8.2.2 Control

In (74a) the pronoun her can either be taken as referring to Sue or someone not even mentioned in the sentence. Note that it couldn’t possibly refer to Lucy. In contrast the pronoun in (74b) can only refer to Lucy and cannot refer to someone not mentioned or to Sue. We call the first kind of pronoun a pronominal and the second kind anaphors. It seems to work like this. An anaphor must have an antecedent within some domain, say the clause, and cannot refer to anything outside of this, or indeed have no antecedent at all. A pronominal, on the other hand, cannot have its antecedent within the same domain, but may refer freely outside this domain. The situation is a little more complex than this however, as there are restrictions on where the antecedent must be in relation to the pronoun. For example, while an object anaphor can take the subject as its antecedent, a subject anaphor cannot take the object as its antecedent:

8.2.2 Control

8.2.2 Control

8.2.2 Control

This is a simplification and things are more complex than this and further complications can be found if we try to define precisely what the binding domain is. However, for our purposes it will suffice to know that there is a domain within which an anaphor must have a binder and a pronominal cannot.

8.2.2 Control

There are a range of possible ways to interpret this sentence depending on who is taken as the antecedent of PRO. The arbitrary reading is possible with the meaning that if anyone were to leave this would make things difficult for you. On the other hand, the sentence might mean that I am the one who could leave, and my leaving would make things difficult for you. Finally, it could mean that you are the person considering leaving and if this happens you will experience difficulties. All these cases involve conditions which are not possible for PRO in other contexts. In the first case, PRO has no antecedent, as already discussed. In the second the referent stands three clauses above the clause of which PRO is the subject and PRO typically has to have its antecedent in the next clause above it. Finally in the third possibility the antecedent is not in a structurally superior position and so it does not even count as a binder. Due to these observations, it has been claimed that in these circumstances PRO is free to refer to any element, as long as the conditions for that element are also respected, e.g. PRO would not be able to refer to a pronominal in a lower position in its own clause as this would give the pronominal a binder within its binding domain, which is not allowed for the pronominal.

8.2.2 Control

In (81a) PRO has to be taken as coreferential with the object him and cannot refer to the subject. In contrast (81b) has PRO referring to the subject, not to the object. This is again very different from the referential conditions facing other pronouns, which although they either must or cannot take an antecedent within the binding domain, depending on whether they are an anaphor or a pronominal, are free to take any possible antecedent within these confines: