Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T04:22:16.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

APROPOS pro

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Sabine Iatridou  and
David Embick
Sabine Iatridou*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
David Embick*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
*
Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104 [iatridou@mit.edu]
[embick@babel.ling.upenn.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pro-drop languages have restrictions on the reference of pro not found with the overt pronominals of non-pro-drop languages. In particular, while the overt pronouns of non-pro-drop languages may take clausal antecedents, C/IPs, pro may not take these elements as linguistic antecedents. This restriction on the referential properties of pro follows from a mismatch in Phi-features; pro, which is or is licensed by Phi-features, cannot corefer with a clause, which is Phi-featureless. We discuss implications of our analysis for linguistic theory.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 58 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bennett, Jonathan. 1988. Events and their names. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1986. I-Subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 375–416.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1995. The theory of principles and parameters. The minimalist program, 13–127. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dimitriadis, Alexis. 1997. When pro-drop languages don't: Overt pronominal subjects and pragmatic inference. Chicago Linguistic Society 32, to appear.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1987. DO pro in Hungarian. Approaches to Hungarian, vol. 2, ed. by Kenesei, Istvan, 191–213. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1990. Two cases of underspecification in morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 539–550.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka, and Zec, Draga. 1995. Agreement and pronominal reference. Advances in Roumanian Linguistics, ed. by Cinque, Guglielmo and Giusti, Giuliana, 83–101. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Hedberg, Nancy; and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1992. Perceptual reports revisited. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 1991. Topics in conditionals. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo, and Safir, Kenneth. 1989. The pro-drop parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don't exist. Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. by Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1986. ‘Conditionals’. Chicago Linguistic Society 22(2). 1–15.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification, Formal semantics of natural language, ed. by Keenan, Edward, 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumsden, John. 1992. Underspecification in grammatical and natural gender. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 469–86.Google Scholar
Mackridge, Peter. 1987. The Modern Greek language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1991. There, it, and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 563–67.Google Scholar
Montalbetti, Mario. 1984. After binding: On the interpretation of pronouns. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey. 1987. Implications of English extraposed irrealis clauses. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 4. 260–71.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 501–57.Google Scholar
Safir, Kenneth. 1985. Syntactic chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar