In generative linguistics, PRO (called "big PRO", different from pro, a small pro or a little pro) is a pronominal determinant phrase (DP) without phonological content. Thus, it is part of an empty category set. The pronoun zero PRO is postulated in the subject position of the non-finite clause. One PRO property is that, when it occurs in an infinite complement clause, it can be bound by the main clause subject ("subject control") or the main clause object ("object control"). The presence of PRO in non-up clauses that have no clear subject allows principled solutions to problems related to Binding Theory.
In the theory of Government and Binding, the existence and distribution of PRO follow from PRO Theorem, which states that PRO is unmanageable. The latest analysis has left PRO Theorem. In contrast, PRO is taken to be in a complementary distribution with an open subject because it is the only item capable of carrying a null case that is examined by Non-Tense Limited markers (T), for example English for in the infinitive control.
Video PRO (linguistics)
Motivasi untuk PRO
There are several independent parts of linguistic theory that motivate the existence of PRO. The following four are reviewed here:
- Extended Projection Principle
- Theta Criteria
- Binding Theory
- Nominal agreement
Extended Projection Principle
The Extended Projection Principle (EPP) requires that all clauses have a subject. The consequence of the EPP is that clauses that do not have a clear subject must always have an "invisible" or "secret" subject; with a non-clause to this hidden subject is PRO.
Motivation for PRO subjects comes from grammatical sentences like (1) and (2), where the subject of infinitival to -clause, although not openly expressed, is understood to be controlled by the arguments of the main clause. In (1a), the subject control is understood to be the same person who issued the promise, i.e. John . It is annotated in (1b) by co-indexing John with PRO, indicating that PRO subject [ TP to control the situation ] refers together with John . In (2a), the subject of sleep is understood to be the same convinced person, i.e. Bill . It is annotated in (2b) by co-indexing Bill with PRO, indicating that the subject PRO [ TP to sleep ] along with Bill .
Since the argument that controls the PRO in (1a) is the subject, it is called the subject control, and the PRO is indexed with its antecedents John , as shown in (2a), it is also possible to have an object control, PRO is the object of the main clause, and PRO is indexed with the Bill antecedents.
In the EPP context, the subject's existence and object control follow naturally from the fact that an invalid pronominal PRO subject can be indexed along with different DP arguments. While (1a) and (2a) show the surface sentence, (1b) and (2b) show the more abstract structure in which PRO serves as the subject of the non-limited clause, thus satisfying the EPP feature of T (manifested by infinitival 'to'). The following sample tree diagram (1) and (2) show how PRO occupies the subject position of the non-finite clause.
Theta Criteria
Each verb has a theta role and under Theta Criteria any theta role must be present in the sentence structure; this means that the theta role must be associated with a syntactic position even when there is no open argument. Therefore, in the absence of an open subject, the PRO zero category helps to meet Theta Criteria. As an example:
For example (3), the verb checking is associated with the following lexical entry:
check: V & lt; DP agent DP tema & gt;
Thus, the verb checking should have a DP (the deciding phrase) as the agent and the DP as the theme. However, in (3a), since there is no clear DP function as an checking agent , this should be a violation of Theta Criteria. However, the presence of the PRO null subject, as shown (3b), satisfies the Theta Criteria by having PRO as DP agent in the sentence and patient as the DP theme . The tree diagram (3) shows how PRO meets the theta criteria from checking by being a DP agent in a non-up clause.
Binding theory
The claim that non-limited clauses have a PRO subject that is phonologically invalid is partially motivated by Binding Theory - in particular, the notion that anaphor needs local antecedents to be present. Reflexive pronouns like own and yourself need local antecedents. As shown in (4), PRO can serve as an antecedent for reflexes: in (4a) PRO is the antecedent for the reflexive ' itself' and in (4b). ) PRO function as antecedent for impersonal reflex self . If the subject of zero PRO does not exist in instances such as (4a) and (4b), then the non-limited clause will contain an anaphora that has no local antecedents, and wrongly predicts that the sentences are not mathematical. The grammar of the phrase confirms that the reflection has an antecedent, which by hypothesis is PRO.
