Abstract
PRO raises three basic questions for the theory of grammar:
-
(1)(a)
Where can PRO appear?
-
(b)
How is PRO interpreted?
-
(c)
How is PRO to be distinguished from the other empty categories (ec) viz. NP-t(race) and WH-t(race).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
This is the theory developed in Chomsky (1981, 1982, 1986).
More precisely, PRO must be ungoverned at that level of representation at which the binding theory applies. There is no requirement that PRO be ungoverned at every level of representation.
Besides binding properties, there are many other properties that distinguish pronouns from anaphors. Thus, the former, but not the latter, can have split antecedents. According to the classical theory PRO should never act in one way rather than another as regards these properties, for PROs are never either pronominal or anaphoric. They are always both. At first blush, however, this does not seem to be correct. Thus, consider the following contrast: (i) John told Mary that Frank hopes that PRO living together would be possible (ii) *John told Mary that Frank hopes PRO to live together (iii) John told Mary that Frank hoped that they could live together It appears that the PRO in (i) differs from the one in (ii) in being able to support split antecedents, like they in (iii). If the PRO in (ii) is properly governed, hence anaphoric, while the one in (i) is not, hence purely pronominal, these data would follow. Of, course, this is not decisive evidence against the view that PRO is at once a pronoun and an anaphor. However, the classical theory could not account for these data by assimilating particular PROs to one of these categories given the assumption that every PRO is simultaneously both.
This approach to PRO was first suggested by Bouchard (1982). It was subsequently developed by Sportiche (1983), Koster (1984) and Hornstein and Lightfoot (1987). We will be tacitly assuming the version of this theory developed in the last mentioned work. In this work, the distribution of PRO is derived from the LF visibility condition in conjunction with the extended projection principle.
A similar analysis extends to secondary predication phenomena in Polish, as described in Franks (1983, 1985).
We occasionally say that the ECP is a PF requirement. What we mean by this is that it is a requirement that applies on the PF side of the grammar.
This assumption follows the treatment of PRO in Chomsky (1977).
This assumption is similar to the visibility condition that Chomsky (1986) invokes following a suggestion by Joseph Aoun. Chomsky (1986) assumes that case-marking is a necessary prerequisite for bearing a theta-role. We further assume that for an EC to enter into an interpretative process it must be made visible by bearing an index.
A conceptually similar approach to the ECP has been proposed by Bowers (1987), who argues that antecedent-government (subsumed by Aoun et al. (1986) under A′-binding) pertains to LF and lexical government to S-Structure. The issue of whether the lexical government condition should apply at S-Structure or PF is addressed in Aoun et al. (1986, Section 4.6).
Cf. the discussion in Aoun et al. (1986, pp. 373–375).
The assumption that PRO need not bear an index until LF and is thus exempt from the PF requirement of lexical government is put to use in Weinberg and Hornstein (forthcoming) to explain the properties of parasitic gaps.
Another way of deriving the same result would be to prohibit S′-deletion within NPs. On the assumption that S′-deletion is not permitted in NP, there would be a maximal projection, viz. S′, intervening between the PRO and the head desire, leaving the PRO ungoverned. Cf. Hornstein and Lightfoot (1987) for further discussion. However, it is clear that the general prohibition against sentential arguments within NPs that Grimshaw (1990) motivates is a more principled way of obtaining the conclusion that the PRO in (3c) has no potential proper governor.
We adopt the CP/IP system for case of exposition, and are intentionally vague about the precise formulation of S′-deletion or just how far “extended” X-bar syntax should be extended (cf. e.g. Pollock (1989)). The idea of “governed PRO” can be executed in various ways — what is important for our analysis is that it be governed in COMP-less clauses. We also ignore recent arguments about the canonical position of subjects, as in Fukui (1986) or Koopman and Sportiche (1988), until the quirky behavior of gerund clauses is discussed in Section 5.
Williams (1980) introduces a distinction between obligatory control (OC) structures and structures of non-obligatory control (NOC). OC structures involve a PRO which requires an antecedent. NOC structures have PROs, but these PROs need not have binders. There are further distinctions within NOC structures. It is only in a subcase of NOC configurations that PRO can have an arbitrary interpretation; in other configurations it must be linked to some other NP in the clause, while in still others it can optionally do either. Williams tries to account for OC by a theory of predication. Hornstein and Lightfoot (1986) argue against this approach, but maintain the typology that Williams argued for. They show that the facts concerning OC can be derived within a theory postulating that governed PROs are possible and that if governed, then they are anaphoric; cf. note 4 for references. What is important here is that we distinguish cases of OC in which the PRO must have a controller from cases in which if an antecedent exists it is the controller. So, for example, although in NPs like (i) ‘John’ is the controller of PRO, this is not a configuration of OC, for, as indicated by (ii) and (iii), the controller need not c-command PRO, nor, in fact, does PRO need to have an overt antecedent at all: (i) John’s desire PRO to win (ii) a desire by John PRO to win (iii) a desire PRO to win.
As observed in note 3, anaphoric PROs should not be able to support split antecedents, while ungoverned non-anaphoric PROs should. This seems to be roughly correct. Anaphoric PRO is typically the PRO of object control. We have seen in note 3 that it fails to allow split antecedents. Consider the environments for non-anaphoric PRO. (i) Johni told Fredj that PRO hanging each other i, j ’s pictures would be fun. (ii) Johni said Billj asked where to hang each other i, j ’s pictures/pictures of each other i, j (iii) *Johni said Billj asked PRO i, j to hang each other i, j ’ s pictures/pictures of each other i, j In (i) and (ii), PRO can be indexed by both John i and Fred j This allows each other to be bound by a plural antecedent, viz. PRO i, j . In (iii), PRO is governed, hence anaphoric. Therefore, it does not permit split antecedents. Consequently, each other is not properly bound. The contrast between (ii) and (iii) is of particular interest as the only apparent difference is whether there is a +WH COMP. If there is a WH in COMP, the embedded PRO cannot be anaphoric. If there is nothing filling the COMP, the PRO can be governed. It appears, then, that to a first approximation, with respect to split antecedents, the binding properties of governed PROs parallel those of anaphors while those of ungoverned PRO do not. This is what a theory of governed PRO leads us to expect.
Much of these data are taken from Comrie (1974); example numbers in square brackets refer to his original numbers. Comrie’s paper is the source for several other treatments of this phenomenon in the literature, including Neidle (1982) and Greenberg (1983).
There are other examples that behave in the same way. Schein (1982, p. 240) cites the following sentence: (i) on kazalsja gotovym [PRO putešestvovat’ odin] he (nom) seemed ready to-go (nom) ‘he seemed ready to go alone’ In this instance the embedded infinitival complement has a PRO subject, which it is plausible to treat as governed by the head adjective gotovym.
While intonation (and punctuation) clearly show this “subject sentence” to have been topicalized, the point remains that case agreement is impossible. Note that clausal subjects of transitive verbs are generally infelicitous in Russian — a fact that presumably follows from some version of Stowell’s “Case Resistance Principle” (cf. Franks 1985, 1990b).
The subject sentence is sentence-initial. Whether it is in adjoined position, and where it hangs from, is irrelevant for our concerns here. We assume the structure here for concreteness.
Cf. Grimshaw (1990), Hornstein and Lightfoot (1987) and Williams (1980) for discussion.
Hornstein (1990) argues for this position as well.
Example (14a), taken from Pushkin, employs the archaic “short form” dative, still attested in early early nineteenth century literature. In the modern language, the short form is purely predicational and caseless; the instrumental form ostavlennym would be required here. Note that it should be no surprise to find the second dative showing up on adjectives other than odin/sam when they still could appear with short form endings, if the morphologically motivated account of the special behavior of these two secondary predicates proposed in Franks (1985) is correct (but cf. Neidle (1982)).
