The "Subject" in English Imperatives

Numerous studies in the past have argued for the non-identity of imperative subjects and vocatives in English. For all that has been said, however, we still continue to witness in the literature a proclivity to identify imperative subjects with vocatives whenever such an approach is deemed expedient. In an attempt to resolve once and for all any doubt or ambiguity that may yet remain, this paper examines and refutes the claim put forward in Thorne 1966 such that overt imperative subjects constitute a special type of vocative. After outlining the main points of Thorne's proposal, the paper investigates the differences between imperative-initial noun phrases that form a separate intonation contour from the rest of the utterance, as in Boys, stop, and those that do not form a separate intonation contour from the rest of the utterance, as in Boys stop. The investigation shows that these two types of NP are both referentially and syntactically distinct from each other. The paper concludes that the former type, which behaves exactly like conventional vocatives, should be classified as vocatives, whereas the latter type, which shows no similarity at all to vocatives, should be classified as canonical subjects, insofar as there is no compelling evidence against their subject status.