Daniel Van Olmen

Reproachatives and imperatives

Abstract This paper studies constructions dedicated to the expression of an after the fact reprimand to a second person in the languages of Europe. Taking a usage-based perspective, it argues against earlier analyses of these reproachatives as imperatives, optatives or conditionals, which fail to capture their idiosyncrasies and overpredict both their cross-linguistic frequency and the grammaticality of types of imperative in a language. Based on a closer examination of Dutch, the paper assumes a middle position between the existing views in that it argues for an account of the Dutch reproachative as the hybrid outcome of the interaction of the aforementioned constructions and of processes such as analogy, conventionalization and insubordination. It explores to what extent such an analysis applies to the other European languages featuring a reproachative and what its implications are for our understanding of imperative semantics.

Aspects of grammaticalization:(inter)subjectification and directionality

This paper discusses the three extant concepts of subjectivity and of intersubjectivity in linguistics. It points out their commonalities and the substantial differences between them, which are often overlooked. Furthermore, a synthesis between these concepts is proposed, and then the dynamic (diachronic) dimension of the synthesized concept in terms of increase in speech-act orientation. The paper ends with a short discussion of the relationship between increase in speech-act orientation and grammaticalization.

Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification

Grammaticalization and subjectification have been hot topics in linguistics ever since the pioneeringwork by, among others, Lehmann (1982) andTraugott (1982). Important publications include Stein and Wright (1995), Brinton (1996), Fischer, Rosenbach, and Stein (2000), Bisang, Himmelmann, and Wiemer (2004), Athanasiadou, Canakis, and Cornillie (2006), Stathi, Gehweiler, and König (2010), and Narrog and Heine (2011). Recent years have seen an increasing interest in intersubjectification too (see, e.g., Davidse, Vandelanotte, and Cuyckens 2010; Brems, Ghesquière, and Van de Velde 2012). It would be an understatement to say that there is no real consensus about these processes in the literature. It is beyond the scope of the present introduction to mention all the debates in the field (see, e.g., Campbell 2001 on the theoretical status of grammaticalization; Croft 2010 on its origins; Ghesquière, Brems, and Van de Velde 2012, 140–143 on the directionality between subjectification and intersubjectification). But a number of the controversial issues, which are also addressed in the papers in this issue, are mentioned here:

De imperatief in de verleden tijd

This article deals with the cross-linguistically rare phenomenon of past tense imperatives and, more precisely, with the past perfect imperative in Dutch. With this construction, the speaker typically conveys the undesirability of a state of affairs that cannot be changed anymore and reprimands the addressee. The article examines the two functional accounts that have been proposed in the literature. Proeme (1984) provides a definition of the imperative that is so broad that no a priori restrictions of verb types, aspect and tense can be assumed. It is argued that his starting point is debatable from a usage-based perspective and that his account cannot explain the construction’s standard interpretation, the dubious acceptability of other interpretations and its scarcity in the world’s languages. Duinhoven (1995) regards the past perfect imperative as the outcome of the interaction of the counterfactual conditional inversion construction and the (conditional) imperative construction. His fairly idiosyncratic account is evaluated positively in the light of construction grammar and the typological literature on directive strategies and insubordination. The assumed processes of analogy and conventionalization are argued to be at odds with the construction’s infrequency in corpora, though.

Afrikaans as Standaard Gemiddelde Europees: Wanneer ‘n lid uit sy taalarea beweeg

Opsomming: ʼn Onlangse tendens in die studie van Standaard Gemiddeld Europees (Standard Avarage European), is die sogenaamde “ekstra-territoriale perspektief”. Hiermee word gepoog om te bepaal tot watter mate tale van die Sprachbund en nie-Europese tale vanweë taalkontak op mekaar begin afstem. Die huidige artikel val binne die kader van hierdie navorsingsfokus, deurdat dit ondersoek instel na die mate waarin ʼn Europese taal begin afwyk het van Standaard Gemiddeld Europees nadat dit geografies uit die taalarea verwyder is. Die fokus is op Nederlands – ʼn nukleuslid van die Sprachbund – en Afrikaans – die koloniale T2-taal. Die twee tale is vergelyk op basis van die twaalf van die mees kenmerke eienskappe van Standaard Gemiddeld Europees. Daar is gevind dat Afrikaans tien van die twaalf kenmerke met Nederlands deel, insluitend antikou-satiewe prominensie en die formele onderskeid tussen intensifiseerders en refleksiewe. Ten spyte van die verskil in die wyse waarop Afrikaans en Nederlands negatiewe voornaamwoorde of eksterne besitters gebruik, kan Afrikaans, vanweë die mate van ooreenstemming met SGE, steeds nog as ʼn kernlid van die taalarea gereken word. ʼn Moontlike rede vir die feit dat Afrikaans nog so baie van die taalarea se kenmerke het, kan waarskynlik toegeskryf word aan die variëteit wat die basis van die standaardtaal in die vroeë ontwikkelingsjare van Afrikaans gevorm het, te wete Oosgrensafrikaans.