Week 5a. Binding theoryWeek 5a. Binding theory

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

Structural ambiguityStructural ambiguity John said that Bill slipped in the kitchen.John said that Bill slipped in the kitchen.

This sentence has two possible This sentence has two possible meanings; either John meanings; either John saidsaid it in the it in the kitchen, or Bill kitchen, or Bill slipped slipped in the kitchen in the kitchen (according to John).(according to John).

John said that Bill will leave yesterday.John said that Bill will leave yesterday. John said that Bill will leave tomorrow.John said that Bill will leave tomorrow.

StructuralStructuralambiguityambiguityIDP

VP

V CP

I

John

-ed

say

Cthat

in thekitchen

IP

IDP

VP

V PP

I

Bill

-ed

slip

IP

IDP

VP

V CP

I

John

-ed

say

Cthat

in thekitchen

IP

IDP

VP

PP

I

Bill

-ed slip

IP

V

Negative Polarity ItemsNegative Polarity Items

John said that Bill didn’t slipJohn said that Bill didn’t slipin any room in the house.in any room in the house.

Suddenly, it has only one meaning. Suddenly, it has only one meaning. Why?Why? John said: In no room did Bill slip.John said: In no room did Bill slip. *John said in any room: Bill didn’t slip.*John said in any room: Bill didn’t slip.

NPIsNPIsIDP

VP

V CP

I

John

-ed

say

Cthat

in anyroom…

IP

IDP

VP

V PP

I

Bill

-dn’t

slip

IP

IDP

VP

V CP

I

John

-ed

say

Cthat

in anyroom…

IP

IDP

VP

PP

I

Bill

-dn’t slip

IP

V

*

Negative Polarity ItemsNegative Polarity Items How about:How about:

John didJohn didn’tn’t say that Bill slipped in say that Bill slipped in any any room in the house.room in the house.

What do we predict?What do we predict?

NPIsNPIsIDP

VP

V CP

I

John

-dn’t

say

Cthat

in anyroom…

IP

IDP

VP

V PP

I

Bill

-ed

slip

IP

IDP

VP

V CP

I

John

-dn’t

say

Cthat

in anyroom…

IP

IDP

VP

PP

I

Bill

-ed slip

IP

V

Negative Polarity ItemsNegative Polarity Items John didn’t say that Mary slipped in any John didn’t say that Mary slipped in any

room in the house.room in the house. ……He said that when he was out in the He said that when he was out in the

yard…yard… ……He said that she slipped on the sidewalk…He said that she slipped on the sidewalk…

Both meanings are good, because both Both meanings are good, because both possible structural positions for the NPI possible structural positions for the NPI are c-commanded (thus licensed) by the are c-commanded (thus licensed) by the negation.negation.

UngrammaticalUngrammaticalityity

What does it mean What does it mean that this is that this is ungrammatical?ungrammatical?

If we had the right If we had the right words available and words available and Merged them Merged them together in the right together in the right order, we could get order, we could get this.this.

IDP

VP

V CP

I

John

-ed

say

Cthat

in anyroom…

IP

IDP

VP

PP

I

Bill

-dn’t slip

IP

V

*

UngrammaticalityUngrammaticality Up to now, we have focused on Up to now, we have focused on describingdescribing

sentences. We see that a sentence is possible, sentences. We see that a sentence is possible, we ask how it is formed structurally.we ask how it is formed structurally.

But this is only half of the real task. Not only But this is only half of the real task. Not only do we know how to assign structures to do we know how to assign structures to grammatical sentences, we know which grammatical sentences, we know which sentences are impossible.sentences are impossible. We have been designing an We have been designing an observationally observationally

adequateadequate system—we can do better than that. system—we can do better than that.

UngrammaticalityUngrammaticality Not just any old collection of lexical items can Not just any old collection of lexical items can

be Merged together to make a be Merged together to make a well-formedwell-formed structure. We also have structure. We also have constraintsconstraints on the on the finished product.finished product. One such constraint is that NPIs be One such constraint is that NPIs be licensedlicensed: An : An

NPI must be c-commanded by a NPI must be c-commanded by a licenserlicenser (negation).(negation).

So we need not only a theory of structure So we need not only a theory of structure building but also a theory of the constraints building but also a theory of the constraints on structure (to reach on structure (to reach descriptive adequacydescriptive adequacy).).

Binding TheoryBinding Theory Binding Theory consists of three Binding Theory consists of three

Principles that govern the allowed Principles that govern the allowed distribution of DPs.distribution of DPs.

Pronouns: Pronouns: hehe, , herher, , itit, , sheshe, …, … Anaphors:Anaphors: himselfhimself, , herselfherself, , itselfitself, …, … R-expressions:R-expressions: JohnJohn, , the studentthe student, …, …

R-expressionsR-expressions R-expressionsR-expressions are DPs like are DPs like PatPat, or , or

the professorthe professor, or , or an unlucky farmeran unlucky farmer, , which get their meaning by which get their meaning by referringreferring to something in the world. Most DPs to something in the world. Most DPs are like this.are like this.

AnaphorsAnaphors An An anaphoranaphor does does notnot get its meaning get its meaning

from something in the world—it from something in the world—it depends on something else in the depends on something else in the sentence.sentence. JohnJohn saw saw himselfhimself in the mirror. in the mirror. MaryMary bought bought herselfherself a sandwich. a sandwich.

PronounsPronouns A A pronounpronoun is similar to an anaphor is similar to an anaphor

in that it doesn’t refer to something in that it doesn’t refer to something in the world but gets its reference in the world but gets its reference from somewhere else.from somewhere else. JohnJohn told Mary that told Mary that hehe likes pizza. likes pizza. MaryMary wondered if wondered if sheshe agreed. agreed.

……but it doesn’t but it doesn’t needneed to be to be something in the sentence.something in the sentence. Mary concluded that Mary concluded that hehe was crazy. was crazy.

The problemThe problem There are very specific configurations in which There are very specific configurations in which

pronouns, anaphors, and R-expressions can/must be pronouns, anaphors, and R-expressions can/must be used. used. Even though both Even though both hehe and and himselfhimself could refer to could refer to JohnJohn below, you can’t just choose freely between them. below, you can’t just choose freely between them. John saw himself.John saw himself. *John saw him.*John saw him. John thinks that Mary likes him.John thinks that Mary likes him. *John thinks that Mary likes himself.*John thinks that Mary likes himself. John thinks that he is a genius.John thinks that he is a genius. *John thinks that himself is a genius.*John thinks that himself is a genius.

The question Binding Theory strives to answer is: The question Binding Theory strives to answer is: When do you use anaphors, pronouns, and R-When do you use anaphors, pronouns, and R-expressions?expressions?

Indices and antecedentsIndices and antecedents Anaphors and pronouns are Anaphors and pronouns are referentially referentially

dependentdependent; they can (or must) be ; they can (or must) be co-co-referential referential with another DP in the with another DP in the sentence.sentence.

The way we indicate that two DPs are co-The way we indicate that two DPs are co-referential is by means of an referential is by means of an indexindex, usually , usually a subscripted letter. Two DPs that share a subscripted letter. Two DPs that share the same index (that are the same index (that are coindexedcoindexed) also ) also share the same referent.share the same referent.

JohnJohnii saw himself saw himselfii in the mirror. in the mirror.

Indices and antecedentsIndices and antecedents JohnJohnii saw himself saw himselfii in the mirror. in the mirror.

An index functions as a “pointer” into our An index functions as a “pointer” into our mental model of the world.mental model of the world.

John John here is a name that “points” to our mental here is a name that “points” to our mental representation of some guy, John, which we representation of some guy, John, which we notate by giving the pointing relation a label notate by giving the pointing relation a label (“i”).(“i”).

himself himself here shares the same pointing relation, here shares the same pointing relation, it “points” to the same guy John that it “points” to the same guy John that JohnJohn does. does.

So, any two DPs that share an index (pointing So, any two DPs that share an index (pointing relation) relation) necessarily necessarily refer to the same thing.refer to the same thing.

Indices and antecedentsIndices and antecedents JohnJohnii saw himself saw himselfii in the mirror. in the mirror.

The DP from which an anaphor or The DP from which an anaphor or pronoun draws its reference is called pronoun draws its reference is called the the antecedentantecedent..

John John is the antecedent for is the antecedent for himselfhimself. . John John and and himself himself are co-referential.are co-referential.

Constraints on co-Constraints on co-referencereference

JohnJohnii saw himself saw himselfii.. *Himself*Himselfii saw John saw Johnii.. *John*Johnii’s mother saw himself’s mother saw himselfii..

It is impossible to assign the same It is impossible to assign the same referent to referent to John John and and himself himself in the in the second and third sentences. What is second and third sentences. What is different between the good and bad different between the good and bad sentences?sentences?

BindingBinding What is the difference between the What is the difference between the

relationship between relationship between JohnJohn and and himselfhimself in the first case and in the second case?in the first case and in the second case?

see himself

-ed

DP

I

DPiV

VP

John

see himself

-ed

DPi

IP

I

DPiV

VP motherDPJohn

DPi

*

I

IP

I

D

D’s

BindingBinding In the first case, the DP In the first case, the DP JohnJohn c-commandsc-commands

the DP the DP himselfhimself. But not in the second . But not in the second case.case.

see himself

-ed

DP

I

DPiV

VP

John

see himself

-ed

DPi

IP

I

DPiV

VP motherDPJohn

DPi

*

I

IP

I

D

D’s

BindingBinding When one DP When one DP c-commands and is c-commands and is

coindexed withcoindexed with another DP, the first another DP, the first is said to is said to bindbind the other.the other.

see himself

-ed

DP

I

DPiV

VP

John

see himself

-ed

DPi

IP

I

DPiV

VP motherDPJohn

DPi

*

I

IP

I

D

D’s

BindingBinding DefinitionDefinition: A : A bindsbinds B iffB iff

A c-commands BA c-commands B A is coindexed with BA is coindexed with B “if and only if”“if and only if”

see himself

-ed

DP

I

DPiV

VP

John

see himself

-ed

DPi

IP

I

DPiV

VP motherDPJohn

DPi

*

I

IP

I

D

D’s

BindingBinding Principle APrinciple A of the Binding Theory of the Binding Theory

(preliminary)(preliminary)::An anaphor must be bound.An anaphor must be bound.

see himself

-ed

DP

I

DPiV

VP

John

see himself

-ed

DPi

IP

I

DPiV

VP motherDPJohn

DPi

*

I

IP

I

D

D’s

Principle APrinciple A This also explains why the following This also explains why the following

sentences are ungrammatical:sentences are ungrammatical: *Himself*Himselfii saw John saw Johnii in the mirror. in the mirror. *Herself*Herselfii likes Mary likes Maryii’s father.’s father. *Himself*Himselfii likes Mary’s father likes Mary’s fatherii..

There is nothing which c-commands There is nothing which c-commands and is coindexed with and is coindexed with himselfhimself and and herselfherself. The anaphors are not . The anaphors are not bound, which violates Principle A.bound, which violates Principle A.

Binding domainsBinding domains But this is not the end of the story; considerBut this is not the end of the story; consider

*John*Johnii said that himself said that himselfii likes pizza. likes pizza. *John*Johnii said that Mary called himself said that Mary called himselfii..

In these sentences the DP In these sentences the DP JohnJohn c-commands c-commands and is coindexed with (=binds) and is coindexed with (=binds) himselfhimself, , satisfying our preliminary version of satisfying our preliminary version of Principle A—but the sentences are Principle A—but the sentences are ungrammatical.ungrammatical. John didn’t say that anyone likes pizza.John didn’t say that anyone likes pizza. John didn’t say that Mary called anyone.John didn’t say that Mary called anyone.

Binding domainsBinding domains

JohnJohnii saw himself saw himselfii in the mirror. in the mirror. JohnJohnii gave a book to himself gave a book to himselfii.. *John*Johnii said that himself said that himselfii is a genius. is a genius. *John*Johnii said that Mary dislikes himself said that Mary dislikes himselfii..

What is wrong? What is wrong? John John binds binds himself himself in every case. What is different?in every case. What is different?

In the ungrammatical cases, In the ungrammatical cases, himselfhimself is in an embedded clause. is in an embedded clause.

Binding domainsBinding domains It seems that not only does an anaphor It seems that not only does an anaphor

need to be bound, it needs to be bound need to be bound, it needs to be bound nearby (or nearby (or locallylocally).).

Principle A Principle A (revised):(revised):An anaphor must be bound in its binding An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain.domain.

Binding DomainBinding Domain (preliminary): (preliminary):The binding domain of an anaphor is the The binding domain of an anaphor is the smallest clause containing it.smallest clause containing it.

Principle APrinciple A The definition of The definition of binding domainbinding domain is is

very complicated (this occupied many very complicated (this occupied many syntacticians in the early ’80s).syntacticians in the early ’80s).

A clause (IP) delimits a binding domain.A clause (IP) delimits a binding domain. But other things do too…But other things do too…

Mary likes Mary likes [[DPDP John’s picture of himself John’s picture of himselfii ]].. *Mary*Maryii likes likes [[DPDP John’s picture of herselfJohn’s picture of herselfii ]].. MaryMaryii wants wants [[DPDP a picture of herselfa picture of herselfii ]]..

