User:LewisHaas/sandbox

The PRO theorem
The interpretation of PRO may be either dependent on another noun phrase (like anaphors) or arbitrary (like pronominals). That is why in terms of features PRO may be described as [+anaphor, +pronominal]. However, this set of features would pose a problem for Binding Theory: an anaphor must be bound in its governing category, whereas a pronominal must be free (in its governing category). The solution that Chomsky proposed was the so-called PRO Theorem: PRO must be ungoverned. In other words, PRO cannot be governed and that is why it cannot have a governing category. Under this consideration, the features of PRO no longer conflicted with the principles of Binding Theory, though developments in Binding Theory since 1981 have presented significant challenges in dealing with Chomsky's postulation. For example, if PRO is ungoverned, then it must not be case-marked. However, it has been observed that in Icelandic, PRO appears to be case-marked, and is thus governed (Sigurðsson, 1991).

PRO in specific languages
Occurrences of PRO have been discussed and documented with regards to many languages. The theory is consistent with the following examples from different languages.

English
(1) Johnj promised Mary PROj to control himself (2) John convinced Billk Prok to sleep (Koopman, Sportiche, Stabler, 2014: 247 (30), 251 (47))

Icelandic
(1) Ólaf langar ekki til [að PRO vera ríkur].6 Olaf.A.M.SG longs not for to N be rich.N.M.SG     'Olaf doesn't want to be rich.' (2) Hana langar ekki til [að PRO vera kalt]. her.A longs not for to D be cold.DFT 'She doesn't want to be (feeling) cold.' (Sigurðsson, Sigursson, 2008: 407 (4, 7)

In contrast to English, PRO occurs after the infinitive in Icelandic.