CAS LX 522
Syntax I
Episode 4a. Binding Theory, NPIs, ccommand.
4.3
A mysterious pattern



English (and most languages) have a couple of different ways to
refer to individuals and entities.
 Johnj saw himselfj/*k.
 *Johnj saw herselfj/k.
 Johnj saw himk/*j.
 Johnj saw herk/#j.
 *Hek/*j saw Johnj.
 Hisj/k mother saw Johnj.
 Johnj thinks that Mary likes himj/k.
 *Johnj thinks that Mary likes himselfj/k.
 Johnj thinks that hej/k is a genius.
 *Johnj thinks that himselfj/k is a genius.
When do you use anaphors (-self forms)? Pronouns? What
determines the range of interpretations they can have?
These are the questions Binding Theory strives to answer.
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 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 coreferential with another NP in the
sentence.
The way we indicate that two NPs are coreferential 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
Me, him, her
My, his, her
nominative
accusative
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
NP
NPi
John’s mother
VP
NPi
John
V
V
saw
NPi
himself
V
V
see
NPi
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.

Really, “non-inferior”
*
VP
NP
NP
NPi
John’s mother
VP
NPi
John
V
V
saw
NPi
himself
V
V
see
NPi
himself
Tree relations

A
B
C
D
E
A node X c-commands its
sisters and the nodes
dominated by its sisters.
Tree relations

A
B
C
D
E

A node X c-commands its
sisters and the nodes
dominated by its sisters.
B c-commands C, D, E.
Tree relations

A
B
C
D
E


A node X c-commands its
sisters and the nodes
dominated by its sisters.
B c-commands C, D, E.
D c-commands E.
Tree relations

A
B
C
D
E



A node X c-commands its
sisters and the nodes
dominated by its sisters.
B c-commands C, D, E.
D c-commands E.
C c-commands B.
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
NP
NPi
John’s mother
VP
NPi
John
V
V
saw
NPi
himself
V
V
see
NPi
himself
Binding

In the first case, the NP John ccommands the NP himself. But not in
the second case.
*
VP
NP
NP
NPi
John’s mother
VP
NPi
John
V
V
saw
NPi
himself
V
V
see
NPi
himself
Binding

When one NP c-commands and is
coindexed with another NP, the first is
said to bind the other.
*
VP
NP
NP
NPi
John’s mother
VP
NPi
John
V
V
saw
NPi
himself
V
V
see
NPi
himself
Binding

Definition: A binds B iff
 A c-commands B
 A is coindexed with B
“if and only if”
*
VP
NP
NP
NPi
John’s mother
VP
NPi
John
V
V
saw
NPi
himself
V
V
see
NPi
himself
Binding

Principle A of the Binding Theory (preliminary):
An anaphor must be bound.

A is for anaphor? That’s good enough for me…
*
VP
NP
NP
NPi
John’s mother
VP
NPi
John
V
V
saw
NPi
himself
V
V
see
NPi
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 that 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 B
A pronoun must be free in its binding
domain.
Free
Not bound


*Johni saw himi.
Johni’s mother saw himi.

B is for bpronoun, that’s good enough for me.
Principle C





We now know where pronouns and
anaphors are allowed. Consider the
following.
*Stuarti saw himi in the mirror.
Stuarti’s mother saw him in the mirror.
*Hei saw Stuarti in the mirror.
Hisi mother saw Stuarti in the mirror.
Principle C





What’s going 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.
Hisi mother said that Johni fears clowns.
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.

C is for r-eCspression… oh, never mind.
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 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
Workbench
interpret
Constraints on interpretation

If we put together a tree that isn’t
interpretable, the process (derivation)
is sometimes said to crash.
pronounce
Lexicon
Merge
Workbench
interpret
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
Workbench
interpret
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’t ever been to London.
Pat hasn’t seen Forrest Gump yet.
*Pat invited anyone to the party.
*Pat knows anything about syntax.
*Pat has ever been to London.
*Pat has seen Forrest Gump yet.
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

NPIs 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.
Negation gives an NPI “license to appear”: NPIs
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; 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
VP
NP
The picture of nobody
V
V
surprised
NPi
V
nothing
V
NPi
suprised anyone
NP
anyone
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?









