De Clerck 2006)
• speech act theory (Austin 1962, Searle 1979, Verscheuren 1985)
• criticized for (e.g. Ervin-Tripp 1987, Du Bois 1993)
• focus on isolated sentences
• inapplicability to non-Western languages
• disregard of multifunctionality
• too speaker-oriented
Preliminaries
• parameters here
• Searlean notions of illocutionary point, illocutionary strength, psychological state and direction of fit
• benefit, power, …
• remarks beforehand
• grouping together similar functions
• recognizing hybridity
• ‘only’ attempt at capturing the imperative
Preliminaries
Type Description Examples
wilful directive
strong appeal to A to do what S wants and what is usually to the benefit of the latter
demand, order, …
non-wilful directive
weaker appeal to A to do what S thinks is to the benefit of the former
suggestion, advice, …
commissive directive
commitment of S to do something which is often to the benefit of S and A and which usually also involves some action by A
permission, offer, …
expressive directive
appeal to A in which S primarily expresses his or her attitude toward A
challenge, apology, …
mixed expressive
‘appeal‘ through which S hopes to bring about a SoA that A does not control and that shows S’s attitude toward A
imprecation, wish, …
non-directive
general truths and beliefs or descriptions of certain habits and specific properties, i.e. representatives
conditional
Modification
• percentage of modified imperatives
• in comparable corpus and source corpus
• English imperative much less frequently modified than its Dutch counterpart
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CC-E CC-D SC-E SC-D
UnM
M
Modification
• range of modifiers
• MPs
• tags
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
MPs
no MPS
97%
97%
98%
98%
99%
99%
100%
100%
tags
no tags
Modification
• courtesy subjuncts
• emphatic do
91%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%
CSs
no CSs
97%
97%
98%
98%
99%
99%
100%
100%
CC-E SC-E
do
no do
Modification
• subjects
• vocatives
90%
91%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%
CC-E CC-D SC-E SC-D
S
no S
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%
VOC
no VOC
Modification
• some conclusions
• indeed
• fewer modifiers in English than in Dutch
• but mostly: imperative typically unmodified in English and modified in Dutch
• other types of modification in English?
• DMs?
• intonation?
• …
Mood
• relative frequency
• in comparable corpus and source corpus
• plays ≈ private dialogues
• comparative “English love of imperatives”
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
CC SC
per
10
,00
0 w
ord
s
E
D
Mood
• functions
• similar illocutionary
‘potential’
• usage
• Dutch: typically WD
• English: more multifunctional & strikingly higher rate of N-WDs 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
WD
N-W
D
CD ED ME
N-D ?
pe
r 1
0,0
00
wo
rds
E
D
Mood & modification
• loose relationship between specific functions and specific modifiers
• e.g. emphatic do
But anyway do send him my best regards.
Work at that and do listen to your pitch.
Oh do sit down.
• e.g. even ‘briefly’
En bel me eventjes als je wat weet.
Bekijk anders effe de notities.
Mood & modification
• some ‘weaker’ correlations in Dutch, though
• warnings, orders, demands, good wishes and instructions often without MPs (see Fortuin 2004 too)
• requests typically with (nou ‘now’) eens ‘once’ /even
• permissions typically with maar ‘only’
• suggestions typically with (gewoon ‘ordinarily’) eens
Mood & modification
• some tentative conclusions
• to some extent …
• Dutch seems to require modifiers and in particular MPs to ‘force’ certain readings of the imperative
• while English doesn’t
• evoking Hawkins (1986) and research on the ‘Germanic Sandwich’, in a way …
• Dutch is more explicit at the surface
• while English is relatively implicit or vague
Mood & modals
• translational correspondences
• not unexpectedly
• E → D less than 70%
• D → E nearly 90%
• impact of target language/culture; pace translationese
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
SE >TD
TE >SD
E > D SD >TE
TD >SE
D > E
zero
other
=
Mood & modals
• functions
• D → E
• E → D
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
zero
other
=
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
zero
other
=
Mood & modals
• modals
• D → E
• just 10 of 73 ‘other’ correspondences (906 in total)
• 3x necessity modal
Blijf nou liggen. (S) - You have to lie down. (T)
• 7x possibility modal
Ga maar weer zitten. (S) - You can sit down again. (T)
• still, 57 ‘=‘ correspondences for permissions
Zeg maar wat tegen haar. (T) – Speak to her. (S)
Mood & modals
• E → D
• 84 of 322 ‘other’ correspondences (1231 in total)
• 17x possibility modal
Go, my boy. (T) – Je mag nu weg, jongen. (S)
• 67x necessity modal
Take life as it comes. (T) – Je moet het leven gewoon nemen zoals het komt. (S)
Never be ashamed of your red hair! (T) – Je hoeft je heus niet te schamen omdat je nou toevallig rood bent. (S)
Conclusions
• validity & usefulness of parallel corpora (in combination with comparable corpora)
• ‘paradox’ (cf. Hawkins 1986, Vismans 1995, House 1996, Hendriks 2002, Nuyts et al. 2010)
• more modifiers in Dutch than in English
• but a more frequent and multifunctional imperative in English than in Dutch
• difference in the distribution of labor between mood and modals in English and Dutch (cf. Nuyts et al. 2010, Mortelmans 2010)
Thanks for your attention! Questions/comments?
