Projects for today CAS LX 522 • Review PRO and control, with some additional Syntax I evidence for PRO from Binding Theory.

Week 12a. • Look at one other place where CPs appear PRO & CP & V2 inside other sentences: clausal adjuncts. (chapter 8) • Look at the phenomenon of “V2” languages— another place where CP is important.

Before we finish Adjunct clauses: embedded clauses… where do they go? • Embedded clauses can also be modificational adjuncts. • Pat cleaned poorly yesterday. #Pat cleaned yesterday poorly. Pat ate lunch [ on the hill ] • • PP Pat cleaned poorly [before Chris arrived]. [PP by the tree ] [PP in the rain ]. • #Pat cleaned [before Chris arrived] poorly. • To express reasons and times, we also find whole CPs • adjoined to our clause: • Pat cleaned [before Chris arrived] yesterday. • Pat cleaned yesterday [before Chris arrived]. • We discussed adjuncts [CP before we finished our discussion of embedded clauses] • Pat heard that [before Chris arrived] [Tracy cleaned the sink]. • There’s nothing really new here, except the observation that before can have category C. • Pat heard [before Chris arrived] that [Tracy cleaned the sink]. • Just like after, while, during, etc.

because clauses if clauses • If clauses are • Reason clauses like because are also clausal clauses. adjuncts. • If he loses • Because I lost the game, I the game, I left. will leave. • I left because I • I will leave if lost the game. he loses the game. Unique !-Generalization PRO • Jack tried to capture Nina • *Karr accused. • Here, capture has two !-roles (Agent and Theme), and try has two !-roles (Agent and Proposition). Intuitively, Jack is the This cannot mean Karr accused himself, and isn’t • Agent of both the trying and the capturing. But assuming that good on its own. We concluded (back in chapter the ! is true, this can’t be: 3, p. 81), that !-role assignment is constrained Unique -Generalization by…. Jack can’t be getting two !-roles. The Unique !-Generalization • Something must be getting the Agent !-role of capture (Jack is • pretty clearly getting the Agent Each !-role must be assigned but a constituent !-role of try), but we can’t see it. cannot be assigned more than one !-role. There’s something we can’t see there, getting So, presume that’s true. • Conclusion: • the Agent !-role of capture. It’s a little bit like a silent pronoun, so we call it PRO.

PRO PRO • Jack tried [ to PRO capture Nina ] • Jack tried [ PRO to capture Nina ] • So, we have two deep principles of the • PRO must be there to satisfy the U!G. grammar that point to a need for PRO in • But something must be there in the specifier of TP: this sentence. T always has a [uD*] feature to check (the Unique !-Generalization “EPP”). • EPP (T has a [uD*] feature) • (except maybe in Irish and Arabic) • • PRO acts a bit like an anaphor, in that it must corefer with the subject of the higher • Since Jack tried to capture Nina is grammatical, we also verb (try is a subject control verb). need PRO to move to SpecTP to satisfy the EPP.

One more argument for PRO • Principle A: An anaphor must be bound in PRO its binding domain. • So, we have pretty good evidence for PRO, • Jack hoped [ that Kim would explain herself ] despite its invisibility: • Jack wanted [ Kim to explain herself ] • *Jack hoped [ that Kim would call himself ] • *Jack wanted [ Kim to call himself ] • We believe T has a [uD*] feature (EPP). • Jack hoped [ PRO to see Kim ] • Every TP needs a specifier. • Jack hoped [ PRO to exonerate himself ] • We believe the Unique !-generalization. • Principle B: A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. • No DP can get two different !-roles. Jack hoped [ that Chase would exonerate him ] • Binding Theory reacts as if something is there • serving as a binder. • Jack wanted [ Chase to exonerate him ] • Jack hoped [ PRO to exonerate him ] Idioms Subject control v. object control • Idiomatic interpretation available for raising verbs: [The cat] seems t to have your tongue. • i i • Subject control verbs take a nonfinite • [The cat]i seems ti to be out of the bag. complement, with PRO as the subject, and PRO must refer to the higher subject. • Gael tried [ PRO to disarm the bomb ] • The cat was originally Merged within the lower vP—its !- role comes from have/be out. • Object control verbs are ditransitives that Not so here: take an object and a nonfinite complement, with PRO as the subject, and PRO must refer to the • [The cat] tried [PRO to have your tongue]. higher object. • [The cat] arranged [PRO to be out of the bag]. • David persuaded Sherry [ PRO to leave ] • A further argument for PRO being there and being something different from [the cat].

Persuasion and promises ECM verbs • Not all ditransitive control verbs are object control verbs. • ECM verbs also take infinitive complements, but • Though all object control verbs are ditransitives. with an overt subject (that checks accusative 1) David persuaded Sherry [ PRO to leave ] case with the ECM verb). 2) David promised Sherry [ PRO to run for office ] • Tony found [ Michelle to be charming ] 3) Chase asked Jack [ PRO to be allowed to continue ] • Tony found [ that Michelle was charming ] 4) Chase asked Jack [ PRO to get off his case ] • Jack expected [ Tony to take the day off ] • Whether a verb is a subject control verb or an object control verb is an individual property of the verb. Promise is recorded in • Jack expected [ that Tony would take the day off ] our lexicon as a subject control verb, persuade as an object control verb.

Raising verbs Verb classes in summary • ECM verbs, e.g., believe, find • Raising verbs have no Agent/Experiencer in SpecvP, and • I believe [TP him to have told the truth]. take a nonfinite complement. The subject of the • We find [TP these truths to be self-evident ].! (or hold) embedded complement moves into their subject position: • Subject control verbs, e.g., attempt, promise • Jack seems [ to be tired ] • Kimk promised Jack [CP ØNULL PROk to avoid kidnappers ]. • It seems [ that Jack is tired ] • Kimk will try [CP ØNULL PROk to avoid kidnappers ]. • Object control verbs, e.g., convince, ask The time appears [ to have expired ] • • I convinced herk [CP ØNULL PROk to drive to work]. • It appears [ that the time has expired ] • Jack asked Kimk [CP ØNULL PROk to avoid kidnappers ]. • The President happened [ to have a pen ] • Raising verbs, e.g., appear, seem • I appear [TP to have missed the bus]. • It happened [ that the President had a pen ] • Jack seems [TP to need a nap]. While thinking about syntax While thinking about syntax

" Before finishing his homework, Ike watched TV. " Finish: transitive (Agent, Theme) " Before finishing his homework, Ike watched TV. " Agent: ? " Theme: his homework " Intuitively, it is Ike who was (at least at risk of) finishing his homework. " Watch: transitive (Agent, Theme) " " Agent: Ike We are not going to have any particular explanation for exactly how the interpretation tied to the subject " Theme: TV comes about, but it seems to be. " Ike watched TV is the main clause. " Before he finished his homework, Ike watched TV. " Before finishing his homework is a modifier.

While PRO thinking about syntax Before PRO finishing… • T is not finite, so no [tense] feature. • It is not the infinitive either. Before PRO finishing his homework, … • • We’ll say this form has the [ing] feature. • The [uInfl:] feature of v is • This PRO does seem to be controlled by matched, valued, and checked the subject somehow (*While raining, Ike by the [ing] feature, resulting dashed to the store). in finishing. • The form finishing is not the progressive, it is the present participle, a nonfinite form.

Before PRO finishing… Before PRO finishing… • How does PRO get its • Given this, the best case feature checked? hypothesis seems to be that the [ing] T also has a • Some relevant sentences: [null] feature, checking case with PRO just like • Before he finished finite T checks nominative his homework, Ike case with other subjects. watched TV. [null] = [ucase:null] • Before Ike’s • finishing of his homework, tension was high. The only thing left is to attach the modifier into the main clause… Before Before his cooking of the t(of)urkey, Ike PRO had never opened the oven before. finishing…

On gerunds • There is yet another form of the verb that shows up with -ing on the end of it in English: the gerund. • A gerund is basically a verb acting as a noun— we’ve been looking at this kind of deverbal noun already. One way to tell whether you are looking at a gerund (noun) or not (a verb) is to see whether it is modified by adjectives or adverbs: • Before his quick(*ly) cooking of the t(of)urkey… • Before quick-*(ly) finishing his homework…