Basic English Syntax with Exercises

pronoun

1.3.1 Categorial features

In (30), we see that both verbs (see) and prepositions (to) can be followed by a word such as him, which is a pronoun. Nouns (portrait) and adjectives (mindful) cannot. We might claim therefore that the ability to be followed by a pronoun is restricted to the [–N] categories. Now consider the following:

1.3.4.3 Adjectives

When a pronoun follows a verb, it has one form and this differs from the form it has before the verb. We will return to this in more detail in subsequent chapters, but for now all that is important to note is that these elements have different forms in different positions, but we do not therefore conclude that they belong to different categories. We will assume something similar is going on with the [–F, +N, +V] categories and that adjectival and adverbial forms are different forms of the same category determined by its use.

1.3.5.1 Inflections

We call sentences with verbs inflected for tense finite clauses and those without, non-finite clauses. In finite clauses, the nominal element that is in front of the verb, if it is expressed as a pronoun, has a certain form, but it has another form in non-finite clauses:

1.3.5.1 Inflections

This distinction is traditionally called a Case distinction, which has to do with the forms that certain nominal arguments appear in. In English there are not many Case distinctions to be seen as it is only the pronouns which have Case forms, but in other languages there can be more such distinctions made (think of Hungarian János, Jánost, Jánosnak, etc.). The he form of the pronoun (similarly, she, I, we, they) is called the nominative case form, while the him form (her, me, us, them) is the accusative case form. Note, finite clauses must have nominative elements in the relevant position, whereas, if the position is filled at all in non-finite clauses, it must be by an accusative element:

1.3.5.2 Determiners

Moreover, some pronouns can be used as determiners:

1.3.5.2 Determiners

Also, pronouns and determiners are in total complementary distribution:

1.3.5.2 Determiners

While certain nouns tend not to appear with determiners either, suggesting that pronouns might be analysed as one of these kinds of noun, the fact is that all nouns can appear with determiners under the right circumstances:

1.3.5.2 Determiners

However, there are no circumstances that a pronoun can appear with a determiner:

1.3.5.2 Determiners

Like the inflections, the lexical properties of determiners are relatively simple. They have no theta grid and they subcategorise only for nominal complements. If pronouns are determiners, then in their pronominal use they can be considered as ‘intransitive’, taking no complement:

1.3.5.2 Determiners

In these lexical entries, the and a are indicated to be determiners that have an obligatory nominal complement, while this has an optional complement and he has no complement. Thus this may be used as a pronoun (i.e. a determiner used without a nominal complement) and he is always used as a pronoun.

1.3.5.2 Determiners

In these lexical entries, the and a are indicated to be determiners that have an obligatory nominal complement, while this has an optional complement and he has no complement. Thus this may be used as a pronoun (i.e. a determiner used without a nominal complement) and he is always used as a pronoun.

1.3.5.4 Complementisers

The complementisers that and for introduce declarative clauses, i.e. ones that make statements, while if introduces interrogative clauses, ones that ask questions. We can view this in terms of a set of non-categorial features which distinguish between the complementisers. These features are [±Wh] for the force of the clause and [±Fin] for the finiteness of the clause. The [+Wh] feature (pronounced ‘double‑u aitch’) indicates interrogative, based on the fact that interrogative pronouns such as who, what, where, etc. are written with an initial ‘wh’ and the [–Wh] feature indicates declarative. [+Fin] stands for finite and [–Fin] for non-finite. Thus, we have the following classification of complementise

2.1.5 Structural terminology

So to refer to the tree in (28) again, the top P node is the mother of the verb and the P node which represents the verb’s complement. The verb and the complement P node are therefore sisters. The complement P node is also a mother to the pronoun his and the noun decision and again these two nodes are sisters.

