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

genitive position. Suppose this NP fulfils that part of the definition of Binding Domain which is
common to pronominals and anaphors, namely:
(17) B is a Binding Domain for A iff B is the minimal CFC containing A and a governor of A.
For the anaphor (each other), however, there is the further requirement that the Binding
Domain has to contain an A-position c-commanding it. Since the anaphor is in the specifier of
the NP, i.e., the highest specifier in this NP, such a requirement is not met, and the Binding
Domain will be the next CFC up, namely the whole sentence, where the anaphor will be
correctly bound. For the determination of pronominal's Binding Domain, there is no such
requirement, so the NP itself can be the Binding Domain, allowing the pronominal (their) to be
free in it.
PRO, like genitives, can be assumed to occupy the highest specifier of the IP. Since IP is
a CFC, Chomsky's proposal can easily be made to bear on the PRO distribution. Since
Chomsky's proposal allows for the determination of the Binding Domain to give different results
depending on the pronominal/anaphor status of the element in question, then the simultaneous
pronominal/anaphoric status of PRO need not lead to the PRO-theorem. Specifically, if a CFC
XP contains PRO, a governor of PRO and no A-position c-commanding PRO, then PRO as
pronominal will have XP as its Binding Domain, where it will be free as required, but XP will
not be the Binding Domain for PRO as anaphor: the Binding Domain will be the whole IP next
up, where it will be bound by the controller in the standard case.
Now consider the structure of an 'if' infinitive in English or French, where it is excluded:
(18) [ C o if ] [ IP PRO [ I' I o ] ]
Since there is no governor of PRO inside IP, IP cannot be the Binding Domain for PRO.
In fact, the governor for PRO is C o (containing 'if'), but since C o is outside the IP CFC, the
1