Week 5a. Binding theory CAS LX 522 Syntax I

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

Structural ambiguity I DP VP VCP I John -ed say C that in the kitchen IP I DP VP VPP I Bill -ed slip IP I DP VP VCP I John -ed say C that in the kitchen IP I DP VP PP I Bill -ed slip IP V

Negative Polarity Items John said that Bill didn’t slip in any room in the house. John said that Bill didn’t slip in any room in the house. Suddenly, it has only one meaning. Why? Suddenly, it has only one meaning. 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.

NPIs I DP VP VCP I John -ed say C that in any room… IP I DP VP VPP I Bill -dn’t slip IP I DP VP VCP I John -ed say C that in any room… IP I DP VP PP I Bill -dn’t slip IP V *

Negative Polarity Items How about: How about: John didn’t say that Bill slipped in any room in the house. John didn’t say that Bill slipped in any room in the house. What do we predict? What do we predict?

NPIs I DP VP VCP I John -dn’t say C that in any room… IP I DP VP VPP I Bill -ed slip IP I DP VP VCP I John -dn’t say C that in any room… IP I DP VP PP I Bill -ed slip IP V

Negative Polarity Items John didn’t say that Mary slipped in any room in the house. John didn’t say that Mary slipped in any room in the house. …He said that when he was out in the yard… …He said that when he was out in the yard… …He said that she slipped on the sidewalk… …He said that she slipped on the sidewalk… Both meanings are good, because both possible structural positions for the NPI are c-commanded (thus licensed) by the negation. Both meanings are good, because both possible structural positions for the NPI are c-commanded (thus licensed) by the negation.

Ungrammaticality What does it mean that this is ungrammatical? What does it mean that this is ungrammatical? If we had the right words available and Merged them together in the right order, we could get this. If we had the right words available and Merged them together in the right order, we could get this. I DP VP VCP I John -ed say C that in any room… IP I DP VP PP I Bill -dn’t slip IP V *

Ungrammaticality Up to now, we have focused on describing sentences. We see that a sentence is possible, we ask how it is formed structurally. Up to now, we have focused on describing sentences. We see that a sentence is possible, we ask how it is formed structurally. But this is only half of the real task. Not only do we know how to assign structures to grammatical sentences, we know which sentences are impossible. But this is only half of the real task. Not only do we know how to assign structures to grammatical sentences, we know which sentences are impossible. We have been designing an observationally adequate system—we can do better than that. We have been designing an observationally adequate system—we can do better than that.

Ungrammaticality Not just any old collection of lexical items can be Merged together to make a well-formed structure. We also have constraints on the finished product. Not just any old collection of lexical items can be Merged together to make a well-formed structure. We also have constraints on the finished product. One such constraint is that NPIs be licensed: An NPI must be c-commanded by a licenser (negation). One such constraint is that NPIs be licensed: An NPI must be c-commanded by a licenser (negation). So we need not only a theory of structure building but also a theory of the constraints on structure (to reach descriptive adequacy). So we need not only a theory of structure building but also a theory of the constraints on structure (to reach descriptive adequacy).

Binding Theory Binding Theory consists of three Principles that govern the allowed distribution of DPs. Binding Theory consists of three Principles that govern the allowed distribution of DPs. Pronouns: he, her, it, she, … Pronouns: he, her, it, she, … Anaphors: himself, herself, itself, … Anaphors: himself, herself, itself, … R-expressions: John, the student, … 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. 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. 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. John saw himself in the mirror. Mary bought herself a sandwich. 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. 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. John told Mary that he likes pizza. Mary wondered if she agreed. Mary wondered if she agreed. …but it doesn’t need to be something in the sentence. …but it doesn’t need to be something in the sentence. Mary concluded that he was crazy. 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. 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 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: When do you use anaphors, pronouns, and R-expressions? 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. 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. 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. John i saw himself i in the mirror. John i saw himself i in the mirror.

Indices and antecedents John i saw himself i in the mirror. John i saw himself i in the mirror. An index functions as a “pointer” into our mental model of the world. 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”). 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. 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. So, any two DPs that share an index (pointing relation) necessarily refer to the same thing.

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

Constraints on co-reference John i saw himself i. John i saw himself i. *Himself i saw John i. *Himself i saw John i. *John i ’s mother saw himself i. *John i ’s mother saw himself i. 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? 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? What is the difference between the relationship between John and himself in the first case and in the second case? see himself -ed DP I DP i V VP John seehimself -ed DP i IP I DP i V VP mother DP John DP i * I IP I D D ’s

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

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

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

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

Principle A This also explains why the following sentences are ungrammatical: This also explains why the following sentences are ungrammatical: *Himself i saw John i in the mirror. *Himself i saw John i in the mirror. *Herself i likes Mary i ’s father. *Herself i likes Mary i ’s father. *Himself i likes Mary’s father i. *Himself i likes Mary’s father i. There is nothing which c-commands and is coindexed with himself and herself. The anaphors are not bound, which violates Principle A. 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 But this is not the end of the story; consider *John i said that himself i likes pizza. *John i said that himself i likes pizza. *John i said that Mary called himself i. *John i said that Mary called himself i. 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. 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 anyone likes pizza. John didn’t say that Mary called anyone. John didn’t say that Mary called anyone.

Binding domains John i saw himself i in the mirror. John i saw himself i in the mirror. John i gave a book to himself i. John i gave a book to himself i. *John i said that himself i is a genius. *John i said that himself i is a genius. *John i said that Mary dislikes himself i. *John i said that Mary dislikes himself i. What is wrong? John binds himself in every case. What is different? What is wrong? John binds himself in every case. What is different? In the ungrammatical cases, himself is in an embedded clause. 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). 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 (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). The definition of binding domain is very complicated (this occupied many 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 [ DP John’s picture of himself i ]. Mary likes [ DP John’s picture of himself i ]. *Mary i likes [ DP John’s picture of herself i ]. *Mary i likes [ DP John’s picture of herself i ]. Mary i wants [ DP a picture of herself i ]. Mary i wants [ DP a picture of herself i ].

Binding domain Let’s say this: Let’s say this: The binding domain for an anaphor is the smallest of: The binding domain for an anaphor 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 not perfect, but it is a pretty close approximation. Note! This is not perfect, but it is a pretty close approximation.

Pronouns *John i saw him i in the mirror. *John i saw him i in the mirror. John i said that he i is a genius. John i said that he i is a genius. John i said that Mary dislikes him i. John i said that Mary dislikes him i. John i saw him j in the mirror. John i saw him j in the mirror. How does the distribution of pronouns differ from the distribution of anaphors? How does the distribution of pronouns differ from the distribution of anaphors? It looks like it is just the opposite. It looks like it is just the opposite.

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

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? 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? *He i likes John i. *He i likes John i. *She i said that Mary i fears clowns. *She i said that Mary i fears clowns. His i mother likes John i. His i mother likes John i.

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

Binding Theory Principle A. An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. Principle A. An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. Principle B. A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Principle B. A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Principle C. An r-expression must be free. 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. 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). Bound: coindexed with a c-commanding antecedent (Free: not bound).

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

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

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

                      

Exercise to ponder Young kids (5-6 years) seem to accept sentences like (1) as meaning what (2) means for adults. 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. (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 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)? 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? 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?