| Summary: | It has been noted repeatedly in the literature (Huntley 1982, Huntley 1984, Davies 1986, Wilsonand Sperber 1988, Ninan 2005, Han 1998, etc.) that imperatives have a modal dimension, given that theypresent a proposition as a possible and desirable state of affairs. However, the opinion that imperatives aremodal is not shared by all researchers. For example, Portner (2007) claims that imperatives are not modal, inspite of the fact that they share a range of interpretations with modals. In this article I argue that imperativesare in fact modal and that the differences that Portner (2007) identifies are relevant for distinguishing not onlybetween priority modals and imperatives, but between two larger classes of verbal forms, that include prioritymodals and imperatives, respectively. Crucially, the larger class of verbal forms that includes imperatives andthat contrasts with priority modals are undisputedly modal. Thus, differing from priority modals does notnecessarily imply lack of modality, but simply a different type of modality.
|
|---|