This failure to obey the SSC, characterized by Růžička (1973) as “outer reflexivization,” is pervasive throughout the Slavic languages. See Franks (1985) for discussion and an explanation of how it might be related to the possibility of case agreement over clause boundaries in Polish and Russian. See Rappaport (1986) for an overview of the range of problems Russian anaphora pose for the binding theory.
Wayles Browne (personal communication) points out that for this restructuring to be possible the verb must be the minimal, unmarked lexical function of the noun, idiomatically combining with it to form a set collocation. Along similar lines, one might contrast (21a) with the ungrammatical *what did John retract the claim that Bill saw (drawn to our attention by Gil Rappaport).
This is probably related to the prohibition discussed in Di Sciullo and Williams (1987, Ch. 4) against forming words with referential subparts.
A similar array of facts is discussed for Polish in Franks (1983). This work also argues for a constituent structure as in (19) whenever agreement and extraction are possible.
As discussed in Franks (1983, 1985), both the case agreement facts themselves and the parallelism between the second dative and predicate instrumental are far more striking in Polish, mostly because in this language agreement is obligatory, whenever possible, with both types of predicate adjective, and because (again for both types) genitive subjects in Polish trigger case agreement exactly like nominative ones do.
Judgments concerning the passive are subtle. As Comrie (1974, pp. 143-144) points out, the data here are far from clear, and in particular when “the passive verb functions more as a set phrase, the nominative is required.” He cites the following example, suggesting that “such passives are not the result of a transformation, but are listed as idioms in the lexicon, and behave like simple verbs taking subjective infinitives”: (i) ja byl prinužden borot’sja odin [111] I (nom) was forced to-fight alone (nom) Although this ambiguity between lexical and syntactic passives leads to considerable variation and uncertainty among speakers, what is important for our proper government approach is that passivized object control structures are not uniformly identical to subject control structures.
Cf. Stowell (1981) and Aoun et al. (1986) for discussion.
We are not making any assumptions about whether or not the sentential complement itself is governed by the matrix verb. Presumably it is if, as generally assumed, theta-role assignment is under government. However, even if the clause as a whole is governed, this does not imply that either the COMP or the embedded subject position is.
For our purposes here it does not really matter whether the embedded clause is a CP, IP or VP. Clearly, when the COMP is filled we have a CP. The constituency of the COMP-less infinitival is at this point tangential to our current concerns, although in Section 5 we will have reason to suggest it is a bare VP.
This idea was first proposed in Kayne (1984). It is adopted in Sportiche (1986) and Hornstein and Weinberg (1986) as well.
Again, it does not matter for present purposes whether the embedded sentence in (37) is a CP, IP or VP. If it is CP, then clearly the PRO cannot be properly governed. We therefore concentrate on the case in which it is IP, a projection that does not block government.
It also forbids COMP deletion in (36) on the assumption that the sentential complement is extraposed. Under this assumption, the COMP is not c-commanded by V. (i) John [VP [VP [V, claimed t i very authoritatively]] [CP that [IP Harry was elected yesterday]]].
These examples were first discussed by Postal (1976) and are referred to in Chomsky (1977).
Note that one cannot maintain that the floated Q originates in the embedded clause with the PRO. The main reason is that one does not find these floated Qs in subject infinitivals, which is what we would expect if they were base-generated with PRO. (i) *PRO all/each/both to leave bothered the men (ii) *The men said that PRO all/each/both to shave each other would be difficult.
There appears to be a difference between infinitival complements under ‘persuade’ and finite ones. Thus, it is far less felicitous to Q float in (i): (i) *John persuaded the men all/each/both that Bill was at home This would follow if in (i) the men all was not the subject of a small clause. This, in turn, might follow, if the finite clause could be extraposed to adjunct position, as suggested in Stowell (1981). As Stowell observes, this process affects finite clauses quite differently from infinitival ones; cf. also Franks (1990b).
These data were first discussed by Hendrik and Rochemont (1982).
An anonymous reviewer argues against this structure for persuade sentences. The reviewer argues as follows. First, extraction out of the subject of a true small clause is less felicitous than extraction out of the object of a persuade verb. (i) a. Who, did you see friends of t i vote for Bush b. Who did you persuade friends of to vote for Bush Second, adverbs can intervene between the controller and the non-finite clause yet they can modify the matrix verb. (ii) a. I persuaded him at once to leave b. *I made John at once leave Third, persuade forms adjectival passives such as (iii). (iii) a. I am unpersuaded that we should leave b. *I was unseen leaving The standard account for this would be that the NP following persuade is among its arguments but the post adjectival NP in the case of small clause isn’t. In reply to these objections we offer the following comments. First, the contrast between (ia) and (ib) is much less sharp for us than it is for the reviewer. In fact, once one adjusts for the fact that the phrase ‘friends of John’ is somewhat odd to begin with, the sentence becomes rather good. (iv) Who did you see pictures of laid out on the table by Bill? Second, the fact that one can get intervening adverbs is well known in less controversial cases of sentential complements. (v) I believed John at once to be up to no good Sentences like (v) have been used to argue that John is not the subject of the following infinitive (see Postal and Pullum (1988) for example). Similar facts are observed for believe type infinitives in Icelandic (see Thrainsson (1979)) and for VR complements of control verbs in Dutch (see Koster (1984, p. 418)). If this is correct, then the categorical prohibition against such adverbs modifying higher verbs cannot be maintained. Furthermore, in the specific instance at hand, it is hard to determine whether at once modifies leave or made. The reason is that a most natural interpretation has the making and the leaving simultaneous. This is why (vi) seems so odd; the overt adverbs force the two events to be non-contemporaneous. (vi) Yesterday I made John leave tomorrow In addition, it seems that for these bare infinitive constructions placing an adverb between the subject and the predicate is infelicitous regardless of what the adverb modifies. (vii) I made John yesterday leave Consider, finally, the third point. The reviewer observes that the facts hold for adjectival passives with finite complements, not with control complements. (viii) *I am unpersuaded PRO to leave In fact, (viii) patterns with regular small clauses. (ix) *I an unconsidered intelligent This parallelism follows from our analysis but only if we assume that finite and non finite complements involve different complementation configurations, as suggested in note 37. Despite these counterarguments, the reviewer may be right. Fortunately our main point does not depend on the specific way that we prevent proper government of the PRO in the infinitive. The reviewer offers an alternative account that preserves the main conclusion. The reviewer proposes an analysis of these constructions similar to the Belletti and Rizzi (1988) approach to psych-verbs. If the clause is the theme and the object is the goal or experiencer then the DS of a ‘persuade’-type verb will be (x). (x)... [VP [V, persuade CP] NP] The clause extraposes from this configuration and moves to an adjoined VP position. In this position, the PRO cannot be properly governed and so it cannot act as a case transmitter. The reviewer’s proposal suffices to derive the desired conclusion; PRO in such constructions is not properly governed. We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for the stimulating comments.
According to Greenberg (1983, p. 177), Comrie has since admitted that the “construction is too artificial to evoke any reliable judgment.”.
Q-float with promise may be possible under its non-standard object-control reading, in which case promise would have a dual subcategorization, also admitting the SC structure of persuade. Greenberg (1983) observes that this possibility is also available for some speakers of Russian, and suggests that this is why there are two potential agreement strategies with obeščat’. These judgments concerning the lack of Q-float with ‘promise’ and its contrast with ‘persuade’ are cited originally in Postal (1976) and discussed in Chomsky (1977) among other places.
Stowell (1981) similarly argues that the complex word status of the V + indirect object in English “dative-movement” constructions is what blocks wh-movement in the ungrammatical *who i did John [give t i] a book.
Our attention was initially drawn to this problem by an anonymous NLLT reviewer.
See Franks and Greenberg (1988) for a treatment of case assignment to ordinary predicate adjectives, as in (6), and a discussion of why they behave differently from odin/sam. Essentially, ordinary predicate adjectives may either be analyzed as adjoined to VP, which is the canonical position for instrumental adjuncts in Russian or, following Hornstein and Lightfoot (1987), they are in small clauses with PRO subjects and receive default instrumental in the “sister to XP” configuration.
