Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 185–218

Encoding the addressee in the syntax: evidence from English imperative subjects

Original paper
  • 326 Downloads

Abstract

Imperative subjects in English are puzzling in several respects: null subjects are possible with a definite interpretation, unlike in other clause types; quantificational subjects are often restricted to range over a set containing the addressee and exhibit binding possibilities not readily available to them in declaratives and interrogatives; and third person referential subjects are for most speakers limited to bare noun phrases. On the empirical side, this paper provides a comprehensive discussion of these properties that makes sense of the sometimes contradictory observations found in the literature. On the theoretical side, it argues that the syntactic representation of imperatives contains a functional projection not present in other clause types. This projection plays a role both in preventing the instantiation of a predication relation between the subject and the predicate, and, when sufficiently local, in licensing the special syntactic properties of the subject. This proposal differs from those that view the properties of imperative subjects as deriving uniquely from the semantic or pragmatic component; it can be seen as building on the general intuition of the old performative hypothesis, though recasting it at a level of abstraction that captures more adequately the properties of imperatives.

Keywords

Imperatives Jussive phrase Subjects Agreement Agree English Italian Icelandic Korean Addressee Pronouns Bare nouns Quantificational subjects Null determiners Null subjects Binding Vocatives Person features 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adesola, O. (2005). Pronouns and null operators: A-bar dependencies and relations in Yoruba. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, M. (2008). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bennis, H. (2006). Agreement, pro and imperatives. In P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. Schoorlemmer, & F. Weerman (Eds.), Arguments and agreement (pp. 101–123). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beukema, F., & Coopmans, P. (1989). A government-binding perspective on the imperative in English. Journal of Linguistics, 25, 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolinger, D. (1967). The imperative in English. In To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, Janua Linguarum (Vol. 1, pp. 335–362). The Hague, Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
  6. Brandstetter, C. (2005). Syntactic microvariation: Imperative subjects in southern American English and standard American English. In C. Brandstetter & D. Rus (Eds.), GU working papers in theoretical linguistics (Vol. IV, pp. 107–134). Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  7. Brandstetter, C., & Rus, D. (2005). Georgetown University working papers in theoretical linguistics Vol. IV. Georgetown University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, A.-V. (1976). Don’t you dare! In J. Hankamer & J. Aissen (Eds.), Harvard studies in syntax and semantics. (Vol. II, pp. 174–196). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  12. Culicover, P. W. (1971). Syntactic and semantic investigations. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  13. Davies, E. (1986). The English imperative. Croom Helm linguistics series. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  14. Downing, B. T. (1969). Vocatives and third-person imperatives in English. Papers in Linguistics, 1, 570–592.Google Scholar
  15. Emonds, J. E. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  16. Emonds, J. E. (1978). The verbal complex V’-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 151–175.Google Scholar
  17. Farkas, D., & Zec, D. (1993). Agreement and pronominal reference. USCS Linguistics Research Center Report 93-01.Google Scholar
  18. Flagg, E. J. (2001). “You” can’t say that: restrictions on overt subjects in the English imperative. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, & S. Neuvel (Eds.), CLS 37: The Main Session. Papers from the 37th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. (Vol. 1, pp. 161–174). Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
  19. Green, G. (1975). How to get people to do things with words: The whimperative question. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts, Vol. 3 of Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hamblin, C. L. (1987). Imperatives. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Jensen, B. (2003a). Imperatives in English and Scandinavian. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. Jensen, B. (2003b). Syntax and semantics of imperative subjects. Nordlyd, 31, 150–164. http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/nordlyd/index.php.
  23. Judd, H. P. (1939). The Hawaiian language and Hawaiian-English dictionary; A complete grammar. Honolulu: Hawaiian Service.Google Scholar
  24. Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D. (1989). Pronouns, logical variables and logophoricity in Abe. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 555–589.Google Scholar
  25. Kratzer, A. (2006). Minimal pronouns: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of bound variable pronouns. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WI1OThiO/minimal_pronouns.
  26. Lambrecht, K. (1996). On the formal and functional relationship between topics and vocatives. Evidence from French. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Mauck, S. (2005). Notes on the typology of imperatives. http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/portnerp/nsfsite/nsfframeset.htm, Georgetown University.
  28. Mauck, S., Pak, M., Portner, P., & Zanuttini, R. (2005). Imperative subjects: A cross-linguistic perspective. In C. Brandstetter & D. Rus (Eds.), Georgetown University working papers in theoretical linguistics (pp. 135–152). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  29. Mauck, S., & Zanuttini, R. (2005). The subjects of English imperatives. In C. Brandstetter & D. Rus (Eds.), Georgetown University working papers in theoretical linguistics. (Vol. IV, pp. 53–85). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  30. Moro, A. (2003). Notes on vocative case: A case study in clause structure. In J. Schroten, P. Sleeman & E. Verheugd (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2001 (pp. 251–265). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  31. Nevins, A. (2007). The representation of third person and its consequence for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 273–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pak, M., Portner, P., & Zanuttini, R. (2007a). The syntax and semantics of jussive clauses in Korean. (Manuscript).Google Scholar
  33. Pak, M., Portner, P., & Zanuttini, R. (2007b). Agreement and the subjects of jussive clauses in Korean. In E. Efner & M. Walkow (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 37. Univ. of Massachusetts: GLSA.Google Scholar
  34. Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian & W. K. Wilkins (Eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds, (pp. 262–294) John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  35. Platzack, C., & Rosengren, I. (1994). On the subject of imperatives. A minimalist account of the imperative pronoun and negated imperatives. Sprache und Pragmatik, 34, 26–67.Google Scholar
  36. Platzack, C., & Rosengren, I. (1998). On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 1, 177–224.Google Scholar
  37. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
  39. Portner, P. (2004). The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In K. Watanabe & R. B. Young (Eds.), The proceedings of SALT 14. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. http://semanticsarchive.net.
  40. Portner, P. (2007). Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics (in press).Google Scholar
  41. Potsdam, E. (1998). Syntactic issues in the English imperative. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  42. Rupp, L. (1999). Aspects of the syntax of English imperatives. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar
  43. Rupp, L. (2003). The syntax of imperatives in English and Germanic: Word order variation in the Minimalist framework. Basingstone: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  44. Sadock, J. M. (1974). Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Schlenker, P. (2003). A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 29–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schlenker, P. (2005). Person and binding. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica, 16.1, 155–218.Google Scholar
  47. Schmerling, S. (1975). Imperative subject deletion and some related matters. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 501–511.Google Scholar
  48. Schmerling, S. (1982). How imperatives are special, and how they aren’t. In R. Schneider, K. Tuite & R. Chameltzy (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on nondeclaratives. Chicago Linguistics Society, The Univ. of Chicago.Google Scholar
  49. Sigurðsson, H. (2004). The syntax of Person, Tense and speech features. Rivista di Linguistica/ Italian Journal of Linguistics, 16, 219–251.Google Scholar
  50. Stafford, R. L. (1967). An elementary Luo grammar, with vocabularies. Nairobi and London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Stanley, J., & Szabó, Z. G. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language, 15, 219–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang, S. (1990). The status of imperatives in theories of grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  53. Zwicky, A. M. (1974). Hey, whatsyourname. In Papers from the tenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April 19–21, 1974 (pp. 787–801). Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linguistics DepartmentGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations