Movement of PRO PRO (linguistics)
tree diagram (14)
for sentence such (14a), there debate whether pro moves spec-vp (where introduced) spec-tp in non-finite clauses. baltin (1995) argues tense marker not have epp feature, , therefore pro not move spec-tp; yields structure in (14b). in contrast, radford (2004) argues infintival have epp feature, , therefore pro must move spec-tp, in (14c).
baltin argues against moving pro spec-tp on basis of so-called wanna contraction, illustrated in (15): placing pro between want , block contraction of want+to wanna. radford argues analysis assigns epp feature infintival (and forces movement of pro spec-tp), can still account wanna: latter can achieved having cliticise onto null complementizer ∅, , having [c-t] compound cliticise onto want.
radford justifies moving pro spec-tp on basis of binding properties of sentences. example, in (16), moving pro spec-tp necessary c-command themselves, in turn necessary satisfy binding principles , have pro coreferenced themselves.
Comments
Post a Comment