Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 403–450

The case of PRO

Original Paper

Abstract

Icelandic case agreement suggests that nominative case is active in PRO infinitives in much the same way as in finite clauses, thus posing a difficult and a long-standing problem for generative (GB and minimalist) case theory and the PRO Theorem. In this article, I examine the Icelandic facts in detail, illustrating that the unmarked and common nominative morphology in Icelandic PRO infinitives is regular structural nominative morphology, suggesting that PRO cannot be reduced to a copy. What went wrong in the GB approach to PRO was not PRO itself but the binding theoretic and ‘Case’ theoretic conception of it. PRO is an empty category that is simultaneously a reference variable (like overt pronouns and anaphors) and a phi-feature variable (unlike overt expressions). Due to this unique combination of variable properties, PRO cannot be deduced from other traits of grammar, such as movement, nor can it possibly be lexicalized. Importantly, also, the facts studied here suggest that case is a post-syntactic category, assigned in morphology. In contrast, Person is evidently a syntactically active category, having some of the properties and effects that have commonly been attributed to ‘Case’.

Keywords

Agreement Case Case transmission Control Icelandic Person PRO 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, A. (1976). The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. In A. Ford, J. Reighard, & R. Singh (Eds.), Papers from the Sixth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 1–21). Montreal: University of Montreal [Reprinted in Modern Icelandic syntax, eds. Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen, 165–185. San Diego: Academic Press. 1990.].Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, A. (1990). Case structure and control in Modern Icelandic. In J. Maling, & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Modern Icelandic syntax (pp. 187–234). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barðdal, J. (2001). Case in Icelandic: A synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
  4. Bianchi, V. (2006). On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua, 116, 2023–2067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blake, B. J. (2001). Case. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bobaljik, J. (2006). Where’s φ? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. Ms., University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  7. Bobaljik, J, & Landau I. (2007). Fact and fiction in Icelandic control. Ms., University of Connecticut and Ben Gurion University.Google Scholar
  8. Boeckx, C. (2000). Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica, 54, 354–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boeckx, C., & Hornstein, N. (2003). Reply to ‘Control is not movement’. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boeckx, C., & Hornstein, N. (2004). Movement under control. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 431–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boeckx, C., & Hornstein, N. (2006). Control in Icelandic and theories of control. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 591–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borer, H. (1989). Anaphoric Agr. In O. Jaeggli, & K. J. Safir (Eds.), The Pro-Drop Parameter (pp. 69–109). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagareka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Chomsky, N. (2005). On phases. To appear in R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, & M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of temporary research, Vol. 1 (pp. 506–569). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Comrie, B., ed. (1990). The worlds major languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R. (2001). Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2006). Turn over control to the semantics! Syntax, 9, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Delsing, L-O. (1993). The internal structure of noun phrases in the Scandinavian languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
  28. Déchaine, R-M., & Wiltschko, M. (2002). Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 409–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eythórsson, T., & Barðdal, J. (2005). Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language, 81, 824–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Falk, C. (1993). Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
  31. Friðjónsson, J. (1977). Um sagnfyllingu með nafnhætti [On predicates with infinitive]. Gripla, 2, 132–150.Google Scholar
  32. Friðjónsson, J. (1989). Samsettar myndir sagna [Complex verbal constructions]. Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  33. Haeberli, E. (2002). Features, categories, and the syntax of A-positions: Cross-linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. Henry, A. (1995). Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Holmberg, A. (1993). Two subject positions in IP in Mainland Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 52, 29–41.Google Scholar
