Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

1.4.2.Imperative

quickinfo

Prototypical imperative constructions exhibit the following properties: (i) meaning: imperatives are directive in the sense that they are used to persuade the addressee to bring about a specific state of affairs; (ii) morphology; imperative verbs are derived from the stem by means of the zero marking -Ø; (iii) syntax: imperative verbs are finite and occupy the first position of the sentence; subjects are not overtly expressed; (iv) phonetics: the sentence-initial verb is stressed. All these properties can be found in the examples in (161).

161

a.	Eet	dat broodje	op!
	eat	that roll	up
	'Eat that roll!'

b.	Kom	dat boek	even	halen!
	come	that book	prt	fetch
	'Come and fetch that book!'

This section will show, however, that there are a number of imperative constructions that do not exhibit all these prototypical characteristics, subsection I starts by showing that imperative sentences that exhibit the prototypical formal properties mentioned in (ii)-(iv) above can be used with functions other than those mentioned in (i). After that, Subsection II discusses a number of constructions with imperative semantics, but with formal properties other than those mentioned in (ii)-(iv).

I. Meaning of the imperative
II. Formal properties of the imperative

[+] I. Meaning of the imperative

Although formal imperatives are prototypically used with a directive meaning, this is not necessarily the case. Examples (162b&c) show that they can also be used to express a wish or be used in generic statements. The following subsections will briefly discuss these three uses.

162

a.		Pak	je	koffer!	directive
		pack	your	suitcase

b.		Eet	smakelijk!	wish
		eat	tastily

c.	Spreek	hem	tegen	en	je	hebt meteen	ruzie	met hem.	generic
	contradict	him	prt.	and	you	have instantly	a.quarrel	with him
	'If someone contradicts him, heʼll instantly have an argument with him.'

[+] A. Directive use

Imperative constructions are typically used in clauses that are directive in nature, that is, that aim at persuading the addressee to bring about or maintain a specific state of affairs. They function as commands, requests, pieces of advice, encouragements, etc.

163

a.		Zit!	command
		sit

b.		Geef	me het zout	even,	alsjeblieft!	request
		give	me the salt	prt	please

c.		Bezoek	je dokter	eens!	advice
		visit	your physician	prt

d.		Pak	gerust	een koekje!	encouragement
		take	carefree	a biscuit

In earlier work, like Vendler (1957) and Dowty (1979), it was claimed that the imperative is only possible with specific aspectual verb classes. States denoted by verbs like weten/kennen'to know', for example, were shown to be either unacceptable or to trigger readings in which the addressee is requested to perform certain actions unrelated to the imperative verb in question but that will ultimately result in the state denoted by the verb.

164

a.	$	Weet	het antwoord!
		know	the answer

b.		Ken	uzelf!
		know	yourself

Section 1.2.3, sub III, has shown, however, that all aspectual types can be used as imperatives provided that the addressee is able to control the state of affairs denoted by the verb in question; we give another set of examples in (165).

165

a.		Zit stil!	state
		sit still

b.		Wacht	op mij!	activity
		wait	for me

c.		Vertrek	op tijd!	achievement
		leave	in time

d.		Leg	het boek	op de tafel!	accomplishment
		put	the book	on the table

[+] B. Wishes and curses

Imperatives are sometimes also possible if the addressee is not able to control the event denoted by the verb, in which case the construction typically receives a wish or a curse reading, as in respectively the (a)- and (b)-examples in (166).

166

a.	Slaap	lekker!
	sleep	nicely
	'Sleep well!'

a'.		Eet smakelijk!
		eat tastily
		'Have a nice meal!'

b.		Krijg	de tyfus!
		get	the typhus

b'.		Val	dood!
		drop	dead

A special case of this use is the so-called success imperative. The imperative form is followed by the element ze, which is normally used as a third person plural pronoun. It is not a priori clear, however, whether we are dealing with an object pronoun in the success imperative, given that ze is then typically non-referential and may also occur with intransitive verbs like slapen'to sleep' in (167b').

167

a.		Eet de appels/ze!
		eat the apples/them
		'Eat the apples/them!'

a'.	Eet	ze!
	eat	ze
	'Have a nice meal!'

b.	*	Slaap ze!
		sleep them
		Compare: '*Sleep them!'

b'.		Slaap ze!
		sleep ze
		'Sleep well!'

The success imperative is used in contexts where (i) the addressee has the intention to perform a certain action and (ii) the speaker expresses his wish that this action will be performed to the satisfaction of the addressee; cf. Coppen (1998). Coppen adds that the action must be approved by the speaker, but it seems likely that this can simply be inferred from the fact that the speaker wishes the addressee success. Coppen finally suggests that the action involved is habitual in nature; one could not say spring ze!'jump well' to someone who is planning to jump from a table he is incidentally standing on, but it is perfectly acceptable to say it to someone who is planning to do some springboard diving. The habituality of the action denoted by the verb does not seem to be absolutely necessary, however, since one could readily say Kook ze!'Cook well!' to someone who has never cooked before but who is planning to give it a try. The restriction might therefore be more aspectual in nature in the sense that the action must be durative or iterative; we leave this open for future research.
Corver (1995) and Coppen (1998) show that success imperatives are subject to several syntactic constraints. First, the verb must be (pseudo-)intransitive in order to occur in the success imperative: the primeless examples in (168) are intransitive and must be interpreted as success imperatives; the verbs in the singly-primed examples can be either transitive or pseudo-intransitive and can be interpreted either as a directive or success imperatives; the doubly-primed examples are necessarily transitive and can only be interpreted as directive imperatives.

168

a.		Slaap ze!
		sleep ze/*them
		'Sleep well!'

a'.		Eet ze!
		eat ze/them
		'Eat well!/'Eat them!'

a''.	#	Verorber ze!
		consume them/*ze
		'Consume them!'

b.		Werk ze!
		work ze/*them
		'Work well!'

b'.		Lees ze!
		read ze/them
		'Read well!/'Read them!'

b''.	#	Pak ze!
		take them/*ze
		'Take them!'

It is important to note that the element ze can never be used if the direct object is overtly expressed: Eet (*ze) je brood!'Eat your sandwiches!'. This suggests that the non-referential element ze in the success imperative may still act as a pronominal object, as is in fact suggested both by Corver and by Coppen.; the verb is unable to case mark ze because it already assigns accusative case to the direct object.
Second, the examples in (169) show that although unaccusative verbs can be used in regular imperatives, they cannot enter success imperatives. This again suggests that the non-referential element ze acts as a pronominal object; since unaccusative verbs cannot assign accusative case, the element ze remains case-less and is therefore excluded.

169

a.		Kom/Blijf	hier!
		come/stay	here

a'.	*	Kom/Blijf	ze!
		come/stay	ze

b.		Vertrek	nu!
		leave	now

b'.	*	Vertrek	ze!
		leave	ze

c.		Sterf!
		die

c'.	*	Sterf	ze!
		die	ze

Finally, the examples in (170) show that although they can be used in regular imperatives, verbs taking a complementive or a verbal particle are not possible in success imperatives.

170

a.		Eet	ze	op!
		eat	them	up

a'.	*	Eet ze op!
		eat ze up

b.		Lees ze	voor!
		read them	aloud

b'.	*	Lees	ze	voor!
		read	ze	aloud

c.		Verf	ze	groen!
		paint	them	green

c'.	*	Verf	ze	groen!
		paint	ze	green

The analyses proposed by Corver and Coppen are similar in that they assume that the element ze is pronominal in nature; as was already mentioned above this may account for the restrictions illustrated in (168) and (169). Corver accounts for the unacceptability of the primed examples in (170) by assuming that ze must be incorporated into the verb in order to license the success reading; this is possible if the object pronoun is an internal argument of the verb, but blocked if it functions as the logical subject of a complementive/particle. Coppen derives the unacceptability of the primed examples in (170) by assuming that success imperatives contain an empty complementive, which blocks the addition of another complementive/particle. This also accounts for the fact that the verb can be intransitive; the addition of a complementive may have a transitivizing effect and thus licenses the presence of the pronoun ze (see Section 2.2.3, sub I). Coppen further suggests that the postulation of an empty complementive may account for the non-referential status of the pronoun ze; the idiomatic examples in (171) show that ze is more often used non-referentially in such contexts.

171

a.	Hij	heeft	[ze	achter	de ellebogen].
	he	has	them	behind	the elbows
	'Heʼs a sneak.'

b.	Hij	bakt	[ze	bruin].
	he	bakes	them	brown
	'Heʼs laying it on thick.'

[+] C. Use in generic statements

All cases discussed so far can readily be seen as directive in an extended meaning of the word. Proeme (1984) has shown, however, that there are also non-directive uses of the imperative. Consider the constructions in (172). These examples are still directive in nature, but the more conspicuous meaning aspect of these constructions is conditional: if the addressee performs the action denoted by the imperative verb, the event mentioned in the second conjunct will take place.

172

a.	Kom hier	en	ik	geef je	een snoepje.
	come here	and	I	give you	a candy
	'If you come here, Iʼll give you a candy.'

b.	Kom hier	en	ik	geef	je	een pak slaag.
	come here	and	I	give	you	a beating
	'If you come here, Iʼll give you a beating.'

In (173), structurally similar examples are shown in which the directive interpretation has completely disappeared. In fact, these constructions are special in that the implied subject no longer refers to the addressee, but is interpreted generically; we are dealing with more widely applicable generalizations.

173

a.	Spreek	hem	tegen	en	je	hebt	meteen	ruzie	met hem.
	contradict	him	prt.	and	you	have	instantly	quarrel	with hem
	'If someone contradicts him, heʼll instantly have an argument with him.'

b.	Hang	de was	buiten	en	het	gaat	regenen.
	hang	the laundry	outside	and	it	goes	rain
	'Whenever one hangs the laundry outside, itʼll rain.'

In fact, it is even possible to use imperatives in conditional constructions that are unacceptable in isolation: although the clause in (174a) is infelicitous on an imperative reading—given that, under normal circumstances, the subject is not able to control the property denoted by the individual-level predicate blond haar hebben'to have blond hair'—it can be used as the antecedent ("if-part") of the conditional construction in (174b); cf. Boogaart (2004) and Boogaart & Trnavac (2004).

174

a.	??	Heb blond haar!
		have blond hair

b.	Heb	blond haar	en	ze denken	dat	je	dom	bent.
	have	blond hair	and	they think	that	you	stupid	are
	'If youʼre blond, people automatically think youʼre stupid.'

