PRO Theorem - Pluto Huji Ac Il

SYNTACTIC THEORY Y. N. Falk
:<
>ROY\OW¡ Z¢
7K£ 3UREOHPV
/ What is the status of PRO in terms of Binding Theory? In some ways it resembles a
pronoun, but in other ways it resembles a reflexive (anaphor).
Pronoun-like properties of PRO:
Can be coreferential with non-c-commanding antecedent
[PRO i to clone dinosaurs] would please the geneticist i.
Can have “arbitrary” reference (like the pronoun one)
[PRO arb to clone dinosaurs] would be a major scientific advance.
Can refer to something in the discourse
The geneticist i was depressed. [PRO i to clone dinosaurs] would
have been really impressive.
Anaphor-like properties of PRO
Coreference is often obligatory.
The geneticist i wishes [PRO i/*j to clone dinosaurs].
Antecedent has to be “local”
The geneticist i claims [that the movie producer j wishes [PRO j/*i to
clone dinosaurs]].
/ Why is PRO limited to subject position in non-finite clauses?
VROXWLR¤ E¦ 7K£ &KRPVN¦
SURSRVH¥
PRO is a “pronominal anaphor”; i.e. ⎡+ a⎤ . As an anaphor, it must be bound in its governing
⎢⎣ + p⎥⎦
category (Principle A). As a pronoun, it must be free in its governing category (Principle B).
This is obviously a contradiction. The only way to circumvent this would be for PRO not to be
governed. If it were ungoverned, it would not have a governing category, so Principles A and
B would be irrelevant. So we derive the PRO Theorem:
PRO Theorem
PRO must be ungoverned.

SYNTACTIC THEORY Y. N. Falk
:<
>ROY\OW¡ Z ¢
The only ungoverned position that arguments can occupy is [SPEC, IP] (subject position) in nonfinite
CPs without the prepositional complementizer for. Using italics for governors and
boldface for barriers:
VP
V
V CP
C
C IP
DP I
PRO I …
I doesn’t govern PRO because nonfinite I isn’t a governor. C doesn’t govern PRO because it is
empty. This is why for is ungrammatical in control sentences. Finally, while V is a governor, it
can’t govern PRO because CP is a barrier and it intervenes between V and PRO. In CP-less
constructions (ECM and Raising) the verb does govern the complement subject position, and
PRO is ungrammatical.
What about Case? If PRO is ungoverned, it is not Case-marked. We have already seen another
non-Case-marked element: the trace of NP-movement. What both of these have in common is
that they are empty categories. So we can restate the Case Filter as:
All overt DPs must have a Case.
to