PRO and subject of NP
PRO and subject of NP
复制标题
PRO 和 NP 的主题
DOI：
10.1007/bf00154265
复制
发表时间：
1985
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
E. Williams
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Williams
结论在前面的章节中，我们已经考察了NP的限定语中的PRO在联系NP的内部和外部时可能发挥的一些作用，这些作用涉及约束理论、约束代词和控制的原则。在每种情况下，将PRO置于NP中只对任意子集的情况有所帮助。这里概述的隐式论元观点涵盖了所有的情况。如果这些结论是正确的，那么NP中的PRO是不必要的。然而，这些结论丝毫没有削弱S中PRO的情况;如果说有什么不同的话，它们反而加强了它。（9）中提到的以及后面的例子中说明的隐式论元的关联在某些方面类似于PRO的控制。例如，关联和控制的先行词通常由动词决定。但是，联想和控制在一个显著而重要的方面是不同的：联想将前因分配给特定类型的论元槽（行动者、受试者等）。无论论元如何或是否在句法位置实现，而控制将先行词分配给句法位置（不定式的主语，动名词等）。不管在那里实现了什么样的论点。联想和控制之间的进一步区别从刚才提到的那个得出。由于控制是先行词和特定位置（不定式、动名词等的主语位置）之间的关系，每个嵌入子句只能有一个控制实例，即对指定位置的控制。但是，由于关联是先行词和嵌入补语的论元之间的关系，每个补语的关联可能与论元一样多。事实上，下面的例子展示了双重联想：（43）约翰踢了玛丽一脚。
John与执行者角色kick相关联，而玛丽与患者角色kick相关联。这种与控制结构的双重联系是没有类似物的。此外，双重联想事例的存在进一步证明了NP中的PRO只能对事实做出部分解释，隐含论证并不像人们有时认为的那样神秘而模糊。它们实际上只不过是谓词的论元结构中的论元槽，而且它们必须在任何情况下都是语法可见的，以便进行题元角色赋值，因为题元角色赋值只不过是将论元结构中的论元槽与句法位置连接起来。一个“弱"题元标准，它不要求每个论元槽都是如此连接的，是给出隐式论元所需要的全部，因为这些只不过是不连接的论元槽。因为题元角色无论如何都必须可用于句法，以便于题元角色分配，本文概述的隐式论元理论并没有放弃词汇主义假设的实质部分。词项的论元结构是句子语法规则可以访问的词项的复杂属性。我们已经给出了可以访问论元结构的规则的一个狭义的特征：其应用域是谓词的第一个投影的规则（见第7条）;这包括θ角色分配，约束理论的论证槽的可见性提出了约束理论严格地是以下关系的可能性：参数槽，而不是在句法位置之间，即使当参数槽链接到句法位置时。然而，出于多种原因，这是不正确的。首先，S中PRO的控制严格地说是位置问题，而不是论证类型问题，正如刚才提到的。第二，当一个论元与反身代词或代词相联系时，它在约束理论中的表现与它被其他东西填充时不同;一个只考虑论元-槽-论元-槽关系的约束理论不会考虑这一点。此外，约束理论一般不限于论元对论元的关系。一个句法上实现的NP既可以作为同论元也可以作为同论元的先行词。(44)因此，约束理论（包括约束代词的控制和规则）对隐式和显式论元同样成立，但对隐式先行词的可见性限制来自于这样一个事实，即当论元是隐式的时，论元结构不进行X-bar投影。
ConclusionIn the preceding sections, we have examined a number of roles that PRO in the specifier of an NP might play in relating the interior of the NP to its exterior, with respect to the principles of the binding theory, bound pronouns, and control. In each instance, positing PRO in NP helped with only an arbitrary subset of the cases. The implicit arguments view outlined here encompasses the full range of cases.If these conclusions are correct, then PRO in NP is unnecessary. However, these conclusions in no way undermine the case for PRO in S; if anything they strengthen it.There are some ways in which the association of implicit arguments, mentioned in (9) and illustrated in subsequent examples, is similar to control of PRO. For example, the antecedent for both association and control is often determined by the verb. But association and control are different in one striking and important way: association assigns antecedents to argument slots of a specified kind (Actor, Patient, etc.) no matter how or if the argument is realized in a syntactic position, whereas control assigns antecedents to syntactic positions (the subject of infinitives, gerunds, etc...) no matter what kind of arguments are realized there.A further difference between association and control follows from the one just mentioned. Since control is a relation between an antecedent and a specified position (the subject position of infinitives, gerunds, etc.), there can be only one instance of control per embedded clause, namely control of that specified position. But since association is a relation between an antecedent and an argument of an embedded complement, there may be as many associations per complement as there are arguments. And in fact, the following exhibits double associations:(43) John gave Mary a kick.
John is associated with the Actor role of kick, and Mary is associated with the Patient role of kick. There is no analogue of this double association with control structures. Furthermore, the existence of double association cases is further evidence that PRO in NP can give only a partial account of the facts.Implicit arguments are not the mysterious shadowy presences they are sometimes made out to be. They are really nothing more than the argument slots in the argument structure of predicates, and they must be visible to syntax for the purpose of theta-role assignment in any case, since theta role assignment is nothing more than the linking of an argument slot in the argument structure with a syntactic position. A ‘weak’ theta criterion, which does not require that every argument slot be so linked, is all that is needed to give implicit arguments, since these are nothing more than unlinked argument slots.Because the theta roles must be available for syntax anyway for purposes of theta role assignment, no substantial part of the lexicalist hypothesis is given up by the implicit arguments theory outlined in this paper. The argument structure of the lexical item is a complex property of a lexical item that sentence grammar rules have access to. We have given a narrow characterization of the rules that have access to the argument structure: the rules whose domain of application is the first projection of the predicate (see section 7); this includes theta role assignment, and applications of the binding theory that have implicit arguments as antecedents.The visibility of argument slots for the binding theory raises the possibility that the binding theory is strictly a relation among argument slots, and not among syntactic positions, even when the argument slots are linked to syntactic positions. This cannot be right, though, for a number of reasons. First, control of PRO in S is strictly a matter of position, not type of argument, as just mentioned. Second, when an argument is linked to a reflexive, or a pronoun, it behaves differently with respect to the binding theory than when it is filled with something else; a binding theory that took account only of argument-slot-to-argument-slot relations would not take account ot this. Also, the binding theory in general is not restricted to argument-to-argument relations. A syntactically realized NP can serve as an antecedent for adjuncts as well as co-arguments.(44) John left in order to win.So it appears that the binding theory (including control and the rule for bound pronouns) holds equally for implicit and explicit arguments, but with the visibility restrictions on implicit antecedents that follow from the fact that the argument structure does not X-bar project when the arguments are implicit.