Non-directive imperatives can also be used to invite the addressee to empathize in the event, as in (175). Such examples may also be conditional in nature: the addressee is supposed to construe the imperative as the antecedent of an implicit material implication and to figure out the consequence ("then-part") for himself.

175

a.	Word	maar	eens	ontslagen	als	je	51	bent.
	be	prt	prt	fired	when	you	51	are
	'Imagine that youʼre fired when youʼre 51 years old.'

b.	Werk	maar	eens	van ochtend	tot avond.
	work	prt	prt	from dawn	till dusk
	'Imagine that you have to work from dawn till dusk.'

In the conditional constructions discussed so far the imperative functions as the antecedent of the implied material implication, but it can also function as the consequence, as is shown in (176).

176

a.	Als	hij	een slecht humeur	heeft,	berg je	dan	maar.
	if	he	a bad temper	has	hide refl	then	prt
	'If he has a bad temper, then youʼd better hide.'

b.	Als	hij	je	niet	mag,	pak	dan	je boeltje	maar.
	if	he	you	not	likes,	fetch	then	your things	prt
	'If he doesnʼt like you, then youʼd better pack your things.'

These constructions, which are typically used in narrative speech, exhibit the interesting property that the imperative in the consequence can occur in the past tense when the finite verb in the antecedent is also past.

177

a.	Als	hij	een slecht humeur	had,	borg	je	dan	maar.
	if	he	a bad temper	had	hid	refl	then	prt
	'If he had a bad temper, then youʼd better hide.'

b.	Als hij je niet mocht,	pakte	dan	je boeltje	maar.
	if he you not liked	fetched	then	your things	prt
	'If he didnʼt like you, then youʼd better pack your things.'

The same thing holds for constructions in which the imperative is part of the antecedent of the material implication. In a story about his time of military service, the speaker can readily use an example such as (178); see also Proeme (1984) and Wolf (2003).

178

Kwam

maar

eens

laat

of had

je schoenen niet

gepoetst,

dan

kreeg

gelijk

straf.

came

prt

some.time

too

late

or had

your shoes not

polished

then

got

you

immediately

punishment

'If one came too late or didnʼt polish his shoes, heʼd be punished immediately.'

Observe that example (178) contains not only an imperative verb in the past tense but also an imperative past perfect construction. The latter construction is more often used with a special meaning aspect. Consider the examples in (179a&b). Examples like these are counterfactual in nature; the event denoted by the main verb did not take place, and at the time of utterance this has some unwanted result. Examples like these are therefore mainly used as a means of reprimand or as an expression of regret, and are therefore more or less equivalent to if only-constructions, which are given here as translations.

179

a.	Had	dan	ook	iets	gegeten!
	had	then	prt	something	eaten
	'If only youʼd eaten something!'

b.	Was	dan	ook	wat	langer	gebleven!
	was	then	prt	a.bit	longer	stayed
	'If only you had stayed a bit longer!'

The situation is reversed when the imperative clause contains the negative adverb niet'not', as in (180): the event denoted by the verb did take place, and it would have been better if it had not.

180

Had	je	dan	ook	niet	zo	aangesteld!
had	refl	then	prt	not	that.much	prt.-pose
'If only you hadnʼt put on those airs!'

Past perfect constructions like (179) and (180) share the property of more regular imperatives that they require that the addressee has the potential to control the state of affairs denoted by the verb; examples such as (181) are semantically anomalous and can at best be used as a pun of some sort.

181

a.	*	Had	het antwoord	dan	ook	geweten!
		had	the answer	then	prt	known

b.	#	Was	dan	ook	iets	intelligenter	geweest!
		was	then	prt	a.bit	more.inteligent	been
		'If only you had been a bit more intelligent!'

Constructions like (179) and (180) seem closely related to past perfect constructions with a counterfactual interpretation, which are discussed in Section 1.5.4.2, sub VII.
Proeme (1984) claims that this kind of counterfactual imperative also occurs with a slightly more aggressive touch in the simple past tense, as in the primeless examples in (182), but at least some people consider examples of this type degraded and much prefer their past perfect counterparts in the primed examples. The cause of this contrast may be that the perfect (but not the past) tense implies current relevance; see Section 1.5.3 for discussion.

182

a.	%	Stopte	dan	ook!	Nu	heb	je	een ongeluk	veroorzaakt.
		stopped	then	prt	Now	have	you	an accident	caused

a'.	Was	dan	ook	gestopt!	Nu	heb	je	een ongeluk	veroorzaakt.
	was	then	prt	stopped	Now	have	you	an accident	caused
	'If only youʼd stopped! Now youʼve caused an accident.'

b.	%	Dronk	dan	ook	niet	zo veel!	Nu	heb	je	een kater.
		drank	then	prt	not	that much	now	have	you	a hangover

b'.	Had	dan	ook	niet	zo veel	gedronken!	Nu	heb	je	een kater.
	had	then	prt	not	that much	drunk	now	have	you	a hangover
	'If only you hadnʼt drunk that much! Now youʼve got a hangover.'

Simple past tense can be readily used, however, to express an irrealis meaning. The examples in (183) both function as advice, but the past tense variant in (183b) expresses in addition doubt on part of the speaker about whether the advice will be followed. For a more general discussion of the relation between past tense and irrealis, see Section 1.5.4.1, sub VII.