2.2.1 The subject

Another aspect of the subject that shows up in finite clauses concerns the form of the subject itself. Previously we introduced the notion of Case, which is morphologically apparent only on pronouns in English. The subject of the finite clause is the only position where a nominative pronoun (I, he, she, we, they) can appear. In all other positions English pronouns have the accusative form (me, him, her, us, them – you and it are the same in nominative and accusative):

2.2.1 The subject

In (43a) the pronouns are the subject of the finite clause and are in their nominative forms, in (43b) they act as the complement of the verb (a position which we will return to), in (43c), complement of a preposition and in (43d) subject of a non-finite clause containing the infinitive marker to, and they are in their accusative forms.

2.2.1 The subject

The verb seem has just one argument, the clause that Roger ran away, which acts as its complement. Thus from a semantic point of view there is no subject argument here. Yet there is a subject, the pronoun it, which in this case has no meaning. Note that this it is not the same as the one that refers to a third person non-human, as in the following:

2.2.1 The subject

With (45) one could question the pronoun subject and expect to get an answer:

2.2.1 The subject

With (44) however, this is not possible because the pronoun does not refer to anything:

2.2.2 The object

Presumably this is one of the reasons why verbs which have clausal complements have traditionally been considered as transitive verbs. There are, however, a number of differences between clausal and DP complements. One is that clauses obviously do not appear in accusative Case. However, given that it is only the pronouns in English that demonstrate Case distinctions, this is not surprising. Another difference is that not all clausal complements can undergo passive movement:

2.2.3 Indirect object

Interestingly, the two objects do not have the same properties. For one thing, their orders are fixed in Standard English, though there are dialectal differences, especially if either or both objects are expressed by a pronoun:

2.3.1 Substitution

We developed this structure by noting certain distributional patterns, such as the subject the bull could be replaced by the pronoun it and the VP worried the china-shop owner could be replaced by the verb charged:

2.3.1 Substitution

As we claimed, the distribution of an element shows us that it has a certain status in the sentence and all elements which have the same distribution will have the same status. This is why we could use observations about distribution to demonstrate the structure of the sentence: the fact that the bull has the same distribution as it shows that the bull is a constituent, specifically a DP as, as argued above, pronouns are determiners. Furthermore, the fact that worried the china-shop owner has the same distribution as charged shows that the former is also a constituent, specifically a VP as charge is a verb. In other words, we can use distributional observations such as these to test the structure of any sentence: for any part of the sentence, if we find it distributes like some element that we know what its categorial status is, then we can assume that that part of the sentence has the same status as that element.

2.3.1 Substitution

At first glance, you might be tempted to claim that the subject of this sentence is the bishop. But note that this cannot be replaced by a pronoun, though the whole string the bishop that just left can be:

2.3.1 Substitution

Turning to the VP, we note that the word a gun can also be replaced by a pronoun it and hence this is also a DP – this time it is a DP complement, i.e. the object:

2.3.1 Substitution

Furthermore, the part of the sentence his mitre can also be replaced by a pronoun and so this must be a DP too:

2.3.1 Substitution

This shows us that the string of words, under his mitre forms a constituent of the sentence, but the category of this constituent is not so easy to determine from the category of its replacement. We might suppose that there is a pronoun and therefore it replaces DPs, but this constituent is made up of a preposition (under) followed by a DP (his mitre) which does not distribute like a DP:

2.3.1 Substitution

In our discussion so far we have shown that whole DPs can be replaced by a pronoun and, indeed, that a PP can be replaced by the prepositional ‘pronoun’ there. But for VP we have used intransitive verb to demonstrate the distributional properties of the phrase. Is there a ‘pronoun’ for a VP? I may be that the words do so function as a kind of pronominal replacement for VPs, though its use is a little more restricted than other pronouns:

2.3.1 Substitution

In this example, we have two sentences: the bishop hid his gun; the verger did so too. These two sentences are made into one sentence by placing them either side of the word and. The phenomena is known as coordination, about which we will have more to say in a little while. Given that the words did so in (90) are interpreted as meaning hid his gun, we can see that they replace the VP in the second sentence, forcing this VP to be interpreted the same as the VP of the first sentence. This is similar to the use of the pronoun in the following:

2.3.1 Substitution

Given this similarity, we might take the words do so to be a pronoun which replaces VPs and hence we can test whether a constituent is a VP by seeing if it can be replaced by do so.

