1Realization 11a. PRO & CP & V2(Chapter 8)(v1.1)CAS LX 522Syntax IProjects for today Review PRO and control, with someadditional evidence for PRO from BindingTheory. Look at one other place where CPs appearinside other sentences: clausal adjuncts. Look at the phenomenon of “V2”languages—another place where CP isimportant.Before we finishembedded clauses… Another place we find embedded clauses is asmodificational adjuncts. Pat ate lunch [PP on the hill ][PP by the tree ] [PP in the rain ]. To express reasons and times, we also findwhole CPs adjoined to our clause: We discussed adjuncts [CP before we finished ourdiscussion of embedded clauses] There’s nothing really new here, except the observationthat before can have category C. Just like after, while, during, etc.Adjunct clauses:where do they go? Pat cleaned poorly yesterday. #Pat cleaned yesterday poorly. Pat cleaned poorly [before Chris arrived]. #Pat cleaned [before Chris arrived] poorly. Pat cleaned [before Chris arrived] yesterday. Pat cleaned yesterday [before Chris arrived]. Pat heard that [before Chris arrived][Tracy cleaned the sink]. Pat heard [before Chris arrived] that[Tracy cleaned the sink].Because clauses Reason clausesare also clausaladjuncts. Because I lost thegame, I left. I left because Ilost the game.vPlose the gameT′T[past]TPDPICPCbecausevPleaveT′T[past]TPDPITPCPCØDECLIf clauses If clauses arelike becauseclauses. If he loses thegame, I willleave. I will leave if heloses the game.vPlosethe gameT′T[pres]TPDPheCPCifvPleave<M>TPDPITPCPCØDECLMPT′M+Twill2Unique θ-Generalization *Dantes accused. This cannot mean Dantes accused himself,and isn’t good on its own. We concluded(back in chapter 3, p. 81), that θ-roleassignment is constrained by…. The Unique θ-GeneralizationEach θ-role must be assigned but aconstituent cannot be assigned more thanone θ-role. So, presume that’s true.PRO Jack tried to capture Nina Here, capture has two θ-roles (Agent andTheme), and try has two θ-roles (Agent andProposition). Intuitively, Jack is the Agent of boththe trying and the capturing. But assuming thatthe Unique θ-Generalization is true, this can’t be:Jack can’t be getting two θ-roles. Something must be getting the Agent θ-role ofcapture (Jack is pretty clearly getting the Agentθ-role of try), but we can’t see it. Conclusion: There’s something we can’t seethere, getting the Agent θ-role of capture. It’s alittle bit like a silent pronoun, so we call it PRO.PRO Jack tried [ to PRO capture Nina ] PRO must be there to satisfy the UθG. But something must be there in the specifier ofTP: T always has a [uD*] feature to check (the“EPP”). (except maybe in Irish and Arabic) Since Jack tried to capture Nina isgrammatical, we also need PRO to move toSpecTP to satisfy the EPP.PRO Jack tried [ PRO to <PRO> capture Nina ] So, we have two deep principles of thegrammar that point to a need for PRO in thissentence. Unique θ-Generalization EPP (T has a [uD*] feature) PRO acts a bit like an anaphor, in that itmust corefer with the subject of the higherverb (try is a subject control verb).One more argument for PRO Principle A: An anaphor must be bound in itsbinding domain. Jack hoped [ that Kim would explain herself ] Jack wanted [ Kim to explain herself ] *Jack hoped [ that Kim would call himself ] *Jack wanted [ Kim to call himself ] Jack hoped [ PRO to see Kim ] Jack hoped [ PRO to exonerate himself ] Principle B: A pronoun must be free in its bindingdomain. Jack hoped [ that Chase would exonerate him ] Jack wanted [ Chase to exonerate him ] Jack hoped [ PRO to exonerate him ]PRO So, we have pretty good evidence for PRO,despite its invisibility: We believe T has a [uD*] feature (EPP). Every TP needs a specifier. We believe the Unique θ-generalization. No DP can get two different θ-roles. Binding Theory reacts as if something is thereserving as a binder.3Idioms Idiomatic interpretation available for raisingverbs: [The cat]i seems ti to have your tongue. [The cat]i seems ti to be out of the bag. The cat was originally Merged within the lowervP—its θ-role comes from have/be out.Not so here: [The cat] tried [PRO to have your tongue]. [The cat] arranged [PRO to be out of the bag]. A further argument for PRO being there and being somethingdifferent from [the cat].Subject control v. object control Subject control verbs take a nonfinitecomplement, with PRO as the subject, andPRO must refer to the higher subject. Gael tried [ PRO to disarm the bomb ] Object control verbs are ditransitives thattake an object and a nonfinitecomplement, with PRO as the subject, andPRO must refer to the higher object. David persuaded Sherry [ PRO to leave ]Persuasion and promises Not all ditransitive control verbs areobject control verbs. Though all object control verbs are ditransitives. David persuaded Sherry [ PRO to leave ] David promised Sherry [ PRO to run for office ] Chase asked Jack [ PRO to be allowed to continue ] Chase asked Jack [ PRO to get off his case ] Whether a verb is a subject control verb or an objectcontrol verb is an individual property of the verb. Promiseis recorded in our lexicon as a subject control verb,persuade as an object control verb.ECM verbs ECM verbs also take infinitive complements,but with an overt subject (that checksaccusative case with the ECM verb). Tony found [ Michelle to be charming ] Tony found [ that Michelle was charming ] Jack expected [ Tony to take the day off ] Jack expected [ that Tony would take the day off ]Raising verbs Raising verbs have no Agent/Experiencer inSpecvP, and take a nonfinite complement. Thesubject of the embedded complement movesinto their subject position: Jack seems [ <Jack> to be tired ] It seems [ that Jack is tired ] The time appears [ <the time> to have expired ] It appears [ that the time has expired ] The President happened [ <the P.> to have a pen ] It happened [ that the President had a pen ]There seems… We also find the raising verb seem with there. There. The other expletive subject. Vincent seems to be lost. It seems that Vincent is lost. There seems to be a dog in the woods. It is an expletive subject that checks both the EPPand case features of T. There