In
(48), the NP [PRO ghar jana] is the P in which PRO as
pronoun is free as required. 
is the root S. In ,
PRO as pronominal chooses the non-mukhya mohan
, as its antecedent and as an anaphor, it chooses the
mukhya, ram, as its antecedent. Then PRO
should have had split antecedents here, but it does
not. This, as stated earlier, would be the result of
one of its interpretations resulting in semantic or
pragmatic anomaly. Here the interpretation in which
PRO refers to the non-mukhya is ruled out by
the semantics of the verb vada karna. In this
interpretation the sentence would have the anomalous
meaning given below: |
X
promised Y for Y to go home where X is ram and
Y, mohan. |
The
anomaly arises out of the fact that X cannot make the
promise to Y for Y. This is why the sentence is grammatical
with PRO deriving reference from only the mukhya,
namely, ram. As in (48), in (49) too, PRO is
free in P, which is the constituent [PRO … jana]
and in
it chooses both the mukhya and the non-mukhya
as its antecedents, thereby satisfying its requirements
as a pronoun and as an anaphor. As in (48), one of the
interpretations is ruled out owing to the semantics
of the verb majboor karna. In the interpretation
in which PRO refers to the mukhya, ram,
the sentence would have the unacceptable meaning given
below : |
X
forced Y for X to go home, where X is ram and
Y, mohan |
This
interpretation is ruled out and the sentence is unambiguous
with PRO referring only to mohan. |
In
(50), too, PRO is free in P, that is [PRO jaldi ghar
jana]. In ,
which is the root S, PRO can choose both the mukhya,
ram and the non-mukhya, teacher, as its
antecedents. However, as in the case of (48) and (49)
above, one of the interpretations, namely, the one in
which PRO refers to the non-mukhya, teacher
is ruled out because of the semantics of the verb anumati
mag. In this interpretation the sentence would
have the following meaning: |
X
asked permission from Y for Y to go home early where
X is ram and Y, teacher |
This
interpretation is anomalous. It is ruled out and the
sentence is grammatical with PRO referring to the mukhya,
ram. |
In
(51), PRO is free in P which is the phrase [PRO …
kahania]. In
which is the root S, there is only one argument, the
mukhya un admiyo, which PRO being an anaphoric
element can choose asanteaies and it does so. The same
is true of (52) where PRO is in P which is the embedded
proposition [PRO .. khatm karna]. In
which is the root S there is only one argument ram
which is the mukhya and PRO, being anaphoric,
has it as its antecedent. In (53) P is the phrase [PRO
picnic par chalna] and
is the root S. In P, PRO is free as required. In
it chooses both the mukhya, ram and the
non-mukhya mohan, as its antecedents.
Unlike (48), (49) and (50) no interpretation of it is
ruled out by semantic considerations. Note that the
predicate of which PRO is an argument is what we called
a "togetherness" verb in the chapter on Binding,
requiring plural agents. Thus, choice of plural antecedents
is forced on PRO, and PRO satisfies this requirement
by choosing both the mukhya and the non-mukhya
as its antecedents. This is an instance of PRO having
split antecedents. |
|
|
|