2.3.1 Substitution

In this sentence the word one replaces robbery of a bank, which is an NP. Note that it does not replace the whole DP, as do pronouns such as it, that, him, etc. We can therefore claim that one is a pronoun which replaces NPs and hence anything that can be replaced by one is an NP.

2.3.1 Substitution

As we can see the pronoun for APs is so, though as it is restricted to predicative APs and it also plays a role in Pronominalising VPs, we might consider it as a general pronoun for replacing predicates. Nevertheless it can still be used as a constituent test as anything that functions as a predicate is a constituent of one type or another.

2.3.1 Substitution

Finally in this section, let us consider pronouns which replace clauses. In some cases, the pronoun it can be used for this purpose:

2.3.1 Substitution

Given that the it stands for the bishop robbed the bank and that this is a clause, this word can be claimed to be a clausal pronoun (as well as a DP pronoun).

2.3.1 Substitution

Thus, besides being a general predicative pronoun, so can also be a clausal pronoun. Like other pronouns, then, it can provide us with evidence as to what counts as a constituent in a sentence.

2.3.4 Single-word phrases

Furthermore, while a pronoun is a determiner, it is also a DP in the following sentence:

3.1.2 Endocentricity

There is reason to believe that language makes much use of unpronounced elements that are nonetheless present grammatically and we will see many examples of such things in the following pages. One argument to support the assumption of an unpronounced subject in (13) comes from observations concerning the behaviour of reflexive pronouns such as himself. Unlike other pronouns, reflexives must refer to something else in the same sentence:

3.1.2 Endocentricity

In (14a) himself can only be interpreted as referring to Fred and cannot, for example, be taken to mean someone else not mentioned in the sentence. Compare this to the behaviour of her in (14b). In this case the pronoun may either be taken as referring to Sue or to some other woman. We can say therefore that reflexive pronouns must have grammatical antecedents: some element present in the sentence which provides the reflexive with its reference. With this in mind, consider the following observations

3.2 Theoretical Aspects of Movement

But in (46) the object appears to be missing. This is not a case of an ‘understood’ object, where the argument is present at a semantic level, as it is fairly obvious that the interrogative pronoun who has the grammatical function of the object. Yet, this pronoun is not sitting in the canonical object position, the complement of the verb, directly after it. Indeed, the interrogative pronoun is occupying a position that no other object can occupy:

3.2 Theoretical Aspects of Movement

In (49a), the pronoun him is interpreted as the object as it is sitting in the complement position. Harry on the other hand is the subject and is sitting in a specifier position. In (49b) it is the other way round: He is the subject, sitting in the specifier position, and Harry is the object, sitting in the complement position. If who in (46) is interpreted as object, we should expect it to occupy the object position. The grammar that we will be adopting in this book assumes that this is exactly the case: the interrogative pronoun does indeed sit in the object position at some level of description of this sentence. However, at another level of description, the interrogative pronoun is in another position, one at the beginning of the clause. The assumption then is that this element undergoes a movement which takes it from the object position into the sentence initial position.

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

In chapter 2 we mentioned the grammatical notion of Case, pointing out that certain pronouns in English have different Case forms. Nominative pronouns include he, she, I and we while accusative pronouns are him, her, me and us. What determines which form the pronoun appears in is apparently its S-structure position. If a pronoun is the subject of a finite clause it will be nominative, anywhere else it is accusative (we ignore the possessor position inside the DP which is associated with genitive Case: his, her, my and our):

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

The pronoun is in the subject of a finite clause and so naturally is in the nominative. However, as this clause is passive, the pronoun originates from the object position at D-structure. But this fact does not seem to have any bearing on the case of the pronoun: the pronoun is nominative not accusative as a non-moved object would be. Clearly, then, it is the position that a pronoun sits in at S-structure that determines its case. We might claim therefore that there are positions which are Case positions, specifically nominative positions and accusative positions, and there are positions which are not Case positions.

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

The alternative is to claim that there are general case positions that are occupied by any DP, but only some DPs show any morphological reflex of this. Obviously this is the more general and simplest position and hence it is preferable unless there can be demonstrated to be advantages of accepting that case positions are only defined in the presence of a pronoun.

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

One reason to believe that case positions are generally defined but just morphologically distinguished on certain elements is the fact that case is not distinguished on all English pronouns. For example there is no distinction between nominative and accusative for the pronoun it:

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

The third person singular masculine pronoun demonstrates a Case distinction between subject and object position in (86), but not the pronoun it. It would be extremely difficult to account for why Case positions are only defined in the presence of pronouns, except for it and would be much better to say that the Case position is defined in the presence of it but this pronoun does not realise the distinction overtly. In other words, it is the nominative form of this pronoun and it is the accusative form. But once we have accepted this as a possibility it is reasonable to accept it for all other nominal elements as well.

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

In (87) we have a series of pronominal subjects of non-finite clauses. In the one grammatical case the subject is accusative, demonstrating that this is an accusative position. The ungrammaticality of the nominative pronoun in (87b) is therefore understandable. That (87c) should be ungrammatical is interesting as here we have an accusative pronoun. In this case the complementiser for is absent, indicating that this element is in some way responsible for the accusative case in (87a) in which it is present. This is understandable as this complementiser is similar to a preposition, and in fact is often called the prepositional complementiser, and as we know, the complement of prepositions is in the accusative. To account for this let us assume that Case is rather like Θ-roles and is assigned by certain elements to certain positions. The prepositional complementiser therefore assigns accusative Case to the subject of the non-finite clause that it introduces:

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

But why would any of this mean that the sentence should be ungrammatical? Only with an extra assumption can we account for this properly: the pronoun subject needs a Case. One might think that this is fairly obvious as there is no Case neutral form of the pronoun: what form would it take if it occupied a Caseless position? However, the following observations seriously question the assumption that the ungrammaticalities in (87) have anything to do with Morphological case:

3.2.3 Traces

There are two views concerning the nature of traces. One is that a trace is related to but independent of the moved element. From this point of view a trace is a little like a pronoun referring to the moved element:

3.2.3 Traces

In these examples, the trace and the pronoun sit in object positions and refer to the subject in much the same way. From this perspective, the trace can be seen as having properties of its own independent of the moved element. We will see that there is some truth to this idea. However, traces are not like pronouns in one important way. As we see in (98b), the pronoun and its antecedent represent two different arguments, though they both refer to the same individual. Thus Harry is interpreted as the one who does the helping and himself is interpreted as the one who gets helped. With the trace in (98b) however, there is only one argument interpreted here: the one who was cheated. Because the verb is passivised, the subject’s Θ-role is not present and so no element is interpreted as agent. Thus, it is as though the trace and the moved element share the same Θ-role, which strictly speaking should not be possible due to the Theta Criterion. From this perspective, the trace and the moved element seem to be interpreted as a single element, capable of bearing a single Θ-role. This single element is, however, spread out across a number of positions in a structure.

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

The first consists of a determiner and a noun, which we have so far been describing as a head followed by its complement, in the usual English pattern. The second a pronoun, and we have claimed that pronouns are ‘intransitive’ determiners, i.e. determiners without an NP complement. The third consists of just a proper noun and the last just a plural count noun. These last two examples are puzzling: how can they be considered as DPs when they contain no determiner? Perhaps these are not DPs at all, but simply NPs. But if this is true, as all the examples in (1) have the same distribution, they must all be considered NPs. Thus, the pronoun should be categorised as a noun and the determiner in (1a) is not the head of the phrase, but some other element within the NP, perhaps an adjunct or a specifier (it is on the wrong side to be considered a complement).

