How (not) to control PRO
Dominique Sportiche
May 2024 

Version 2: Some (serious) mistakes in version 1 corrected. Certain standard treatments (e.g. Chierchia, 1990, Stechow, 2003, Anand, 2006, Schlenker, 2011, Pearson, 2012, Landau, 2015) of why OC (obligatory Control) PRO with attitudinal control verbs must be read de se yield wrong truth conditions. A proposal is made to circumvent these problems, and derive why such readings arise, namely that PRO is a strong anaphor in the sense that it must be have have the same intension as its controller for relevant attitude holders (and partially so in partial control cases). This would fall out most naturally if OC was movement as proposed in Hornstein (1999). A view of OC as movement is therefore explored, under assumptions somewhat different from those of Hornstein (1999) and descendants, attempting to circumvent objections to such a view, noting some assets and problems.

Format:	[ pdf ]
Reference:	lingbuzz/007959 (please use that when you cite this article)
Published in:
keywords:	pro, obligatory control, partial control, movement, de se readings, semantics, syntax
previous versions:	v2 [May 2024] v1 [November 2023]
Downloaded:	795 times

 

[ edit this article | back to article list ]