Imperative constructions are typically used in clauses that are directive in nature, that is, that aim at persuading the addressee to bring about or maintain a specific state of affairs. They function as commands, requests, pieces of advice, encouragements, etc.

In earlier work, like Vendler (1957) and Dowty (1979), it was claimed that the imperative is only possible with specific aspectual verb classes. States denoted by verbs like weten/kennen'to know', for example, were shown to be either unacceptable or to trigger readings in which the addressee is requested to perform certain actions unrelated to the imperative verb in question but that will ultimately result in the state denoted by the verb.

Section 1.2.3, sub III, has shown, however, that all aspectual types can be used as imperatives provided that the addressee is able to control the state of affairs denoted by the verb in question; we give another set of examples in (165).

Imperatives are sometimes also possible if the addressee is not able to control the event denoted by the verb, in which case the construction typically receives a wish or a curse reading, as in respectively the (a)- and (b)-examples in (166).

A special case of this use is the so-called success imperative. The imperative form is followed by the element ze, which is normally used as a third person plural pronoun. It is not a priori clear, however, whether we are dealing with an object pronoun in the success imperative, given that ze is then typically non-referential and may also occur with intransitive verbs like slapen'to sleep' in (167b').

The success imperative is used in contexts where (i) the addressee has the intention to perform a certain action and (ii) the speaker expresses his wish that this action will be performed to the satisfaction of the addressee; cf. Coppen (1998). Coppen adds that the action must be approved by the speaker, but it seems likely that this can simply be inferred from the fact that the speaker wishes the addressee success. Coppen finally suggests that the action involved is habitual in nature; one could not say spring ze!'jump well' to someone who is planning to jump from a table he is incidentally standing on, but it is perfectly acceptable to say it to someone who is planning to do some springboard diving. The habituality of the action denoted by the verb does not seem to be absolutely necessary, however, since one could readily say Kook ze !'Cook well!' to someone who has never cooked before but who is planning to give it a try. The restriction might therefore be more aspectual in nature in the sense that the action must be durative or iterative; we leave this open for future research.
      Corver (1995) and Coppen (1998) show that success imperatives are subject to several syntactic constraints. First, the verb must be (pseudo-)intransitive in order to occur in the success imperative: the primeless examples in (168) are intransitive and must be interpreted as success imperatives; the verbs in the singly-primed examples can be either transitive or pseudo-intransitive and can be interpreted either as a directive or success imperatives; the doubly-primed examples are necessarily transitive and can only be interpreted as directive imperatives.

It is important to note that the element ze can never be used if the direct object is overtly expressed: Eet (*ze) je brood!'Eat your sandwiches!'. This suggests that the non-referential element ze in the success imperative may still act as a pronominal object, as is in fact suggested both by Corver and by Coppen.; the verb is unable to case mark ze because it already assigns accusative case to the direct object.
      Second, the examples in (169) show that although unaccusative verbs can be used in regular imperatives, they cannot enter success imperatives. This again suggests that the non-referential element ze acts as a pronominal object; since unaccusative verbs cannot assign accusative case, the element ze remains case-less and is therefore excluded.

Finally, the examples in (170) show that although they can be used in regular imperatives, verbs taking a complementive or a verbal particle are not possible in success imperatives.

The analyses proposed by Corver and Coppen are similar in that they assume that the element ze is pronominal in nature; as was already mentioned above this may account for the restrictions illustrated in (168) and (169). Corver accounts for the unacceptability of the primed examples in (170) by assuming that ze must be incorporated into the verb in order to license the success reading; this is possible if the object pronoun is an internal argument of the verb, but blocked if it functions as the logical subject of a complementive/particle. Coppen derives the unacceptability of the primed examples in (170) by assuming that success imperatives contain an empty complementive, which blocks the addition of another complementive/particle. This also accounts for the fact that the verb can be intransitive; the addition of a complementive may have a transitivizing effect and thus licenses the presence of the pronoun ze (see Section 2.2.3, sub I). Coppen further suggests that the postulation of an empty complementive may account for the non-referential status of the pronoun ze; the idiomatic examples in (171) show that ze is more often used non-referentially in such contexts.