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

The assumption that the determiner is not the head leads to further problems for the analysis of determiners and pronouns themselves. First consider the determiner. If this is not the head then it is presumably an adjunct or a specifier within the NP. We should therefore expect it to behave as such. Determiners do not appear to be adjoined within the NP as they do not behave like adjectival modifiers, which we have analysed as N' adjuncts in the previous chapter. Adjectives are recursive modifiers of nouns and can normally be arranged in any order, as we might expect of an adjunct:

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

Next, consider the status of the pronoun. If this is a determiner heading a DP, its status is quite straightforward; it is simply a head which is the solitary element in the phrase:

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

Of course, if we analyse pronouns as nouns, then we get a similar situation with them heading an NP:

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

However, the analysis in (17) accounts for the absolute complementary distribution between pronouns and determiners:

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

If pronouns are determiners, this observation is accounted for. But if pronouns are nouns something else must be said to account for why they cannot appear with determiners. Some nouns do not sit well with determiners. In English, proper nouns are not usually accompanied by a determiner:

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

Interestingly, even in these situations a pronoun is ungrammatical accompanied by a determiner:

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

It seems that the evidence all points to the assumption that pronouns are determiners. But, if the noun is the head of the phrase and not the determiner, how are we to analyse a phrase consisting of just a pronoun as this would appear to be an NP that lacks a noun. This brings us full circle to the observations we started with. Under the proposal that the determiner is the head, there appear to be DPs that lack determiners:

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

Of course, the assumption of an empty category must have other motivations than just their necessity to make the analysis work. With the empty subject of an imperative we pointed out that this could act as the antecedent of a reflexive pronoun and with the trace we demonstrated how this prevents other elements from moving into a position vacated by another moved element. Is there any independent justification for either of the empty heads in (27) or (28)? If we consider the empty noun in (28), the only justification this has is to provide a head for the NP. The entire semantic content and the grammatical features of the phrase are contributed by the pronoun itself: the NP is third person singular because the pronoun is third person singular and the NP has a reference which is determined by the pronoun. Thus there is no independent support for the existence of this empty noun.

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

To conclude the present discussion, while it seems that there is no independent evidence that pronouns are accompanied by an empty noun, there is much evidence that proper and plural nouns may be accompanied by empty determiners. This conclusion itself lends support for the claim that the determiner is the head of the phrase and that the noun is not. From this perspective, the noun is the head of its own phrase which sits in the complement position of the determiner.

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

To answer this question we first have to consider another property of the possessor. Pre-nominally, possessors are marked by the element ‘’s’. What is this morpheme? Some have suggested that it is the marker of genitive Case born by the possessor. However, if this is a Case marker, it is a very strange one for at least two reasons. First it is a Case marker in a language which does not usually mark Case on its nominal elements. English only normally marks Case on its pronouns and noun forms are typically invariant no matter what Case position they occupy. Yet if we take ‘’s’ to be a marker of genitive Case we have to assume that nominals are marked for this Case. The other strange thing about this morpheme seen as a marker of Case is that it does not behave anything like a Case morpheme in any other language. Note that it does not attach itself to the noun, but to the last element in the whole DP:

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

There is one drawback to this analysis however, which concerns pronoun possessors:

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

Presumably as these pronouns have the same function as possessors, they sit in the same position: specifier of the DP:

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

Note that these pronouns have a special genitive form, which demonstrates that this position is one to which genitive Case is assigned. Thus, even if the ‘’s’ morpheme is not the marker of genitive Case, DPs which sit in the specifier of a DP have this Case. The problem is that with pronoun possessors the possessive determiner (the ‘’s’ morpheme) does not appear. This is rather puzzling, especially if this morpheme is nothing to do with genitive Case.

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

There are a number of possible solutions we might suppose. One is to assume that the possessive determiner is present with pronoun possessors, but remains unpronounced. This is supported by the fact that, as with all other possessors, no other determiner can appear with a pronoun possessor:

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

If nothing is in the determiner position, these observations would be hard to account for. We then have to assume that for some reason when the possessor is a pronoun, the possessive determiner is unpronounced and when it is a non-pronoun it gets pronounced as ‘’s’. As far as I know there is no explanation as to why this should be and so it remains as a descriptive statement at present.

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

An alternative would be to claim that the possessive determiner is always unpronounced and hence that the ‘’s’ morpheme is not a realisation of this determiner at all. Instead it is a marker of possession, which pronouns do not need as they have a genitive form to demonstrate their status as possessors. The problem with this is that it is tantamount to claiming that the ‘’s’ morpheme really is a Case morpheme after all, despite it not behaving like one.

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

A third possibility would be to claim that the reason why pronoun possessor are in complementary distribution with all other determiners, including the possessive determiner, is because they are determiners sitting in the head position. From this perspective, the structure of the DP with a possessive pronoun would be:

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

This solves all the previous distribution problems, but places the pronominal possessor in a different structural position to all other possessors, which makes their similar interpretations difficult to account for. Moreover, (54) is not likely to be the correct analysis for semantic reasons. The reference of the possessor is obviously different to the reference of the whole DP: the pronoun refers to a person (i.e. you) whereas the DP refers to a mistake. But if the pronoun is the head of the DP, how could it have a reference that differed from the DP? It seems that there is no perfect solution to these problems from our present understanding of the internal organisation of the DP and we will therefore have to wait for further developments to make progress in this matter.

4.2.3 Adjunction within the DP

Adjunction within the DP itself is a rather limited phenomenon. We know that APs and PPs act as modifiers of nouns and adjoin within the NP, but these do not adjoin within the DP ever as can be seen by the fact that they never precede determiners or never modify pronouns:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

It is unfortunately impossible to check this in English as we can only see visible Case morphemes on personal pronouns and these are excluded from the post-verbal position in the there construction as they are definite and only indefinite DPs can occupy this position:

7.1 The structure of CP

These words form a constituent with the following IP, but are not part of its structure. So, the clause can be moved along with its complementiser, the clause and its complementiser can be replaced by a pronoun and the clause and its complementiser can be coordinated with another such string:

7.1 The structure of CP

In (2a) the clausal complement of the verb know has obviously moved from its normal complement position behind the verb to a position at the front of the sentence. As the complementiser still precedes this clause, it can be assumed to form a constituent with it. In (2b) the pronoun it is used to replace the clause that Stan saved the world. As this includes both the complementiser and the IP, we conclude that these must form a constituent. Finally, in (2c) two clauses are coordinated. That both clauses begin with a complementiser demonstrates that the complementiser forms a constituent with the following IP.

7.1 The structure of CP

The first case in (3) is fairly straightforward. The it replaces the non-finite clause there to be trouble and given that the complementiser precedes the it the pronoun replaces just the IP. The second case needs a little explanation. What is coordinated here are the two IPs there would be trouble and I could be involved. In some clauses the complementiser does not have to appear overtly, however:

7.3.2 Wh-movement

Wh-elements come in a variety of forms and functions. All of them contain some element that has an interrogative interpretation, which may be a pronoun, a determiner or a degree adverb:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

Whether can be coordinated with operators like the negative and wh-pronouns:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

As pointed out, in many ways the relative clause has many properties in common with a wh-interrogative. But relative clauses are not interrogative, but declarative. This is clear both from their interpretation and the fact that they may start with the complementiser that which as we have seen, introduces declarative clauses. Thus, the wh-element which starts relative and interrogative clauses seems to have a different set of features: an interrogative pronoun is [+wh] and a relative pronoun is [–wh]. One might think therefore that they are entirely different lexical elements. This is supported by the fact that in some languages there are differences between relative and interrogative pronouns. In Hungarian for instance, there is a systematic difference with relative pronouns beginning with a‑:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

The relationship between the noun and the relevant position is not a direct one, however: it is not the noun which moved out of this position otherwise we would end up with a somewhat circular structure with the noun being part of the relative clause that is part of the NP headed by the noun! The relationship between the noun and the position in the relative clause is mediated by the relative pronoun: it is this element that originates in the relevant position and this pronoun is referentially dependent on the noun:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

Finally by moving to the specifier of the CP, the wh-element is interpreted as an operator in both interrogative and relative clauses. The fact that one is interpreted more like a quantificational operator, like quantificational pronouns such as everyone or someone, while the other is interpreted like an anaphoric operator, which is referentially dependent on some other element in the sentence, like a reflexive pronoun such as himself, falls out due to the different functions of questions and relative clauses: one asks a question and the other modifies a noun.

