Interpretation of Pronouns - LIN1310-Semantics Part 4
English Pronouns (or Pronominals):
Subject case:
I, you (sg.), he, she, it, we, you (pl.) they
Object case:
me, you, him, her, it, us, you, them
English Reflexive Pronouns:
myself, yourself, himself, herself, itself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves
We understand pronouns as referring to a person or thing. The person or thing that the
pronoun refers to is its antecedent.
The pronoun and its antecedent are co-referents.
Sometimes the antecedent of a pronoun is quite clear, and sometimes there is more than
one possible antecedent for a pronoun.
For example:
1. Sally became fearful of the dog after it bit her.
In sentence 1, our understanding of the world strongly suggests that ‘it’ refers to the dog
and that ‘her’ refers to ‘Sally’.
It is possible, however, that ‘her’ refers to someone else, as would be the case if ‘Sally’
witnessed ‘the dog’ biting someone else who was also female.
If this sentence was in the context of a conversation or ‘discourse’, the antecedents of
‘Sally’ and ‘dog’ would likely be easily determined.
The same is true for sentence 2.
2. Sally worried that the dog would bite her.
Although ‘Sally’ is the most likely antecedent of ‘her’, it is possible that ‘her’ refers to
someone else who has perhaps teased the dog.
Consider possible antecedents of the ‘herself’ and ‘her’ in the following sentences.
3. Sally admired herself.
In 3, can ‘herself’ refer to anyone except ‘Sally’?
1
4. Sally knew that Mary admired her.
In 4, ‘her’ can refer to ‘Sally’ or someone else, but not to ‘Mary’.
5. Sally knew that Mary admired herself.
In 5, ‘herself’ can only refer to ‘Mary’.
Although these interpretations may seem intuitively obvious to you, there are actually
formal syntactically based explanations for the interpretation of pronouns.
Let’s take another look at sentences 1 through 5 to see if we can come up with a
generalization that accounts for our interpretations of the pronouns in them.
1. [IP Sally became fearful of the dog [IP after it bit her]].
2. [IP Sally worried [IP that the dog would bite her]].
3. [IP Sally admired herself].
4. [IP Sally knew [IP that Mary admired her]].
5. [IP Sally knew [IP that Mary admired herself]].
The first generalization we can make is that the antecedent of a pronominal can be
outside of the smallest IP that contains it.
However, the antecedent of a reflexive pronoun must have its antecedent within the
smallest IP that contains it.
But what if there is more than one possible candidate for the antecedent of the reflexive
pronoun in the smallest IP that contains it?
For example:
6. [IP That boy’s teacher admires himself].
We all interpret ‘teacher’ as the antecedent of ‘himself’. Why isn’t ‘boy’ a possible
antecedent for ‘himself’. After all, both nouns are in the smallest IP containing ‘himself’.
And why, in sentence 7, is ‘boy’ the only antecedent for ‘him’?
7. [IP That boy’s teacher admires him].
There is actually a technical explanation for our understanding of sentences 6 and 7. The
explanation is couched within what is termed the binding theory.
2
To understand the binding theory, you need to understand a technical relationship within
syntactic trees called c-command.
C-command
An NPa c-commands an NPb if the first category in the syntactic tree above NPa
contains NPb.
CatX
Y
NPa
NPb
C-command appears to be a very technical notion. But it can be framed in principles that
account for the interpretation of the antecedent of ‘himself’ as ‘the teacher’, but not ‘the
boy’, in sentence 6. This notion is more specific than the first generalization that we
made about the antecedent of a reflexive pronoun being in the smallest IP that contains it.
Principle A of the binding theory:
A reflexive pronoun must have an antecedent that c-commands it in the same minimal IP.
IP
I’
NPa
NPc
N’
I
-pst
VP
N
that boy’s
teacher
V’
V
NPb
admire(s)
himself
3
In the above tree, NPa (teacher) c-commands NPb (reflexive pronoun ‘himself’), since
IP, which is the first category above NPa, contains NPb. This permits ‘teacher’ to be the
antecedent of ‘himself’.
Note that the first category above NPc (the boy’s) is NPa and NPa does not contain NPb.
Thus NPc (the boy’s) does not c-command NPb (himself) and ‘the boy’s’ cannot be the
antecedent of ‘himself’.
The binding theory has Principle B to cover the case of the pronominal referring only to
the boy in ‘The boy’s teacher admires him’.
Principle B of the binding theory:
A pronominal must not have an antecedent that c-commands it in the same minimal IP.
IP
I’
NPa
NPc
N’
I
-pst
VP
N
V’
V
that boy’s
teacher
admire(s)
NPb
him
As we can see in the tree, ‘that boy’s’ does not c-command the pronominal ‘him’, which
according to Principle B, allows ‘that boy’s’ to be the antecedent of ‘him’
In contrast, ‘teacher’ c-commands ‘him’, therefore it cannot be co-referenced with ‘him’.
4
Let’s try applying the Principles A and B to the interpretation of the antecedents of:
8. John admires himself.
John = himself
9. John admires him.
John ≠ him
Let’s look at 8 first.
IP
I’
NPa
N
I
-pst
VP
V’
V
John
admire(s)
NPb
himself
C-command
An NPa c-commands an NPb if the first category in the syntactic tree above NPa
contains NPb.
Principle A of the binding theory:
A reflexive pronoun must have an antecedent that c-commands it in the same minimal IP.
The NP ‘John’ c-commands the NP ‘himself’. Therefore, NP John can be the antecedent
of ‘himself’.
5
Now let’s look at 9.
9. John admires him.
John ≠ him
IP
NPa
N
I’
I
-pst
VP
V’
V
John
admire(s)
NPb
him
Remember:
C-command
An NPa c-commands an NPb if the first category in the syntactic tree above NPa
contains NPb.
Principle B of the binding theory:
A pronominal must not have an antecedent that c-commands it in the same minimal IP.
The NP ‘John’ c-commands the NP ‘him’. Therefore, John cannot be the antecedent of
the pronominal ‘him’. ‘Him’ must refer to someone outside this immediate IP.
6
The formal explanation for the interpretation of pronominals and reflexives purely in
terms of syntactic structure was considered a major milestone in Generative Theory, as it
suggested that elements of sentence interpretation could be explained through the
descriptive formalism that the theory uses to map syntactic structure. This underscores
the importance of structure dependence in sentence interpretation. The universality of this
mechanism and the degree to which the principles vary cross-linguistically could be
examined through analyzing other languages and through studies of how first and second
language learners master them.
There continue to be modifications to the theory, some of which are discussed in the
online supplement to this section of the Semantics chapter. For example, the definition of
minimal IP for Principles A and B has been changed to ‘domain’, which encompasses the
minimal IP or minimal NP that contains the pronoun. This permits ‘Jerry’ to be the
antecedent of ‘his’ in sentence 10:
10. Jerry lost [NP his wallet].
Although ‘Jerry’ and ‘his’ are in the same IP, they are not in the same minimal NP.
The revision of the notion of minimal IP to ‘domain’ also prevents ‘Jerry’ from being the
antecedent of ‘himself’ in sentences 11 and 12, since the two are not in same minimal
NP:
11. *Jerry lost [NP Suzanne’s picture of himself.]
12. Jerry lost [NP Mark’s picture of himself.]
7