Daniël Van Olmen
Lancaster University County South C68
Bailrigg Lancaster
United Kingdom LA1 4YL
References
Aijmer, Karin & Bengt Altenberg. 1996. Introduction. In Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds.). Languages in Contrast. Papers from a Symposium on Text-based Cross-linguistic Studies. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 11-16.
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Claredon. Culpeper, Jonathan & Merja Kytö. 2000. Data in historical pragmatics. Spoken interaction
(re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1, 175-199. Davies, Eirlys. 1986. The English Imperative. London: Croom Helm. De Clerck, Bernard. 2006. The Imperative in English. A Corpus-based, Pragmatic Analysis.
PhD dissertation. Ghent: Ghent University. De Rycker, Teun. 1990. Imperative Subtypes in Conversational British English. An
Empirical Investigation. PhD dissertation. Antwerp: University of Antwerp. De Schutter, Georges & Paul van Hauwermeiren. 1983. De Structuur van het Nederlands
[The Structure of Dutch]. Malle: De Sikkel Du Bois, John W. 1993. Meaning without intention. Lessons from divination. In: Jane H.
Hill & Judith T. Irvine (eds.), Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 48-71.
Dutch Language Union. 2004. Corpus of Spoken Dutch. Release 1.0. The Hague. Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1987. Cross-cultural and development sources of pragmatic
generalizations. In: Jef Verschueren & Marcella Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 47-60.
References Fortuin, Egbert. 2004. De syntaxis van imperatiefsubjecten en modale partikels. Een
pragma-semantische benadering [The syntax of imperative subjects and modal particles. A pragma-semantic approach]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 9, 355-375.
Hawkins, J.A. 1986. A Comparative Typology of English and German. Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.
Hendriks, Bernardina Christina. 2002. More on Dutch English … Please? A Study of Request Performance by Dutch Native Speakers, English Native Speakers and Dutch Learners of English. PhD dissertation. Nijmegen: Catholic University Nijmegen.
Holmes, Janet. 1984. Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8, 345-365. House, Juliane, 1996. Contrastive discourse analysis and misunderstanding. The case of
German and English. In Marlis Hellinger & Ulrich Ammon (eds.). Contrastive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 345-361.
Kaufmann, M. 2012. Interpreting Imperatives. Dordrecht: Springer. Mastop, R.J. 2005. What Can You Do? Imperative Mood in Semantic Theory. PhD
dissertation. PhD dissertation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Mauranen, Anna. 2002. Will ‘translationese’ ruin a contrastive study? Languages in
Contrast 2, 161-185. Mortelmans, Tanja. 2010. Falsche Freunde. Warum sich die Modalverben must, müssen
und moeten nicht entsprechen [False friends. Why the modal verbs must, müssen and moeten do not correspond to each other]. In Andrzej Kątny & Anna Socka (eds.). Modalität / Temporalität in kontrastiver und typologischer Sicht [Modality / Temporality from a Contrastive and a Typological Perspective]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 133-148.
Nuyts, Jan, Pieter Byloo & Janneke Diepeveen. 2010. On deontic modality, directivity, and mood. The case of Dutch mogen and moeten. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 16-34.
References
Potsdam, Eric. 1998. Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative. New York: Garland. Rupp, Laura. 2003. The Syntax of Imperatives in English and Germanic. Word Order
Variation in the Minimalist Framework. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Searle, John. 1979. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In: John Rogers Searle (ed.),
Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-29. Survey of English Usage. 2006. International Corpus of English. The British Component.
Re-lease 2. London. Takahashi, H. 2012. A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of the English Imperative: With Special
Reference to Japanese Imperatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Teubert, Wolfgang. 1996. Comparable or parallel corpora? International Journal of
Lexicography 9, 238-264. Verschueren, Jef. 1985. What People Say They Do with Words. Prolegomena to an
Empirical-Conceptual Approach to Linguistic Action. Norwood: Ablex. Van der Wurff, Wim. 2007a. (ed.). Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vismans, Roel. 1994. Modal Particles in Dutch Directives. A Study in Functional
Grammar. Dordrecht: ICG Printing. Vismans, Roel. 1995. Beleefheid, Nederlandse modale partikels en het ‘partikelloze’
Engels [Politeness, Dutch modal particles and ‘particleless’ English]. Colloquium Neerlandicum 12, 269-291.