The Slavic languages are fusional. Categories include person, gender, number, tense, aspect, and mood. We concentrate on endings for non-past, compound tenses, aorist, imperfect, and imperative, starting from Proto-Slavic (PSL), with reference to Proto-Indo-European (PIE). The time lapse between PIE and PSL is vast, so details are largely unrecoverable. The situation in the modern Slavic languages is sketched, summarizing secondary and primary endings, roots, themes, and thematic and athematic formations. The PIE present, aorist, and optative are outlined. Morphological persistence, innovation, and loss are evident from the data, and analogy plays an important and expected role. Attention is drawn to uncertainties in the origins of the various endings, uncertainties which on the whole have been pointed out, though much is open to research and discussion. Overall, the general state of the art in the field is well-established, but there is scope for further investigation, as becomes even clearer once viewed alongside other chapters.

No philosopher is more strongly associated with deontological ethics or is a more canonical modern moral philosopher than Immanuel Kant. In this chapter, we focus on Kant, though we begin, after a brief introduction of Kant and his historico-philosophical significance, with Rousseau. Rousseau is best known as a political philosopher, but there are elements of his thought that have great importance for moral philosophy and its history and, especially, for Kant. Kant credits Rousseau as the source of his signature claim of the equal dignity of rational persons. And Rousseau’s conception of political society as an “association” that “defend[s] and protect[s] the person and goods of each associate with the full common force,” but where each “nevertheless obey[s] only himself,” has obvious resonances with Kant’s “kingdom of ends” in which all are governed by self-legislated law. At the same time, Rousseau offers important points of contrast to Kant. Whereas Rousseau’s emphasis is essentially social and political, Kant will attempt to argue for morality as a common law binding all agents that is grounded in practical reason alone. Rousseau, by contrast, points toward an alternative grounding in sociability that is reminiscent more of Grotius, Pufendorf, Smith, and Reid.

Chapter 4 explores mood systems and structures. It concentrates on paradigmatic relations – and the ways in which these can be motivated in the grammars of English, Spanish and Chinese. This chapter foregrounds questions about the nature of functional language typology, when confronted with the diverse structural realisations of mood in three different languages. It highlights the need to focus on system rather than structure, on higher ranks rather than lower ones and ultimately on discourse semantics rather than grammar by way of establishing comparable ground whenever languages are being contrasted and compared.

This unit presents the use of direct object pronouns, in combination with the affirmative familiar imperative and with personal ’a’. Students learn to express preferences when giving or following instructions and when eating out or ordering food. They are also introduced to expressions with the verb tener to indicate states of body and mind. Alternative structures to the passive are described and practised. Finally, Spanish expressions of duration and continuity in time are contrasted with their English equivalents.

This unit presents the use of direct object pronouns, in combination with the affirmative familiar imperative and with personal ’a’. Students learn to express preferences when giving or following instructions and when eating out or ordering food. They are also introduced to expressions with the verb tener to indicate states of body and mind. Alternative structures to the passive are described and practised. Finally, Spanish expressions of duration and continuity in time are contrasted with their English equivalents.

Hausa retains the widespread Chadic three-term system of masculine singular, feminine singular, and plural (gender neutral). This is reflected in nominal forms and in agreement patterns. With a few grammatical morphemes, e.g. the Linker (na/ta/na) the masculine singular and the plural share the same marker. Tense–Aspect–Mood (TAM) is generally indicated by an overt marker after the subject pronoun and before the verb. The finaln in the Completive paradigm is not a TAM marker as often said, but rather a plural formative. The marker in the Subjunctive is zero. This form historically also indicated the Aorist, which still occurs but in the negative only. The causative is and was formed syntactically using a main verb sâa ‘to cause’ (lit. ‘to put’) and not by means of a morphological extension on the verb. Indirect objects have changed significantly from Old Hausa, in word order, in the form of the marker(s), and in the specific pronouns used. Verbs in the grade system vary in their pre-indirect object usage. Reflexives are built on the noun ‘head’, the question being whether they originally might have employed ‘body’ instead, which is now found in reciprocals.

