Thoughts on (im)perfective imperatives1

Johan van der Auwera, Andrej Malchukov, and Ewa Schalley

1. Introduction

This paper is a sketch of some of the issues concerning the relation between aspect and mood, more particularly the interaction of the perfective imper-fective distinction and the mood dimension of the positive imperative. As far as we know, this issue has never been dealt from a typological point of view. Section 2 discusses the perfective imperfective distinction, section 3 is about imperatives, section 4 presents data, and section 5 offers explana-tions. Section 6 is the summary. Our data come from two databases: a (positive) imperative database of 419 languages in the dissertation Schalley (In progress), constructed along the lines of Rijkhoff, Bakker, Hengeveld and Kahrel (1993), and a partially overlapping prohibitive database compiled by van der Auwera, based on the restricted sample of 179 languages found in Miestamo (2005) this includes one language for each genus (in the sense of Dryer 2000) at the ratio of the coverage of the macro-area (see again Dryer 2000) that gets the worst coverage (see Miestamo 2005: 27-39 for discus-sion).

2. Perfective and imperfective

For the purpose of this paper the following definition of the notions of perfective and imperfective aspect will have to do: (i) with a perfective aspect one looks at a state of affairs as a totality and events and processes that make up the state of affairs are therefore looked upon as complete, (ii) the imperfective looks at the internal structure of the state of affairs and as a consequence any constitutive events and processes are seen as incom-plete. In identifying the categories cross-linguistically, there are many problems. First, for many languages one should distinguish between sub-types of perfective and imperfective, like progressive and habitual. Second,

though the terminology suggests a neat two-way distinction, in some lan-guages they may be members of a larger set, sometimes comprising a so-called aorist, for example. Third, it is often difficult to distinguish the categories of perfective and imperfective from other, related categories, e.g., the perfect. Fourth, not all linguists use the terms in the same way. Finally, not all languages have grammaticalized the distinction, and if they have, they may have done it in different ways. One important parameter is the degree of grammaticalization: does aspect have a syntactic, periphrastic exponent or has it reached morphology, and if the latter is the case, what kind of word does it manifest itself on (the auxiliary, the lexical verb, or something other than a verb). Another important parameter is the formal markedness (or degree of overtness; Haspelmath 2006) of the distinction, in the sense that the perfective or the imperfective may contrast in that only one has an overt morphosyntactic exponent. In Russian (1) the perfective form napisal equals the imperfective pisal, but it has the additional perfec-tivizing prefix na-. So the forms differ in formal markedness, and the dis-tinction is shown in the morphology.2

(1) Russian a. Ja pisal pismo. 1SG.NOM write.IMPF.PST.SG.M letter.ACC.SG I was writing/wrote the letter b. Ja na-pisal pismo. 1SG.NOM PF-write.PST.SG.M letter.ACC.SG I wrote (up) the letter. In Tondi Songway Kiini (2) the imperfective construction with ky equals the perfective construction, but it has the additional marker w. Here the exponent is syntactic. (2) Tondi Songway Kiini (Songhay, Mali, Heath 2005: 221, 163) a. y kyn-: ky ... 1SG.POSS elder.sibling-DEF.SG go My brother went ... b. n w ky. 3SG say 3SG.LOG IMPF go He said that he goes.

Error! Reference source not found. 3

For an example of a perfective imperfective distinction without any formal markedness correlation, one can consider Yucatek Maya. (3) Yukatek Maya (Mayan, Mexico, Lehmann 1990: 41) a. k-in tas-k-ob. PRS-1SG bring-TR.IMPF-ABS.3PL I bring them. b. t-in tas-h-ob. PRT-1SG bring-TR.PF-ABS.3PL I brought them.

In this example, the imperfective is marked with the suffix k, and the per-fective with the suffix h.3

3. Imperative

Languages that have grammaticalized the perfective imperfective distinc-tion also differ as to whether it is relevant in the imperative mood. We will focus on positive imperatives4 and on one that could be called direct (see also Schalley In progress). A direct imperative is a construction that is mor-phosyntactically dedicated to expressing an appeal to the hearer(s) to do something. (4) lists three examples for direct positive imperatives.

