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

To the extent these data cast doubts on the idea that 'if' is a C o particle, they are a
potential problem. I think, however, that these facts do not seriously challenge our analysis: It
may well be that the assumption that Wh-elements and interrogative 'if' in Romance NSLs are in
the same functional category as the one hosting que 'that' is too simple, and there is an
intermediate projection. So provided 'if' is in the head of the FC immediately dominating NOM o
(or AGR o ), our account is tenable, whether this FC is CP or not.
2.1.2. The PRO Theorem
Before going into the discussion of the PRO-theorem effects, let us say something about
what a theory on PRO and control has to minimally specify. We have argued that control cannot
be reduced to Binding Theory in a positive way (i.e. with a theory predicting the reference of
PRO as a case of BT, as is intended in Kayne (1991)). We will adhere, however, to the more
traditional view that PRO's distribution is determined by BT in a negative way: PRO has to
escape binding requirements by being ungoverned (or not having Case, see below).
Since control is, under this view, still a mysterious module of the grammar, nothing of
great interest can be said about it. What I want to suggest, however, is that control can be made
minimally an interesting phenomenon if we relate it to another phenomenon which is apparently
akin in nature: subjunctive obviation.
For both control and obviation there have been authors trying to derive either from
Binding Theory (Kayne (1991) and Picallo (1985), resp.). Both phenomena, however, are
reluctant to such accounts. To mention a major problem, dislocation or movement of the
infinitive/subjunctive does not have any effect on the control/obviation facts, contrary to what
happens with genuine BT facts. Recall our discussion with examples such as 0 and 0 (repeated
here as 0 and 0). Similar examples can be built for obviation (consider 0):
1