The Interpretation of PRO in the Minimalist Program 2001년 서강대학교 대학원 영어영문학과 박 두 홍 The Interpretation of PRO in the Minimalist Program 지도교수 이 홍 배 이 논문을 문학석사 학위논문으로 제출함 2002년 6월 12일 서강대학교 대학원 영어영문학과 박 두 홍 논 문 인 준 서 박두홍의 문학석사 학위논문을 인준함 2002년 6월 12일 주심 김 영 석 (인) 부심 조 숙 환 (인) 부심 이 홍 배 (인) The Interpretation of PRO in the Minimalist Program by Doo Hong Park A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Sogang University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts July 2002 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Fear holds you in prisoner, but hope can set you free! When you do something in your life, what is most dreadful to you? In my case, it is fear about something that does not happen yet. During my M.A course at Sogang University, I was in fear and trembling several times. Every time I felt fearful, it was hopes that set me free. The hopes were faith and numerous people around me. Were it not for them, I could not end up my MA course. First of all, I would like to show my heartfelt gratitude to Prof. Hong-Bae Lee, my thesis adviser. Throughout my MA course, he has provided me insightful lectures on Syntax and persevering guidance. Without his considerate heart, I could not finish this thesis. I also express my sincere thankfulness to my committee members, Prof. Young- Seok Kim and Prof. Sook-Hwan Cho, who were willing to take pains in reading my thesis. Completion of my thesis is also indebted to their kind reading of the awkward draft and critical comments on it. Beyond my thesis committee members, I would like to show my gratitude to Prof. Seo-Young Chae, who gave me warm and considerate lectures on Sociolinguistics. I also express my thankfulness to Prof. Sung-Bum Lee who showed me what a scholar’s life should be like. I am also grateful to Sung-Eun Cho, who read my thesis throughout and gave me critical comments on it. In addition, I am very thankful to seniors, Jong-Un Park, Jin-Se Lee, Hong-Oak Yun, Eun-Hae Park, Seung-Koo Park, who were very friendly and helpful. Most of all, my special thanks go to Won-bin Lee, who always encouraged me and helped me to get a clue to my thesis. I am also indebted to other seniors and fellow students at Sogang: Jung- Ah Lee, Jay-Doe Ryu, Sung-Hee Park, Dong-Yon Lee, Yun-Ju Suh, Jun-Won Yoon, Hyun-Jeong Park, Nan-Ie Joo. Thanks also go to Jeong-In Lee, who gave me many helps and Seung-Won Paek, Mi-Young Jee, Eun-Jeong Yang, Young-Jin Jeon, Tae-Joo Roh, -v- Sung-Eun Lee, Kyung-Hee Koo, Hyun Jin Choi, and Hyun Soon Kim. Special thanks go to my friends, Chan Su Park, Young Min Kim, schoolfellows at Gethsemane at SKKU as well as ones at Eden’s Tree at Sogang University. Finally, I want to express my heartfelt thankfulness to my family. I cannot find appropriate words to express my gratitude to them. If it were not for their consistent support and affectionate concern for me, I could not continue my study till now. Again I would like to show my special thanks to my father, mother and elder brother Dea-Hong Park for their sacrifice and affection. Most of all, I would like to show my heartfelt gratitude to the one, who was, who is, and who is to come. Doo Hong Park July, 2002 -vi- Table of Contents Acknowledgements. v Table of Contents . vii 국문초록. ix Abstract. x ChapterⅠ Introduction .. 1 1.1 What is Control? . .1 1.2 Distribution of PRO . 2 1.2.1 Classical Approaches. 2 1.2.1.1 Caseless PRO . 2 1.2.1.2 Ungoverned PRO . 4 1.2.2 Case-theoretic Approaches. 6 1.2.2.1 PRO and Null case . 7 1.2.2.2 PRO and Enlightened Self Interest . .. 9 1.3 Two Types of Control . 10 1.4 A Brief Overview of This Thesis . 12 Chapter Ⅱ Framework of Minimalist Inquiries and Derivation by Phase: Chomsky (2000, 2001). 14 2.1 Introduction . .. 14 2.2 Core Functional Categories and Clausal Structure . .14 2.3 Operations of the Computational System (CHL) . .17 2.4 The Notion of Phase, PIC and Spell-Out . 19 Chapter Ⅲ Previous Analyses of OC PRO. 23 3.1 Introduction . .. 23 3.2 Standard Approaches . 23 3.2.1 Rosenbaum’s (1967) Minimal Distance Principle . .24 3.2.2 Chomsky’s (1981) Intrinsic Properties of Predicates . .25 3.3 Minimalist Approaches . .. 27 -vii- 3.3.1 Manzini & Roussou’s (1999) Analysis . 27 3.3.2 Hornstein’s (1999) Analysis . .29 3.3.3 Problems . .35 3.3.3.1 Wanna-Contraction . 35 3.3.3.2 PRO ≠ NP-trace. 37 Chapter Ⅳ A Minimalist Approach to the Interpretation of PRO . 39 4.1 Introduction . 39 4.2 A Minimalist Analysis based on Agree: Chomsky (2000, 2001).. 39 4.3 Preliminary Assumptions for a New Analysis. 41 4.3.1 Separate Operations (i.e., Agree and Move): Lee (1999) . .42 4.3.2 On Control Infinitives. 43 4.3.3 Two Types of Non-finite T . 44 4.4 A New Analysis of the Interpretation of PRO. 48 Chapter Ⅴ Conclusion .. 58 References . 60 -viii- 국문초록 본 논문은 공범주인 PRO의 의무적 통제를 Chomsky(2000, 2001)가 제안한 통사적 작용인 일치(Agree)의 결과로 분석하는 데 그 목적이 있다. 통제란 비 시제절의 주어자리에 위치한 공범주 PRO(비통제자)의 지시적 특성이 통제자 의 지시적 특성에 의해 결정되는 것을 의미한다. 본 논문에서는 먼저, 최소주 의 이론에서 PRO의 분포는 지배(government)란 용어를 쓰지 않고도 설명될 수 있음을 보이고, 나아가, Chomsky(2000, 2001)가 제안한 현 최소주의 가정하에서 의무적 통제의 경우 PRO의 선행사 선택 (즉, 주어에 의한 의무적 통제와 목적 어에 의한 의무적 통제의 구별)이 어떻게 이루어지는 지를 알아볼 것이다. 이러한 목적을 위해, 현 최소주의 이론체계를 개관하고, 원리-매개변항 이론에 서부터 최소주의 이론에 이르기까지 있었던 의무적 통제현상에 대한 이전의 통사적 분석들을 다룰 것이다. 즉, Rosenbaum(1967)이 제시한 “최소 거리 원리 (Minimal Distance Principle)”와 Chomsky(1981)이 제시한 “술어의 내재적 특성 (Intrinsic Properties of Predicates)”에서부터, Manzini and Roussou(1999)가 제시한 “유인작용(ATTRACT)”과 Hornstein(1999)이 제시한 “의무적 통제는 명사구의 흔적과 같다(OC PRO = NP-trace)”란 분석들을 살펴 봄으로써 의무적 통제현상 의 선행사 결정이 어떻게 이루어지는 지를 살펴볼 것이다. 뿐만 아니라, 이러 한 통사적 분석들의 문제점들도 밝히고자 한다. 끝으로, 앞서 언급한 이전 분석들과는 다르게, PRO의 의무적 통제는 통사 적 작용인 일치에 의해 결정됨을 제시하겠다. PRO가 주어와 일치를 이룬 기능 핵 T와 일치를 이룰 경우, 주어에 의한 의무적 통제가 이루어 지고, PRO가 목 적어와 일치를 이룬 기능핵 v와 일치를 이룰 경우, 목적어에 의한 의무적 통 제가 이루어 지는 것으로 보고자 한다. 새로운 분석을 위해, 통제구문은 TP라 고 하는 Bošković(1997)의 주장과 일치(Agree)와 이동(Move)은 별개의 작용이 라는 Lee(1999)의 주장을 가정하겠다. -ix- A Minimalist Approach to PRO and Control Abstract The aim of this thesis is to analyze obligatory control of PRO as a consequence of the syntactic operation Agree proposed by Chomsky (2000, 2001). What control means is that the referential properties of the empty category PRO (controllee) occupied the subject position of the infinitival clauses is determined by those of the antecedent (controller). In this thesis, I will first show how the concept of “government” can be eliminated in accounting for the distribution of PRO within the Minimalist Program. Secondly, I will show how the particular choice of the antecedent of OC PRO (i.e., the distinction between obligatory subject control and obligatory object control) is determined within the current minimalist assumptions proposed by Chomsky (2000, 2001). For this purpose, I will review the framework of the recent minimalist theory, and consider the previous analyses of obligatory control constructions from the principles and parameters theory to the recent one called minimalist theory: that is, Minimal Distance Principle in Rosenbaum (1967), Intrinsic Properties of Predicates based on Control Theory in Chomsky (1981), ATTRACT in Manzini and Roussou (1999) and OC PRO = NP-trace in Hornstein (1999). In addition, problems of these analyses will be reconsidered in this thesis. Finally, unlike these aforementioned analyses, I will propose that the particular choice of the antecedent of PRO should depend on the syntactic operation Agree. That is, when PRO agrees with the functional head T, which has already agreed with the subject DP (controller), we get obligatory subject control. When PRO agrees with the functional head v, which has already agreed with the object DP (controller), we get obligatory object control. For an alternative analysis, I will assume Bošković’s (1997) argument that control infinitives are TPs and Lee’s (1999) argument that Agree and Move are separate operations. -x- ChapterⅠ Introduction 1.1 What is Control? As children grow up, they occasionally hear sentences like the following from their parents. (1) a. No Billy, Kittie doesn’t like __ to be smacked. (Landau, 1999: 10) b. Tom! It’s too late. You know, time __ to go to bed. c. Jane! Please, try __ to pay attention to me whenever I tell you something. Through the examples in (1), children are usually controlled by their parents in their behaviors. However, apart from the lesson in parental control, to be able to understand such sentences and produce similar ones by themselves, children should also learn a pattern of the innate grammar of their mind/brain from the examples in (1). For instance, in each of the sentences above, an element is missing from the underlined position.