Binding theory

Binding Theory Binding Theory consists of three Principles that govern the allowed distribution of DPs. Pronouns: he, her, it, she, … Anaphors: himself, herself, itself, … R-expressions: John, the student, …

R-expressions R-expressions are DPs like Pat, or the professor, or an unlucky farmer, which get their meaning by referring to something in the world. Most DPs are like this.

Anaphors An anaphor does not get its meaning from something in the world—it depends on something else in the sentence. John saw himself in the mirror. Mary bought herself a sandwich.

Pronouns A pronoun is similar to an anaphor in that it doesn’t refer to something in the world but gets its reference from somewhere else. John told Mary that he likes pizza. Mary wondered if she agreed. …but it doesn’t need to be something in the sentence. Mary concluded that he was crazy.

The problem There are very specific configurations in which pronouns, anaphors, and R-expressions can/must be used. Even though both he and himself could refer to John below, you can’t just choose freely between them. John saw himself. *John saw him. John thinks that Mary likes him. *John thinks that Mary likes himself. John thinks that he is a genius. *John thinks that himself is a genius. The question Binding Theory strives to answer is: When do you use anaphors, pronouns, and R-expressions?

Indices and antecedents Anaphors and pronouns are referentially dependent; they can (or must) be co-referential with another DP in the sentence. The way we indicate that two DPs are co-referential is by means of an index, usually a subscripted letter. Two DPs that share the same index (that are coindexed) also share the same referent. Johni saw himselfi in the mirror.

Indices and antecedents Johni saw himselfi in the mirror. An index functions as a “pointer” into our mental model of the world. John here is a name that “points” to our mental representation of some guy, John, which we notate by giving the pointing relation a label (“i”). himself here shares the same pointing relation, it “points” to the same guy John that John does. So, any two DPs that share an index (pointing relation) necessarily refer to the same thing.

Indices and antecedents Johni saw himselfi in the mirror. The DP from which an anaphor or pronoun draws its reference is called the antecedent. John is the antecedent for himself. John and himself are co-referential.

Constraints on co-reference Johni saw himselfi. *Himselfi saw Johni. *Johni’s mother saw himselfi. It is impossible to assign the same referent to John and himself in the second and third sentences. What is different between the good and bad sentences?

Binding What is the difference between the relationship between John and himself in the first case and in the second case? * IP DP I IP DPi D I VP DPi I -ed John John D DP V DPi I VP ’s mother see himself -ed V DPi see himself

Binding In the first case, the DP John c-commands the DP himself. But not in the second case. * IP DP I IP DPi D I VP DPi I -ed John John D DP V DPi I VP ’s mother see himself -ed V DPi see himself

Binding When one DP c-commands and is coindexed with another DP, the first is said to bind the other. * IP DP I IP DPi D I VP DPi I -ed John John D DP V DPi I VP ’s mother see himself -ed V DPi see himself

* Binding Definition: A binds B iff A c-commands B A is coindexed with B “if and only if” * IP DP I IP DPi D I VP DPi I -ed John John D DP V DPi I VP ’s mother see himself -ed V DPi see himself

Binding Principle A of the Binding Theory (preliminary): An anaphor must be bound. * IP DP I IP DPi D I VP DPi I -ed John John D DP V DPi I VP ’s mother see himself -ed V DPi see himself

Principle A This also explains why the following sentences are ungrammatical: *Himselfi saw Johni in the mirror. *Herselfi likes Maryi’s father. *Himselfi likes Mary’s fatheri. There is nothing which c-commands and is coindexed with himself and herself. The anaphors are not bound, which violates Principle A.

Binding domains But this is not the end of the story; consider *Johni said that himselfi likes pizza. *Johni said that Mary called himselfi. In these sentences the DP John c-commands and is coindexed with (=binds) himself, satisfying our preliminary version of Principle A—but the sentences are ungrammatical. John didn’t say that anyone likes pizza. John didn’t say that Mary called anyone.

Binding domains Johni saw himselfi in the mirror. Johni gave a book to himselfi. *Johni said that himselfi is a genius. *Johni said that Mary dislikes himselfi. What is wrong? John binds himself in every case. What is different? In the ungrammatical cases, himself is in an embedded clause.

Binding domains It seems that not only does an anaphor need to be bound, it needs to be bound nearby (or locally). Principle A (revised): An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. Binding Domain (preliminary): The binding domain of an anaphor is the smallest clause containing it.

Principle A The definition of binding domain is very complicated (this occupied many syntacticians in the early ’80s). A clause (IP) delimits a binding domain. But other things do too… Mary likes [DP John’s picture of himselfi ]. *Maryi likes [DP John’s picture of herselfi ]. Maryi wants [DP a picture of herselfi ].

Binding domain Let’s say this: The binding domain for an anaphor is the smallest of: An IP that dominates it. A DP, with a specifier, that dominates it. Note! This is not perfect, but it is a pretty close approximation.

Pronouns *Johni saw himi in the mirror. Johni said that hei is a genius. Johni said that Mary dislikes himi. Johni saw himj in the mirror. How does the distribution of pronouns differ from the distribution of anaphors? It looks like it is just the opposite.

Principle B Principle B A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Free Not bound *Johni saw himi. Johni’s mother saw himi.

Principle C We now know where pronouns and anaphors are allowed. So what’s wrong with these sentences? The pronouns are unbound as needed for Principle B. What are the binding relations here? *Hei likes Johni. *Shei said that Maryi fears clowns. Hisi mother likes Johni.

Principle C Binding is a means of assigning reference. R-expressions have intrinsic reference; they can’t be assigned their reference from somewhere else. R-expressions can’t be bound, at all. Principle C An r-expression must be free.

Binding Theory Principle A. An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. Principle B. A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Principle C. An r-expression must be free. The binding domain for an anaphor is the smallest of (i) An IP that dominates it, (ii) A DP, with a specifier, that dominates it. Bound: coindexed with a c-commanding antecedent (Free: not bound).

Constraints on interpretation Binding Theory is about interpretation. Only a structure that satisfies Binding Theory is interpretable. pronounce Lexicon Merge interpret Workbench

Constraints on interpretation If we put together a tree that isn’t interpretable, the process (derivation) is sometimes said to crash. pronounce Lexicon Merge interpret Workbench

Constraints on interpretation If we succeed in putting together a tree that is interpretable (satisfying the constraints), we say the process (derivation) converges. pronounce Lexicon Merge interpret Workbench

       

Exercise to ponder Young kids (5-6 years) seem to accept sentences like (1) as meaning what (2) means for adults. (1) Mama Bear is pointing to her. (2) Mama Bear is pointing to herself. Suppose that contrary to appearances, kids do know and obey Principle B. Look carefully at the definitions of Binding Theory. If Principle B isn’t the problem, what do you think kids are getting wrong to allow (1) to have the meaning of (2)? Think in particular about how you decide which index to assign to her. What is the implication of having the same index? What is the implication of having different indices?