Of course, certain verbs assign quirky case structurally. That is, they require their complements to be in a specific oblique case for theta-role visibility. We are also ignoring here certain complications relating to the genitive of negation, which similarly applies to non-argument time phrases regardless of the features of the verb.
Note that this is true even if they assign an external theta-role, thus contradicting the biconditional form of Burzio’s Generalization. Unlike English live a long life, run a race, walk the dog or even work a problem, canonically intransitive verbs in Russian do not generally take accusative arguments under any circumstances.
In Section 5 we suggest the reason that structural case assignment must be specially licensed when it applies to arguments, but not to non-arguments, is that only arguments are coindexed with their governers. This coindexation allows them to be sensitive to features of their governers that non-arguments cannot discriminate.
Of course, tense could be the head of its own projection, as in Pollock (1989). We assume here the CP/IP system of Barriers for the sake of argumentation.
Although, as in English, gerunds can prescriptively only be anteceded by nominative subjects, this norm is frequently violated in colloquial speech. See Rappaport (1984) for many non-standard examples and discussion of their status. Since these are crucial to the arguments in this section, we abstract away from the effects of the subject/non-subject contrast throughout.
The marginality of the nominative predicate adjective in gerund clauses deserves some comment (cf. also Švedova (1970, p. 637) for discussion and examples). Clearly, this is not the result of agreement with PRO, but some other case strategy, since it (i) contrasts sharply in acceptability with nominative predicate adjectives agreeing with the controller of the PRO subject of an infinitival complement clause and (ii) it obtains even when PRO has no conceivable nominative antecedent. Although we have nothing definitive to say about its origin, several possibilities present themselves. First, as suggested in Schein (1982), this nominative could somehow derive from the nominative assigned by the matrix INFL. Second, it is reasonable to suppose that these nominative adjectives are really elliptical NPs, since the nominative implies the substantivized readings ‘a drunk, a hungry person,’ and that, as NPs, nominative case is somehow assigned directly to them, rather than through agreement. Third, it should be noted that for some Russian speakers there exists an auxiliary strategy whereby the subject of a gerund clause may be directly assigned nominative, and agreement with such a nominative subject allows a nominative predicate adjective. It could be that the marginal nominative predicate adjectives in (59) are the result of agreement with a phonologically empty nominative subject. Note, however, that in the modern language the possibility of having an overt nominative subject in a gerund clause is limited to forms of každyj ‘each,’ oba ‘both’ and sam ‘oneself’ (cf. Schein 1982, p. 232), and in fact few speakers tolerate even these as subjects. Curiously, these three possible targets for exceptional nominative case-assignment within gerunds are all morphologically adjectival — the first being a pure adjective and the latter two exhibiting mixed properties. Now, if this same strategy were somehow extended (probably through agreement, although conceivably also through direct assignment) to predicate adjectives, the nominative alternatives in (59) may be able to slip by.
Gerunds have no independent tense reference, their temporal properties deriving solely from their aspect and the tense of the main clause.
The various theories of VP-internal subjects in circulation differ on several points that bear on our analysis; we therefore remain intentionally inexplicit. Fukui (1986), for example, places PRO subjects of infinitives inside VP (as we too shall suggest), but retains the “PRO Theorem,” embedding them in IPs headed by to. Koopman and Sportiche (1988), on the other hand, argue that the VP-specifier position is properly governed for purposes of the ECP (cf. also Franks (1990a)), although they make no statement about PRO.
Various possibilities exist for motivating the coindexation of subject position and I′. Since the (surface) subject is the specifier of IP, dative (and nominative) subjects could be an instance of spec-head agreement (hence subjects receive case to the left; cf. Fukui (1986)), which would extend also to I′, since all members of a projection are coindexed.
Note that although we have assumed that the empty subject of the gerunds in (48) is PRO, some speakers allow nominative subjects of gerunds. This appears far more acceptable in Polish than in contemporary Russian. When, for these speakers, the subject of the gerund is the phonologically empty but case-marked “pro” (not PRO), (48) with predicate adjective agreement becomes viable.
