Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Describing and explaining the variation of Bant...

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Describing and explaining the variation of Bantu imperatives and prohibitives

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Describing and explaining the variation of Bantu imperatives and prohibitives. / Devos, Maud; Van Olmen, Daniel.
In: Studies in Language, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2013, p. 1-57.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Devos, M & Van Olmen, D 2013, 'Describing and explaining the variation of Bantu imperatives and prohibitives', Studies in Language, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1-57. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.1.01dev

APA

Devos, M., & Van Olmen, D. (2013). Describing and explaining the variation of Bantu imperatives and prohibitives. Studies in Language, 37(1), 1-57. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.1.01dev

Vancouver

Devos M, Van Olmen D. Describing and explaining the variation of Bantu imperatives and prohibitives. Studies in Language. 2013;37(1):1-57. doi: 10.1075/sl.37.1.01dev

Author

Devos, Maud ; Van Olmen, Daniel. / Describing and explaining the variation of Bantu imperatives and prohibitives. In: Studies in Language. 2013 ; Vol. 37, No. 1. pp. 1-57.

Bibtex

@article{3761d8b143fe4ac0be19f45c8ff00217,
title = "Describing and explaining the variation of Bantu imperatives and prohibitives",
abstract = "This paper describes Bantu imperatival and prohibitival speech acts. The study is set against the background of the formal instability of directives and grammaticalization theory. On the basis of a sample of 100 languages, we conclude that imperatival strategies are limited to imperatives, subjunctives, and indicatives while prohibitival strategies range from negative subjunctives and negative auxiliary constructions through constructions with prohibitive markers and negative infinitives to negative indicatives and negative imperatives. Politeness is shown to play an important role in the development of new strategies, which often have a more polite character and which become neutral themselves over time. We argue that it may even partly explain why prohibitival strategies exhibit more variation than imperatival ones. However, it is also clear that new directive strategies need not be more polite and that politeness is just one of the possible factors contributing to the difference between imperatival and prohibitival strategies.",
keywords = "Bantu, imperative, politeness , prohibitive , speech acts",
author = "Maud Devos and {Van Olmen}, Daniel",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1075/sl.37.1.01dev",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
pages = "1--57",
journal = "Studies in Language",
issn = "0378-4177",
publisher = "John Benjamins Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Describing and explaining the variation of Bantu imperatives and prohibitives

AU - Devos, Maud

AU - Van Olmen, Daniel

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - This paper describes Bantu imperatival and prohibitival speech acts. The study is set against the background of the formal instability of directives and grammaticalization theory. On the basis of a sample of 100 languages, we conclude that imperatival strategies are limited to imperatives, subjunctives, and indicatives while prohibitival strategies range from negative subjunctives and negative auxiliary constructions through constructions with prohibitive markers and negative infinitives to negative indicatives and negative imperatives. Politeness is shown to play an important role in the development of new strategies, which often have a more polite character and which become neutral themselves over time. We argue that it may even partly explain why prohibitival strategies exhibit more variation than imperatival ones. However, it is also clear that new directive strategies need not be more polite and that politeness is just one of the possible factors contributing to the difference between imperatival and prohibitival strategies.

AB - This paper describes Bantu imperatival and prohibitival speech acts. The study is set against the background of the formal instability of directives and grammaticalization theory. On the basis of a sample of 100 languages, we conclude that imperatival strategies are limited to imperatives, subjunctives, and indicatives while prohibitival strategies range from negative subjunctives and negative auxiliary constructions through constructions with prohibitive markers and negative infinitives to negative indicatives and negative imperatives. Politeness is shown to play an important role in the development of new strategies, which often have a more polite character and which become neutral themselves over time. We argue that it may even partly explain why prohibitival strategies exhibit more variation than imperatival ones. However, it is also clear that new directive strategies need not be more polite and that politeness is just one of the possible factors contributing to the difference between imperatival and prohibitival strategies.

KW - Bantu

KW - imperative

KW - politeness

KW - prohibitive

KW - speech acts

U2 - 10.1075/sl.37.1.01dev

DO - 10.1075/sl.37.1.01dev

M3 - Journal article

VL - 37

SP - 1

EP - 57

JO - Studies in Language

JF - Studies in Language

SN - 0378-4177

IS - 1

ER -