Binding domainBinding domain Let’s say this:Let’s say this: The The binding domainbinding domain for an anaphor for an anaphor

is the smallest of:is the smallest of: An IP that dominates it.An IP that dominates it. A DP, with a specifier, that dominates it.A DP, with a specifier, that dominates it.

Note! This is Note! This is notnot perfect, but it is a perfect, but it is a pretty close approximation.pretty close approximation.

PronounsPronouns *John*Johnii saw him saw himii in the mirror. in the mirror. JohnJohnii said that he said that heii is a genius. is a genius. JohnJohnii said that Mary dislikes him said that Mary dislikes himii.. JohnJohnii saw him saw himjj in the mirror. in the mirror.

How does the distribution of How does the distribution of pronouns differ from the distribution pronouns differ from the distribution of anaphors?of anaphors?

It looks like it is just the It looks like it is just the oppositeopposite..

Principle BPrinciple B

Principle BPrinciple BA pronoun must be free in its binding A pronoun must be free in its binding domain.domain.

FreeFreeNot boundNot bound

*John*Johnii saw him saw himii.. JohnJohnii’s mother saw him’s mother saw himii..

Principle CPrinciple C

We now know where pronouns and We now know where pronouns and anaphors are allowed. So what’s anaphors are allowed. So what’s wrong with these sentences? The wrong with these sentences? The pronouns are unbound as needed for pronouns are unbound as needed for Principle B. What are the binding Principle B. What are the binding relations here?relations here?

*He*Heii likes John likes Johnii.. *She*Sheii said that Mary said that Maryii fears clowns. fears clowns. HisHisii mother likes John mother likes Johnii..

Principle CPrinciple C Binding is a means of assigning Binding is a means of assigning

reference.reference. R-expressions have intrinsic R-expressions have intrinsic

reference; they can’t be assigned their reference; they can’t be assigned their reference from somewhere else.reference from somewhere else.

R-expressions can’t be bound, at all.R-expressions can’t be bound, at all. Principle CPrinciple C

An r-expression must be free.An r-expression must be free.

Binding TheoryBinding Theory Principle A.Principle A. An anaphor must be bound in An anaphor must be bound in

its binding domain.its binding domain. Principle B.Principle B. A pronoun must be free in its A pronoun must be free in its

binding domain.binding domain. Principle C.Principle C. An r-expression must be free.An r-expression must be free. The The binding domainbinding domain for an anaphor is the for an anaphor is the

smallest of (i) An IP that dominates it, (ii) A smallest of (i) An IP that dominates it, (ii) A DP, with a specifier, that dominates it.DP, with a specifier, that dominates it.

BoundBound: coindexed with a c-commanding : coindexed with a c-commanding antecedent (antecedent (FreeFree: not bound).: not bound).

Constraints on Constraints on interpretationinterpretation

Binding Theory is about interpretation.Binding Theory is about interpretation. Only a structure that satisfies Binding Only a structure that satisfies Binding

Theory is Theory is interpretableinterpretable..

Lexicon

Workbench

Merge

pronounce

interpret

Constraints on Constraints on interpretationinterpretation

If we put together a tree that isn’t If we put together a tree that isn’t interpretable, the process (derivation) interpretable, the process (derivation) is sometimes said to is sometimes said to crashcrash..

Lexicon

Workbench

Merge

pronounce

interpret

Constraints on Constraints on interpretationinterpretation

If we succeed in putting together a If we succeed in putting together a tree that is interpretable (satisfying tree that is interpretable (satisfying the constraints), we say the process the constraints), we say the process (derivation) (derivation) convergesconverges..

Lexicon

Workbench

Merge

pronounce

interpret

Exercise to ponderExercise to ponder Young kids (5-6 years) seem to accept sentences Young kids (5-6 years) seem to accept sentences

like (1) as meaning what (2) means for adults.like (1) as meaning what (2) means for adults. (1) Mama Bear is pointing to her.(1) Mama Bear is pointing to her. (2) Mama Bear is pointing to herself.(2) Mama Bear is pointing to herself.

Suppose that contrary to appearances, kids Suppose that contrary to appearances, kids dodo know and obey Principle B. Look carefully at the know and obey Principle B. Look carefully at the definitions of Binding Theory. If Principle B isn’t definitions of Binding Theory. If Principle B isn’t the problem, what do you think kids are getting the problem, what do you think kids are getting wrong to allow (1) to have the meaning of (2)?wrong to allow (1) to have the meaning of (2)? Think in particular about how you decide which index Think in particular about how you decide which index

to assign to to assign to herher. What is the implication of having the . What is the implication of having the same index? What is the implication of having same index? What is the implication of having different indices?different indices?