Jussive vs Optative Imperatives

Halliday (1994: 87-8):

The Function Of Let's

 Halliday (1994: 87):

Imperatives: Mood & Residue

Halliday (1994: 87):

Imperatives: Person & Polarity

Halliday (1994: 87):

Theme In Imperative Clauses

Halliday (1994: 47):

Interpersonal Projection: Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 700-1):

But the notion of interpersonal projection is not, in fact, limited to modal assessment. Consider the short persuasive text in Text 10-5:

Text 10-5: Exploring – arguing: open letter appealing to members of an organisation [Text 6]

I don’t believe that endorsing the Nuclear Freeze initiative is the right step for California Common Cause. Tempting as it may be, we shouldn’t embrace every popular issue that comes along. When we do so we use precious limited resources where other players with superior resources are already doing an adequate job. Rather, I think we will be stronger and more effective if we stick to those issues of governmental structure and process, broadly defined, that have formed the core of our agenda for years. Open government, campaign finance reform, and fighting the special interests and big money – these are our kinds of issues. 

Let’s be clear: I personally favour the initiative and ardently support disarmament negotiations to reduce the risk of war. But I don’t think endorsing a specific freeze proposal is appropriate for CCC. We should limit our involvement in defence and weaponry to matters of process, such as exposing the weapons industry’s influence on the political process. Therefore, I urge you to vote against a CCC endorsement of the nuclear freeze initiative.

Expressions of modulation are bolded and expressions of modalisation are italicised; metaphorical expressions are underlined. Subjective assessment of modality permeates the text, like a prosody. In the case of modalisation, it is largely explicit; in the case of modulation, it is implicit until the very last clause. This clause realises the nucleus of the whole text; it is here that the key proposal is presented with a nuclear punch… . 

But what is the key proposal? One variant of I urge you to vote ... is you must vote ..., the two being relatable as explicit and implicit variants of subjective, high modulations of the type obligation. However, we can take one step further in the analysis. What the author is saying is Vote against ..., which is an ‘imperative’ clause – the congruent realisation of a proposal of the subtype ‘command’. This indicates the connection between ‘imperative’ clauses and modulation, which is why modulation was characterised as the ‘imperative type’ of modality. On the one hand, an ‘imperative’ clause imposes an obligation; on the other hand, the imperative tag checks the addressee’s inclination to comply (will you?). But the example also illustrates the connection between mood and projection.

The System Of Modality

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 691):

The reason this area of the semantic system is so highly elaborated metaphorically is to be found in the nature of modality itself. … Modality refers to the area of meaning that lies between yes and no – the intermediate ground between positive and negative polarity. What this implies more specifically will depend on the underlying speech function of the clause. (1) If the clause is an ‘information’ clause (a proposition, congruently realised as indicative), this means either (i) ‘either yes or no’, i.e. ‘maybe’; or (ii) ‘both yes and no’, i.e. ‘sometimes’; in other words, some degree of probability or of usuality. (2) If the clause is a ‘goods-&-services’ clause (a proposal, which has no real congruent form in the grammar, but by default we can characterise it as imperative), it means either (i) ‘is wanted to’, related to a command, or (ii) ‘wants to’, related to an offer; in other words, some degree of obligation or of inclination. We refer to type (1) as MODALISATION and to type (2) as MODULATION; this gives a system as in Figure 10-5.

Reported Imperative (‘Indirect Command’)

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 530):

With the imperative the relationship is less clear. We noted in Chapter 4 that the imperative is a somewhat indeterminate category, having some features of a finite and some features of a non-finite clause. Similarly the category of reported imperative (‘indirect command’) is not very clearly defined. But non-finite clauses with to, following a verb such as tell or order, can be interpreted as reported proposals. They likewise display the properties of ‘indirect speech’, although without sequence of tenses, since the verb does not select for tense. For example,

‘I know this trick of yours.’ She said || she knew that trick of his.
‘Can you come tomorrow?’ He asked || if she could come the next day.
‘Why isn’t John here?’ She wondered || why John wasn’t there.
‘Help yourselves.’ He told them || to help themselves.
‘We must leave to-night.’ She said || they had to leave that night.

Imperative: Unmarked Subject

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 195):

In most accounts of English grammar the imperative is presented as if it were a special case, without any explanation. But it is not; it is simply an instance of this general principle by which a Subject is ‘understood’. Being a demanding clause, its unmarked Subject is ‘you’.

Imperatives: Let’s

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 166):

What is the analysis of let’s? Given its place in the paradigm, it is best interpreted as a wayward form of the Subject ‘you and I’ (note that the marked person is realised by Ictus

on let’s, parallel to that on you). The only anomalous form then is the response Yes, let’s!, No, let’s not!, which on this analysis has Subject and no Finite; but in each case there is an alternative form with the Finite element in it, Yes, do let’s!, No, don’t let’s!, which also suggests that let’s is felt to be a Subject. (The order do let’s corresponds to the earlier second person ordering as in Do you look!.)

Imperatives: Do & Don't

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 165):

Historically the forms do, don’t derived from non-finite forms of the verb do, but they now function analogously to the Finite operator in an indicative clause; compare the dialogic sequence Look! – Shall I? – Yes, do! or No, don’t!, with the response consisting of Mood element only.

Imperatives: Mood Elements & Finiteness

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 165):

…the unmarked positive has no Mood element, the verb form (eg look) is Predicator only, with no Finite in it. The other forms have a Mood element; this consists of Subject only (you), Finite only (do, don’t), or Finite followed by Subject. Any of these can be followed by a Mood tag: won’t you?, will you? — showing that the clause is finite, even though the verb is non-finite (the imperative of be is be, as in Be quiet!, not the finite form are).  Historically the forms do, don’t derived from non-finite forms of the verb do, but they now function analogously to the Finite operator in an indicative clause; compare the dialogic sequence Look! – Shall I? – Yes, do! or No, don’t!, with the response consisting of Mood element only.