Jaume Solà i Pujols - Departament de Filologia Catalana ...

theorem), then we explain that 'if'-infinitives are not allowed in French or English. We do not
thus far explain, however, why languages having enclisis allow 'if'-infinitives, since the existence
of the structure 0 does not trivially bear on the PRO-theorem problem.
In order to account for the facts, Kayne adapts a proposal by Chomsky (1986-b) on the
definition of Binding Domain. Chomsky wanted to account for cases where pronominals and
anaphors are not in complementary distribution, such as:
(16) a. They like their pictures
b. They like each other's pictures
Chomsky's proposal is that the definition of Binding Domain is sensitive to the
[±anaphoric] character of the element whose Binding Domain is determined. Without going into
the details of Chomsky's technical definitions, the essential idea is that the Binding Domain for a
pronominal/anaphoric element has to fulfil the condition of virtually allowing for the
pronominal/anaphor to be respectively free/bound. In more concrete terms, this means that X is
Binding Domain for an anaphor only if X contains an A-position c-commanding the anaphor;
since pronominals do not have to (in fact cannot) be bound in their Binding Domain, there is no
requirement of virtual binding for pronominals.
With these assumptions, the facts in 0 can be explained. Consider whether the NP
containing the genitive is a possible Binding Domain for the pronominal or anaphor in this
point, and this will be crucial for my account too. However I
think the preposition de (and its Romance counterparts) cannot
be in Spec of CP, as Kayne assumes. On the one hand, since a
specifier cannot be occupied by a head, we would be dealing with
a complement-less PP. On the other hand, if de is in Spec of CP,
de-infinitives would be like Wh-islands, contrary to fact:
(ii) Quand i as-tu essayé [ de venir t i ]
When have-you tried de to-come
Cf. *Quand i m'as-tu demandé [ où Jean allait t i ]
When me-have-you asked where J. went
We could assume that de is outside CP. This is not in fact
incompatible with Kayne's or my theory, nor is it crucial to
either, provided de is not in C o .
1