(4) a. Spanish Llor-a! cry-IMP.2SG Cry!5 b. English Cry!

c. Sawu (Central Malayo-Polynesian, Indonesia, Walker 1982: 33)

go we ri ou ne fetch.SG IMP ERG 2SG ABS ART kuhi de key DEM Fetch the key!

In Spanish the ending a is specialized for the imperative second singular.6 In English there is no special morphology, but the imperativeness is sig-nalled by the syntax, more particularly by the verb first pattern and by the lack of a subject pronoun. Sawu has no special imperative morphology either, but (4c) contains a dedicated imperative particle we. Direct strategies contrast with indirect ones: the latter have a wider use. In Monumbo, imperative meaning can be conveyed by a declarative indicative present, and in nge, one can use a declarative indicative future.

(5) a. Monumbo (Monumbo, Papua New Guinea, Vormann and Scharfenberger 1914: 130) u-ndro. 2PL-go.IND.PRS You go. or Go!

b. nge (South Andamese, Andaman Islands, Dasgupta and Sharma 1982: 34)

n -ilokowale-nene. 2SG-eat-IND.FUT You will eat. or Eat! Of course, English allows declarative indicative presents and futures to convey imperative meaning as well. But we assume that in Monumbo and nge the association of the imperative meaning and the indicative present, respectively, indicative future is a strong one, no doubt in part because the languages lack direct strategies. We could say that the use of the indicative present or future has conventionalized the imperative meaning and even that the relevant forms in Monubo and nge are not actually indicative but rather indicative-imperative.

4. (Im)perfective imperatives: data

How does the perfective imperfective contrast fare in the context of direct imperatives? It would seem that one can order both an action or a process as such or one that is or would be in progress. So one would expect at least some languages to reflect the distinction in imperatives. Russian is a case in point: the language allows both perfective and imperfective imperatives.

Error! Reference source not found. 5

(6) Russian a. Pishi pismo write.IMPF.IMP.2SG letter.ACC.SG Write the letter! b. Na-pishi pismo PF-write.IMP.2SG letter.ACC.SG Write the letter!

But the language that has both imperfective and perfective imperatives is only one of four logical possiblities. Are there any languages with impera-tives are obligatorily neither imperfective nor perfective? Are there lan-guages in which the imperatives are obligatorily perfective? And finally, are there languages in which the imperatives are obligatorily imperfective? The answers to each question will be postive. A language in which the imperatives cannot have any perfective imperfective marking is Yucatek Maya. In this language, the imperative suffixes occupy the same slot as the perfective and imperfective suffixes and the two types of suffixes are incompatible.

(7) Yucatek Maya (Elisabeth Verhoeven, p.c.) tas--e'x-o b! bring-IMP-2PL-ABS.3PL Bring them!

Another possible example is Tondi Songway Kiini. But here the situation is not that clear, and this has to with the fact that at least in indicatives the perfective marking is zero. (8) illustrates the imperative in Tondi Songway Kiini. (8) Tondi Songway Kiini (Heath 2005: 174) a. ky! go Go! b. ky! 2PL.IMP go Go!

It is clear that the imperative cannot contain the imperfective marker w illustrated in (2b). But what does its obligatory absence imply? Heath (2005: 173-174) takes it to mean that the imperative is aspect neutral, though he does not explain why.7 It seems that one could also argue the imperative to be obligatorily perfective, and this would be the third type, but again Tondi Songway Kiini would be a controversial illustration. A straightforward illustration of the obligatorily perfective impera-tive comes from Misantla Totonac. Both the perfective and the imperfective aspect use suffixes, though in both the exponent must sometimes be a zero. For the second person singular the perfective marker is ti and for the plu-ral it is a zero compared to imperfective zero for the singular and yaa for the plural (MacKay 1999: 125-126, 139-140). The imperative has to use the perfective markers. (9) Misantla Totonac (Totonacan, Mexico, MacKay 1999: 144) a. ka-pa-ti! IRR-bathe-PF.2SG Bathe! b. ka-pa--tat! IRR-bathe-PF-2PL

Bathe!

In a fourth and final type the imperative has to be imperfective. In Egyptian Arabic verb stems are either imperfective or perfective. Thus write has a perfective katab stem and an imperfective ktib stem. The di-rect imperative has to use the imperfective stem.8

(10) Egyptian Arabic (Semitic, Egypt, Woidich 2006: 76) I-ktib! IMP-write.IMPF.2M Write! It is important to point out that this overview only deals with the direct imperatives which have to be either perfective or imperfective (the first, third and fourth type exemplified above) or cannot be perfective or imperfective (the second type). For some languages, the basic direct im-peratives can be argued to be aspect neutral, but they may optionally be enriched by perfective or imperfective marking. In Tukang Besi, the direct imperative is arguably neutral, but the verbal form also accepts the perfec-

Error! Reference source not found. 7

tivizing suffix mo, which is used to mitigate the imperative appeal. In Una, the direct imperative is arguably aspect neutral, too, but it can option-ally get what the grammarian calls continuous or incomplete markers (Louwerse 1988: 35) (12) illustrates the continuous marking. Of course, like for Tondi Songway Kiini, one should investigate whether the expand-ability of these basic forms with either a perfective or an imperfective form can be construed as evidence for the claims that the basic forms are actually imperfective (in Tukang Besi) or perfective (in Una). In the case of Tukang Besi, however, such a claim would seem implausible for the perfectivizing suffix does not seem to have its normal aspect meaning and it does not therefore clearly contrast with a zero exponent marking imperfectivity. (11) Tukang Besi (Western Malayo-Polynesian, Indonesia, Donohue

1999: 453) a. kede! sit.IMP.2SG Sit down! b. kede-mo! sit.IMP.2SG-PF Sit down! (polite) (12) Una (Mek, Indonesia, Louwerse 1988: 36, 37) a. buk-dum! sit-IMP.2SG Sit! b. bu-ran-dum! sit-CONT-IMP.2SG Sit continually! A final note is that we dare not, at this stage, pronounce any fre-quency claims. To do this well one would need a careful study of the rele-vance and the nature of aspect distinctions in indicatives as well. One would expect, for instance, that the perfective imperfective distinction mat-ters for imperatives only if it also matters for indicatives.10 We leave this for future research.

5. (Im)perfective imperatives: explanations

One may assume that if languages with a general perfective imperfective distinction employ this distinction in imperatives too, what is at play (at least to some extent) is analogy. And similarly, analogy will be a factor in the explanation of why languages that do not have the distinction in the rest of the grammar dont have it in imperatives either. In what follows we hope to shed some light on why languages with an obligatory indicative perfec-tive imperfective choice do not have that choice in their imperatives, which are either obligatorily neutral (like Tondi Songway Kiini, under one inter-pretation) or perfective (like Tondi Songway Kiini, under the other inter-pretation, or like Misantla Totonac) or imperfective (like Egyptian Arabic). Let us start with a preliminary consideration: the fact that each of the four logical possibilities is in fact attested (both perfective and imperfective, neither, only one, only the other) predisposes one to think that more than one explanatory factor may be involved. In fact, we propose three such factors. One of them, we claim, is pragmatic. We assume that the typical and most frequent imperative will involve an appeal to the hearer(s) to achieve something, to perform the action as a whole and not merely to be engaged in the activity or part of it. This idea has been used to explain why the English progressive, which successfully pervaded the English verb sys-tem, is exceedingly rare in imperatives (see e.g. De Clerck 2006: 171), though not impossible (see Davies 1986: 15-16; Williams 2001). (13) is an authentic (web) example retrieved by De Clerck (2006).

(13) Get that Summer Static sticker on your vehicle now, and be listen-

ing to 88.9 SHINE.FM! (De Clerck 2006: 19)

Of course, the English progressive is a peculiar type of imperfective, but the idea seems generalizable. Thus, though Russian allows both perfective and imperfective imperatives, the imperfective usually does not have a progressive meaning (Continue V-ing!), which is a primary function of imperfective indicative forms (cf. Birjulin and Xrakovskij 2001: 32). Thus, Pishi pismo in (6a) typically does not imply that the addressee is already in the process of writing a letter (continue writing), unlike the imperfective indicative form Pishet pismo (S/he) is writing (imperfective) a letter. The hypothesis of the pragmatic perfectivity bias also allows an interesting per-spective on why the formally perfectivemo suffix in Tukang Besi (11b) is

Error! Reference source not found. 9

not semantically perfective: on the assumption that even the Tukang Besi bare stem imperative is predominantly perfective and that the politeness meaning is a derived meaning, the addition of an exclusively perfective suffix is relatively redundant and thus free for a derived meaning (cp. Malchukov 2001: 174 on the politeness use of a perfectivizing suffix in the imperatives of the Tungusic language Even).11 A second explanatory factor may be formal. Imperatives are cross-linguistically relatively simple constructions: they are often limited to sec-ond persons, they have limited tense options, and they often lack agreement morphology.12 From that point of view, one would expect imperatives to be aspectually simple too, which would then result in the imperative taking the morphosyntactic trimming of either the perfective or the imperfective, whatever happens to be simpler. English again serves to illustrate this point: the bare stem sing is simpler than the periphrastic be singing, which makes it unsurprising that the normal imperative is sing. Or consider Tu-kang Besi: the bare stem kede is simpler than the suffixed kedemo form, which might (help) explain why the normal imperative is kede. Note that the formal argument does not really force any view on whether the meaning of the simple format imperative is either perfective or imperfective or, in-stead, aspect neutral. Another point is that the above argument related the degree of formal markedness of either perfective or imperfective to the relatively low degree of formal markedness of the imperative. But this rela-tion is not necessary. It is a well-known observation in the typological lit-erature that formally marked categories are more restricted in their distribu-tion as compared to unmarked ones (Croft 1990: 157). From this point of view the imperative could be a context that the more restricted format might not extend to. Note, finally, that the pragmatic and the formal factors may reinforce one another. Thus the absence of the progressive form in the English imperative can be attributed both to formal markedness and to the perfective bias of the imperatives. However, they could be in conflict as well. Thus in Qiang the imperative uses the perfective, even though it is a marked form (which also marks direction).

(14) Qiang (Tibeto-Burman, China, Lapolla 2003: 173) -z-na! DIR-eat-IMP Eat! We now come to the third explanatory factor, which concerns the dimension of time. Languages may or may not have their perfective and imperfective verbs line up with default time spheres, and then it is the per-fective that goes with the past and the imperfective with the non-past (com-pare e.g. Comrie 1976: 82-84). If this happens, then the perfective is a less likely candidate for the imperative function, for the latter has a definitional future orientation. This is arguably the case for Egyptian Arabic. Basically, the perfective stem is strongly dedicated to past sphere uses (Eisele 1999: 63-81; Woidich 2006: 270) and the imperfective stem is used for anything else. The imperfective stem would therefore be the obvious choice for im-peratives.13

6. Conclusion

In this paper we had a preliminary look at the interaction of mood and as-pect, more particularly, at the relevance of the perfective imperfective dis-tinction for positive imperatives. We found there to be at least four types of languages: in some languages the imperatives are obligatorily either perfec-tive or imperfective. Other languages do not have that choice: the impera-tives have to be aspect-neutral, or they have to be imperfective, or they have to be perfective. We then speculated about the explanations for these facts. We focussed on three factors: (i) imperatives may be expected to be typically and most often result-oriented, which yields a preference for per-fective imperatives, (ii) imperatives are typicallly coded in a relatively sim-ple format, which may line them up with whatever aspect type happens to be formally simpler, and (iii) imperatives are future oriented, a fact that harmonizes better with the imperfective aspect.

Error! Reference source not found. 11

Abbreviations ABS absolutive, ACC accusative, ART article, CONT continuative, DEF definite, DEM demostrative, FUT future, IMP imperative, IMPF imperfective, IND indicative, IRR irrealis, LOG logophoric, M masculine, NOM nominative, PF perfective, PL plural, POSS possessive, PRS present, PRT preterit, SG singular, TR transitive.

Notes

1. Thanks are due to the University of Antwerp, Princeton University, and the

Flemish Science Foundation. They supported the first author during a sabbati-cal in Princeton, and the University of Antwerp further supported the third au-thor with a predoctoral fellowship. Thanks are also due to Daniel Van Olmen.

2. Overall, Russian aspect is more complex than would appear from example (1). For one thing, certain verbs have a marked imperfective (secondary im-perfectivization). Second, for some aspectual pairs the formal markedness is the other way round. Nevertheless, the contrast illustrated in (1) is the major-ity pattern and there is furthermore a correlation with functional markedness (Jakobson 1957; Bondarko 1971; Meluk 1988: 28), as manifested in neu-tralization contexts.

3. Perhaps the clause-initial prefixes k- and t-, glossed as temporal in (3), are aspectual as well (compare Lehmann, Shin, and Verhoeven 2000; Bohne-meyer 2002: 216-344), but then again, both aspects are marked. Note also that for intransitive verbs there are two main groups as concerns markedness of aspect: intransitive verbs of the inactive class are morphologically marked in the imperfective by the suffix Vl while the perfective is . In contrast, in-transitive verbs from the active class are morphologically marked in the per-fective by the suffix nah while the imperfective is . Then there is a third class, and here both the perfective and the imperfective are marked (cf. e.g. Bohnemeyer 2002).

4. One might assume that aspect distinctions made in positive sentences carry over to negative sentences, but as we know for declaratives (Miestamo 2005: 180-181; Miestamo and van der Auwera In print), that would be a mistake.

5. The English imperative does not show number, but here and elsewhere the gloss will make clear whether number is expressed in the source language.

6. This is not to say this ending does not occur anywhere else in Spanish verbal paradigms. Thus the indicative present third person singular may also be

marked with an a. This is considered homonomy and the rule of thumb for ruling out homonyny is that for morphological dedication only second per-sons are to be considered.

7. Interestingly, aspect does seem to matter for prohibitives. The language has negative markers: perfective n and imperfective s, and it is the latter that is used in prohibitives.

(a) Tondi Songway Kiini (Heath 2005: 174) s ky! IMP.2PL PROH go Dont go! The imperfectivity of the prohibitive is a problem for both analyses. If one

takes the positive imperative to have no aspect, one should explain why the prohibitive does have it, and if one takes the positive imperative to be perfec-tive, then one has to explain why its negative counterpart switches aspect.

8. This stem is normally prefixed, except precisely in the imperative, and for this reason one may resist considering the stem itself imperfective (thanks are due to Samia Nam (Paris) for this point). But even then the imperfective and the imperative will be considered to use the same stem and thus show at least an affinity. Note that the true, prefixed imperative can also convey imperative meaning (Woidich 2006: 276).

9. Note that the imperative is irrealis. Just like in Tondi Songway Kiini, it is interesting to look at the prohibitive. Like in Tondi Songway Kiini, the pro-hibitive is necessarilly imperfective, but whereas the Tondi Songway Kiini the prohibitive is arguably irrealis (Heath 2005: 175), the one in Misantla To-tonac is arguably realis (MacKay 1999: 201).

10. This is not say that imperatives may not have distinctions that are unique to them (see van der Auwera, De Vogelaer and Schalley In print), but this is probably very rare.

11. We do not claim that politeness can only accrue to redundant perfective mor-phology; Gusev (2005: 76), for one, notes politeness effects for imperfectives.

12. Note the hedge in the phrase relatively simple though: in about half of the 419 languages studied by Schalley (In progress), imperatives have overt mor-phological marking, even for a singular or a number neutral form.

13. Interestingly, in some languages (Schalley In progress lists Georgian, Laz, Monumbo, Yapese, Bambara and, with some reservation, Jola-Fogny and Pampangan), imperatives are morphologically identical with past tense forms. If imperatives are preferentially perfective and if in these languages the past tense historically derives from perfective aspect, this paradoxical fact makes sense. (There is another, pragmatic explanation, however, offered in Schalley (In progress): one presents the wished for state of affairs as already in effect, thus allowing no other option for the hearer than to catch up with reality and do what the speaker wants him/her to do.)

Error! Reference source not found. 13

References

Birjulin, Leonid A., and Viktor S. Xrakovskij 2001 Imperative sentences: theoretical problems. In: Xrakovskij, V.S.