Note, however, that PRO itself has no local antecedents in these examples: PRO may share references with external references as in (4a), or have arbitrary readings as in (4b).
Nominal agreement
The proof that non-limited clauses have a PRO subject that is phonologically zero comes from the fact that the predicate nominees must match the subject of the popular clause. This is illustrated in (5) and (6). Example (5) shows that the nominal number of predicates should correspond to the number of open subjects: in (5a) a single subject ( their son ) requires a single nominal predicate ( millionaire ); in (5b), the plural subject ( his son ) requires a plural nominal predicate ( millionaires ). The examples in (6) show that the same contrast holds the PRO subject: if PRO is controlled by a single antecedent, in (6a) the subject wants , then the nominal value must be singular; if the PRO is controlled by a plural antecedent, as in (6b), then the nominal predicate should be plural.
The following tree diagram shows how PRO, as the subject of a popular clause, enters into a deal with the nominal predicate introduced by the popular verb to . Applying the agreement is automatically explained if the PRO is indexed along with the main clause subject, with the predicate nominal agreeing only with the feature number of the argument that controls the PRO, as would happen if the open subject has been introduced..
Maps PRO (linguistics)
PRO theoretical status
There are two main approaches to PRO:
- worked from the 1980s to get its existence from the PRO theorem
- Recent work emphasizes PRO relationship with weak case
PRO Theorem
PRO interpretation may depend on other noun phrases; in this case the PRO behaves like anaphor. But it is also possible for PRO to have a random reference; in this case, PRO behaves like a pronominal. This is why, in terms of features, PRO can be described as follows:
PRO = [anaphor, pronominal]
However, this feature set poses a problem for The Binding Theory, as it imposes a constraint constraint on the distribution of PRO. This is because anaphora must be bound in the governing category, but pronominal must be free in the category that governs:
anaphor should be bound in the set category  pronominal should be free in the set category
Chomsky (1981) broke this paradox with the so-called PRO Theorem:
PRO Theorem: PRO must not be mastered
Since PRO is unmanageable, it can not have a set category, and so is excluded from Binding Theory. Based on this definition, PRO features no longer conflict with the principles of Binding Theory. However, the development of Binding Theory since 1981 has presented significant challenges to PRO Theorem. For example, if PRO is not managed, then it should not be capitalized. However, in Icelandic, PRO appears to be marked with letters, and thus arranged. Newer studies try to characterize PRO without reference to the PRO theorem.
Null case of PRO
It has been argued that PRO has a case, examined by non-limited T. This is illustrated by contrasting examples in (7), (8) and (9) below. The (a) example shows the context in which the DP subject is blatantly non-mathematical in the position of the specifier of the TP (Tense Phrase). The (b) example shows that, in the exact same context, the subject of PRO null is grammatical.
The subject of the infinite T must satisfy the case examined by T, and this case can not be satisfied by a clear DP (ie, openly), he argues that this is unlimited (and -ing clause of gerunds), check for special < b> Null Case (provided in English by infinitival to ), and that the only DP compatible with such cases is PRO.
The following tree diagrams for (7b), (8b), and (9b) show how PRO can be indexed along with various types of antecedents: the tree diagram for (7a) indicates the subject control; the tree for (8b) shows the control of the object; the tree for (9b) shows the PRO with a random reference.
It further said that the null case is the only case given to PRO, and that PRO is the only DP on which the null case can be assigned. These statements have since been challenged by certain data that appears to indicate that the PRO can bring a case other than a zero case.
