What can you do? ILLC Dissertation Series Maria Aloni, Quantification under Conceptual Willem van Dam, On Quantum Computation Covers, DS-2001-01 Theory, DS-2002-04 Alexander van den Bosch, Rationality in Discov- Rosella Gennari, Mapping Inferences: Constraint ery - a study of Logic, Cognition, Computation Propagation and Diamond Satisfaction, DS- and Neuropharmacology, DS-2001-02 2002-05 Erik de Haas, Logics For OO Information Sys- Ivar Vermeulen, A Logical Approach to Compe- tems: a Semantic Study of Object Orientation tition in Industries, DS-2002-06 from a Categorial Substructural Perspective, DS- Barteld Kooi, Knowledge, Chance, and Change, 2001-03 DS-2003-01 Rosalie Iemhoff, Provability Logic and Admissi- Elsbeth Brouwer, Imagining Metaphors: Cogni- ble Rules, DS-2001-04 tive Representation in Interpretation and Under- Eva Hoogland, Definability and Interpolation: standing, DS-2003-02 Model-theoretic investigations, DS-2001-05 Juan Heguiabehere, Building Logic Toolboxes, DS-2003-03 Ronald de Wolf, Quantum Computing and Communication Complexity, DS-2001-06 Christof Monz, From Document Retrieval to Question Answering, DS-2003-04 Katsumi Sasaki, Logics and Provability, DS- 2001-07 Hein R¨ohrig, Quantum Query Complexity and Distributed Computing, DS-2004-01 Allard Tamminga, Belief Dynamics. (Epis- temo)logical Investigations, DS-2001-08 Sebastian Brand, Rule-based Constraint Propa- gation: Theory and Applications, DS-2004-02 Gwen Kerdiles, Saying It with Pictures: a Logical Landscape of Conceptual Graphs, DS-2001-09 Boudewijn de Bruin, Explaining Games. On the Logic of Game Theoretic Explanations, DS- Marc Pauly, Logic for Social Software, DS-2001- 2004-03 10 Balder ten Cate, Model Theory for Extended Nikos Massios, Decision-Theoretic Robotic Modal Languages, DS-2005-01 Surveillance, DS-2002-01 Willem-Jan van Hoeve, Operations Research Marco Aiello, Spatial Reasoning: Theory and Techniques in Constraint Programming, DS- Practice, DS-2002-02 2005-02 Yuri Engelhardt, The Language of Graphics, DS- Rosja Mastop, What Can You Do? Imperative 2002-03 Mood in Semantic Theory, DS-2005-03 For information about the ILLC Dissertation Series please contact the ILLC at: Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation Plantage Muidergracht 24 1018 TV Amsterdam The Netherlands +31 (0)20 525 6051 http://www.illc.uva.nl What can you do? Imperative mood in semantic theory academisch proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, prof. mr. P.F. van der Heijden, ten overstaan van een door het college van promoties ingestelde commissie in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit op maandag 1 juni 2005 te 14.00 uur door Rochus Jacobus Mastop, geboren te De Bilt Promotiecommissie Promotores: prof. dr. F. J. M. M. Veltman prof. dr. M. J. B. Stokhof Overige leden: prof. N. M. Asher PhD prof. dr. H. J. Bennis dr. P. J. E. Dekker prof. dr. D. J. N. van Eijck prof. dr. J. A. G. Groenendijk prof. dr. M. van Lambalgen Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen Cover design by Joeri and Rosja Mastop. Cover photograph by Ollie O’Brien, detail of “Traffic Light tree” by Pierre Vivant (1952). Typeset in Garamond, using Latex and the ILLC Dissertation style. Printed and bound by PrintPartners Ipskamp, Enschede. c 2005 Rochus Jacobus Mastop All rights reserved. Published 2005 Printed in the Netherlands ISBN: 90-5776-1505 Contents Preface vii Introduction 1 1 Non-declarative sentence meaning 9 1.1 Truth-conditionalizing mood 11 1.2 The mood-radical theory of sentence type meaning 15 1.3 Semantics for different moods 30 1.4 Concluding remarks 35 2 The infinitive as a sentence type 37 2.1 Bolinger vs Katz & Postal on the bare form 39 2.2 The Hypothetical 44 2.3 Learning finiteness 54 2.4 Control infinitives 59 2.5 Concluding remarks 61 3 Perspective shifts in imperatives 63 3.1 The imperative as a nonfinite clause type 66 3.2 Do imperatives have tense? 70 3.3 Hortatives as indirect directives 83 3.4 Concluding remarks 94 4 Ross’ paradox and quandaries 95 4.1 Update semantics 98 4.2 An update system for declaratives and imperatives 100 4.3 The Ross problem revisited 106 4.4 Free choice permission 108 4.5 From schedule to plan, from information to belief 112 v 4.6 Concluding remarks 114 5 Actions in a semantics for imperatives 115 5.1 An ontology of actions and events 116 5.2 Agentivity and arguments 120 5.3 Update semantics revisited 125 5.4 Tense as a context shift 135 5.5 Root modality and past tense imperatives 138 5.6 Imperative subjects 147 5.7 Mixing moods 152 5.8 Aspect and imperatives 156 5.9 Concluding remarks 160 Conclusion 163 A List of definitions 167 Bibliography 173 Samenvatting 181 Preface The incentive to write a dissertation on the semantics of imperatives was borne from reading the posthumously published book on that subject by Charles Hamblin. After having acquainted myself with the literature on deontic logic, I was under the im- pression that the predominance of the notion of propositional, or truth conditional, content figured as an obstacle in the discussions there. Hamblin’s book integrates ty- pological, grammatical, logical, semantic and philosophical observations and analyses concerning imperatives and thereby it creates a strong case for an approach to seman- tics in general in which declarative sentences do not form the heart of the theory of meaning. I hope that this thesis helps to further this cause. Alexander Broadie remarked, and I believe rightly so, that much work on the logic of imperatives has too hastily taken recourse to conventional approaches to logical semantics. I fully agree with his judgement that [. ] the notion of “imperativity” possesses a complexity that can be revealed in significant depth only if a battery of disparate notions is employed, and par- ticularly notions of special relevance to social philosophy and the philosophy of mind. One unfortunate consequence of the determination of philosophers to construct with all speed a logic of imperatives is their tendency to camouflage this complexity instead of displaying it. (Broadie, 1972, page 190) In complementary fashion, though, I am under the impression that the concep- tual analysis of these disparate notions could be improved upon by a more thorough understanding of the semantic complexities of imperatives. It remains to be seen whether I am correct in thinking so. What shaped the views developed in this thesis most are the discussions with my promotores, Frank Veltman and Martin Stokhof. Their comments always struck a fine balance between inspiring debate on the general ideas and helpful suggestions for improvements of the details. That these discussions did not only greatly improve the result, but that our opinions also seem to have converged, I much value as a compliment. vii The text has further benefitted from the generous attention of some other people as well. Darrin Hindsill read an early draft and provided me with many detailed comments, suggestions and corrections. Fabrice Nauze studied the formal semantics of the last two chapters with much precision and helped me to improve upon it considerably. Maarten Cleeren read parts of the thesis in detail and brought to my attention several easily overseen mistakes. Several people helped me in finding my interests and shaping my thoughts and opinions on various matters throughout the past four years. I should specifically men- tion Marc Pauly, Tim Fernando, Isabel Txurruka and Carla Umbach. Though not all of the issues that we discussed are directly reflected in the thesis, I thank them for their interest and insightful suggestions. Paul Dekker has been a constant support as a colleague, teacher and friend. From helping me out with typesetting technicali- ties and correcting spelling mistakes to giving advice on presentations and discussing theoretical issues, his door was always open. I had the great pleasure to work in a lively and intellectually stimulating environ- ment, the most immediate representatives of this being my office mates Balder ten Cate, Marie Saf´aˇ ˇrov´aand Marieke Schouwstra. The lunches, picnics, Friday drinks, various colloquia, reading groups, classes (both as a student and as a teacher) and occasional workshops with the staff and students of the philosophy department, the ILLC and the Dutch graduate school in logic Ozsl were always pleasant and engaging. I learned a lot and I hope I have been able to return the favor. Parts of the material in this thesis has been presented at several conferences, workshops and colloquia. I am grateful for the many helpful comments and suggestions of those audiences. Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their interest, for their care, and for their continued efforts to seek proximity to my often absent mind. Amsterdam Rosja Mastop April, 2005 In order to say what a meaning is, we may first ask what a meaning does, and then find something that does that. —David Lewis, General Semantics Introduction Languages can be used to communicate all sorts of messages. In many philosophical theories of meaning this diversity is seen as a problem to be overcome in order to de- fine a simple and uniform—hence ‘intuitive’—concept of meaning. Often this leads to a distinction between a diverse array of uses (forces, moods) and a single, uniform ‘content’ (proposition) shared by all sentences of the language. This shared content is then the domain of semantics, whereas the diversity of uses is counted as belonging to pragmatics. Belnap (1990) criticizes this practice, analyzing it as involving what he calls the ‘Declarative Fallacy’. This fallacy is to assume, without question, that we can identify in all sentences a content prototypical of declarative sentences: it is a propo- sition, has a truth value, can be used in inference, and so on.