(ed.), 3-50. Bohnemeyer, Jrgen 2002 The Grammar of Time Reference in Yukatek Maya. Mnchen:

Lincom Europa. Bondarko, Aleksandr V. 1971 Vid i Vremja Russkogo Glagola [Tense and aspect of the Russian

verb]. Leningrad: Nauka. Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect. An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Re-

lated Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, William 1990 Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Dasgupta, D., and S.R. Sharma, 1982 A Handbook of the Onge Language. Calcutta: Anthropological

Survey of India. Dahl, sten and Viveka Velupillai 2005 Perfective/Imperfective aspect. In The World Atlas of Language

Structures. Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie (eds.), 267-268, 274-275. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Davies, Eirlys 1986 The English Imperative. London: Croom Helm. De Clerck, Bernard 2006 The imperative in English: a corpus-based, pragmatic analysis.

Ph. D dissertation, English Department, University of Ghent. Donohue, Mark 1999 A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dryer, Matthew 2000 Counting genera vs. counting languages. Linguistic Typology 4:

334-350. Eisele, John C. 1999 Arabic Verbs in Time: Tense and Aspect in Cairene Arabic.

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gusev, Valentin Ju.

References 15

2005 Tipologija specializirovannyx glagolnyx form imperativa [Ty-pology of specialized verbal imperative forms]. Ph. D. disserta-tion, Department of Linguistics, Moscow University.

Haspelmath, Martin 2006 Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of

Linguistics 42: 25-70. Heath, Jeffrey 2005 Tondi Songway Kiini (Songhay, Mali). Reference Grammar and

TSK-English-French Dictionary. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Jakobson, Roman 1957 Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. Selected Writ-

ings. Vol. 2. Word and Language, 130-147.The Hague: Mouton. LaPolla, Randy with Chenglong Huang 2003 A grammar of Qiang with Annotated Texts and Glossary. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter. Lehmann, Christian 1990 Yukatetisch. Zeitschrift fr Sprachwissenschaft 9: 28-51. Lehmann, Christian, Yong-Min Shin, and Elisabeth Verhoeven 2000 Person Prominence and Relation Prominence. On the Typology

of Syntactic Relations with Special Reference to Yucatec Maya. Mnchen: Lincom Europa.

Louwerse, John 1988 The Morphosyntax of Una in Relation to Discourse Structure. A

Descriptive Analysis. Canberra: Australian National University. Mackay, Carolyn J. 1999 A Grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City: University of

Utah Press. Malchukov, Andrej 2001 Imperative constructions in Even. In Typology of Imperative

Constructions. Victor S. Xrakovskij, 159-180. Munich: Lincom Europa/

Meluk, Igor. A. 1988 Kurs Obej Morfologij [A course of general morphology] Vol.

2. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kultury. Miestamo, Matti 2005 Standard Negation. The Negation of Declarative Verbal Main

Clauses in a Typological Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Miestamo, Matti and Johan van der Auwera In print Negation and perfective vs imperfective aspect In: Chronos 7.

Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Rijkhoff, Jan, Dik Bakker, Kees Hengeveld, and Peter Kahrel 1993 A method of language sampling. Studies in Language 17: 169-

203. Schalley, Ewa In progress Imperatives: a typological approach. Ph. D. Dissertation,

Department of Linguistics, University of Antwerp. van der Auwera, Johan, Gunter de Vogelaer, and Ewa Schalley In print Analogie und die Verbreitung der verbalen Kongruenz bei

Imperativen, Konjunktionen und Antwortpartikeln. In Verstrkung. Rdiger Harnisch (ed.), Berlin: Mouton.

Vormann, Franz. and Wilhelm Scharfenberger 1914 Die Monumbo-Sprache: Grammatik und Wrterverzeichnis.

Vienna: Mechitaristenbuchdruckerei. Walker, Alan Trevor 1982 A Grammar of Sawu. Jakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya. Williams, Christopher 2001 Uses of the imperative with the progressive form in English.

Nottingham Linguistic Circular 16: 31-45. Woidich, Manfred 2006 Das Kairenisch-Arabische. Eine Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harras-

sowitz.