PRO Distribution
PRO distribution is limited by the following factors:
- PRO can only be the subject of a non-limited clause
- PRO can be controlled by previous subject or object
- PRO may lack antecedents, which is uncontrolled
- PRO may experience movement
PRO as subject of a non-limited clause
Examples in (10) show that PRO is grammatical as the subject of a non-finite clause. Both (10a) and (10b), PRO are the subject of a non-to clause to study physics . In (10a), the antecedents of the PRO are the subject matrix Kerry , and in (10b) it is the matrix object Sarah The example in (11) indicates that PRO is not grammatical in a finite clause and in a non-subject position: (11a) specifies that PRO can not be subject to a finite clause, and (11b-c) specifies that PRO can not occur in the complement position.. Specifically, (11b) indicates that PRO can not complete V, while (11c) indicates that PRO can not complete P.
PRO obligatory control
In the context in which PRO is controlled compulsorily, the following restrictions apply:
- PRO must have antecedents (12a);
- The antecedents for PRO must be local (12b);
- PRO must be ordered by antecedents (12c);
- under VP ellipsis, PRO can only be interpreted by reckless readings (dependent variable): in (12d) Bill expects himself (Bill) to win (a reading where Bill expects John to win exceptions);
- The compulsory controlled PRO may not have separate antecedents, (12e).
PRO non-compulsory control
In the context where PRO is not compulsorily controlled, as in (13a), when PRO has antecedents, the following restrictions apply:
- antecedents do not need to be local, (13b);
- antecedents do not need c command PRO, (13c);
- with VP-ellipsis, both tedious and strict readings are allowed: at (13d), Bill might think that John has his resume in very important order, or that Bill might have his own resume to be very important
- under non-mandatory controls, PRO allows separate antecedents, (13e)
PRO Movement
For a sentence like (14a), there is a debate about whether the PRO step from Spec-VP (where it was introduced) to the Spec-TP in a non-limited clause. Baltin (1995) argues that taut markers to do not have EPP features, and therefore PRO does not migrate to Spec-TP; this produces an inner structure (14b). In contrast, Radford (2004) argues that infintival to does have an EPP feature, and therefore PRO must move to a Spec-TP, as in (14c).
Baltin argues against the removal of PRO to the Spec-TP on the basis of so-called contraction wanna , illustrated in (15): puts the PRO between wants and to will block the contraction want to to want . Radford argues that the analysis that sets the EPP feature for infintival to (and thus forces the movement of PRO to Spec-TP), can still explain wanna : the latter can be achieved by having to cliticise to null complementizer ?, and then after this [CT] cliticise compound to want .
Radford justifies moving the PRO to the Spec-TP on the basis of the binding nature of a particular sentence. For example, at (16), moving the PRO to Spec-TP is required for the c own command, which in turn is necessary to fulfill the binding principles and have the PRO become the core with own .
Cross-Language Differences in PRO
The occurrence of PRO has been discussed and documented in many languages. The main points of equality and difference center on the following:
- whether PRO has no case (eg, English)
- whether PRO has a capital letter (e.g. Iceland)
- whether the argument experienced can control the PRO in an additional clause (e.g., Roman language)
PRO in English without a gap
In English, PRO is treated as useless, and can be controlled by the subject (17a) or object (17b) of the verb in the main clause) or may be uncontrolled (17c).
In (17a) above, the subject of the verb in the main clause ( John promising Mary ) is John , so PRO is interpreted as referring to < i> John , while at (17b) to sleep is an action performed by Bill , and PRO is interpreted as referring to Charges . And in (17c), PRO is not controlled by any antecedents, so it can be paraphrased as 'For someone to love it is someone who knows it'; this is called an independent PRO or random PRO.
Icelandic PRO is indicated by capitalization
The Iceland PRO seems to be marked with letters. The case agreement rules in Iceland require that floating quantifiers agree in terms (as well as in number and sex) with the DPs they measure. As illustrated in (18) and (19), the terms of this agreement contain PRO. In (18), the second baÃÆ' Â ° ir quantifier 'appears in the nominative masculine plural form. In (19), the second baÃÆ' Â ° um quantifier 'appears in the plural of the dative. The occurrence of such forms indicates that quantifiers agree with its predecessor, the PRO. This leads to the conclusion that the PRO should be capitalized, and this is only possible if PRO is in Spec-TP.
The PRO romance is controlled by Dative experience
PRO in additional clauses in Spanish can be controlled by experienced subjects. At (20), the word saber 'know' introduces experienced subjects who Juan PRO in the sentence sin PRO saber por quÃÆ'Â © . (Experiments (see Theta's role) are also very common in Old English.)
In French, PRO can be controlled by experienced users in object position in additional clauses. (This also applies to Spanish.) In (21), the original experiencer object Pierre controls the PRO subject from the additional clause of avant mÃÆ'ªme de PRO y avoir ÃÆ'Â © tÃÆ'Â © inisiÃÆ'Â © 'even before being initiated for it'.
Sentence structures such as (21) can lead to ambiguous interpretations if the subject is animate. This is illustrated in (26), where PRO in an additional clause can be controlled by the subject 22a or object 22b of the main clause.
Alternative theory
Motion control theory
Norbert Hornstein has proposed that the control verbs can be explained without using PRO, and thus PRO can be completed completely. This theory describes mandatory control with movement, and non-mandatory controls with pro (little pro). This alternative control theory is partially motivated by adherence to a minimalist program.
Assumptions work
The Movement Theory of Control is based on the following principles.
The idea introduced at (23d) is very important as a single DP/NP chain can gain more than one? -role with simultaneously satisfying? -criteria in some positions, eg subject of a non-limited attached clause and subject of the matrix verb. In this context the chain refers to the moving argument and all its traces. Hornstein argues that there is not enough empirical evidence that chains should be confined to one-tier and allow multiple? -chain per chain is the null hypothesis.
Required controls as motion
These principles allow verbal control to be described by the movement and what has previously been analyzed as a PRO instead treated as a DP/NP movement trail. Consider the examples in (24): to obtain (24a) DP John moving through multiple positions, and checking a -role at each landing location; This is shown in (24b). In this way, the chain John s meets the Agent? -role of the hope verb, as an Agent? -role of the verb left . In motion analysis, some tasks? -role does the same job as it allows compulsory control of the PRO subject.
Controls are optional as pro
With the necessity of PRO omitted under mandatory control, Hornstein argues that it is naturally that PRO should be omitted altogether from theory because it is equivalent to a little bit pro . In particular, a little pro is equivalent to an indefinite or exact pronoun (similar to English one ) and has the same distribution as the non-mandatory PRO control. With non-compulsory control, open embedded subjects can be introduced (25) or omitted (26), and ignoring the pinned subject may result in arbitrary readings. In addition, the obvious subject can not be removed from the embedded clause, (27).
In addition, non-compulsory control and movement in complementary distribution. Since non-mandatory controls occur when motion is not allowed, it can be treated as a case elsewhere: little pro is inserted as the last step to save the derivation if the subject is completely lost.
Criticism
Since the publication of this motion control theory some of the data have been discussed that are not explained, challenging the completeness of motion control theory.
- Imoaka argues that randomizing out of a separate control clause does not fit the motion control theory as constructed in Japanese by Takano and Fujii. Imoaka argues for the theory of Equi-NP Deletion to explain control and claim that such a theory is empirically superior because it succeeds in explaining the problematic data and the data previously described by motion control theory.
Key abbreviation
Key of gloss morpheme
Key syntax abbreviation
Key tree diagram
(See Syntax syntax lock for more information.)
Note : Strong markers (under T s) and tense verbs (under V s) are added in the syntax tree diagram for readability, though only one will be shown in the average tree diagram. That is, the verbs in these trees will be in infinitival if tense (T) is displayed, and not empty (ÃÆ'ËÅ"). Also, the Determiner Phrases movement is only illustrated when relevant, as in Tree Diagram (10) .
See also
- Control (linguistics)
- Pronoun
- Binding (linguistic)
- Empty category
- Non-restricted clause
- Detinerative phrase
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments