PRO in PP
A Proposal is made to unify the explanation of the inalienable readings of the body part NPs and that of the understood subjects of the gerunds and the derived nominals: By positing PRO in PPs in its structure(1) and stipulating the condition on control as (2), the difference in readings can be accounted for, as in (3) and (4):
(2) PRO in PP is controlled by an NP iff the PP containing the PRO and the NP c-command each other.
(where c-command in the definition of Aoun & Sportiche (1983) and PRO in the sence of Bouchard (1984))
(3) a. [S John [VP [V [V hit] [NP Maryi] [PP in PROi the stomach]]]]
b. [S [NP Maryi] [AUX was] [VP [V [V hit] [NP t] [PP1 by John] [PP2 in PROi the stomach]]]]
(4) a. [S [NP The leavesi] [AUX should not be] [VP [V [V bothered] [NP t]]] [PP while PR0i dessicating]]
b. [S [NP The leavesi] [AUX should not be] [VP [V [V bothered] [NP ti]] [PP during PROi dessication]]]
c. *[S [NP Youi] [AUX should not] [VP [V [V bother] [NP the leaves]]] [PP while PROi dessicating]]
d. [S [NP You] [AUX should not] [VP [V [V bother] [NP the leavesi]] [PP while PROi dessicating]]]
Specifically, whether a PP is attached to a VP node or to a V node is crucial,as is verified through constituency tests.