183

a.	Rook	eens	wat	minder,	dan	is	die	benauwdheid	snel	over!
	smoke	prt	a.bit	less	then	is	that	breathlessness	quickly	cured
	'If you smoke a bit less, that breathlessness will soon be cured.'

b.	Rookte	eens	wat	minder,	dan	is	die	benauwdheid	snel	over!
	smoked	prt	a.bit	less	then	is	that	breathlessness	quickly	cured
	'If you smoked a bit less, that breathlessness would soon be cured.'

[+] II. Formal properties of the imperative

This subsection discusses a number of constructions with imperative or imperative-like meanings. We will begin the discussion with the prototypical imperative, that is, with constructions without a phonetically realized subject in which the imperative form consists of the stem of the verb. After that, we will discuss a number of other verb forms that can potentially be used to express the imperative mood. The discussion will focus on these verb forms and a small number of conspicuous syntactic properties of the structures they are used in.

[+] A. Finite subjectless imperatives: stem + -Ø/-t

Finite subjectless imperatives are typically formed by means of the stem with the zero marking -Ø. In the formal register it is also possible to mark the imperative as plural by adding a -t ending, but in colloquial speech this has only survived in fixed expressions like the one given in (184b).

184

a.		Komsg/pl	hier!	colloquial
		come	here

b.		Komtpl	allen!	formal/formulaic
		come	all

The reason that we refer to these imperative forms as finite is that they appear clause-initially; while non-finite main verbs always follow verbal particles and complementives, the examples in (185) show that the imperative forms under discussion must precede them—in fact they typically occur in sentence-initial position.

185

a.		Leg	dat boek	neer!
		put	that book	down

a'.	*	Dat boek	neer	leg!
		that book	down	put

b.		Sla	die mug	dood!
		hit	that mosquito	dead

b'.	*	Die mug	dood	sla!
		that mosquito	dead	hit

In occupying the first position in their sentence, finite imperatives differ markedly from indicative verbs in declarative clauses, which normally are preceded by some constituent; cf. the contrast between the two examples in (186); we refer the reader to Section 11.2.3 for a more extensive discussion of this.

186

a.	Dat boek	geef	ik	morgen	terug.
	that book	give	I	tomorrow	back
	'That book Iʼll return tomorrow.'

b.	*	Dat boek	geef	direct	terug!
		that book	give	immediately	back

The examples in (187) show that imperative verbs can be preceded by left-dislocated elements, which are separated from the clause by means of an intonation break and which function as the antecedent of some pronoun in the sentence. Note that the resumptive pronoun can at least marginally be omitted in imperatives (but not in declaratives).

187

a.	Dat boek,	ik	geef	*(het)	direct	terug.
	that book	I	give	it	immediately	back
	'That book, Iʼll return it immediately.'

b.	Dat boek,	geef	?(het)	direct	terug!
	that book	give	it	immediately	back
	'That book, return it immediately.'

Imperative clauses are always main clauses, and can only be embedded as direct speech; see the contrast between the two examples in (188).

188

a.	*	Jan riep	dat	dat boek	neer	leg!
		Jan called	that	that book	down	put

b.		Jan riep:	"Leg	dat boek	neer!"
		Jan called	put	that book	down

The examples in (189) show that Dutch freely allows negative imperatives with all event types; telic cases like (189c&d) can sometimes be construed as warnings, but more directive interpretation are possible as well: Lees dat boek maar niet!'Donʼt read that book!'. In this respect Dutch sharply differs from languages like Italian, which do not allow finite imperatives with negation; see Postma & Wurff (2007) for discussion.

189

a.	Vrees	niet!
	fear	not
	'Donʼt be afraid!'

c.	Val	niet!
	fall	not
	'Donʼt fall!'

b.	Zeur	Niet!
	nag	not
	'Donʼt nag!'

d.		Breek die vaas niet!
		break that vase not
		'Donʼt break that vase!'

Since the verb is in initial position, the subject is expected to follow it. The examples above have already shown, however, that this expectation is not borne out and that the subject is normally suppressed. This does not imply, however, that it is also syntactically absent. That subjects are syntactically present is strongly suggested by the fact that it is possible to use anaphors like je(zelf)/u(zelf)'yourself' and elkaar'each other', which normally must be bound by an antecedent in the same clause. The form of the anaphors also shows that we are dealing with an empty subject that is marked for second person but underspecified for number and the politeness feature; cf. Bennis (2006/2007). See Section N5.2.1.5 for a more detailed discussion of the binding of anaphors.

190

a.	Beheers	je!
	control	reflsg
	'Control yourself!'

a'.	Beheers	jullie!
	control	reflpl
	'Control yourself!'

a''.	Beheers	u!
	control	reflpolite
	'Control yourself!'

b.		Kijk	naar jezelf!
		look	at yourselfsg

b'.		Kijk	naar jezelf!
		look	at yourselfpl

b''.		Kijk	naar uzelf!
		look	at yourselfpolite

c.		Help	elkaar!
		help	each.other

The examples in (191) show that the pronouns jij, jullie and u can sometimes be used in combination with finite imperatives. They do not have the function of subjects, though, but function as vocatives (which are assigned default, nominative case). This is clear from the fact that at least the primeless examples are unacceptable without an intonation break (due to the lack of subject-verb agreement), that the pronouns can occur in the right periphery of the clause, and that the pronouns can all readily be replaced by a proper noun or an epithet; e.g., Kom eens hier, Jan/sukkel(s)!'Come here, Jan/idiot(s)!'.

191

a.		Jij	(daar),	kom	eens	hier!
		you	over.there	come	prt.	here

a'.		Kom	eens	hier,	jij (daar)!
		come	prt.	here	you over.there

b.		Jullie	(daar),	kom	eens	hier!
		you	over.there	come	prt.	here

b'.		Kom	eens	hier,	jullie (daar)!
		come	prt.	here	you over.there

c.		U	(daar),	kom	eens	hier!
		you	over.there	come	prt.	here

c'.	?	Kom	eens	hier,	u (daar)!
		come	prt.	here	you over.there

Subjectless finite imperatives can also be used to express general rules. This means that the implied subject can also be interpreted like the non-referential second person pronoun in statements such as (192a). On this interpretation the use of a vocative of course leads to a degraded result.

192

a.	Je	moet	elke dag	minstens	een half uur	bewegen.
	you	must	each day	at.least	a half hour	move
	'One has to have physical exercise for at least half an hour each day.'

b.		Beweeg	elke dag	minstens	een half uur	(*jij daar).
		move	each day	at.least	a half hour	you over.there

[+] B. Infinitival subjectless imperative: stem + -Ø/-t/-en

Besides the finite subjectless imperatives discussed in Subsection A, Dutch has infinitival subjectless imperatives. This is illustrated in (193), which also shows that there is no aspectual restriction on the verbs that can be used as such. The only requirement is that the addressee is able to control the event; compare the discussion in Subsection IA.

193

a.		Zitten!
		sit

c.		Vertrekken!
		leave

b.		Wachten!
		wait

d.		Neerleggen!
		down-put

According to Haeseryn et al. (1997), infinitival imperatives are used especially to express instructions that are not directed towards a specific person, e.g., in directions for use or prohibitions, and indeed it seems that the primeless examples in (194) are more common in such cases than those in the primed examples. Perhaps this is related to the fact that infinitival imperatives are often experienced as more polite than finite imperatives.

194

a.		Schudden voor gebruik.
		shake before use

a'.		Schud	voor gebruik!
		shake	before use

b.	Niet roken,	a.u.b.
	not smoke	please
	'Donʼt smoke.'

b'.	Rook	niet,	a.u.b.!
	smoke	not	please
	'Donʼt smoke, please!'

c.		Duwen/Trekken.
		push/pull

c'.		Duw!/trek!
		push/pull

Since we are dealing with infinitival verbs, we would expect the verb to be in clause-final position. The fact that the verb leggen'put' must follow the verbal particle neer'down' in (193d) shows that this expectation is indeed borne out. This is also illustrated in the examples in (195), which show that infinitival imperatives can be preceded by more than one constituent.

195

a.	Even	stil	zitten!
	for.a.moment	quietly	sit
	'Sit quietly for a moment!'

c.	Graag	op tijd	vertrekken!
	gladly	in time	leave
	'Leave in time, please!'

b.	Even	op Peter	wachten!
	for.a.moment	for Peter	wait
	'Wait for Peter for a moment!'

d.	De boeken	daar	neer	leggen!
	the books	there	down	put
	'Put the books down over there!'

Subsection A has shown that the fact that the subject is not phonetically realized does not imply that the subject is not syntactically present; the examples in (190) strongly suggest that in the case of finite imperatives, there is a phonetically empty subject, which is able to bind anaphors like je(zelf)/u(zelf)'yourself'. At first sight, this type of evidence is less robust in the case of infinitival infinitives; the (a)-examples in (196) show that inherently reflexive verbs give rise to an unacceptable result, and the (b)- and (c)-examples seem also somewhat marked.

196

a.	*	Je	beheersen!
		reflsg	control

a'.	*	jullie	beheersen!
		reflpl	control

a''.		*U	beheersen!
		reflpolite	control

b.	(?)	naar jezelf	kijken!
		at yourselfsg	look
		'Look at yourself!'

b'.	(?)	Naar jezelf kijken!
		at yourselfpl look
		'Look at yourself!'

b''.	(?)	Naar uzelf	kijken!
		at yourselfpolite	look
		'Look at yourself!'

c.	(?)	Elkaar helpen!
		each.other help

However, the examples in (196) much improve, if they are supplemented by the discourse particle hè, as is illustrated (197). Examples like these have the feel of advice or an urgent request.

197

a.		Je/jullie/u	beheersen,	hè!
		refl2sg/2pl/2polite	control	right

b.		Naar	jezelf/jezelf/uzelf	kijken,	hè!
		at	yourselfsg/pl/polite	look	right

c.		Elkaar	helpen,	hè!
		each.other	help	right

The fact that the subject is not expressed does not imply that the second person pronouns jij, jullie and u can never be used; just as in the case of the finite imperatives, these pronouns can be used as vocatives.

198

a.		Jij	(daar),	hier	komen!
		yousg	over.there	here	come

a'.		Hier	komen,	jij	(daar)!
		here	come	yousg	over.there

b.		Jullie	(daar),	hier	komen!
		youpl	over.there	here	come

b'.		Hier	komen,	jullie	(daar)!
		here	come	youpl	over.there

c.		U	(daar),	hier	komen!
		youpolite	over.there	here	come

c'.	?	Hier	komen,	u	(daar)!
		here	come	youpolite	over.there

Infinitival imperatives are also like finite ones in that they allow their object to remain implicit or be placed in sentence-final position.

199

a.	(Die boeken)	daar	neer	leggen!
	those books	there	down	put
	'Put those books down there!'

b.		Daar	neerleggen,	die boeken!
		there	down-put	those books

[+] C. Finite imperatives with overt subjects

Besides finite subjectless imperatives such as Ga weg!'Go away', Dutch has finite imperatives like those in (200), which obligatorily contain an overt subject in the regular subject position, that is, immediately after the finite verb (here: the imperative); the primed examples are either ungrammatical or interpreted as subjectless imperatives of the kind discussed in Subsection A (cf. Bennis 2006/2007).

200

a.	Ga	jij	eens	weg!
	go	yousg	prt	away
	'Go away!'

a'.	#	Ga	eens	weg,	(jij)!
		go	prt	away	yousg
		'Go away!'

b.		Gaan	jullie	eens	weg!
		go	youpl	prt	away

b'.	*	Gaan	eens	weg,	(jullie)!
		go	prt	away	youpl

c.		Gaat	u	eens	weg!
		go	youpolite	prt	away

c'.	#	Gaat	eens	weg,	(u)!
		go	prt	away	youpolite

Note that the subject pronoun is special in that it must be the phonetically unreduced form; replacement of the strong form jij in (200a) by the weak form je leads to a severely degraded result; *Ga je eens weg!
The fact that the form of the verbs in (200) is the same as that of the indicative verbs in the corresponding declarative constructions may give rise to the idea that we are just dealing with indicative verbs and that the imperative interpretation is due to the fact that the verb occupies the first position of the sentence. There are reasons, however, to assume that we are dealing with special imperative forms. Section 1.3, sub IV, has shown that the indicative present-tense forms of the verb zijn'to be' are ben(t) and zijn and that subject-verb inversion affects the inflection of the verb in the case of the colloquial second person singular pronoun, but not in the other cases. This is illustrated again in (201).

201

a.		Jij	bent	meestal	beleefd.
		yousg	are	generally	polite

a'.		Meestal	ben	je	beleefd.
		generally	are	yousg	polite

b.		Jullie	zijn	meestal	beleefd.
		youpl	are	generally	polite

b'.		Meestal	zijn	jullie	beleefd.
		generally	are	youpl	polite

c.		U	bent	meestal	beleefd.
		youpolite	are	generally	polite

c'.		Meestal	bent	u	beleefd.
		generally	are	youpolite	polite

The finite imperatives with and without an overt subject, on the other hand, are uniformly based on the stem weez-, which is also found in the past participle geweest'been'; cf. the primeless examples in (202). This strongly suggests that the forms found in the finite imperative in (200) cannot be considered regular indicative forms either. The primed examples are added to show that some speakers also allow the indicative forms ben(t) and zijn in these imperative constructions.

202

a.		Wees	beleefd!
		be	polite

a'.	%	Ben	beleefd!
		be	polite

b.		Wees	jij	maar	beleefd!
		be	yousg	prt	polite

b'.	%	Ben	jij	maar	beleefd!
		be	yousg	prt	polite

c.		Wezen	jullie	maar	beleefd!
		be	youpl	prt	polite

c'.	%	Zijn	jullie	maar	beleefd!
		be	youpl	prt	polite

d.		Weest	u	maar	beleefd!
		be	youpolite	prt	polite

d'.	%	Bent	u	maar	beleefd!
		be	youpolite	prt	polite

The alternation between the primeless and primed examples in (202) has led Proeme (1986) to argue against the claim that weez- is the designated stem for the imperative. His main argument is that the second person form wees can sometimes be followed by the reduced subject pronoun je, which is normally not possible in imperatives. He concludes from this that examples such as (203a) are questions, just like example (203b).

203

a.	Wees	je	voorzichtig!
	be	you	careful
	'Will you be careful?'

b.	Ben	je	voorzichtig?
	Are	you	careful
	'Are you careful?'

The translations given in (203) aim at expressing the meaning difference that Proeme attributes to the two examples. He claims that the form wees in (203a) differs from the form ben in (203b) in that it adds the meaning aspect that the addressee assumes the role of aiming at realizing the state of being careful ("daarbij presenteert [(203a)] dat voorzichtig zijn als iets [...] dat de referent van het subject [...] op zich neemt om te volbrengen" p.34), thereby building part of the imperative interpretation of (203a) into the lexical meaning of the verb form wezen. Proeme supports his claim by means of non-imperative constructions with wezen, but since these are not accepted by all speakers, it is not easy to draw any firm conclusions from them. For the moment, we simply assume that the fact that the pronouns in the primeless examples in (202) cannot be phonetically reduced suffices to conclude that we are dealing with imperatives, and we will leave open whether there are varieties of Dutch in which wees- can (sometimes) be used as a stem for the indicative as well.
Finite imperatives with overt subjects are like the other imperative constructions discussed in the previous subsections in that there are no aspectual restrictions on the verbs that can be used; it is only required that the addressee be able to control the event; compare the discussion in Subsection IA.

204

a.		Vrezen	jullie	maar	niet!
		fear	youpl	prt	not

c.		Vallen	jullie	maar	niet!
		fall	youpl	prt	not

b.		Zeuren	jullie	maar	niet!
		nag	youpl	prt	not

d.		Breken	jullie	die vaas	maar	niet!
		break	youpl	that vase	prt	not

Finite imperatives with overt subjects differ markedly from the other constructions, however, in that the object can neither be left out nor be placed in the right periphery of the sentence (but see Visser 1996 for a potentially acceptable example).

205

a.		Leggen	jullie	*(die bal)	maar	neer!
		put	youpl	that ball	prt	down

b.	*	Leggen	jullie	maar	neer,	die bal!
		put	youpl	prt	down,	that ball

Finite imperatives with a subject are generally characterized as containing a particle like eens or maar; the examples in (200) and in (202)-(204) are all degraded without the particle; cf. Barbiers (2007/2013). Observe that this restriction does not hold for the question-like example in (203a).

[+] D. Participial imperatives

The previous subsections have shown that there are two types of subjectless imperatives: finite ones like Loop!'Walk!' and infinitival ones like Lopen!'Walk!'. A third subjectless construction with imperative meaning, which was first discussed in Duinhoven (1984), involves a past/passive participle. The examples in (206) show that this participial construction is less productive than the finite and infinitival constructions.

206

a.		Loop!
		walk

a'.		Lopen!
		walk

a''.	*	Gelopen!
		walked

b.		Eet!
		eat

b'.		Eten!
		eat

b''.	*	Gegeten!
		eaten

c.	Pas	op!
	take.care	prt
	'Watch out!'

c'.		Oppassen
		prt.-take.care
		'Watch out!'

c''.		Opgepast!
		prt.-taken.care
		'Watch out!'

d.	Donder	op!
	go	prt
	'Go away!'

d'.		Opdonderen
		prt.-go
		'Go away!'

d''.		Opgedonderd!
		prt.-gone
		'Go away!'

In addition to examples like (206c''&d''), the literature also discusses the more productive negative participle construction in (207a) under the general rubric of imperatives. Rooryck & Postma (2007) have argued, however, that examples like these are not imperatives, but involve "discourse ellipses"; (207a) is a short form of the declarative passive construction in (207a'), in which the imperative interpretation is triggered by stressed niet'not'. Another potential example of "discourse ellipses" without negation is given in the (b)-examples.

207

a.		Eventjes	niet	gekletst/gevochten/geluierd	nu!
		for.a.moment	not	talked/fought/been.idle	now

a'.	Er	wordt	nu	eventjes	niet	gekletst/gevochten/geluierd.
	there	is	now	for.a.moment	not	talked/fought/been.idle
	'Weʼll refrain from talking/fighting/being idle for a moment now.'

b.		En nu	.... aangepakt!
		and now	... prt.-taken

b'.	En	nu	moet	er	aangepakt	worden!
	and	now	must	there	prt.-taken	be
	'And now we have to get to work!'

Finally, the more or less fixed expressions in (208) are sometimes given as imperatives, but it may again be the case that these examples involve ellipsis. More importantly, the fact that these expressions do not have corresponding finite (cf. *Groet! and *Loop af!) or infinitival imperatives (cf. *Groeten! and Aflopen!) casts serious doubt on the claim that we are dealing with true imperatives.

208

a.		(Wees)	gegroet!
		be	greeted

b.		(Het	moet)	afgelopen	(zijn)!
		it	must	prt.-finished	be

It thus seems that only the constructions in (206c&d) are cases of true imperatives. Examples such as (206c) are used to draw the attention of the addressee, and the set of verbs that can be used in this function is in fact restricted to the following two more or less synonymous forms: opletten and oppassen. It is interesting to note that the participle must precede its PP-complement: whereas voor de hond'of the dog' can precede the finite verb in (209a), it must follow the participle in the imperative construction in (209b). For this reason, Rooryck & Postma (2007) claim that the participial imperative construction involves leftward movement of some projection of the participle into sentence-initial position.

209

a.	Je	moet	eventjes	<voor de hond>	oppassen <voor de hond>.
	you	must	for.a.moment	for the dog	prt.-take.care
	'You must watch out for the dog.'

b.		Eventjes	<*voor de hond>	opgepast <voor de hond>!
		for.a.moment	for the dog	prt.-taken.care

Examples of the type in (206d) are characterized by the fact that they all urge the addressee to leave. More examples are given in (210), which all seem to be derived from denominal verbs: donder'thunder', duvel'devil', flikker (term of abuse for someone who is gay), hoepel'hoop', kras'scratch', lazer (probably some body part; cf. iemand op zijn lazer geven'to hit someone'), mieter (short form of sodemieter), rot (military term for troop); sodemieter'Sodomite', etc. Furthermore, the verb normally contains the verbal particle op, although there are a number of incidental cases with similar semantics but other verbal particles, which are mainly found in (semi-)military commands, such as Ingerukt, mars!'Dismissed!'.

210

Donder op!

a'.

Opdonderen!

a''.

Opgedonderd!

Duvel op!

b'.

Opduvelen

b''.

Opgeduveld!

Flikker op!

c'.

Opflikkeren!

c''.

Opgeflikkerd!

Hoepel op!

d'.

Ophoepelen

d''.

Opgehoepeld!

Kras op!

e'.

Opkrassen!

e''.

Opgekrast!

Lazer op

f'.

oplazeren!

f''.

Opgelazerd!

Mieter op!

g'.

Opmieteren!

g''.

Opmieteren!

Rot op!

h'.

Oprotten!

h''.

Opgerot!

Sodemieter op!

i'.

Opsodemieteren!

i''.

Opgesodemieterd!

Coussé & Oosterhof (2012) discuss a somewhat larger collection of forms collected by means of a corpus research which includes a number of pseudo-participles like the ones given (211); these apparent participles do not have a corresponding verb form and are probably formed by analogy to the true participle forms in (210).

211

a.		Opgekankerd!	*opkankeren
		opge-cancer-ed

b.		Opgekut!	*opkutten
		opge-cunt-ed

c.		Opgetieft!	*optiefen
		opge-tyfus?-ed

The examples in (212) show that, just as in (209b), the participles in (210) must be in the left periphery of their clause in the sense that they cannot follow PPs that normally can precede their indicative counterparts.

212

a.	Je	moet	snel	<met dat gezeur>	opsodemieteren <met dat gezeur>.
	you	must	quickly	with that nagging	prt.-go.away
	'You must go to hell with that nagging now.'

b.	Snel	<*met dat gezeur>	opgesodemieterd <met dat gezeur>.
	quickly	with that nagging	prt.-go.away
	'Go to hell with that nagging.'

[+] E. Other means of expressing imperative meaning

The previous subsections have shown that there are a number of constructions with special verb forms that can be used to express imperative meaning. This does not mean, of course, that commands, requests and advice cannot be expressed by other means. Example (207), for instance, has already shown that the use of stressed niet'not' may result in a directive meaning. The directional constructions of the type in (213a&b) can also be used with imperative force. One may, of course, assume that these cases involve ellipsis of the imperative construction given in square brackets, but this does not seem to be possible for cases such as (213c).

213

a.	Hier,	jij!	elided form of Kom hier, jij!]
	here	you
	'Come here, you!'

b.	Weg,	jij!	elided form of Ga weg, jij!]
	away	you
	'Go away, you!'

c.	Het water	in met hem!
	the water	into with him
	'Throw him into the water.'

Sometimes it is even possible to express an imperative meaning by means of constructions that are not exclusively directed toward the addressee. Constructions such as (214), which involve a plural first person subject, are often used with a directive meaning.

214

a.		Laten	we	gaan.	colloquial
		let	we	go

b.		Laat	ons	gaan.	formal
		let	us	go

References:

Barbiers, Sjef2007On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and GermanWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins95-112
Barbiers, Sjef2013Geography and cartography of the left periphery. The case of Dutch and German imperativesCarrilho, Ernestina, Alverez, Xose & Magro, Catarina (eds.)Current approaches to limits and areas in dialectologyNewcastle upon TyneCambridge Scholars Publishing267-292
Bennis, Hans2006Agreement, pro, and imperativesAckema, Peter, Brandt, Patrick, Schoorlemmer, Maaike & Weerman, Fred (eds.)Arguments and agreementOxfordOxford University Press101-123
Bennis, Hans2006Agreement, pro, and imperativesAckema, Peter, Brandt, Patrick, Schoorlemmer, Maaike & Weerman, Fred (eds.)Arguments and agreementOxfordOxford University Press101-123
Bennis, Hans2007Featuring the subject in Dutch imperativesWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins113-134
Bennis, Hans2007Featuring the subject in Dutch imperativesWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins113-134
Boogaart, Ronny2004`Meet het en je weet het': van gebod naar voorwaardeDaalder, Saskia, Janssen, Theo & Noordegraaf, Jan (eds.)Taal in veranderingMünsterNodus Publikationen23-36
Boogaart, Ronny & Trnavac, Radolova2004Conditional imperatives in Dutch and RussianCornips, Leonie & Doetjes, Jenny (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 2004Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins25-35
Coppen, Peter-Arno1998De succes-imperatiefNederlandse Taalkunde285-95
Coppen, Peter-Arno1998De succes-imperatiefNederlandse Taalkunde285-95
Corver, Norbert1995Succes-imperatieven. Evidentie voor de transitiviteit van niet-ergativenTabu25125-127
Coussé, Evie & Oosterhof, Albert2012Het imperativische participium in het Nederlands. Vorm, betekenis en gebruikNederlandse Taalkunde1726-55
Dowty, David1979Word meaning in Montague grammar. The semantics of verbs and times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQDordrechtReidel
Duinhoven, A.M1984Ban de bom! Over vorm en betekenis van de imperatief.De Nieuwe Taalgids77148-156
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
Postma, Gertjan & Wurff, Wim van der2007How to say no and don't: negative imperatives in Romance and GermanicWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins205-249
Proeme, Henk1984Over de Nederlandse imperativusForum der Letteren25241-258
Proeme, Henk1984Over de Nederlandse imperativusForum der Letteren25241-258
Proeme, Henk1984Over de Nederlandse imperativusForum der Letteren25241-258
Proeme, Henk1986Is wees imperativus van zijn? (over de semantiek van wezen en zijn)Forum der Letteren2730-41
Rooryck, Johan & Postma, Gertjan2007On participial imperativesWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins273-296
Rooryck, Johan & Postma, Gertjan2007On participial imperativesWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins273-296
Vendler, Zeno1957Verbs and timesThe Philosophical Review56143-160
Visser, Janneke1996Object drop in Dutch imperativesCremers, Crit & Den Dikken, Marcel (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996Amsterdam/Philadelphia257-268
Wolf, Henk2003Imperatieven in de verleden tijdTaal en Tongval55168-187

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: ImperativeResumptive Pronoun

Version: 1.0, January 2016

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver	January 2016

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles