Compare
the first sentences of the sets with the second in each
case. In the first sentence of both the sets PRO has
split antecedents. However, in the second sentence of
each set PRO has only one interpretation because of
pragmatic constraints. Consider (54(ii). It is improbable
under normal circumstances that one would talk to one's
doctor about the latter eating apples since doctors
are the ones who advise their patients on such matters.
Given this knowledge this interpretation is odd. This
accounts for the non-split antecedent interpretation
of (54(ii). PRO in 55(ii) has only ram as its antecedent.
This happens because of the improbability of one discussing
with the warden about the latter's going to the pictures. |
