Chapter 8 - The Syntax of Non-Finite ClausesHowever, even describing the conditions under which PRO may have arbitrary
reference is a complex business, let alone explaining why the language works like this.
Thus we will not delve too deeply into this issue. One point of interest is the fact that
in those instances where PRO may have arbitrary reference it seems that it has more
referential freedom in general in that it is possible for it to have an antecedent, and
therefore a more specific reference, and this antecedent may be in positions which are
not normally accessible for pronouns to take their reference from. For example,
consider the following:
(80) I think [CP that [IP [CP PRO to leave now] would be difficult for you]]
There are a range of possible ways to interpret this sentence depending on who is taken
as the antecedent of PRO. The arbitrary reading is possible with the meaning that if
anyone were to leave this would make things difficult for you. On the other hand, the
sentence might mean that I am the one who could leave, and my leaving would make
things difficult for you. Finally, it could mean that you are the person considering
leaving and if this happens you will experience difficulties. All these cases involve
conditions which are not possible for PRO in other contexts. In the first case, PRO has
no antecedent, as already discussed. In the second the referent stands three clauses
above the clause of which PRO is the subject and PRO typically has to have its
antecedent in the next clause above it. Finally in the third possibility the antecedent is
not in a structurally superior position and so it does not even count as a binder. Due to
these observations, it has been claimed that in these circumstances PRO is free to refer
to any element, as long as the conditions for that element are also respected, e.g. PRO
would not be able to refer to a pronominal in a lower position in its own clause as this
would give the pronominal a binder within its binding domain, which is not allowed
for the pronominal.
Turning to those cases where PRO must have an antecedent, we find further
distinctions:
(81) a I asked him [CP PRO not to mess with the buttons on the flight control panel]
b I promised him [CP PRO to write every week]
In (81a) PRO has to be taken as coreferential with the object him and cannot refer to
the subject. In contrast (81b) has PRO referring to the subject, not to the object. This is
again very different from the referential conditions facing other pronouns, which
although they either must or cannot take an antecedent within the binding domain,
depending on whether they are an anaphor or a pronominal, are free to take any
possible antecedent within these confines:
(82) a the tailor showed the customer himself (in the mirror)
b Scott told Oats [that he should step outside for a short while]
While there may be more or less ‘natural’ readings for these sentences, which are
determined by pragmatic considerations, it is possible to think of contexts in which the
pronouns could refer to either the subject or the object in each case: perhaps the tailor
in (82a) is modelling a suit for the customer and wants to show the customer a certain
effect that can best be seen by looking in the mirror, for example. However there are
no contexts in which we could make the subject a possible antecedent for PRO in (81a)