  36. Holmberg, A. (2000). Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 445–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holmberg, A. (2005). Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 533–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hornstein, N. (2001). Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Hornstein, N. (2003). On control. In R. Hendrick (Ed.), Minimalist syntax (p. 6–81). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. Hrafnbjargarson, G. H. (2004). Stylistic fronting. Studia Linguistica 58, 88–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Huang, C-T. J. (1989). Pro-drop in Chinese: A generalized control theory. In O. Jaeggli, & K. J. Safir (Eds.), The Null Subject Parameter (p. 185–214). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  43. Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Jakobson, R. (1959/1990). The Speech Event and the functions of language. In L. R. Waugh, & M. Monville-Burston (Eds.), On Language (pp. 69–79). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Jónsson, J. G. (1996). Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. Ph. D dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  46. Jónsson, J. G. (2003). Not so quirky: On subject case in Icelandic. In E. Brandner, & H. Zinsmeister (Eds.), New perspectives on case theory (pp. 127–163). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Jónsson, J. G. (2005). Merkingarhlutverk, rökliðir og fallmörkun [Thematic roles, arguments and case–marking]. In H. Thráinsson (Ed.), Íslensk tunga III: Setningar [Icelandic Language III: Sentences] (pp. 350–409). Reykjavík: Almenna bókafélagið.Google Scholar
  48. Kayne, R. S. (2002). Pronouns and their antecedents. In S. D. Epstein, & T. D. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program (pp. 133–166). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Landau, I. (2000). Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  50. Landau, I. (2003). Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 470–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Landau, I. (2004). The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 811–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Landau, I. (2006). Severing the distribution of PRO from case. Syntax, 9, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Landau, I. (2007). Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Ms., Ben Gurion University.Google Scholar
  54. Maling, J. (1980). Inversion in embedded clauses in Icelandic. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði, 2, 175–193 [Reprinted 1990 in Modern Icelandic syntax, eds. Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen, 71–91. San Diego: Academic Press].Google Scholar
  55. Maling, J. (2001). Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles. Lingua, 111, 419–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maling, J. (2002). Það rignir þágufalli á Íslandi Verbs with dative objects in Icelandic. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði, 24, 31–105.Google Scholar
  57. Manzini, M. R., & Roussou, A. (2000). A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua, 110, 409–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Manzini, M. R., & Savoia, L. M. (2006). A unification of morphology and syntax: Investigations into Romance and Albanian dialects. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Marantz, A. (2000). Case and licensing. In E. Reuland (Ed.), Arguments and case: Explaining Burzios Generalization (pp. 11–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  60. McCloskey, J. (1997). Subjecthood and subject positions. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax (pp. 196–235). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  61. McFadden, T. (2004). The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface. Ph.D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  62. McFadden, T. (2007). Default case and the status of compound categories in Distributed Morphology. In T. Scheffler, J. Tauberer, A. Eilam, and L. Mayol (Eds.), Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 13.1: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (pp. 225–238).Google Scholar
  63. Modesto, M. (2007). Inflected infinitives in Brazilian Portuguese: What do they say about the movement analysis of control? To appear in Proceedings of the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXXVII (LSRL 37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  64. Neidle, C. J. (1988). The role of case in Russian syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  65. Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  66. Nomura, M. (2005). Nominative case and AGREE(ment). Ph.D dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  67. O’Neil, J. H. (1997). Means of control: Deriving the properties of PRO in the minimalist program. Ph.D dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  68. Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2001). Tense-to-C movement: causes and consequences. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale. A life in language (pp. 355–426). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Platzack, C. (2004). Agreement and the person phrase hypothesis. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 73, 83–112.Google Scholar
  70. Platzack, C. (2006). Case as Agree marker. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 77, 71–99.Google Scholar
  71. Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  72. Richards, M. (2004). Object Shift and scrambling in North and West Germanic: A case study in symmetrical syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  73. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook in generative syntax (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  74. Rizzi, L. (2004). On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. Ms., University of Siena.Google Scholar
  75. Rögnvaldsson, E., & Thráinsson, H. (1990). On Icelandic word order once more. In J. Maling, & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Modern Icelandic syntax (pp. 3–40). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  76. Roussou, A. (2007). Subjects on the edge. Ms., University of Patras.Google Scholar
  77. Safir, K. (2004). The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Schlenker, P. (2003). A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 29–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (1989). Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
  80. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (1991). Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 327–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (1992). The case of quirky subjects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 49, 1–26.Google Scholar
  82. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2000). The locus of case and agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 65, 65–108.Google Scholar
  83. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2002). To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 691–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2003). Case: Abstract vs. morphological. In E. Brandner, & H. Zinsmeister (Eds.), New perspectives on case theory (pp. 223–268). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  85. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2004a). Meaningful silence, meaningless sounds. In P. Pica, J. Rooryck, & J. Van Craenenbroeck (Eds.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2004, Vol 4 (pp. 235–259). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  86. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2004b). The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 16, 219–251.Google Scholar
  87. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2004c). Agree and agreement: Evidence from Germanic. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Focus on Germanic typology (pp. 61–103). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  88. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2004d). Icelandic non-nominative subjects: facts and implications. In P. Bhaskararao, & K. V. Subbarao (Eds.), Non-nominative subjects, Vol 2 (pp. 137–159). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  89. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2006a). The Nom/Acc alternation in Germanic. In J. Hartmann, & L. Molnarfi (Eds.), Issues in comparative Germanic syntax (pp. 13–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  90. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2006b). Agree in syntax, agreement in signs. In C. Boeckx (Ed.), Agreement systems (pp. 201–237). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  91. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2006c). The nominative puzzle and the low nominative hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2007a). Argument features, clausal structure and the computation. In E. Reuland, T. Bhattacharya, & G. Spathas (Eds.), Argument structure (pp. 121–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  93. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2007b). Remarks on features. To appear in K. Grohmann (Ed.), Explorations of phase theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  94. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2007c). On EPP effects. Ms., Lund University.Google Scholar
  95. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2007d). The No Case Generalization. To appear in A. Alexiadou, F. Schäfer, & T. McFadden (Eds.), Germanic syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  96. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2007e). Mood in Icelandic. To appear in B. Rothstein, & R. Thieroff (Eds.), Mood systems in the languages of Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  97. Sigurðsson, H. Á., & Holmberg, A. (2007). Icelandic dative intervention. To appear in R. D’Alessandro, S. Fisher, & G. H. Hrafnbjargarson (Eds.), Agreement restrictions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  98. Sigurðsson, H. Á., & Maling, J. (2007a). On null arguments. In M. C. Picci, & A. Pona (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXXII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa (pp. 167–180). Firenze: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
  99. Sigurðsson H. Á., & Maling, J. (2007b). Argument drop and the Empty Left Edge Condition (ELEC). Ms., Lund University and Brandeis University.Google Scholar
  100. Sigurjónsdóttir, S. (1988). The structure of Icelandic infinitive clauses and the status of the infinitival marker. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  101. Speas, M. (2004). Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua, 114.3, 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Stowell, T. (1982). The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 561–570.Google Scholar
  103. Svenonius, P. (2006). Case alternations in the Icelandic passive and middle. To appear in S. Manninen, K. Hiietam, E. Kaiser, & V. Vihman (Eds.), Passives and impersonals in European languages.Google Scholar
  104. Thráinsson, H. (1979). On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  105. Thráinsson, H. (1986). On auxiliaries, AUX and VPs in Icelandic. In L. Hellan, & K. K. Christensen (Eds.), Topics in Scandinavian syntax (pp. 235–266). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  106. Thráinsson, H. (1993). On the structure of infinitival complements. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 181–213.Google Scholar
  107. Thráinsson, H. (2005). Íslensk tunga III: Setningar [Icelandic Language III: Sentences]. Reykjavík: Almenna bókafélagið.Google Scholar
  108. Thráinsson, H. (2007). The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Vainikka, A., & Maling, J. (1996). Is partitive case inherent or structural? In J. Hoeksema (Ed.), Partitives: Studies in the syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions (pp. 179–208). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  110. Zaenen, A., Maling, J., & Thráinsson, H. (1985). Case and grammatical functions: the Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 441–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SOL, Centre for Language and LiteratureLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations