Week 14b. PRO and controlWeek 14b. PRO and control

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

It is likely…It is likely…

This satisfies the EPP in This satisfies the EPP in bothboth clauses. The main clauses. The main clause has clause has MaryMary in in SpecIP. The embedded SpecIP. The embedded clause has the clause has the trace trace in in SpecIP.SpecIP.

This specific instance of A-This specific instance of A-movement, where we move movement, where we move a subject from an embedded a subject from an embedded clause to a higher clause is clause to a higher clause is generally called generally called subject subject raisingraising..

Alikely

AP

IP

Ito leave

Vti

VP

tj

is

IP

IDPjMary

VP

IDP

Vi+I

Reluctance to leaveReluctance to leave

Now, consider:Now, consider: Mary is reluctant to leave.Mary is reluctant to leave.

This looks very similar to This looks very similar to Mary is likely to Mary is likely to leaveleave..

Can we draw the same kind of tree for it?Can we draw the same kind of tree for it?

How many How many -roles does -roles does reluctant reluctant assign?assign?

Reluctance to leaveReluctance to leave

Reluctant Reluctant has has twotwo -roles to assign.-roles to assign. One to the one feeling the reluctance One to the one feeling the reluctance

((ExperiencerExperiencer)) One to the proposition about which the reluctance One to the proposition about which the reluctance

holds (holds (PropositionProposition))

Leave Leave has one has one -role to assign.-role to assign. To the one doing the leaving (To the one doing the leaving (AgentAgent).).

In In Mary is reluctant to leaveMary is reluctant to leave, what , what -role does -role does Mary Mary get?get?

Reluctance to leaveReluctance to leave

In In Mary is reluctant to leaveMary is reluctant to leave,, MaryMary is doing the leaving, gets is doing the leaving, gets

AgentAgent from from leaveleave.. MaryMary is showing the reluctance, is showing the reluctance,

gets gets ExperiencerExperiencer from from reluctantreluctant..

And we have a problem:And we have a problem: Mary Mary appears to be getting two appears to be getting two --

roles, in violation of the roles, in violation of the --criterioncriterion..

ReluctanceReluctance……

Mary is reluctant to Mary is reluctant to leave.leave.

ReluctantReluctant assigns its assigns its --roles within AP as roles within AP as required, required, MaryMary moves moves up to SpecIP in the main up to SpecIP in the main clause by Spellout.clause by Spellout.

But what gets the But what gets the -role -role from from leaveleave, and what , and what satisfies the EPP for the satisfies the EPP for the embedded clause?embedded clause?

Areluctant

A

AP

DPiMary

tj

VPVj+Iis

I

IP

vPIto

I

IP

leave

ti

?

v

VP

?

V

Vk+v tk

ReluctanceReluctance……

Mary is reluctant to Mary is reluctant to leave.leave.

There must be There must be somethingsomething there, there, getting the getting the -role and -role and satisfying the EPP.satisfying the EPP.

But we can’t see it.But we can’t see it.

It’s a phonologically It’s a phonologically empty (Ø) DP. We will empty (Ø) DP. We will call it PRO.call it PRO.

Areluctant

A

AP

DPiMary

tj

VPVj+Iis

I

IP

vPIto

I

IP

leave

ti

?

v

VP

?

V

Vk+v tk

ReluctanceReluctance……

Mary is reluctant to Mary is reluctant to leave.leave.

There must be There must be somethingsomething there, there, getting the getting the -role and -role and satisfying the EPP.satisfying the EPP.

But we can’t see it.But we can’t see it.

It’s a phonologically It’s a phonologically empty (Ø) DP. We will empty (Ø) DP. We will call it PRO.call it PRO.

Areluctant

A

AP

DPiMary

tj

VPVj+Iis

I

IP

vPIto

I

IP

leave

ti

v

VP

V

Vk+v tk

tm

DPmPRO

ReluctanceReluctance……

Mary is reluctantMary is reluctant[PRO to leave].[PRO to leave].

PRO does not get Case.PRO does not get Case. *Mary is reluctant Bill to leave.*Mary is reluctant Bill to leave.

In fact, PRO In fact, PRO cannotcannot get Case. get Case. *Mary is reluctant for to leave*Mary is reluctant for to leave Mary is reluctant for Bill to Mary is reluctant for Bill to

leaveleave PRO refers (like a pronoun PRO refers (like a pronoun

or an anaphor) to or an anaphor) to MaryMary..

Areluctant

A

AP

DPiMary

tj

VPVj+Iis

I

IP

vPIto

I

IP

leave

ti

v

VP

V

Vk+v tk

tm

DPmPRO

If there’s a PRO,If there’s a PRO,how do we know?how do we know?

Mary is reluctant [PROMary is reluctant [PROmm to leave] to leave]

MaryMaryii is likely [ is likely [ ttii to leave]. to leave].

These two sentences look These two sentences look very muchvery much alike—when faced with a sentence alike—when faced with a sentence that looks like this, how do we know that looks like this, how do we know which kind it is?which kind it is?

If there’s a PRO,If there’s a PRO,how do we know?how do we know?

Best method for finding PRO:Best method for finding PRO: Count Count the the -roles. If there appear to be fewer -roles. If there appear to be fewer arguments than arguments than -roles (in a -roles (in a grammatical sentence), there must be grammatical sentence), there must be a PRO.a PRO.

Another way is to try with Another way is to try with idiomsidioms like like The cat is out of the bagThe cat is out of the bag or or The cat’s The cat’s got your tonguegot your tongue or or The jig is upThe jig is up..

IdiomsIdioms

For something to have an idiomatic For something to have an idiomatic interpretation (an interpretation not interpretation (an interpretation not literally derivable from its literally derivable from its component words), the pieces need component words), the pieces need to be very close together at the point to be very close together at the point of original Merge.of original Merge. It is likely that the jig is up.It is likely that the jig is up. It is likely that the cat is out of the bag.It is likely that the cat is out of the bag. It is likely that the cat has your tongue.It is likely that the cat has your tongue.

IdiomsIdioms

It is ok if the pieces of the idiom move It is ok if the pieces of the idiom move away after their original Merge, we can away after their original Merge, we can still get the idiomatic interpretation:still get the idiomatic interpretation: [The cat][The cat]ii is likely is likely ttii to have your tongue. to have your tongue. [The cat][The cat]ii is likely is likely ttii to be out of the bag. to be out of the bag. [The jig][The jig]ii is likely is likely ttii to be up. to be up.

The important thing is that they are The important thing is that they are together originally (the together originally (the -role needs to -role needs to be assigned by the predicate to the be assigned by the predicate to the noun)noun)

IdiomsIdioms If we break up the pieces, then we lose If we break up the pieces, then we lose

the idiomatic interpretation and can only the idiomatic interpretation and can only get the literal meaning.get the literal meaning. The cat thinks that it is out of the bag.The cat thinks that it is out of the bag. The cat thinks that it has your tongue. The cat thinks that it has your tongue.

With PRO sentences (“control With PRO sentences (“control sentences”), we also lose the idiomatic sentences”), we also lose the idiomatic reading.reading. #The cat is reluctant to be out of the bag.#The cat is reluctant to be out of the bag. #The cat attempted to have your tongue.#The cat attempted to have your tongue. #The jig tried to be up.#The jig tried to be up.

IdiomsIdioms

The reason for this is that the idiomatic The reason for this is that the idiomatic subject and the idiomatic predicate were subject and the idiomatic predicate were never together…never together… The cat is reluctant [PRO to be out of the bag]The cat is reluctant [PRO to be out of the bag] The cat attempted [PRO to have your tongue]The cat attempted [PRO to have your tongue] The jig tried [PRO to be up]The jig tried [PRO to be up]

Unlike with raising verbs:Unlike with raising verbs: [The jig][The jig]ii is likely [ is likely [ ttii to be up] to be up]

ControlControl

PRO is similar to a silent pronoun; it PRO is similar to a silent pronoun; it gets its referent from somewhere gets its referent from somewhere outside its sentence. In many outside its sentence. In many situations, however, PRO is situations, however, PRO is forcedforced to to co-refer to a preceding DP, unlike a co-refer to a preceding DP, unlike a pronoun.pronoun. BillBillii thinks that he thinks that hei/ji/j is a genius. is a genius. BillBillii is reluctant PRO is reluctant PROi/*ji/*j to leave. to leave.

We say that PRO is We say that PRO is controlledcontrolled (here by the matrix subject).(here by the matrix subject).

Subject and object Subject and object controlcontrol

There are actually two different kinds There are actually two different kinds of “control verbs”, those whose of “control verbs”, those whose subject controls an embedded PRO subject controls an embedded PRO and those whose object does.and those whose object does.

BillBillii is reluctant [PRO is reluctant [PROii to leave] to leave] reluctantreluctant is a is a subject control predicatesubject control predicate

JohnJohnii persuaded Bill persuaded Billjj [PRO [PROjj to leave] to leave] persuadepersuade is an is an object control predicateobject control predicate

PROPROarbarb

Finally, there is a third use of PRO, in Finally, there is a third use of PRO, in which it gets which it gets arbitrary referencearbitrary reference and and means something like “someone/anyone”.means something like “someone/anyone”. [PRO[PROarbarb to leave] would be a mistake. to leave] would be a mistake.

The conditions on which interpretation The conditions on which interpretation PRO can/must get are referred to as PRO can/must get are referred to as Control TheoryControl Theory, although to this day the , although to this day the underlying explanation for Control underlying explanation for Control remains elusive.remains elusive.

““Control theory”Control theory”

For now, what control theory consists of is For now, what control theory consists of is just marking the theta grids of specific just marking the theta grids of specific predicates (predicates (persuadepersuade, , reluctantreluctant) with an ) with an extra notation that indicates when an extra notation that indicates when an argument is a controller.argument is a controller.reluctant Experiencer

controllerProposition

i j

persuade Agent Themecontroller

Proposition

i j k

““Control theory”Control theory”

Predicates that have a controller marked Predicates that have a controller marked are are control predicatescontrol predicates. When the controller . When the controller is the external argument, it is a is the external argument, it is a subject subject controlcontrol predicate predicate, otherwise it is an , otherwise it is an object object controlcontrol predicate predicate..reluctant Experiencer

controllerProposition

i j

persuade Agent Themecontroller

Proposition

i j k

The PRO conundrumThe PRO conundrum Back when we talked about Binding Theory, Back when we talked about Binding Theory,

we said that DPs come in one of three types, we said that DPs come in one of three types, pronounspronouns, , anaphorsanaphors, and , and R-expressionsR-expressions..

PRO is a DP, so which kind is it?PRO is a DP, so which kind is it? It gets its reference from elsewhere, so it can’t be It gets its reference from elsewhere, so it can’t be

an R-expression.an R-expression. It is sometimes It is sometimes forcedforced to get its referent from an to get its referent from an

antecedent, like an anaphor and unlike a antecedent, like an anaphor and unlike a pronoun.pronoun.

But that referent is outside its clause, meaning it But that referent is outside its clause, meaning it can’t be an anaphor (the antecedent would be too can’t be an anaphor (the antecedent would be too far away for Principle A). Plus, it’s not far away for Principle A). Plus, it’s not alwaysalways forced (PROforced (PROarbarb), like a pronoun.), like a pronoun.

The PRO conundrumThe PRO conundrum Back when we talked about Binding Theory, Back when we talked about Binding Theory,

we said that DPs come in one of three types, we said that DPs come in one of three types, pronounspronouns, , anaphorsanaphors, and , and R-expressionsR-expressions..

PRO is a DP, so which kind is it?PRO is a DP, so which kind is it?

Conclusion:Conclusion: It doesn’t seem to be any one of It doesn’t seem to be any one of the three. the three. It doesn’t seem to fall neatly It doesn’t seem to fall neatly under Binding Theoryunder Binding Theory

……hence, we need “Control Theory” to deal hence, we need “Control Theory” to deal with the distribution and interpretation of with the distribution and interpretation of PRO.PRO.

The PRO conundrumThe PRO conundrum

These weird properties of PRO are These weird properties of PRO are sometimes taken to be the cause of another sometimes taken to be the cause of another generalization about PRO generalization about PRO (the “PRO (the “PRO theorem”)theorem”)

PRO PRO cannotcannot get Case. get Case.

That is, PRO is forbidden from any position That is, PRO is forbidden from any position where Case would be assigned to it (hence, where Case would be assigned to it (hence, it cannot appear in SpecIP of a finite clauseit cannot appear in SpecIP of a finite clause—only a nonfinite clause)—only a nonfinite clause)

Control TheoryControl Theory

Despite the fact that PRO does not submit Despite the fact that PRO does not submit to Binding Theory, there are some binding-to Binding Theory, there are some binding-theory-like requirements on control of PRO.theory-like requirements on control of PRO.

PRO is only obligatorily controlled by a c-PRO is only obligatorily controlled by a c-commanding controller.commanding controller.

[Bill[Billjj’s mother]’s mother]ii is reluctant [PRO is reluctant [PROi/*ji/*j to leave] to leave]

PRO: One possiblePRO: One possiblepiece of supportpiece of support

Let’s think back to Binding Theory.Let’s think back to Binding Theory. Principle A says that Principle A says that anaphors must be anaphors must be

bound within their binding domainbound within their binding domain, and , and we take binding domain to be the we take binding domain to be the clause.clause. *Bill wants [Mary to meet himself]*Bill wants [Mary to meet himself]

However, now consider:However, now consider: Bill is reluctant to buy himself a gift.Bill is reluctant to buy himself a gift. Bill promised Mary to buy himself a gift.Bill promised Mary to buy himself a gift.

Why are these allowed?Why are these allowed?

PRO: One possiblePRO: One possiblepiece of supportpiece of support

BillBillii is reluctant [PRO is reluctant [PROii to buy himself to buy himselfii a gift] a gift]

BillBillii promised Mary [PRO promised Mary [PROii to buy himself to buy himselfii a gift] a gift]

*Bill*Billii promised Mary promised Maryjj [PRO [PROii to buy herself to buy herselfjj a gift] a gift]

*Bill*Billii promised Mary promised Maryjj [PRO [PROii to buy him to buy himii a gift] a gift]

BillBillii promised Mary promised Maryjj [PRO [PROii to buy her to buy herjj a gift] a gift]

*Bill*Billii is reluctant [PRO is reluctant [PROii to buy him to buy himii a gift] a gift]

While it’s true that While it’s true that BillBill is outside of the is outside of the binding domain of binding domain of himselfhimself, and hence , and hence BillBill cannotcannot be the antecedent for be the antecedent for himselfhimself, PRO , PRO isis in the binding domain and its reference is in the binding domain and its reference is controlled.controlled.

PRO: recapPRO: recap

Although we can’t see that PRO is Although we can’t see that PRO is there, all of our theoretical there, all of our theoretical mechanisms point to its being there.mechanisms point to its being there. EPP says that clauses need a subject.EPP says that clauses need a subject. The The -criterion says that there must be -criterion says that there must be

exactly as many arguments as exactly as many arguments as -roles.-roles. Binding Theory indicates something is Binding Theory indicates something is

present inside embedded clauses.present inside embedded clauses. If the rest of our theory is right, it If the rest of our theory is right, it

seems that PRO seems that PRO mustmust be there. be there.

Italian subjectsItalian subjects

Many languages have the property Many languages have the property that when the subject is understood that when the subject is understood (often in the cases where in English we (often in the cases where in English we would use a pronoun subject), it can be would use a pronoun subject), it can be just left out entirely. For example, just left out entirely. For example, Italian:Italian:

Parlo.Parlo. Parli.Parli.speak-1sspeak-1s speak-2sspeak-2s‘I speak’‘I speak’ ‘You speak’‘You speak’

Italian subjectsItalian subjects

So what about the EPP and the So what about the EPP and the --criterion?criterion? Clearly Clearly ‘speak’‘speak’ assigns a assigns a --role, and presumably the Italian role, and presumably the Italian SpecIP needs to be filled as well.SpecIP needs to be filled as well.

This sounds like a familiar question… This sounds like a familiar question… should we hypothesize that the should we hypothesize that the subject in these sentences is PRO?subject in these sentences is PRO?

Little Little propro

There is one important difference There is one important difference between the Italian null subject and between the Italian null subject and PRO, namely the null subject in Italian PRO, namely the null subject in Italian appears in a position that gets Case.appears in a position that gets Case. Io parlo.Io parlo.

I speak-1s ‘I speak’I speak-1s ‘I speak’ Since PRO Since PRO cannotcannot appear in a Case- appear in a Case-

marked position, we have to take this marked position, we have to take this to be something similar but different: to be something similar but different: Little Little propro..

Little Little propro

Little Little propro is really just a regular pronoun, only is really just a regular pronoun, only null. It doesn’t have the fancy control null. It doesn’t have the fancy control properties exhibited by PRO, it appears in properties exhibited by PRO, it appears in Case-marked positions.Case-marked positions.

Languages seem to be divided into those Languages seem to be divided into those which have little which have little propro and those which don’t, and those which don’t, often correlating with the amount of often correlating with the amount of agreement on the verb (rich agreement makes agreement on the verb (rich agreement makes it more likely that a language will have it more likely that a language will have propro). ). Languages with Languages with propro are often called “ are often called “propro-drop-drop languageslanguages” or “null subject languages”.” or “null subject languages”.