It is likely… CAS LX 522 IP This satisfies the EPP in
Syntax I both clauses. The main DPj I′ clause has Mary in SpecIP. Mary The embedded clause has Vi+I VP is the trace in SpecIP. V AP Week 14b. PRO and control ti This specific instance of A- A IP movement, where we move a likely subject from an embedded DP I′ clause to a higher clause is tj generally called subject raising. I VP to leave
Reluctance to leave Reluctance to leave
Now, consider: Reluctant has two θ-roles to assign. Mary is reluctant to leave. One to the one feeling the reluctance (Experiencer) One to the proposition about which the reluctance holds (Proposition) This looks very similar to Mary is likely to leave. Can we draw the same kind of tree for it? Leave has one θ-role to assign. To the one doing the leaving (Agent).
How many θ-roles does reluctant assign? In Mary is reluctant to leave, what θ-role does Mary get?
IP
Reluctance to leave Reluctance… DPi I′ Mary Vj+I VP In Mary is reluctant to leave, is V AP Mary is doing the leaving, gets Agent t Mary is reluctant to leave. j t from leave. i A′ Reluctant assigns its θ- Mary is showing the reluctance, gets θ roles within AP as A θ IP Experiencer from reluctant. required, Mary moves reluctant up to SpecIP in the main I′ clause by Spellout. ? And we have a problem: I vP But what gets the θ-role to Mary appears to be getting two θ-roles, from leave, and what v′ in violation of the θ-criterion. satisfies the EPP for the ? embedded clause? θ Vk+v VP leave tk
1 IP IP
Reluctance… DPi I′ Reluctance… DPi I′ Mary Mary Vj+I VP Vj+I VP is is V AP V AP t t Mary is reluctant to leave. j t Mary is reluctant to leave. j t i A′ i A′ There must be something There must be something θ θ there, getting the θ-role A θ IP there, getting the θ-role A θ IP and satisfying the EPP. reluctant and satisfying the EPP. reluctant
I′ DPm I′ ? PRO But we can’t see it. But we can’t see it. I vP I vP to to t It’s a phonologically ? v′ It’s a phonologically m v′ empty (Ø) DP. We will θ empty (Ø) DP. We will θ call it PRO. Vk+v VP call it PRO. Vk+v VP leave tk leave tk
IP If there’s a PRO, Reluctance… DPi I′ Mary how do we know? V +I Mary is reluctant j VP is Mary is reluctant [PROm to leave] [PRO to leave]. V AP t Maryi is likely [ ti to leave]. j t i A′ θ PRO does not get Case. A θ IP These two sentences look very much reluctant *Mary is reluctant Bill to leave. alike—when faced with a sentence that DPm I′ In fact, PRO cannot get Case. PRO looks like this, how do we know which *Mary is reluctant for to leave I vP to kind it is? Mary is reluctant for Bill to leave tm v′ PRO refers (like a pronoun or θ an anaphor) to Mary. Vk+v VP leave tk
If there’s a PRO, Idioms how do we know? Best method for finding PRO: Count the θ- For something to have an idiomatic roles. If there appear to be fewer interpretation (an interpretation not arguments than θ-roles (in a grammatical literally derivable from its component sentence), there must be a PRO. words), the pieces need to be very close together at the point of original Merge. Another way is to try with idioms like The It is likely that the jig is up. cat is out of the bag or The cat’s got your It is likely that the cat is out of the bag. tongue or The jig is up. It is likely that the cat has your tongue.
2 Idioms Idioms
If we break up the pieces, then we lose the It is ok if the pieces of the idiom move idiomatic interpretation and can only get the away after their original Merge, we can literal meaning. still get the idiomatic interpretation: The cat thinks that it is out of the bag. The cat thinks that it has your tongue. [The cat]i is likely ti to have your tongue. With PRO sentences (“control sentences”), we [The cat]i is likely ti to be out of the bag. also lose the idiomatic reading. [The jig]i is likely ti to be up. #The cat is reluctant to be out of the bag. The important thing is that they are #The cat attempted to have your tongue. together originally (the θ-role needs to #The jig tried to be up. be assigned by the predicate to the noun)
Idioms Control
The reason for this is that the idiomatic PRO is similar to a silent pronoun; it subject and the idiomatic predicate were gets its referent from somewhere never together… outside its sentence. In many situations, The cat is reluctant [PRO to be out of the bag] however, PRO is forced to co-refer to a The cat attempted [PRO to have your tongue] preceding DP, unlike a pronoun. The jig tried [PRO to be up] Billi thinks that hei/j is a genius. Billi is reluctant PROi/*j to leave. Unlike with raising verbs: [The jig] is likely [ t to be up] We say that PRO is controlled (here i i by the matrix subject).
Subject and object control PROarb
There are actually two different kinds of Finally, there is a third use of PRO, in which “control verbs”, those whose subject it gets arbitrary reference and means something controls an embedded PRO and those like “someone/anyone”.
whose object does. [PROarb to leave] would be a mistake.
The conditions on which interpretation PRO Billi is reluctant [PROi to leave] can/must get are referred to as Control reluctant is a subject control predicate Theory, although to this day the underlying Johni persuaded Billj [PROj to leave] explanation for Control remains elusive. persuade is an object control predicate
3 “Control theory” “Control theory”
For now, what control theory consists of is just Predicates that have a controller marked are marking the theta grids of specific predicates control predicates. When the controller is the (persuade, reluctant) with an extra notation that external argument, it is a subject control predicate, indicates when an argument is a controller. otherwise it is an object control predicate. reluctant Experiencer Proposition reluctant Experiencer Proposition controller controller i j i j
persuade Agent Theme Proposition persuade Agent Theme Proposition controller controller i j k i j k
The PRO conundrum The PRO conundrum
Back when we talked about Binding Theory, we Back when we talked about Binding Theory, we said that DPs come in one of three types, pronouns, said that DPs come in one of three types, pronouns, anaphors, and R-expressions. anaphors, and R-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 an R- expression. Conclusion: It doesn’t seem to be any one of the It is sometimes forced to get its referent from an antecedent, like an anaphor and unlike a pronoun. three. It doesn’t seem to fall neatly under Binding Theory But that referent is outside its clause, meaning it can’t be an anaphor (the antecedent would be too far away for Principle A). Plus, it’s not always forced (PROarb), like a …hence, we need “Control Theory” to deal with pronoun. the distribution and interpretation of PRO.
The PRO conundrum Control Theory
These weird properties of PRO are sometimes taken to be the cause of another generalization Despite the fact that PRO does not submit about PRO (the “PRO theorem”) to Binding Theory, there are some binding- theory-like requirements on control of PRO. PRO cannot get Case.
PRO is only obligatorily controlled by a c- That is, PRO is forbidden from any position commanding controller. where Case would be assigned to it (hence, it cannot appear in SpecIP of a finite clause—only a nonfinite clause) [Billj’s mother]i is reluctant [PROi/*j to leave]
4 PRO: One possible PRO: One possible piece of support piece of support
Bill is reluctant [PRO to buy himself a gift] Let’s think back to Binding Theory. i i i Billi promised Mary [PROi to buy himselfi a gift] Principle A says that anaphors must be *Bill promised Mary [PRO to buy herself a gift] bound within their binding domain, and we i j i j *Bill promised Mary [PRO to buy him a gift] take binding domain to be the clause. i j i i Billi promised Maryj [PROi to buy herj a gift] *Bill wants [Mary to meet himself] *Billi is reluctant [PROi to buy himi a gift] However, now consider: While it’s true that Bill is outside of the binding Bill is reluctant to buy himself a gift. domain of himself, and hence Bill cannot be the Bill promised Mary to buy himself a gift. antecedent for himself, PRO is in the binding domain Why are these allowed? and its reference is controlled.
PRO: recap Italian subjects
Many languages have the property that Although we can’t see that PRO is there, all when the subject is understood (often in of our theoretical mechanisms point to its the cases where in English we would use a being there. pronoun subject), it can be just left out EPP says that clauses need a subject. entirely. For example, Italian: The θ-criterion says that there must be exactly as many arguments as θ-roles. Binding Theory indicates something is present Parlo. Parli. inside embedded clauses. speak-1s speak-2s If the rest of our theory is right, it seems that ‘I speak’ ‘You speak’ PRO must be there.
Italian subjects Little pro
So what about the EPP and the θ-criterion? There is one important difference between Clearly ‘speak’ assigns a θ-role, and the Italian null subject and PRO, namely presumably the Italian SpecIP needs to be the null subject in Italian appears in a filled as well. position that gets Case. Io parlo. I speak-1s ‘I speak’ This sounds like a familiar question… Since PRO cannot appear in a Case-marked should we hypothesize that the subject in position, we have to take this to be these sentences is PRO? something similar but different: Little pro.
5 Little pro
Little pro is really just a regular pronoun, only null. It doesn’t have the fancy control properties exhibited by PRO, it appears in Case-marked positions. Languages seem to be divided into those which have little pro and those which don’t, often correlating with the amount of agreement on the verb (rich agreement makes it more likely that a language will have pro). Languages with pro are often called “pro- drop languages” or “null subject languages”.
6