Talk:PRO (linguistics)

RM Dechaine (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Cannot be made any simpler,the idea is difficult to be communicated to non-linguists--binu (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Course Work
Hello,

My classmates and I will be making significant edits to this article in the coming months. We will work hard to not be disruptive, and appreciate any and all feedback we receive. Our goal is to bring this article out of the stub class and make it more understandable to the general public. We will do our best to keep our edits clear, clean and manageable in size and track our progress as best as possible on this talk page.

The users who are in this school group are: LewisHaas, Gelainamah, ChristianEpp, and myself Jaxsun.

Jaxsun (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Relevant Sources
Will edit the article to include these in time LewisHaas (talk)

Chomsky, N. (1977) "On Wh-Movement," in P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian, eds., Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York. Retrieved from http://babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/On_WH-Movement.pdf

Chomsky’s On Wh-Movement (1977) utilizes PRO to discuss wh-movement. In addition, he makes particular insights on PRO itself. Chomsky uses PRO as an explanation of the grammaticality of some sentences which could not be explained by a rule introduced by Kayne (1975). Specifically, he discusses its use in the case of a sentence connecting a quantifier and a pronoun in a tensed sentence. He states that PRO can be anaphoric to a quantifier Q, even if Q and PRO are not adjacent. He also claims that PRO and trace are essentially the same element, and only differ in their index. Chomsky summarizes trace as “an indexed NP, with a null terminal”. He supports this evidence by formalizing trace as a function, and comparing it to the formalization of PRO as a function. It follows from these definitions that the two are equivalent. Chomsky discusses the relation of PRO to wh-movement. He argues that if PRO is present, wh-island constraints are invoked. An island is a phrase a wh-word cannot be extracted from (see Wikipedia article on Wh-movement, Extraction islands section for more details). Many of Chomsky’s facts and arguments made in this article could be utilized in this Wikipedia article, particularly those which have held up to this day. Since it is a relatively old article utilizing PRO, it could be used in the discussion of the history or PRO. Chomsky is balanced in his arguments, and does not seem to be biased towards any particular ideas. He uses explicit evidence and arguments in order to argue his claims.

Lightfoot, David W. 1976. Trace theory and twice-moved NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 7:559–582. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/pdfplus/4177946.pdf?&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true

In Tracer Theory and Twice-Moved NPs, Lightfoot criticizes and addresses some issues he has found in literature surrounding trace theory, and applies PRO and discusses To adjunction in order to do so. The bias is in support of tracer theory and PRO. Lightfoot uses issues he finds with theory (as of writing the article) as areas in which it could use improvement or significant changes, rather than in order to take issue with the theory itself. He argues a case in which PRO seems to be ignored, in the case of the structural description of To adjunction. He refers to the Equi hypothesis, introduced by Chomsky. This article could be useful for discussing the history and evolution of PRO and closely related topics. He also uses PRO to propose a change to Chomsky’s Specified subject condition from 1973. Again, he is making use of To adjunction in order to support his suggestions. He discusses “inappropriately controlled PRO”, and how To adjunction, cliticization, and Wh-movement deal with it. In contrast to Chomsky, Lightfoot discusses a way in which traces and interpreted PROs differ.

Martin, Roger. 2001. Null Case and the Distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1), 141–166. Retrieved from https://www.msu.edu/course/lin/834/pdf/martin.LI.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisHaas (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Martin expands on previous work by Chomsky and Lasnik (1993) to refine a proposal made regarding the distribution of PRO. He approaches PRO case-theoretically, and argues that government and barriers can be done away with from binding theory. The success of his analysis largely hinges on his case theoretic approach. He also concludes that PRO and NP-trace are in complementary distribution. These two consequences of his analysis could be very useful in this Wikipedia page to discuss the consequences of PRO. The fact that evidence of PRO does not need to rely on government is an especially significant result, and can be used to argue for its existence. Martin is generally unbiased, though his goal is to support and improve previous work. The article is generally straightforward, and Martin presents all of the examples and evidence very clearly.

Sigurðsson, H. Á., & Sigursson, H. Á. (2008). The case of PRO. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 26(2), 403-450. Gelainamah (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigurðsson and Sigursson (2008) look into PRO in the Icelandic case because it seems that PRO is active in infinitives in the same way they are active in finite clauses which poses a problem for generative case theory and the PRO Theorem. They are specifically looking into what went wrong in the generative case theory with PRO and that Icelandic is a nominative morphology shows that PRO can be active in infinitive cases (Sigurðsson & Sigursson, 2008). Sigurðsson and Sigursson (2008) are also very critical of the conception of binding theoretic and ‘Case’ theoretic in relation to PRO. The significance this article has to our Wikipedia project is that it adds more information about PRO in the case that it shows how it could be active in infinitive cases. It also shows great examples of PRO in a language other than English, demonstrating the cross-linguistic nature of PRO. The perspective of this article is that there is nothing inherently wrong with PRO for the case of Icelandic, but there are problems in the theorems that are closely linked with PRO that need to account for Icelandic’s unique case. A shortcoming of this article is that they only present one language that appears to have PRO active in infinitive cases. The argument that PRO could occur in infinitive cases would be stronger if they had other languages that had this form of PRO. My impression of the work is that overall it gives a good explanation of the basic information you would need to understand what they are arguing and the examples they have throughout the article really help in understanding their process.

Kwon, N. & Sturt, P. (2013). Null pronominal (PRO) resolution in Korean: A discourse-oriented language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 377-387. Gelainamah (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Kwon and Sturt (2013) look into the effects of discourse and syntactic cues on the processing of PRO in Korean. Kwon and Sturt (2013) believe that there is a possibility that discourse could play a stronger role in the process of PRO, especially in the case of Korean which is a discourse-oriented language. The value of this article towards our Wikipedia project is that it provides us with some of the factors behind the process of PRO, allowing us to have background information as to why PRO happens. This article also centers on PRO being active in another language showing the generalization of PRO. The point of view of this work is to show how PRO works in other languages and how discourse has a large role in PRO than originally thought. The shortcomings of this work is that this research only discussed PRO in Korean and mentioned that other discourse-oriented languages could have similar results, but never goes into any research on other languages. My own impression of the work is that overall it was a very interesting study that helps to understand PRO better and to show that even in languages that may seem so different to English PRO is still active.

Imoaka A. (2011). Scrambling out of a control clause in Japanese: An argument against the Movement Theory of Control. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17.1, 145-154. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=pwpl

Imoaka (2011) argues that Hornstein (1999)’s movement theory of control is not complete and provides a set of Japanese data to support this argument. The paper proposes an Equi NP Deletion analysis of control which better explains the empirical data presented by the Japanese language. This provides a general counterpoint to the movement theory of control for PRO which is otherwise absent in the literature. Imoaka (2011) draws data from other recent works in the Japanese language and collects them to form his case, refuting recent claims by Japanese linguists which support the movement theory of control. Beyond the interesting counterpoints to the recent movement theory of control this article also presents data in Japanese demonstrating the PRO phenomenon which supports the cross-linguistic nature of PRO. The paper is relatively short and does not really attempt to expand its claims beyond the Japanese language. Its singlemindedness in this regard is a shortcoming.

Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(1), 69-96. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4179050

Hornstein (1999) argues for a reformulation of PRO as simply a residual of movement. This is motivated by the goal of a minimal grammar and the observation that PRO complicates the current theory and the solutions in Case theory appear to be inelegant and incomplete. Hornstein (1999) argues for the elimination of the control module of grammar as it may not be necessary to justify the existence of PRO relying instead on a theory which exercises movement to describe PRO in obligatory control situations, and pro to describe PRO in non-obligatory control situations. Beyond the interesting theoretical arguments presented this article provides many nice minimal examples which outline the characteristics of PRO in English under the current theory. It also provides a good summarization of the current beliefs of PRO with respect to case theory, control theory, governing binding theory and theta roles, with references to the literature. This paper paints a clear and complete feeling picture illustrating many of the implications of PRO before it goes to make its claims. In doing so it strengthens its own claims by presenting a wide and deep history of the theory which it brings into question. The paper is significant as it provides a well articulated and compelling argument against the historical theory behind PRO without discounting what came before it. However the paper does perform all of its analysis in English and does not acknowledge data from any other languages which does limit the degree to which it can be trusted as a criticism of a cross-linguistic phenomenon.

Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1987). Predication and PRO. Language, 63(1), 23-52. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/415383

Hornstein & Lightfoot (1987) is written in response to a series of papers by Williams (1980, 1982, 1931) which developed a system of subject and predicate for grammar. In Hornstein & Lightfoot (1987) issues with Williams’ theories are identified and resolved with new theoretical ideas. These theories have direct implications for PRO such as the interpretation that PRO can be governed and behaves anaphorically when it is governed and pronominally when not governed. This results in Hornstein & Lightfoot (1987) discarding the PRO theorem which states that PRO may not be governed and behaves as an anaphoric pronoun. The paper is valuable to our work as it provides novel analysis of PRO in many different situations invoking the ideas of government, small clauses, case marking and binding. The paper’s use of PRO as a tool to test linguistics theories and constructs is also useful as it demonstrates the novel nature of PRO in syntactic theory. Although the primary data in the paper is almost entirely in English in the footnotes data dealing with PRO is exercised in many different languages. The paper is balanced in that although it disagrees with how Williams’ theories subsume many linguistics theories it does not discard his work entirely and leaves the question as to whether such a predication theory would contribute greatly to syntactic theory.

Jaxsun (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Epstein, S.D. (1984). Quantifier-PRO and the LF Representation of PROarb. Linguistic Inquiry 15.3, 499-505. Retrieved from 	http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/pdfplus/4178397.pdf?acceptTC=true&	jpdConfirm=true

Epstein (1984) argues that, at the level of logical form (LF) in English, PRO is appropriately characterized as a variable bound by a universal quantifier. In developing this LF representation, he attempts to conclude that pro does in fact exist in English (as well as other languages) and has the ability to be interpreted as a universal quantifier. Epstein’s work helps to establish proof of the existence of PRO and its relation within the syntactic structures of English and other languages. This was and is significant in creating less doubt to the presence of PRO in English, and therefore, that it may be a universal syntactic property in language as a whole. Epstein (1984) seeks to build on previous knowledge of PRO by his scholarly colleagues by re-evaluating the data of Suñer (1983) with Spanish, and other works. One short coming of this work is that it is specifically talking about English. It uses other languages, like Spanish, to reinforce some of its claims, but its main goal is in establishing a case for English PRO and not PRO’s universality. I believe Epstein (1984) to be a credible source, and that his work is important in its support of the reality of PRO and it gives a good insight on an early point of view of PRO.

Montrul, S.A. (1998). The L2 acquisition of dative experiencer subjects. Second Language Research 14.1, 27-61.

Montrul (1998) is concerned with the association between L2 acquisition of argument structure and Case Theory, and uses English, French and Spanish to represent this in her study. She seeks to support her hypothesis that “if a thematic hierarchy is operative in SLA, both English and French learners would have no difficulty interpreting experiencers as subjects, but that English learners would experience greater difficulty with dative case because there is no dative case in English.” Although Montrul (1998) does not directly deal with trying to justify the existence of PRO or how it works, she does use numerous examples of how PRO can help in describing other processes, and in doing so, how PRO works in the grand scheme of syntax. She reveals what can control PRO in these languages and the difficulty of learning the rules of PRO (indirectly) when learning a second language, and how difficult this can be based on one’s native language. Montrul (1998) is written argumentatively in trying to support her hypothesis and relate L2 acquisition and Case Theory. In trying to support a hypothesis, the possible shortcoming of this work, may be its writer’s need for a preferred outcome or answer. However, I find Monrtul’s work very interesting in revealing part of how PRO fits into language acquisition, whether second language or not, and I think she uses lots of great examples to do this.

--ChristianEpp (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Coming additions to the article
Hello, as my friend, Jaxsun, stated in the post above, we will be making some additions to this article over the coming weeks. Here is an overview of our intended contents.

After the introduction will be the following:

1. Motivation for PRO

1.1 Theory (with sections on the Extended Projection Principle and Theta-criterion)

1.2 Empirical (discussing PRO/Determiner Phrases)

2. Theories of PRO

2.1 PRO Theorem

2.2 Null Case Analysis

(2.3 Feature-checking)

2.4 Compare and contrast (of the above theories)

3. Cross-linguistic differences in PRO

3.1 English

3.2 Spanish (or possibly French)

3.3 Korean

4. Criticisms of PRO

We would appreciate any advice and assistance from you during this process.--ChristianEpp (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
Just as a note to anyone reading the article, as far as the numbering of examples and minor details like that go, we will be perfecting them when the article is more or less completed, since we may be changing things around, adding new examples, etc.ChristianEpp (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Distribution of PRO
There are two recurring issues throughout this section. The first is that many of the examples are lacking a contrast (the a/b contrast as described in class). This is either a missing grammatical example (in the case of ungrammaticality arguments), or an expanded example in which PRO is not present (in the case of PRO specific properties). The point being demonstrated by the examples would be made even clearer if these examples were added in. An issue that branches directly off of this, is that many of the statements following the examples don’t seem to be explained. For example, in ‘Distribution under Obligatory Control’, the first example shows that “PRO's antecedent must be present, local and must c-command PRO”. How does the example show this? Adding tree diagrams may help to make this obvious. As a side note this could also help to break up the article in terms of layout.

It doesn’t seem as if any points are missing from this section (in fact it seems to cover everything pretty well!) but some points just need a little bit more explanation. However, the discussion of movement was neutral and explained both sides.

One small formatting note, there seems to be some inconsistency regarding either bolding or italicizing certain features/pronouns. I’m not sure which system is preferred, but both seem to be being used. FionaJEd (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Cross-Linguistic Differences
English: I would suggest adding a brief re-summary of how PRO works in English so the formatting would look more uniform and it could serve as a basis of comparison for the other languages. (Also then, the citation could be moved down - I left it up with the subheading for the moment because it should be at the end of the paragraph just before the data.)

French: The explanation for this section is quite confusing, mostly because of the first sentence: “In French, as in Spanish, PRO can be controlled by dative experiencers in object position in an adjunct clause.” There are no mentioning of object positions in the Spanish subsection. In addition, providing additional explanation on what the ambiguous interpretations are, or even providing an example where there are ambiguity, would strengthen this subsection and make it more engaging.

Overall, the summary of each languages is very clear and concise which is good! I would recommend re-ordering the summary to come before the data so that it helps the reader in knowing what to look for. This section could improve on its comprehensiveness by also covering some languages that “has given rise to significant issues with PRO as a result of conflicts with evolution in Government and Binding Theory” as well as corresponding explanations. Cchar94 (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Theories
Working Assumptions: I am unclear as to what all of the working assumptions mean, although if they aren’t all vital to explaining why big pro isn’t necessary, it is fine not to elaborate. I do think that a brief explanation of what a “chain” is would be helpful. My assumption is that a chain consists of a sequence of traces, but I cannot be sure of this based on the information available.

Obligatory Control as Movement: In the example, it is not clear as to what moves. I don’t if the example as presented is conventional for this theory, but if it is, some explanation of what moves (and where the launching/landing sites are), as well as what “IP” stands for, would be very helpful, I think. Additionally, a clarification of how this form of movement is obligatory (i.e., what happens if movement does not occur?) would help put the argument in context. Atonello (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Motivation for PRO
The example for the Theta Criterion subsection does not have a reference. Also, separating the examples under subheading The Extended Projection Principle as 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b would make it easier to refer to them in the discussion.

Under the Binding Theory subheading, it might be better if you gave a basic outline of what the basic binding theory you're talking about is, or maybe link to the Binding Theory wiki page. Since there isn't a section before this explaining the theory, it would be nice to give the average reader some background information about it before jumping into how it supports the existence of something as abstract as PRO.

Also, I'm a bit confused with the part "PRO can fill this antecedent role, as shown by the co-indexations; however, PRO itself has no local antecedent in these examples, illustrating that PRO can share reference with an external referent as in example 16 a, or have an arbitrary reading as in example 16 b". If PRO is suppose to act as an antecedent, is it expected that PRO itself should also have an even higher antecedent in other examples not shown here? DzhouLING300 (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes made (from suggestions)
Based on the feedback we received from the peer review the changes we needed to make were mostly pertaining to the clarification of certain aspects throughout the article. Under the “Motivation for PRO” section we reworded parts of the Binding Theory sub-section to make it more accessible to the reader. We also added more citations that were needed in the Theta criterion sub-section. In the “Distribution of PRO” section we have clarified what the examples are demonstrating and added a lead section to provide a baseline for grammaticality of PRO as an embedded clause subject in control contexts. In the “Cross-linguistic differences” section we have added a summary for the English examples to further inform the reader about how PRO works in English. We also clarified the reference of ‘object position’ in Spanish, the meaning of ‘ambiguous interpretations’ in French, and the problems that Icelandic poses. We have added a data summary for Spanish and French as well to help explain PRO in different languages. In the “Alternative theories” section we explained chains better. Finally, we used a consistent bolding and italicizing system throughout our page, unified the numbering system of the examples, added a key for all of our abbreviations, and added tree diagrams to further explain some examples.

Theoretical framing
I think the article needs to describe the theoretical framing of PRO better, it takes for granted that the reader is familiar with the generative program. I think a history section would be good, describing who invented the term and where and any debates about the phenomenon in the linguistic literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)