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

Binding Domain has to be extended to the next CFC, namely the superordinate clause, where
PRO, although being correctly bound by the controller as an anaphor, is incorrectly bound as a
pronominal. Therefore the 'if'-infinitive is correctly excluded by the second BT principle.
Now consider the structure of an 'if'-infinitive construction in a language having
infinitive enclisis. In these languages, V o is adjoined to I': 112
(19) [ C o if ] [ IP PRO [ I' V o [ I' I o ] ] ]
In 0, Kayne argues, C o cannot govern PRO because there is a closer governor, namely
V o , which creates a minimality effect. Therefore IP is a CFC containing a governor for PRO
(namely V o ). For IP to be the Binding Domain for PRO as pronominal nothing else is required,
and PRO as pronominal is correctly free within IP. On the other hand IP does not fulfil the
virtual binding requirements of PRO as anaphor, so the Binding Domain for PRO-anaphor is
extended to the superordinate clause, where it is licitly bound by the controller.
So NSLs having infinitival enclisis allow for PRO to be governed without violating BT.
At S-structure, the other set of languages do not have a governed PRO. Since, however, the
hypothesis that PRO may be governed and, therefore, subject to BT is a natural way of
accounting for the strict referential constraints on PRO (it is controlled or arbitrary), Kayne
proposes that the governed status of PRO is universal (i.e., PRO never escapes BT). In languages
where it cannot be licitly governed at S-structure, it is governed at LF, where V-raising would
create a structure similar to 0.
Kayne's analysis is appealing in several respects:
- It accounts for an interesting generalization concerning enclisis and the existence of 'if'-
112 V o adjunction to I' would take place in all infinitives in
these languages independently of whether an (en)clitic is
present or not: enclisis would only be a manifestation of the
phenomenon.
1