A modo de balance

The theoretical motivation for PRO is based on three theoretical constructs: (1) the Projection Principle, (2) the Extended Projection Principle, and (3) Binding Theory (see Chomsky 1980, 1981). The first two constructs are straightforward. The Projection Principle formalizes the idea that syntactic structure is determined, at least to a large extent, by lexical information. One effect of this is that the external theta role assigned by an infinitival verb must be syntactically represented. The

41 _{Norbert Corver (p.c.) points out that a split antecedent pattern is usually possible if one of the}

arguments is contained in an adjunct PP:

(i) Jani meende [PP volgens Mariej] PROi+jsamen oud te kunnen worden.

John thought according Mary together old to can become ‘According to Mary, John believed that they would grow old together.’

Note that a split antecedent reading is not possible with an adjunct PP in an absentive: (ii) * Jani was toen [PP volgens Mariej] PROi+j samen vissen.

John was then according Mary together fish-INF

‘According to Mary, John was off fishing with her then.’

Extended Projection Principle requires every clause, including infinitival clauses, to have a subject.

The third construct requires further comment. Chomsky (1981) takes the position that Binding Theory generalizes over both lexical and non-lexical categories. The two binary-valued features [ranaphor] and [rpronominal] yield the following four NP-types:

(97) NP-type Lexical Non-lexical

[+anaphor, –pronominal] reflexives, reciprocals NP-trace

[+anaphor, +pronominal] – PRO

[–anaphor, +pronominal] pronouns pro [–anaphor, +pronominal] R-expressions wh-trace

In addition to pure anaphors ([+anaphor,–pronominal]) and pronominals ([–anaphor,

+pronominal]), the classification of NP-types includes a third category, that of R- expressions ([–anaphor,–pronominal]).

The fourth predicted feature combination, ([+anaphor,+pronominal]), is assumed to specify PRO. The distribution of PRO is limited to ungoverned positions, such as the subject position of controlled infinitives. Binding Theory accounts for this as follows: since PRO is both [+anaphor,+pronominal], it must, paradoxically enough, be free and bound in its governing category. This is possible only if there is no governing category present, since in that case the notions “free” and “bound” are vacuous. This is achieved if PRO has no governor. On the assumption that only the

finite Infl head functions as a governor, PRO has no governor if it is the subject of

an infinitival clause; in this case, the non-finite Infl head cannot function as a governor, and therefore does not govern its specifier [spec IP]. This is referred to by Chomsky as the “PRO-theorem” (see Chomsky 1981). The PRO-theorem explains why the distribution of PRO is by and large limited to the subject position of

infinitival clauses.42 _{The PRO-theorem also correctly predicts that there is a}

complementary distribution between PRO and other NP-types.

Observe that the classification in (97) has a gap where we would expect the lexical equivalent of PRO. This gap follows from the PRO-theorem. A lexical equivalent of PRO would also have the specification [+anaphor, +pronominal], and would therefore also have to be free and bound in its governing category. Again, this is possible only if there is no governor. But if there is no governor, then the lexical

42_{As Bennis & Hoekstra (1989a:257, 259) note, PRO also occurs in attributive adjuncts (i) as well as}

inside some NPs (ii):

(i) Jani ging [PROi bezopen] naar huis.

John went drunk to home ‘John went home drunk.’

(ii) Jani heeft [die PROi uitspraken over zichzelfi] onthouden.

John has those remarks about himself remembered ‘John remembered those remarks about himself.’

element would not be able to receive case (assuming that case is assigned under government). Therefore, the existence of a lexical but caseless element is blocked by the case-filter, which states that every overt NP must be assigned (abstract) case. So far, I have summarized the theoretical arguments for PRO. However, there are also a number of empirical arguments which show that PRO has both anaphoric and pronominal properties. Consider first the anaphoric properties of Dutch PRO, based on Bennis & Hoekstra (1989a). (98a) suggests that PRO must have an antecedent; (98b) suggests that coreference of PRO with a c-commanding NP is obligatory; (98c) suggests that the relation between PRO and its antecedent is subject to locality restrictions:

(98) a. * Het is waarschijnlijk om PRO naar huis te gaan.

it is likely for to house to go ‘It is likely to go home.’

b. Jani probeert om PROi/*j naar huis te gaan.

