Chapter 5
Non-overt Categories: PRO and Control
Introduction and Overview
PRO
non-overt NP
syntactically active
A PRO is characterized by the feature composition [+Anaphor, +Pronominal].
Anaphor
Pronomina
Eg. himself
Eg. him, they
The distribution and interpretation of PRO is regulated by the module of the grammar
known as control theory.
The Non-overt Subject of Infinitivals
Theta Roles and Understood Arguments
[CP [IP To
abandon
the investigation
two-place predicate
External argument
internal argument
?
]] would be regrettable.
we will interpret the bracketed sentence as if there were an external argument;
we will argue that the bracketed clause contains a non-overt subject.
☺
A non-overt subject is an implicit subject which is syntactically ‘present’
in the sentence and interacts with the other constituents of the sentence.
The Non-overt Subject of Infinitivals
The Extended Projection Principle (EPP)
all projections of IP have a subject, i.e. [Spec, IP] must be projected.
subject of the infinitival clause
In the literature the non-overt subject of the infinitival clause
is represented by the element PRO.
The Non-overt Subject of Infinitivals
Local Relations
between the overt subject NP and other constituent.
When the subject is not overtly realized,
such a relation can be established with a non-overt subject.
Local Relations
Purpose Clauses
2a. [CP [IP
2b. [CP For [IP Poirot to abandon the investigation [in order to save money]]] would be regrettable.
2c. [CP [IP
to abandon the investigation
[in order
to save money
]]] would be regrettable.
non-finite clause
?
PRO
to abandon the investigation [in order to save money]]] would be regrettable.
In (2a) the non-finite clause to abandon the investigation appears not to have an overt subject;
however, its AGENT is understood to be the same as the AGENT of to save money.
The external argument of to abandon the investigation, though not overt is understood
and is syntactically represented (PRO) as in (2c) because it plays a role in the interpretation of
the subordinate clause in the same way that the overt subject in (2b) does.
Local Relations
Together
3a. The boys left together.
3b. The boy left
4a. [CP For [IP
4b. [CP [IP
together.
plural NP
*
the boys
to leave
together
]] would be stupid.
PRO
to leave
together
]] would be stupid.
The grammaticality of (3a) as opposed to the ungrammaticality of (3b)
suggests that together needs to be related to a plural NP in an A position.
In (4a) together is related to the subject of the infinitival clause, the boys,
which implies that the non-over subject in (4b) can also function as the antecedent of together.
Local Relations
Binding
5. [ To identify
Principle A requires that an anaphor (such as oneself in the above sentence)
must be bound in its GC. Given that (5) is grammatical,
there must be a subject (the non-overt subject, PRO) which can act as the binder of the reflexive.
The GC, i.e. the lower non-finite clause, contains the governor of oneself, the verb identify,
and it contains a subject, PRO.
oneself
here ] would be wrong.
anaphor
The Features of PRO
PRO is roughly equivalent to a pronoun.
When it is interpreted as referentially dependent on another NP
in the same sentence, we say that it is controlled by that NP.
Control Theory: the module of the grammar which regulates
the distribution and the interpretation of PRO is called control theory.
The Features of PRO
Consider
6a. Poiroti is considering [CP whether [IP PROi to abandon the investigation]].
6b. [CP [IP PRO to abandon the investigation]] would be regrettable.
Two types of PRO:
(1) Anaphoric PRO: its interpretation is dependent on another NP.
(2) Pronominal PRO (arbitrary PRO): it is not controlled by any NP and refers freely.
An anaphoric PRO may be dependent on implicit arguments. (see 15a,b on p.264)
The non-overt subject NP of infinitival clauses is syntactically represented as PRO,
with the feature matrix [+Anaphor, +Pronominal, +Nominal].
Anaphoric PRO
Pronominal PRO
The Features of PRO
Poirot
wondered [CP whether [IP
PRO
to
invite
himself
*herself
to the party]].
7.
In a control structure, PRO picks up the agreement features
of the controller:
control
bind
govern
The Features of PRO
Uncontrolled or arbitrary PRO is singular in English,
and it can have either third person or second person features:
8a. It is not always easy [CP [IP PRO to control oneself in public ]].
8b. It is not always easy [CP [IP PRO to control yourself in public ]].
The Features of PRO
When the subject is an arbitrary PRO,
the argument must have an animate interpretation.
9. [[ PRO to roll down a hill ]] is dangerous.
The Distribution of PRO
PRO cannot be used as a direct object:
10. Poiroti wondered [CP whether [IP PROi to invite PRO ]].
*
PRO cannot be used as a direct object:
11. [IP PRO should invite the sergeant ].
*
Not every infinitival construction allows PRO as its subject:
12a. Poiroti preferred very much [CP for [IP PROi to destroy something ]].
12b. Poiroti believed [IP PROi to be the best detective ]].
*
*
Conclusion: PRO must be ungoverned. (Chomsky 1981)
The Distribution of PRO
The PRO Theorem (Chomsky 1981)
Condition A: An anaphor must be bound in its local domain.
Condition B: A pronoun must be free in its local domain.
The local domain includes a governor and a subject.
PRO is [+Anaphor, +Pronominal].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
∴ PRO has no local domain
PRO (in OC: obligatory control) has a subject
-----------------------------------
∴ PRO is ungoverned
The Distribution of PRO
Non-finite Clauses and PRO
13a Poiroti remembers [ PROi abandoning the investigation ].
13b Ii left [ without [ PROi giving an explanation ]].
13c Poiroti died [[ PROi waiting for Miss Marple ]].
13d Poiroti arrived [ PROi angry ]].
gerundial clauses as the complements
gerundival clause as the adjunct
Small clause
The Distribution of PRO
Non-finite Clauses and PRO
It seems like PRO can also occurs in the subject position of various types of
non-finite clauses such as gerundial clauses and small clauses.
Compare the following pair of sentences:
14a Poiroti arrived [ PROi angry ]].
14b We thought [ Poirot angry ]].
IP
NP
I’
VP
I
AGRP
V’
V
Poirot
[-ed]
arrive
PRO angry
IP
NP
I’
VP
I
AGRP
V’
V
We
[-ed]
think
Poirot angry
The difference between (14a) and (14b) lays on the fact that
the small clause PRO angry in (14a) is an adjunct
while the small clause Poirot angry in (14b) is a complement of think.
The verb think is a two-place predicate, it can govern into the small clause and case-mark the subject of the small clause.
Properties of Control
Obligatory Control and Optional Control
PRO is optional controlled if it may either be controlled by an NP
or have an arbitrary interpretation. (c.f. 41a-d on p. 277)
PRO is obligatory controlled if it must be controlled by an NP. (c.f. 42a-f on p.277)
Properties of Control
Subject Control vs. Object Control
In the examples of obligatory control, if the controller is the subject,
the control is a Subject Control;
if the controller is an object, the control is an Object Control. (c.f. 43a-f on p.278)
Properties of Control
C-command and Obligatory Control
In the case of obligatory control the controller must c-command the
controlled element.
It is the c-command requirement that distinguishes obligatory control
from optional control.
(Williams 1980)
Properties of Control
The Controller: Argument Control
PRO must be controlled by an argument.
For PRO to be controlled by an expletive is not allowed.
Control Patterns: Further Examples
PRO in Complement Clauses
When PRO is the subject of a declarative complement clause
it must be controlled by an NP. (c.f. 47a-f on p.280)
When the complement is interrogative, either subject control or arbitrary control
is possible. (c.f. 48a-b on p.280)
Control Patterns: Further Examples
Passivization and Control
In sentences which have object control patterns,
passivization is generally possible. (c.f. 58a-c on p.282)
Control Patterns: Further Examples
PRO in Adjunct Clauses
PRO as the subject of adjunct clauses is also obligatorily controlled.
(c.f. 60a-c on p.283)
Control Patterns: Further Examples
PRO in Subject Clauses
In declarative complement clauses and in adjunct clauses PRO
is obligatorily controlled, whereas in subject clauses PRO may either be
arbitrary or optional controlled. (c.f. 61a-d on p.283)
Control Patterns: Further Examples
Obligatory Control is not a Lexical Feature
The PRO control property has nothing to do with the lexical properties
of the main verbs. (c.f. 66a-b on p.285)
But then what would it have something to do with? Predicate?