CAS LX 522 Syntax I

CAS LX 522Syntax I Episode 4a. Binding Theory, NPIs, c-command, ditransitives, and little v 4.3-4.4

A phrase maximalprojection maximalprojection • A full phrase can have all of these pieces(plus perhaps some additional adjuncts) XP XP adjunct intermediateprojection specifier X head[X, …] complement minimalprojection

Complements vs. adjuncts • PPs seem to be freely reorderable— when they are adjuncts. • I ate lunch on Tuesday at Taco Bell with Pat • I ate lunch on Tuesday with Pat at Taco Bell • I ate lunch with Pat on Tuesday at Taco Bell • I ate lunch on Tuesday with Pat at Taco Bell • etc… • But consider glance at Chris. • I glanced at Chris on Tuesday • *I glanced on Tuesday at Chris • Ok: Why?

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

R-expressions and anaphors • R-expressions are NPs like Pat, or the professor, or an unlucky farmer, which get their meaning by referring to something in the world. Most NPs are like this. • An anaphordoes 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 pronounis 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 NP in the sentence. • The way we indicate that two NPs are co-referential is by means of an index, usually a subscripted letter. Two NPs 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 NPs that share an index (pointing relation) necessarily refer to the same thing.

Indices and antecedents • Johni saw himselfi in the mirror. • The NP 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?

John’s mother • John’s mother is an NP. • [John’s mother]i saw herselfi. • She saw John. • But it’s an NP that is made up of smaller pieces (John’s and mother). • So what is the internal structure of the NP John’s mother?

[NP John’s mother] • Remember that pronouns come in three distinguishable forms (in English): • I, he, she nominative • Me, him, her accusative • My, his, her genitive • The genitive case forms seem to have pretty much the same kind of “possessive” meaning that John’s does. • So, let’s suppose that John’s is the genitive case form of John.

[NP John’s mother] • Another point about John’s mother is that it seems that the head should be mother. • John’s sort of modifies mother. • Sort of like an adjective does… sort of like an adverb does for a verb… • Let’s suppose (for now! In chapter 7 we’ll revise this) that John’s is just adjoined to the NP mother. • (Hard to draw clearly) NP NP NPi John’s mother

Binding • What is the difference between the relationship between John and himself in the first case and in the second case? * VP NP V NP NPi V NPi VP see John’s mother himself NPi V John V NPi saw himself

Binding • We think of the position that John is in in the first tree as being a position from which it “commands” the rest of the tree. It is hierarchically superior in a particular way. * VP NP V NP NPi V NPi VP see John’s mother himself NPi V John V NPi saw himself

Tree relations • A node X c-commands its sisters and the nodes dominated by its sisters. A B C E D

Tree relations • A node X c-commands its sisters and the nodes dominated by its sisters. • B c-commands C, D, and E. A B C E D

Tree relations • A node X c-commands its sisters and the nodes dominated by its sisters. • B c-commands C, D, and E. • D c-commands E. A B C E D

Tree relations • A node X c-commands its sisters and the nodes dominated by its sisters. • B c-commands C, D, and E. • D c-commands E. • C c-commands B. A B C E D

Binding • So, again what is the difference between the relationship between John and himself in the first case and in the second case? * VP NP V NP NPi V NPi VP see John’s mother himself NPi V John V NPi saw himself

Binding • In the first case, the NP Johnc-commands the NP himself. But not in the second case. * VP NP V NP NPi V NPi VP see John’s mother himself NPi V John V NPi saw himself

Binding • When one NP c-commands and is coindexed with another NP, the first is said to bindthe other. * VP NP V NP NPi V NPi VP see John’s mother himself NPi V John V NPi saw himself

Binding • Definition: A bindsB iff • A c-commands B • A is coindexed with B “if and only if” * VP NP V NP NPi V NPi VP see John’s mother himself NPi V John V NPi saw himself

Binding • Principle A of the Binding Theory(preliminary):An anaphor must be bound. * VP NP V NP NPi V NPi VP see John’s mother himself NPi V John V NPi saw 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 NP 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.