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

Here we have a complement clause which is non-finite and has an overt subject. The fact that this subject can be replaced by an accusative pronoun him shows that the subject is in an accusative position, just like we get with an exceptional verb. However, unlike exceptional verbs, this verb cannot passivise:

8.2 Raising and Control

Consider the two sentences in (44). They both appear to have missing subjects and in other ways they seem to be similar. However, even at this point we can see that the two missing subjects are not entirely equivalent. In (44a), the missing subject is referentially identical to the subject of the higher clause, Tim. This subject is not semantically related to the verb of its own clause: Tim is not the one doing the seeming. We have already seen that verbs like seem do not have a subject of their own and often have pleonastic subjects, as we see in (45a). Thus the missing subject of the non-finite clause and the overt subject of the higher clause share a single Θ-role assigned from the lower predicate tall. In other words, they represent a single argument. This contrasts starkly with the situation in (44b), where the missing subject and the overt subject of the higher clause bare completely different Θ-roles: Robin is the thematic subject of want and the missing subject is the thematic subject of rich. The two subjects are coreferential, but they are independent elements in exactly the same way that a pronoun and its referent are independent elements:

8.2 Raising and Control

In this case, Henry is the one doing the thinking and he is the one who is happy. If the pronoun refers to Henry then the interpretation is ultimately that Henry is happy (or at least this is what he thinks). But if the pronoun refers to someone else, then the interpretation is not that Henry is happy. However, the two elements are independent, regardless of what their referential properties are. The same is true of the overt subject and the missing subject in (44b). (45b) demonstrates that there really are two independent arguments in this construction as the subject of the higher predicate cannot be spelled out as a pleonastic element. In contrast, this is exactly what is possible in (45a), demonstrating that there really is only one argument here. The same point is made the other way round in (46). In this case we see that with a verb like seem, a different argument cannot be realised in the two different subject positions as there is only one Θ-role involved. A verb like want, on the other hand, can realise arguments overtly in both subject positions as there are two independent Θ-roles. So, one kind of missing subject shares a Θ-role with another element in the sentence while the other kind of missing subject has a Θ-role all of its own. The next three examples demonstrate that the two different kinds of missing subject have different referential properties. The non-independent type of missing subject which shares a Θ-role with its antecedent, must be lower in the structure than its antecedent. Hence it cannot be part of a structure which is raised to a higher position and the ungrammaticality of (47a) follows. The independent type of missing subject on the other hand can, under certain circumstances be higher in the structure than its antecedent, hence the grammaticality of (47b). The contrast in (48) again shows a difference in the referential properties of the two missing subjects. In (48a) we see that it is impossible for the dependent missing subject to refer to an object: they are always associated with subjects. In (48b) we have an independent missing subject, it being the one who is doing the looking after. As we can see, it is capable of referring to the object as the ultimate meaning is that Larry will be the one ‘looking after himself’. Finally, (49) shows that the dependent type of missing subject cannot refer out of the subject clause of another clause, where as the independent missing subject can.

8.2 Raising and Control

In reality then, the subject is not ‘missing’, it has just moved. By the same conditions, we cannot treat the independent missing subject as the result of movement: it bears a Θ-role different from its antecedent and so they do not represent a single argument, but two different ones. Moreover, at D-structure these two arguments must also be in different positions as different Θ-roles are assigned to different positions at D-structure. Hence we conclude that this kind of missing subject is present at D-structure. As we see in (51), this is not true of the other ‘missing’ subject. Because this element has many properties in common with a pronoun, i.e. it bears an independent Θ-role but can be referentially dependent on something else, it is often referred to as PRO.

8.2.2 Control

Let us now turn to the other non-finite clause with an apparently missing subject, in which there is in fact a phonologically empty pronoun. There are a number of interesting points to be made about this element. The first is that although it is obviously a DP, it has a much more limited distribution than normal DPs. The other matters of interest concerning the empty pronoun PRO are the limitations on its referential properties, as it does not appear to behave like other pronouns in this respect. We will consider these points separately.

8.2.2 Control

Note that there is nothing semantically wrong with these sentences. As PRO is a pronoun that refers to some other element in the sentence, the meaning of the sentences in (67), were they grammatical, would be perfectly understandable:

8.2.2 Control

Turning to the referential properties of PRO we find that this is quite complex. To see how PRO behaves, we should first consider how other pronouns behave in terms of reference. There are two types of referential pronouns which behave differently with respect to each other. Compare the following:

8.2.2 Control

In (74a) the pronoun her can either be taken as referring to Sue or someone not even mentioned in the sentence. Note that it couldn’t possibly refer to Lucy. In contrast the pronoun in (74b) can only refer to Lucy and cannot refer to someone not mentioned or to Sue. We call the first kind of pronoun a pronominal and the second kind anaphors. It seems to work like this. An anaphor must have an antecedent within some domain, say the clause, and cannot refer to anything outside of this, or indeed have no antecedent at all. A pronominal, on the other hand, cannot have its antecedent within the same domain, but may refer freely outside this domain. The situation is a little more complex than this however, as there are restrictions on where the antecedent must be in relation to the pronoun. For example, while an object anaphor can take the subject as its antecedent, a subject anaphor cannot take the object as its antecedent:

8.2.2 Control

In general, the antecedent has to be structurally above the pronoun. Let us call a structurally superior antecedent a binder. The principles involved in determining the distribution of pronouns can be stated as follows:

8.2.2 Control

What kind of a pronoun is PRO: an anaphor or a pronominal? Interestingly, this is not such a straightforward question to answer as PRO demonstrates properties of both pronominals and anaphors and a number of properties that are unique to itself. One can find in the literature claims that PRO is a pronominal, an anaphor or even both! One observation is that PRO more than often must have an antecedent, a property that it shares with anaphors. Thus, in the following PRO must be taken as referentially dependent on the subject of the main clause and cannot be taken as referring to someone not mentioned:

8.2.2 Control

In other contexts, however PRO can lack an antecedent altogether. In these cases, it gets what is called arbitrary reference, a kind of generic reference similar to that of the pronoun one:

8.2.2 Control

However, even describing the conditions under which PRO may have arbitrary reference is a complex business, let alone explaining why the language works like this. Thus we will not delve too deeply into this issue. One point of interest is the fact that in those instances where PRO may have arbitrary reference it seems that it has more referential freedom in general in that it is possible for it to have an antecedent, and therefore a more specific reference, and this antecedent may be in positions which are not normally accessible for pronouns to take their reference from. For example, consider the following:

8.2.2 Control

In (81a) PRO has to be taken as coreferential with the object him and cannot refer to the subject. In contrast (81b) has PRO referring to the subject, not to the object. This is again very different from the referential conditions facing other pronouns, which although they either must or cannot take an antecedent within the binding domain, depending on whether they are an anaphor or a pronominal, are free to take any possible antecedent within these confines:

8.2.2 Control

While there may be more or less ‘natural’ readings for these sentences, which are determined by pragmatic considerations, it is possible to think of contexts in which the pronouns could refer to either the subject or the object in each case: perhaps the tailor in (82a) is modelling a suit for the customer and wants to show the customer a certain effect that can best be seen by looking in the mirror, for example. However there are no contexts in which we could make the subject a possible antecedent for PRO in (81a) or the object in (81b) as the referential possibilities in this case are grammatically and not pragmatically determined. We call this property of PRO having to take its reference from one place or another control. Specifically, (81a) involves object control while (81b) involves subject control. It seems that what determines the control properties of PRO is the governing verbs: ask is an object control verb while promise is a subject control verb. Obviously when there is no object, subject control is the only possibility. When there is an object, overwhelmingly verbs tend to be object control and only a very small number of verbs behave like promise and have an object and yet control from the subject.