1PlS / # go.Down-Hort

‘Let’s (two) go down!’ (=20’a) (TmK)

b. ká (m-á: / á-:) lè sùgó-mà

Quot (1Sg-Loc / 2Sg-Loc) LogoPlS go-Hort

‘(He/She) said (to me/you-Sg), let’s go!” (TmK)

c. ká (m-á:) lè hè-lì cɛ̀ʔá-mà

Quot (1Sg-Loc) LogoPlS ReflPl-Acc cut-Hort

‘(He/She) said (to me), let’s cut ourselves!’ (TmK)

To summarize the main points: Dogon quoted imperatives have overt subjects that bind reflexives (in those languages that have reflexives); quoted hortatives have overt subjects, and in TmK also an optional overt addressee; main-clause imperatives are conceptually associated with actors that never bind reflexives and that appear overtly only in the form of plural-addressee marking on the verb; main-clause hortatives have both overt 1Pl subjects and addressee-number marking on the verb.

We are not aware of a non-Dogon language that distinguishes second person indicative versus imperative objects in the TgK/TmK fashion, i.e. reflexive indicative ‘You cut self’ versus nonreflexive imperative ‘Cut you!’. The issue of imperative-actor referential properties is not addressed in the typological literature on imperatives and other deontics, to our knowledge. For example, we can find no reference to interactions between imperatives and reflexivization, either in an exhaustive and bibliographically omnivorous compilation on the typology of imperatives (Aikhenvald 2010) or in a typologically informed book on the syntax of imperatives (Alcázar & Saltarelli 2014). We suspect that had a Dogon-like case been previously known it would have found its way into this literature. So it may be that Dogon has now complicated the structural typology of deontic clauses and will force us to add “deontic addressee number” to the typological checklist of morphologically expressable grammatical categories.

2.5. Transpersonal reflexives, imperatives, and hortatives in Russian

The typologically rare and possibily unique structure of Dogon imperatives leads us to seek parallels elsewhere. Russian is promising since it has transpersonal reflexives, used in direct object and other functions, similar to those of TmK and TgK, allowing direct comparison of them in the syntax of imperatives and hortatives. The Russian forms are full reflexive sebja, cliticized variant‑sja (~ -sj), adverb sam ‘on one’s own’, and possessive svoj ‘own’. There is no singular/plural distinction. Polish and some other Slavic languages have similar sets of forms but differ in detail (Knyazev & Nedjalkov 1985; Medová 2009; Drogosz 2005, 2012; Tabakowska 2003).

As in Dogon, Russian reflexives bring out a distinction between two types of “subject,” but the Russian distinction has nothing to do with address or with imperatives. Rather, it involves competition between sebja and ‑sja, both of which are nonsubjects that are coindexed to an antecedent (usually the clausemate subject. Mining the Russian National Corpus for data, Toldova (2011) showed that sebja is primarily used in indirect object function (benefactive, recipient) in ditransitives, and as the complement of prepositions, while ‑sja is regular as direct object. In unelaborated canonical transitives, sebja is unacceptable as direct object, indicated by # in (31a). However, it becomes possible in the presence of sam ‘on one’s own’, which emphasizes agentivity (31b).

(31) a. po-brej- -sja / # sebja

Pfv-shave-Imprt (-)Refl

‘Shave!’, ‘Get a shave!’ (Russian)

b. po-brej- sebja sam

Pfv-shave-Imprt Refl on.one’s.own

‘Shave yourself!’ (Russian)

Some transitive verbs allow either ‑sja or sebja as direct object. For some verbs the two are interchangeable, as in beregi sebja and beregi-sj ‘take care of yourself!’ With other verbs, the choice is determined by imputed agentivity. In (32a) the addressee is being tortured by something external; in (32b) the pain is self-inflicted.

(32) a. ne much-a-j-sja

Neg torture--Imprt-Refl

‘Don’t torture yourself!’, ‘Don’t let yourself be tortured!’ (Russian)

b. ne much-a-j sebja

Neg torture--Imprt Refl

‘Don’t torture yourself!’ (Russian)

As shown by Khokhlova (1998), in passive sentences with a syntactically demoted but semantically agentive subject, the antecedent of sebja is the demoted subject (33).

(33) [etot fakt] byl interpretirovan im [dlja sebja ]

[this fact] was interpreted by.him_x [for Refl_x]

sovsem ne tak

absolutely not like.that

‘This fact was interpreted by him (=He interpreted this fact) for himself (=in his own mind) entirely differently.’

By contrast, the antecedent of svoj ‘own’ is the NP that has been promoted from object to subject, e.g. the unfortunate banker in (34a). It cannot be a demoted subject, even if agentive, so in (34b) only a nonreflexive 3Sg possessor jevo is allowed.

(34) a. [molodoj bankir ] byl zastrelen [najomnim ubijtsej ]

[young banker]_x was shot [by.hired killer]_y

[v svojom offise]

[in own_x office]

‘A young broker_x was shot by a hired killer_j in his_x own office.’

b. [proshenie ob otstavke] bylo napisano

[letter about resignation] was written

premjerom [v jevo / # svojom kabinete]

by.prime.minister _x [in his_x / # own_x office]

‘The letter of resignation was written by the prime minister_x in his_x cabinet.’

So Russian reflexives bring out two distinct kinds of “subject”: a syntactic subject sensitive to passive-type processes, and an agent. Since imperatives presuppose agency by the addressee, the two types of subject converge in the (covert) second-person imperative subject, which binds sebja (35a) and possessive svoj (35b).

(35) a. ube-j sebja

kill-Imprt Refl

‘Kill yourself!’

b. ube-j [svoj-u žen-u]

kill-Imprt [own-Acc wife-Acc]

‘Kill your wife!’

Russian hortatives express the same dualism between addressee-oriented imperative and 1Pl agency seen in Dogon, English, and elsewhere. The typical construction is dava-j ‘give!’ (formal or plural addressee dava-j-te) plus either a 1Pl perfective verb or an imperfective infinitive. dava-j(-te) is optional, and is usually omitted is in ‘let’s go!’ (36). An overt 1Pl pronoun is not allowed, following the typologically widespread pattern of subject suppression documented by Dobrushina (2003).

(36) (# my) po-jdj-om

(# 1Pl) Pfv-go-1Pl

‘Let’s go!’