CAS LX 522
Syntax I
Week 5a. Binding theory
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.

IP
DP
John
Structural
ambiguity
I
VP
I
-ed
V
say
DP
John
I
VP
I
-ed
CP
C
that
IP
V
IP
DP
Bill
V
say
I
I
-ed
VP
V
PP
slip in the
kitchen
PP
in the
CP kitchen
C
that
IP
DP
Bill
I
I
-ed
VP
slip
Negative Polarity Items


John said that Bill didn’t slip
in 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.

IP
DP
John
NPIs
I
DP
John
VP
I
-ed
V
say
*
IP
VP
I
-ed
CP
C
that
I
V
IP
DP
Bill
V
say
I
I
-dn’t
VP
V
slip
PP
in any
room…
PP
in any
CP room…
C
that
IP
DP
Bill
I
I
-dn’t
VP
slip
Negative Polarity Items

How about:


John didn’t say that Bill slipped in any room in
the house.
What do we predict?
IP
DP
John
NPIs
I
I
-dn’t
V
say
IP
DP
John
VP
VP
I
-dn’t
CP
C
that
I
V
IP
DP
Bill
I
-ed
V
say
I
VP
V
slip
PP
in any
room…
PP
in any
CP room…
C
that
IP
DP
Bill
I
-ed
I
VP
slip
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.
Ungrammaticality *


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.
IP
DP
John
I
VP
I
-ed
V
V
say
PP
in any
CP room…
C
that
IP
DP
Bill
I
I
-dn’t
VP
slip
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.
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).
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, …


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.
Anaphors

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 DP in the sentence.
The way we indicate that two DPs are coreferential 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.
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.



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.
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?
Binding

What is the difference between the
relationship between John and himself in
the first case and in the second case?
*
DP
IP
DPi
John
I
I
-ed
IP
VP
V
see
DPi
himself
DPi
John D
’s
I
D
DP
mother
I
-ed
VP
V
see
DPi
himself
Binding

In the first case, the DP John c-commands
the DP himself. But not in the second case.
*
DP
IP
DPi
John
I
I
-ed
IP
VP
V
see
DPi
himself
DPi
John D
’s
I
D
DP
mother
I
-ed
VP
V
see
DPi
himself
Binding

When one DP c-commands and is
coindexed with another DP, the first is said
to bind the other.
*
DP
IP
DPi
John
I
I
-ed
IP
VP
V
see
DPi
himself
DPi
John D
’s
I
D
DP
mother
I
-ed
VP
V
see
DPi
himself
Binding

Definition: A binds B iff
 A c-commands B
 A is coindexed with B
I
I
-ed
*
IP
DP
IP
DPi
John
“if and only if”
VP
V
see
DPi
himself
DPi
John D
’s
I
D
DP
mother
I
-ed
VP
V
see
DPi
himself
Binding

Principle A of the Binding Theory (preliminary):
An anaphor must be bound.
*
DP
IP
DPi
John
I
I
-ed
IP
VP
V
see
DPi
himself
DPi
John D
’s
I
D
DP
mother
I
-ed
VP
V
see
DPi
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 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.
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.
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 [DP John’s picture of herselfi ].
 Maryi wants [DP a picture of herselfi ].

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.
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.
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 C
An 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 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).
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










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