The adjective/participle receives the appropriate case (here, nominative) through agreement, not control. The AP agrees in gender, number and case with the noun it modifies, and this percolates down to the head A.
Cf. the discussion of case transmission in Icelandic in Anderson (1989), and Thrainsson (1979). The essentials of the present analysis are extended to account for the Icelandic data in Hornstein (1990).
For one such account see Hornstein and Lightfoot (1986). The basic intuition behind that account was that to bear a theta-role an NP had to be “identified.” Following Chomsky (1981) and (1986), they assumed that to be theta marked by a head an NP complement must be “identified” within the domain of the head. An NP is thus identified if it is case marked within the domain of the head. The subject position is different in two important ways. First, it is not theta-marked by a head but by a maximal projection, e.g. VP in the usual case. Second, subjects are identified via the extended projection principle. In other words, the requirement that all sentences must have subjects suffices to identify this position for theta marking. Case-marking is not required because of this alternative manner of identification. These assumptions, in conjunction with the assumption that a governed PRO is an anaphor, suffice to restrict PROs to the subject positions of gerunds, infinitives and (possibly) COMP. For details cf. Hornstein and Lightfoot (1986).
Cf. Bouchard (1982), Sportiche (1983), Koster (1984) and Hornstein and Lightfoot (1987) for discussion.
A possible conceptual difficulty arises in that even though non-control PRO may of course serve as the subject of a (non-agreeing) secondary predicate, it still cannot participate in PF processes. This suggests that secondary predicates are, in fact, not directly predicated of their antecedents. Instead, they are in small clauses with PRO subjects which (cf. Hornstein and Lightfoot (1987)) are governed and hence must be bound (controlled), in this case by the higher PRO subject, which is itself not indexed at PF and thus remains an ungoverned and non-control PRO.
Perhaps an even better analogy is between the head of a relative clause and the clause which modifies it or between an NP and a purposive that modifies it. In these cases, the head NP seems to have two theta-roles, one due to its position in the clause and one due to its being the subject of a complex modifying predicate.
Bibliography
Anderson, Stephen R.: 1989, ‘The Grammar of Icelandic Verbs in-st’ in The Syntax of Modern Icelandic, (Syntax and Semantics, vol. 22), Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen (eds.).
Aoun, Joseph and Dominique Sportiche: 1983 ‘On the Formal Theory of Government’, The Linguistic Review 2, 211–236.
Aoun, Joseph, Norbert Hornstein, David Lightfoot, and Amy Weinberg: 1986, ‘Two Types of Locality’, Linguistic Inquiry 18.4, 537–577.
Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi: 1988, ‘Psych Verbs and Theta Theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6.3, 291–352.
Bouchard, Denis: 1982, ‘On the Content of Empty Categories’, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Bowers, John: 1987, ‘Extended X-Bar Theory, the ECP, and the Left Branch Condition’, in Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.
Chomsky, Noam: 1977, ‘On WH Movement’, in P. Cullicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York.
Chomsky, Noam: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, Noam: 1982, Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Chomsky, Noam: 1986, Knowledge of Language, Pantheon, New York.
Comrie, Bernard: 1974, ‘The Second Dative: A Transformational Approach’, in R. Brecht and C. Chvany (eds.), Slavic Transformational Syntax, Univ. of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Edwin Williams: 1987, The Definition of Word, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Franks, Steven: 1983, ‘Case and Control in Polish’, Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 23–49.
Franks, Steven: 1985, ‘Matrices and Indices: Some Problems in the Syntax of Case’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell.
Franks, Steven: 1988, ‘On Theta-theory and Case Theory’, ESCOL Proceedings, 151-162.
Franks, Steven: 1990a, ‘The Position of Subjects and the QP Hypothesis’, Proceedings of Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America, vol. 1, 114–128.
Franks, Steven: 1990b, ‘On the Status of Null Expletives’, Lingua 81, 1–24.
