LEADER 03923nam 2200721 450 001 9910790832603321 005 20230803220652.0 010 $a1-61451-041-5 024 7 $a10.1515/9781614510413 035 $a(CKB)2550000001169783 035 $a(EBL)990691 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001124095 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11727585 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001124095 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11084742 035 $a(PQKB)11329441 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC990691 035 $a(DE-B1597)174134 035 $a(OCoLC)948655555 035 $a(OCoLC)979688042 035 $a(DE-B1597)9781614510413 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL990691 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10819867 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL551768 035 $a(OCoLC)865329749 035 $a(EXLCZ)992550000001169783 100 $a20140107h20142014 uy| 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur||||||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aStrengthening the PRO hypothesis /$fLisa A. Reed 210 1$aBoston :$cDe Gruyter Mouton,$d[2014] 210 4$dİ2014 215 $a1 online resource (396 p.) 225 1 $aStudies in generative grammar,$x0167-4331 ;$vvolume 110 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a1-61451-042-3 311 $a1-306-20517-4 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $t Frontmatter -- $tAcknowledgments -- $tContents -- $tChapter 1. Overview -- $tChapter 2. On the historical development of PRO approaches to Control -- $tChapter 3. Movement and implicit argument approaches to Control -- $tChapter 4. A critical look at some standard arguments in favor of PRO -- $tChapter 5. Remotivating a PRO approach to Control -- $tChapter 6. The syntax of Control -- $tChapter 7. On the reference of PRO -- $tChapter 8. On an unexpected gap in the distribution of PRO -- $tChapter 9. Conclusions -- $tBibliography -- $tIndex 330 $aThe syntax of Control structures remains a topic of heated debate: Standard generative treatments continue to analyze them in terms of PRO, a hypothesis challenged in alternative syntactic frameworks, semantic circles, and even within the generative tradition itself. This book: (a) examines empirical paradigms currently assumed to favor a PRO approach over competing theories, demonstrating that alternative approaches offer equally plausible treatments of these facts; (b) develops five novel arguments amenable to analysis only within a PRO approach; (c) puts forth a radically revised PRO approach to Control according to which PRO continues to be analyzed as a non-expletive nominal, but one lacking phi- and Case features in the computational component. Contra standard theory, PRO is argued to never undergo movement to a position even as high as the first NegP that dominates its initial merge position. Furthermore, Control complements are shown to take the form of such diverse categories as CP, IP, vP and VP; and (d) considers how a syntactically phi-featureless noun comes to be understood to bear phi-features, as well as how tense limits PRO's distribution in a here-to-fore unnoticed fashion. 410 0$aStudies in generative grammar ;$v110. 606 $aControl (Linguistics) 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general$xInfinitival constructions 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general 610 $aControl Theory. 610 $aGenerative Grammar. 610 $aSemantics. 610 $aSyntax. 615 0$aControl (Linguistics) 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general$xInfinitival constructions. 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general. 676 $a415 700 $aReed$b Lisa A$01567187 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910790832603321 996 $aStrengthening the PRO hypothesis$93838404 997 $aUNINA