John tries for to house to go ‘John tries to go home.’

c. Harryi beloofde Ronj dat Hermelienk zou proberen om

Harry promised Ron that Hermione would try for

PRO*i/*j/k het boek uit de bibliotheek te halen.

the book from the library to get

‘Harry promised Ron that Hermione would try to get the book from the library.’

Consider next the pronominal properties of Dutch PRO, again based on Bennis & Hoekstra (1989a). (99ab) suggest that the position that is occupied by a pronoun in finite subclauses is occupied by PRO in non-finite subclauses. (99c) suggests that, like pronouns, PRO does not require an antecedent. (99d) suggests that, again like

pronouns, PRO does not allow an antecedent within its governing category.43 _(99e)

suggests that, like pronouns, PRO allows a split antecedent:

(99) a. Sneepi beloofde Harry [ dat hiji zou komen].

Snape promised Harry that he would come ‘Snape promised Harry to come.’

b. Sneepi beloofde Harry [PROi te zullen komen].

Snape promised Harry to will come ‘Snape promised Harry to come.’

c. [PRO naar de dierentuin gaan] is leuk.

to the zoo go is fun ‘It is fun to go to the zoo.’

d. * Francinei hoorde [PROi een lied zingen].

Francine heard a song sing ‘Francine heard sing a song.’

e. Harryi stelde Ronj voor [ om PROi+j naar huis te gaan].

Harry suggested Ron for for to house to go ‘Harry suggested to Ron to go home.’

The preceding discussion shows that there are good theoretical and empirical grounds for assuming a category [+anaphor, +pronominal], i.e. PRO. Paradoxically, the theory which produced PRO, i.e. Binding Theory, faces a dilemma when its principles are applied to PRO, since an element cannot be both free and bound in its governing category. The PRO-theorem is intended to circumvent this contradiction.

The PRO-theorem does not in fact solve the hybrid nature of PRO, but rather takes PRO out of the Binding Theory and into Control Theory (see Chomsky 1981). It is clear which properties of PRO should be accounted for by Control Theory, but it is

rather less clear how this should be done.44 _{In principle, Control Theory is a theory}

about the relation between PRO and its possible and impossible antecedents. There are two general factors that influence the interpretation of PRO: (1) properties of the matrix verb (a subject control verb, an object control verb, or a verb that allows both), and (2) properties of the embedded clause. In (100b) I provide an example of the influence of the embedded clause; addition of a modal verb to the embedded clause triggers a shift in reference:

(100) a. Jani belooft Pietj PROi/*j naar huis te gaan.

John promises Pete to home to go ‘John promises Pete to go home’

b. Jani belooft Pietj PRO*i/j naar huis te mogen gaan.

John promises Pete to home to may go ‘John promises Piet to be allowed to go home.’

As I mentioned earlier, other properties associated with PRO, such as the occurrence of split antecedents, are not yet fully understood (see also fnt. 40).

Aside from the combined force of the PRO-theorem and Control Theory, there is another way to handle the hybrid nature of PRO. It could be argued that PRO sometimes patterns as an anaphor (in which case it has the syntactic status of an NP- trace) and sometimes as a pronoun (in which case it has the syntactic status of pro). On this assumption, there is a principled reason for why the feature combination [+anaphor,+pronominal] is empty. However, this alternative has also been argued to be problematic; see for instance Bennis & Hoekstra (1989a) for discussion.

The preceding discussion shows that there is as yet no satisfactory account of the notion of PRO and its status in relation to binding. In the minimalist framework

ofChomsky (1995), the status of PRO with respect to binding is unclear. One of the reasons for this is that minimalism has discarded the notion of government. It is not my aim to discuss these problems in any detail here, let alone provide a solution for them. As regards the role of PRO in the absentive, I assume that it has sufficient

pronominal properties to be sensitive to principle B of the Binding Theory.