Is PROarb the same as pro? Evidence from Persian impersonal constructions
| dc.contributor.author | Taleghani, Azita | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2011-03-31T16:23:13Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2011-03-31T16:23:13Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2005 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0894-4539 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10150/126632 | |
| dc.description.abstract | This paper challenges the existence of PRO module in the grammar. Hornstein (1999) suggests that PRO does not exist and PROarb is identical to pro. Landau (1999), however, claims that PRO exists and PROarb is different from pro syntactically. The data provided here, along with the analysis to be presented, show that PROarb and pro function similarly in Persian imperson-al constructions. Persian does not have any overt DPs with appropriate semantics such as impersonal one in English. Therefore, the only feature combinations that are compatible with the semantics are those for the covert equivalent of one. | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona) | en_US |
| dc.relation.url | https://coyotepapers.sbs.arizona.edu/ | en_US |
| dc.rights | Copyright © is held by the author(s). | en_US |
| dc.rights.uri | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ | en_US |
| dc.title | Is PROarb the same as pro? Evidence from Persian impersonal constructions | en_US |
| dc.type | text | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
| dc.contributor.department | University of Arizona | en_US |
| dc.identifier.journal | Coyote Papers | en_US |
| dc.description.collectioninformation | The Coyote Papers are made available by the Arizona Linguistics Circle at the University of Arizona and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact coyotepapers@email.arizona.edu with questions about these materials. | en_US |
| dc.source.journaltitle | Coyote Papers | |
| refterms.dateFOA | 2018-08-22T01:12:50Z | |
| html.description.abstract | This paper challenges the existence of PRO module in the grammar. Hornstein (1999) suggests that PRO does not exist and PROarb is identical to pro. Landau (1999), however, claims that PRO exists and PROarb is different from pro syntactically. The data provided here, along with the analysis to be presented, show that PROarb and pro function similarly in Persian imperson-al constructions. Persian does not have any overt DPs with appropriate semantics such as impersonal one in English. Therefore, the only feature combinations that are compatible with the semantics are those for the covert equivalent of one. |
