English Imperatives as a Discourse-Configurational Language
Norio Suzuki
Kobe Shinwa Women’s University
The goals of this paper are threefold: (i) To reinterpret English imperatives (EIs) as a
discourse-configurational language (DC-language, limiting discussion to subjectomission; Miyagawa 2010), but not as an agreement-based language (A-language); (ii)To refine Agree in A- & DC-grammars; & (iii) To redefine some discourse (D)-relatedresources to describe EIs. (See Miyagawa (2010) for dichotomy between A- (English) &DC-languages (Japanese) in terms of φ-features & topic-/focus-features (respectively)
inherited by T from phase head C (Chomsky 2008) for the purpose of triggering
A-movement at T.) Consider the following, with evidence pointing to EIs being aDC-language:(1) a. Somebody open the window.
(no agreement on the verb)(cf. ‘Somebody opens the window’: a declarative, agreement on the verb)b. Don’t be noisy.
(do-support, without V-to-T movement of the be-verb)(cf. ‘John isn’t /is not noisy’: a declarative, V-to-T movement of the be-verb,
without do-support)The EIs in (1a,b) point to there being noφ-feature agreement between subject & verb (adefining characteristic of DC-languages), & lack of φ-feature agreement on T makes it
impossible for the be-verb to raise to T ((1b)). Unvalued φ- & topic-/focus-featuresdetect DPs (pro for (1b)) with unvalued Case-features. Case-valuation is implemented
roughly in the same way in both types (upon Agree in φ-features & upon Agree in
topic-/focus-features for A- & DC-languages, respectively; Saito 2007 for a different
view of Case in East Asian (EA) languages & his attempt to equate EA
argument-ellipsis & radical pro-drop (RPD)). I take an overt & a pro EI subject(somebody & pro in (1a,b)) to be a focus & a topic DP, respectively. Further, pro in EIs
receives nominative Case, valued by T(ense)<Imp> (based on such Modern English data
as Go and do thou likewise (Luke x.37) (The Holy Bible: 394), an imperative with thenominative pronoun thou as subject, & on the Japanese imperative, Omae-ga ik-e(‘you-NOM go-IMP’; ‘You go’), which contains an overt nominative subject). Let me
propose some D-related resources to describe EIs, as follows:(2) a. Go away.
b. You go away.
Following Grohmann’s (2003) tripartite clausal structure (i.e., the theta-domain(TH-domain), the Case/agreement-domain (C/A-domain; for A-languages; theCase/topic/focus-domain (for DC-languages)), & the discourse-domain (D-domain)),
we obtain the following NS-structures for the TH-domains of (2a,b): ‘[vP pro go away]’& ‘[vP you go away],’ respectively. The subjects receive a theta-role of ‘goer.’ We then1have the NS-structures for their C/A-domains: ‘[C<IMP, topic> [TP T<Imp> [vP pro go away]]’& ‘[C<IMP, focus> [TP T<Imp> [vP you go away]],’ respectively. Inheritance oftopic-/focus-features from C by T takes place. Valuation of pro’s & you’s unvalued
Case-features takes place, the imperative Tenses T<Imp, topic/focus> assigning nominative
Case to pro & you with a topic- & a focus-feature, respectively, under Agree. Thetopic-/focus-features have been assigned to pro & you, respectively, from the“pragmatics” module at the strong v phasal TRANSFER via the “invasive” approach tothe NS-interfaces connection (López 2003). Finally we get the NS-structures for theirD-domains: ‘[CP <IMP> [TP T<Imp> [vP protopic go away]]’ & ‘[CP <IMP> [TP youfocus T<Imp>[vP (youfocus) go away]],’ respectively. The feature <IMP> in C functions to mark its
sister TP as imperative, with the “performative” meaning of “command.” What remains
for the purposes of interpretation of (2a,b) is identification of the subjects. As for“subject interpretation” in EIs, LF copying operates (Saito 2007), providing imperative
subjects with you, the sole LF object available to English for imperative purposes (Saito2007 for the view that ‘LF copying is an available option universally’). The D-domainof imperatives includes the notion of “YOU,” which denotes the “addressee” & counts
as the (sole) value of the “semantic role” of Addressee. The protopic & youfocus subjects ofimperatives covertly raise to [Spec,C], where they receive the semantic role ofAddressee from the Speaker, whose “linguistic” domain is the D-domain (myforthcoming work for the ‘generalized’ theta-Criterion requiring an argument to bear atheta- or a semantic-role). T(ense)<Speaker>, which resides in the D-domain & corresponds
to the “Speaker’s” Absolute Present Tense (Hornstein 1990 for a Reichenbachian theoryof tense), values “vocative Case” (Case-visibility requirement on theta-assignment,according to which such ‘vocative’ expressions as John! may receive a semantic-role ofAddressee only if its Case-feature is valued as vocative; the generalized theta-Criterion).
T<Imp> used to raise overtly to the imperative C (Go and do thou likewise, with the verbin C), but it does not any more. The subjects of (2a,b) receive both a theta-role of goer& a semantic-role of addressee. Referring to the “addressee” makes an imperative
subject topicalized or focused, depending on whether it is covert or overt, respectively.
EIs capitalize on the DC-language strategy in assigning a topic or focus status to[Spec,T]. This situation points to EIs being (partly) a DC-language. [792words] References:Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases./ Grohmann, K.K. 2003. Successive cyclicity under (anti-)local considerations. Syntax
6./ Hornstein, N. 1990. As time goes by: Tense and Universal Grammar./ López, L. 2003. Steps for a well-adjusted
dislocation. Studia Linguistica 57./ Miyagawa, S. 2010. Why agree? Why move?: Unifying agreement-based &discourse-configurational languages./ Saito, M. 2007. Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research 43./
The Holy Bible: The authorized King James version (1611). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2