Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The case of PRO

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Barðdal, J. (2001). Case in Icelandic: A synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.

  • Bianchi, V. (2006). On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua, 116, 2023–2067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, B. J. (2001). Case. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, J. (2006). Where’s φ? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. Ms., University of Connecticut.

  • Bobaljik, J, & Landau I. (2007). Fact and fiction in Icelandic control. Ms., University of Connecticut and Ben Gurion University.

  • Boeckx, C. (2000). Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica, 54, 354–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeckx, C., & Hornstein, N. (2003). Reply to ‘Control is not movement’. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 269–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeckx, C., & Hornstein, N. (2004). Movement under control. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 431–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeckx, C., & Hornstein, N. (2006). Control in Icelandic and theories of control. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 591–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borer, H. (1989). Anaphoric Agr. In O. Jaeggli, & K. J. Safir (Eds.), The Pro-Drop Parameter (pp. 69–109). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, B., ed. (1990). The world’s major languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R. (2001). Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 493–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2006). Turn over control to the semantics! Syntax, 9, 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delsing, L-O. (1993). The internal structure of noun phrases in the Scandinavian languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.

  • Déchaine, R-M., & Wiltschko, M. (2002). Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 409–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eythórsson, T., & Barðdal, J. (2005). Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language, 81, 824–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, C. (1993). Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.

  • Friðjónsson, J. (1977). Um sagnfyllingu með nafnhætti [On predicates with infinitive]. Gripla, 2, 132–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friðjónsson, J. (1989). Samsettar myndir sagna [Complex verbal constructions]. Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeberli, E. (2002). Features, categories, and the syntax of A-positions: Cross-linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, A. (1995). Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, A. (1993). Two subject positions in IP in Mainland Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 52, 29–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, A. (2000). Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 445–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, A. (2005). Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 533–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 69–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornstein, N. (2001). Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornstein, N. (2003). On control. In R. Hendrick (Ed.), Minimalist syntax (p. 6–81). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrafnbjargarson, G. H. (2004). Stylistic fronting. Studia Linguistica 58, 88–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jónsson, J. G. (1996). Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. Ph. D dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Landau, I. (2000). Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landau, I. (2003). Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 470–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landau, I. (2004). The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 811–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landau, I. (2006). Severing the distribution of PRO from case. Syntax, 9, 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landau, I. (2007). Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Ms., Ben Gurion University.

  • 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 

  • Maling, J. (2001). Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles. Lingua, 111, 419–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maling, J. (2002). Það rignir þágufalli á Íslandi Verbs with dative objects in Icelandic. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði, 24, 31–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzini, M. R., & Roussou, A. (2000). A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua, 110, 409–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manzini, M. R., & Savoia, L. M. (2006). A unification of morphology and syntax: Investigations into Romance and Albanian dialects. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, A. (2000). Case and licensing. In E. Reuland (Ed.), Arguments and case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization (pp. 11–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • McFadden, T. (2004). The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface. Ph.D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • Neidle, C. J. (1988). The role of case in Russian syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nomura, M. (2005). Nominative case and AGREE(ment). Ph.D dissertation, University of Connecticut.

  • O’Neil, J. H. (1997). Means of control: Deriving the properties of PRO in the minimalist program. Ph.D dissertation, Harvard University.

  • 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 

  • Platzack, C. (2004). Agreement and the person phrase hypothesis. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 73, 83–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platzack, C. (2006). Case as Agree marker. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 77, 71–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, M. (2004). Object Shift and scrambling in North and West Germanic: A case study in symmetrical syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University.

  • 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 

  • Rizzi, L. (2004). On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. Ms., University of Siena.

  • 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 

  • Roussou, A. (2007). Subjects on the edge. Ms., University of Patras.

  • Safir, K. (2004). The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, P. (2003). A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 29–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (1989). Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.

  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (1991). Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 327–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (1992). The case of quirky subjects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 49, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2000). The locus of case and agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 65, 65–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2002). To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 691–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2004b). The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 16, 219–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2006b). Agree in syntax, agreement in signs. In C. Boeckx (Ed.), Agreement systems (pp. 201–237). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2006c). The nominative puzzle and the low nominative hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2007b). Remarks on features. To appear in K. Grohmann (Ed.), Explorations of phase theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2007c). On EPP effects. Ms., Lund University.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Sigurðsson H. Á., & Maling, J. (2007b). Argument drop and the Empty Left Edge Condition (ELEC). Ms., Lund University and Brandeis University.

  • Sigurjónsdóttir, S. (1988). The structure of Icelandic infinitive clauses and the status of the infinitival marker. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles.

  • Speas, M. (2004). Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua, 114.3, 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, T. (1982). The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 561–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Thráinsson, H. (1979). On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Thráinsson, H. (1993). On the structure of infinitival complements. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 181–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, H. (2005). Íslensk tunga III: Setningar [Icelandic Language III: Sentences]. Reykjavík: Almenna bókafélagið.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thráinsson, H. (2007). The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Zaenen, A., Maling, J., & Thráinsson, H. (1985). Case and grammatical functions: the Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 441–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SOL, Centre for Language and Literature, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson

Authors
  1. Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sigurðsson, H.Á. The case of PRO. Nat Language Linguistic Theory 26, 403–450 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9040-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9040-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation