01.05.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

) Hence (headless) PRO in Spec of AGR will not have Case, and its Binding domain<br />

will not be <strong>de</strong>finable, according to our <strong>de</strong>finition, which makes reference to a Case position.<br />

Therefore it is immaterial whether it is governed or not as far as the PRO-theorem is concerned<br />

(in 0 it would be governed by [ NOM o AGR o ]). In the present account, then, PRO can escape BT<br />

either by not being governed or by not having a Case position.<br />

c) PRO o , on the other hand, once adjoined to a head, is not in an A-position and is not<br />

subject to BT. 124<br />

d) (headless) PRO in Spec of AGR is coin<strong>de</strong>xed with AGR o (by Spec-head agreement)<br />

and AGR o is coin<strong>de</strong>xed with the I-subject (by the very same reason it is in finite sentences). Then<br />

PRO A-binds the I-subject, with the result that the latter cannot be an R-expression (in the<br />

following example, the infinitive is dislocated, so that the reason for the BT-3rd Principle<br />

violation cannot be binding by the main subject):<br />

(47) a. Fer això ell/*en Joan, no ho <strong>de</strong>sitja pas<br />

To-do this he/ the J. not it-wishes at-all<br />

'To do this himself/*John, he does not wish'<br />

b. [ Fer [ IP [ PRO t ]i [ VP [ VP això ] elli/*en Joani ] ]<br />

The Case position for the I-subject is the I-subject itself, thus the Binding Domain for the<br />

I-subject exclu<strong>de</strong>s PRO, and the I-subject can be (and has to be) a pronominal.<br />

124 If this i<strong>de</strong>a is correct, then it could have far-reaching<br />

consequences for other cases of head-movement of a pronominal<br />

(thanks to Carme Picallo for pointing this out to me): if, for<br />

instance, clitics are analyzed as DP heads adjoining to some FC,<br />

then, by the same logic of our reasoning about PRO o , no Binding<br />

Principle would apply to clitics, contrary to fact. On the one<br />

hand, however, it is not clear that clitic attachment is the<br />

output of head movement from the A-position. On the other hand,<br />

the Binding Theoretical properties of clitics are an obscure<br />

area at least in the case of reflexives (reflexive clitics often<br />

become passivizer or unaccusativizer morphemes across<br />

languages).<br />

1

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!