This chapter on Wuthering Heights (1848) explores the work carried out by the verbs in the novel. Emily Brontë’s style makes evocative use of imperatives, and of active and passive verb forms. A distinction is drawn between the predominant verb forms of the first and second parts of the novel, so that the second half seems more passive and reactive, and therefore to indicate suffering. The imperative often calls an action into being, all the more so when compliance with an imperative is then assumed rather than narrated, as it frequently is in the novel. In this way, the imperative is like fiction itself, bringing into existence an imagined state of affairs; in this analysis, the style of Wuthering Heights starts to seem conversant with the novel’s shifts between its own imagined world and the reality of ours or its first readers to which it appeals.

Here, we look at a number of syntactic differences that are used for different pragmatic purposes, specifically the characteristic but imperfect relations between the following clause types and speech acts: declarative clauses for making statements, closed interrogative clauses for asking closed questions, open interrogative clauses for asking open questions, imperative clauses for issuing commands, and exclamative clauses for uttering exclamations. These relations exist for both main and subordinate clauses.

Declarative clauses are the basic clause type that we’ve been describing so far. Interrogatives have a number of characteristics differences, including subject–auxiliary inversion and the use of interrogative words and fronting of the interrogative phrase in open interrogatives. The exclamatives are always marked by an initial exclamative phrase that begins with either adjective ‘what’ or adverb ‘how’. Imperatives characteristically lack a subject and use the plain form of the verb. We conclude with a brief description of a few minor clause types.

This chapter is reserved for issues that surfaced in previous chapters but for some reason or other could not be discussed there in any detail. On the one hand, the chapter looks at the framework outlined in Chapter 2 from a wider perspective. It is argued that the presence of two contrasting mechanisms is suggestive of a dual process model of the kind described in work on discourse analysis, neurolinguistics, and social psychology. On the other hand, the chapter shows that whereas the pathways leading to grammaticalization are highly constrained, those leading to the rise of discourse markers are almost unlimited. Further topics discussed in the chapter concern the structure of constituent anchored discourse markers and the role played by imperative forms in the rise of discourse markers. Finally, the chapter also looks into the role of a more marginal category of discourse-structuring devices, namely that of fillers or "hesitation markers."

An important starting point is our claim that Article 10 of the Berne Convention creates an obligation on Members of the Union to recognise a limitation on the copyright that allows for quotation. The proposition is based primarily on the language used: Article 10 begins with the words, ‘It shall be permissible … ’. This imperative language may be contrasted with Article 10(2) Berne, which, in relation to exceptions for education states: ‘It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union … to permit’. Similar permissive language is also found in Article 10bis in relation to reporting current events and Article 9(2), which allows exceptions to the reproduction right ‘in certain special cases’. The language of Article 10(1) is distinct and clearly reads as mandatory rather than permissive. Although there is barely any reference to the mandatory nature of the exception in the Stockholm travaux, the limitation is described in terms that reflect its basis in the entitlement of the user.

Jary and Kissine examine the meaning of imperative sentences, taking the existing relevance-theoretic semantic analysis, in terms of the desirability and potentiality of the described state of affairs, as their point of departure. In their view, a complete account of the interpretation of imperatives has to explain how they can result in the addressee forming an intention to perform an action, and this requires the theory to make room for ‘action representations’ (in addition to factual representations, such as assumptions). They claim that the imperative form is uniquely specified to interface with such action representations.

Jary and Kissine examine the meaning of imperative sentences, taking the existing relevance-theoretic semantic analysis, in terms of the desirability and potentiality of the described state of affairs, as their point of departure. In their view, a complete account of the interpretation of imperatives has to explain how they can result in the addressee forming an intention to perform an action, and this requires the theory to make room for ‘action representations’ (in addition to factual representations, such as assumptions). They claim that the imperative form is uniquely specified to interface with such action representations.