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 BA pronoun must be free in its binding domain.FreeNot 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 CAn 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 domainfor an anaphor is the smallest clause that contains 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

Negative Polarity Items • Certain words in English seem to only be available in “negative” contexts. • Pat didn’t invite anyone to the party. • Pat does not know anything about syntax. • Pat hasn’tever been to London. • Pat hasn’t seen Forrest Gumpyet. • *Pat invited anyone to the party. • *Pat knows anything about syntax. • *Pat has ever been to London. • *Pat has seen Forrest Gumpyet.

Negative Polarity Items • These are called negative polarity items. • They include ever, yet, anyone, anything, any N, as well as some idiomatic ones like lift a finger and a red cent. • Pat didn’t lift a finger to help. • Pat didn’t have a red cent. • *Pat lifted a finger to help. • *Pat had a red cent.

Licensing • NPI’s are only allowed to appear if there’s a negative in the sentence. • John didn’t invite Mary to the party, did he? • John didn’t invite anyone to the party. • John invited Mary to the party, didn’t he? • *John invited anyone to the party. • Nobody invited Mary to the party, did they? • Nobody invited anyone to the party. • We say that negation gives them “license to appear”: NPI’s are licensed by negation in a sentence. • Just like you need a driver’s license to drive a car (legally), you need negation to use a NPI (grammatically).

Any • Just to introduce a complication right away, there is a positive-polarity version of any that has a different meaning, known as the “free choice any” meaning. This meaning is distinguishable (intuitively) from the NPI any meaning, and we are concentrating only on the NPI any meaning—for now, we will just consider any to be ambiguous, like bank. • John read anything the professor gave him. • Anyone who can understand syntax is a genius. • In fact, there are a couple of things other than negation that license NPIs, though we’ll ignore them for now. • Pick any card. • Did anyone bring cake?

Negative Polarity Items • But it isn’t quite as simple as that. Consider: • I didn’t see anyone. • *I saw anyone. • *Anyone didn’t see me. • *Anyone saw me. • It seems that simply having negation in the sentence isn’t by itself enough to license the use of an NPI.

Negative Polarity Items • As a first pass, we might say that negation has to precede the NPI. • I didn’t see anyone. Nobody saw anyone. • *Anyone didn’t see me. *Anyone saw nobody. • But that’s not quite it either. • *[The picture of nobody] pleased anyone.

Negative Polarity Items • *[The picture of nobody] surprised anyone • Nothing surprised anyone VP NPi V VP nothing V NPi suprised anyone NP V The picture of nobody V NP surprised anyone

Giving trees to ditransitives • You may recall our discussion of q-theory, where we triumphantly classified verbs as coming in three types: • Intransitive (1 q-role) • Transitive (2 q-roles) • Ditransitive (3 q-roles) • Theta roles go to obligatory arguments, not to adjuncts.

Giving trees to ditransitives • You may also recall that we believe that trees are binary branching, where: • Syntactic objects are formed by Merge. • There’s just one complement and one specifier.

Giving trees to ditransitives • Fantastic, except that these things just don’t fit together. • We know what to do with transitive verbs. • But what do we do with ditransitive verbs? We’re out of space! VP SUB V V OBJ

Problems continue… • I showed Mary to herself. • *I showed herself to Mary. • I introduced nobody to anybody. • *I introduced anybody to nobody. • This tells us something about the relationship between the direct and to-object in the structure. (What?)

Problems continue… • The OBJ c-commands the PP. But how could we draw a tree like that? • Even if we allowed adjuncts to get q-roles, the most natural structure would be to make the PP an adjunct, like this, but that doesn’t meet the c-command requirements. VP * V SUB PP V V OBJ

Some clues from idioms • Often idiomatic meanings are associated with the verb+object complex—the meaning derives both from the verb and the object together. • Suppose that this is due being Merged into the structure together initially. • Billthrew a baseball. • Billthrew his supportbehind the candidate. • Billthrew the boxing match.

CAS LX 522 Syntax I