CAS LX 522 Syntax I

1. CAS LX 522Syntax I Week 5a. Binding theory

2. Structural ambiguity • 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). • John said that Bill will leave yesterday. • John said that Bill will leave tomorrow.

3. IP Structuralambiguity IP DP I John DP I John VP I -ed VP I -ed V CP say PP V C IP in thekitchen that V CP say DP I Bill C IP that VP I -ed DP I Bill V PP slip in thekitchen VP I slip -ed

4. Negative Polarity Items • John said that Bill didn’t slipin any room in the house. • Suddenly, it has only one meaning. Why? • John said: In no room did Bill slip. • *John said in any room: Bill didn’t slip.

5. IP NPIs * IP DP I John DP I John VP I -ed VP I -ed V CP say PP V C IP in anyroom… that V CP say DP I Bill C IP that VP I -dn’t DP I Bill V PP slip in anyroom… VP I slip -dn’t

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

7. IP NPIs IP DP I John DP I John VP I -dn’t VP I -dn’t V CP say PP V C IP in anyroom… that V CP say DP I Bill C IP that VP I -ed DP I Bill V PP slip in anyroom… VP I slip -ed

8. Negative Polarity Items • 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 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.

9. Ungrammaticality * IP DP I John • 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. VP I -ed PP V in anyroom… V CP say C IP that DP I Bill VP I slip -dn’t

10. Ungrammaticality • 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. • We have been designing an observationally adequate system—we can do better than that.

11. 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. • 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).

12. 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, …

13. 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.

14. Anaphors • 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.

15. 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.

16. 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?

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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?

21. 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

22. Binding • In the first case, the DP Johnc-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

23. Binding • When one DP c-commands and is coindexed with another DP, the first is said to bindthe 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

24. Binding • Definition: A bindsB 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

25. 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

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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 [DPJohn’s picture of herselfi]. • Maryi wants [DPa picture of herselfi].

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. Principle B • Principle BA pronoun must be free in its binding domain.FreeNot bound • *Johni saw himi. • Johni’s mother saw himi.

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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 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).

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

38. 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

39. 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

40.          

41. 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?