Franks, Steven: 1990c, ‘Case, Configuration, and Argumenthood: Reflections on the Second Dative’, Russian Linguistics 14, 231–254.
Franks, Steven and Gerald Greenberg: 1988, ‘Agreement, Tense, and the Case of Subjects in Russian’ in Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 24, Parasession on Agreement, 71-86.
Fukui, Naoki: 1986, ‘A Theory of Category Projection and Its Implications’, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Greenberg, Gerald: 1983, ‘Another Look at the Second Dative and Related Subjects’, Linguistic Analysis 11, 167–218.
Greenberg, Gerald and Steven Franks: 1991, ‘A Parametric Approach to Dative Subjects and the Second Dative in Slavic’, Slavic and East European Journal 35, 71–97.
Grimshaw, Jane: 1990, Argument Structure, MIT Press.
Hendrik, R. and M. Rochemont: 1982, ‘Complementation, Multiple WH and Echo Quetions’, unpublished MS, University of North Carolina and University of California, Irvine.
Hornstein, Norbert: 1984, Logic as Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Hornstein, Norbert: 1988, ‘Restructuring and Interpretation in a T-Model’, The Linguistic Review 5, 301–334.
Hornstein, Norbert: 1990, ‘V-Raising in Icelandic Infinitives’, Proceedings of NELs 20.
Hornstein, Norbert and David Lightfoot: 1987, ‘Predication and PRO’, Language 63, 23–52.
Hornstein, Norbert and Amy Weinberg: 1986,’ superiority and Generalized Binding’, Proceedings of Northeast Linguistic Society.
Huang, James: 1982, ‘Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar’, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Kayne, Richard: 1984, Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris, Dordrecht.
Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche: 1988,’ subjects’, ms., UCLA.
Koster, Jan: 1984, ‘On Binding and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 417–459.
Lightfoot, David: 1978, ‘A Restructuring Rule’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 717–719.
Neidle, Carol: 1982, ‘Case Agreement in Russian’, in J. Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Neidle, Carol: 1988, The Role of Case in Russian Syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Nichols, Johnanna: 1981, Predicate Nominals: A Partial Surface Syntax of Russian, University of California, Berkeley.
Pollock, Jean-Yves: 1989, ‘Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 365–424.
Postal, Paul: 1976, ‘Avoiding Reference to Subject’, Linguistic Inquiry 7, 151–181.
Postal, Paul and G. Pullum: 1988, ‘Expletive Noun Phrases in Subcategorized Positions’, Linguistic Inquiry 19.4, 635–670.
Rappaport, Gilbert: 1984, Grammatical Function and Syntactic Structure: The Adverbial Participle in Russian, Slavica, Columbus, OH.
Rappaport, Gilbert: 1986, ‘On Anaphor Binding in Russian’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4, 97–120.
Růzička, Rudolf: 1973, ‘Reflexive versus Non-reflexive Pronominalization in Modern Russian and other Slavic Languages’, in N. Ruwet (ed.), Generative Grammar in Europe, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Sportiche, Dominique: 1983,’ structural Invariance and Symmetry in Syntax’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Sportiche, Dominique: 1986, ‘The Theory of Floated Quantifiers’, in Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society.
Sportiche, Dominique: 1988, ‘A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 25–449.
Schein, Barry: 1982, ‘Non-Finite Complements in Russian’, in A. Marantz and T. Stowell (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 217–243.
Stowell, Tim: 1981, ‘Origins of Phrase Structure’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Švedova, N. Ju.: 1970, Grammatika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka, Nauka, Moscow.
Thrainsson, Hoskuldur: 1979, On Complementation in Icelandic, Garland Press, New York.
Williams, Edwin: 1980, ‘Predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203–238.
Williams, Edwin: 1988, ‘The Anaphoric Nature of Theta-Roles’, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 425–456.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Franks, S., Hornstein, N. (1992). Secondary Predication in Russian and Proper Government of PRO. In: Larson, R.K., Iatridou, S., Lahiri, U., Higginbotham, J. (eds) Control and Grammar. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 48. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7959-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7959-9_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4149-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7959-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive