Considering the obligatory co-reference of the null subject of complement clause with the matrix direct object in selllences like (1) below, the sentence seems to involve object control structure within Govemment and Binding
theory (Chomsky, 1981).
Leila Maryaml ra va da r kard (ke) lei dars bexa Had}.
Based on the Vacuous Movement Hypothesis, I show that Hashemipour's
analysis about the syntactic nature of the null subject (of complement clause) in such sentences is problematic, as. the null subject is not a wh-trace. Since the null subject is obligatorily dependent on an antecedent
in the main clause and since we cannot replace it with an NP or pronoun, I
claim that the null subject is a "PRO". Adopting the VP Intemal Subject H)pothesis (Koopman & Sportiche, 1998), and following Radford's Proposal regarding the subject Position, I claim that "PRO" in the related sentences is in the Spec-VP of the complement clau5e. Following Karimi (1989) and Darzi (1996), I suppose that Persian verbs typically govem their intemal arguments to the right, as far as the direction of writing is concemed
so that they cannot govem the position of Spec-VP 011 the left. On the other hand, the Spec-VP cannot be govemed by finite Infl of the complement clause. Following Hashemipollr (1989) I suppose that, in Persian, Infl is 011 the right of the VP. As the directionality of govemmelll in Persian phrasal
categories is to the right, finite Inf/ of the complement clause cannot govern
into the embedded Spec-VP position. It means that "PRO" in the Spec-VP is ungoverned. Since "PRO" needs no case, it doesn't have to move to the Spec-IP of complement clause (which is in the government domain of the embedded Inf/). Therefore, PRO Theorem i._ not violated in Persian.
)