The feature geometry of generic inclusive null DPs in Hungarian 179
Moltmann (2010: 260–262) further claims that PROarb can serve as an antecedent
for the bound variable occurrence of one. As will become clear below, her examples
involve a third kind of PRO, which is always bound by a 3sg generic inclusive lexical or
null antecedent and thus patterns with the bound variable occurrence of 3sg generic
inclusive one. I will refer to this occurrence of PRO as PROGN, to distinguish it from
standard PRO and PROarb. Just like its lexical and null cousins in finite clause, PROGN
is always in the scope of the GN operator and has widest scope:
generic inclusive one
(59) [ForceP[SAPPGN... [TP It is painful (for one) [if one loses o n e’s parents]]]].
generic inclusive pro
(60) [ForceP[SAPP GN ... [TP It is painful (for one) [PROGN to lose o n e’s parents]]]].
PROarb never requires an antecedent, and its semantic interpretation correlates with
generic exclusive people. PROGN, by contrast, inherits its generic inclusive interpre-
tation from a lexical or null generic inclusive antecedent in an adjacent clause. This
makes it similar to oneself. Compare now (58) with (62) and (64):
(61) [ForceP[SAPP GN [TP One feels tired [after one walks in the park for hours]]]].
(62) [SAPP GN.... [TP One feels tired [after PROGN walking in the park for hours]]].
(63) [ForceP[SAPP GN..... [TP It is fun (for one) [if one walks in the park for hours]]]].
(64) [ForceP[SAPP GN.... [TP It is fun (for one ) [PROGN to walk in the
park for hours]]]].
In (62) and (64) PRO is interpreted in relation to the lexical or null generic inclusive
antecedent in the matrix clause. Therefore this kind of PRO clearly does not meet the
requirements set for PROarb (see Chomsky 1981).^11 Although Moltmann (2006) does
mention implicit arguments as potential antecedents for PRO in such cases, she does
not develop this idea any further.^12
- PROarb and PROGN are distinguished from the canonical PRO subject of argument and
adjunct non-finite clauses; the latter requires an antecedent with unique reference (see O’Neil
1997 , Chapter 5 for details). - Notice that wh-infinitival clauses allow for a PROarb subject and a free occurrence of one
simultaneously, neither of which requires an antecedent:
(i) John knows [CP how [PROarb to treat one’s own parents]].
(ii) OneGN knows [CP how [PROGN to treat on e’s ow n parents]].
Compare this with the bound variable occurrence of generic inclusive one:
(iii) *John knows [CP how [PROarb to praise oneself]].
(iv) OneGN knows [CP how PROGN to praise oneself]].