Chapter 4

Anaphoric Relations and Overt NPs

Introduction and Overview

Government vs. Binding

Government

Binding

a structural property in

theta-marking

case-marking

the module of the grammar

regulating NP interpretation.

Introduction and Overview

Three types of NPs

Full NPs

R-expressions; Names

Pronouns

Anaphors

John, Mary, Poirot

The man that I saw yesterday

traces of wh-movement

he, him, we

pro

PRO

Reflexives

Reciprocals

PRO

each other, one another

himself, myself

？

？

Introduction and Overview

A-binding vs. A-bar binding

Theory of A-binding (argument binding)

Examines the relations between NPs in A-positions

Theory of A-bar binding (non-argument binding)

Examines the relations between wh-phrases and their traces

Introduction and Overview

binding theory

The binding theory is a generalized theory which contains

three principles that regulate the distribution and interpretation

of three various types of NP.

A binds B if and only if

(1) A c-commands B

(2) A and B are coindexed

Principle A

regulates the interpretation of elements such as reflexives.

Principle B

Principle C

constrains the interpretation of pronouns.

determines the distribution and interpretation of R-expressions.

Reflexive

Binding and Antecedent

hurt himself_i.

Reflexives must be bound by an antecedent.

The antecedent is the binder of the reflexive.

Because reflexives lack independent reference

they must have an antecedent.

gender

and number.

Poirot_i

bind

The reflexive and its antecedent must agree

with respect to the nominal features of person,

3^rd person

3^rd person

male

male

singular

singular

Reflexive

Locality and Binding Domain

hurt himself_i

If the reflexive has to be locally bound, then the reflexive and its antecedent

must be in the same clause, which is referred to as a clause-mate condition.

Poirot_i

thinks that

Miss Marple

*

has

Principle A (1)

A reflexive must be bound by a clause-mate antecedent.

The reflexive must be bound in some local domain, the binding domain.

local domain

gender

Reflexive

Locality and Binding Domain

the best ].

Poirot_i

[_IP

to be

[_CP that

is

we may find that himself is governed by the verb of the matrix clause, believe.

Principle A (2)

A reflexive X must be bound inside a clause that contains X and X’s governor.

*

antecedent

believes

himself_i

reflexive

The antecedent Poirot does indeed c-command himself

but they are not clause-mates

c-command

clause-mates

If we invite the notion of government here

bind

？

govern

govern

govern

bind

Reflexive

Locality and Binding Domain

Believes[_NP

According to Principle A(2), the binding domain for the reflexive should be

the entire clause, but apparently himself cannot be bound by the subject of the clause,

the NP Poirot, in 3a.

Actually, for both sentences, the NP in [Spec, NP] is analogous to the subject of an NP.

A subject inside an NP will determine the domain in which the reflexive can be bound.

Principle A (3) = Complete Functional Complex (CFC)

A reflexive X must be bound in the minimal domain

containing X

Miss Marple

’s description of himself_i ].

Poirot_i

*

In order to determine the binding domain for the reflexive you should proceed as follows:

(1)find the governor of the reflexive

How to explain the grammaticality of a sentence such as:

Poirot_i believes [_NP any description of himself_i].

govern

Binding domain

bind

Subject of NP

X

X’s governor

subject

, X’s governor

and a subject.

(2)find the closest subject.

The smallest IP or NP containing these two elements will be the binding domain

in which the reflexive must be bound.

disscussion

How to explain the grammaticality of a sentence such as:

Poirot_i believes [_NP any description of himself_i].

Reflexive

Locality and Binding Domain

Poirot_i believes [_CP that [_IP himself_i is the best ]].

*

the big subject

IP is the binding domain

The grammaticality contrast of the two sentences can be explained by the distinction

between the subjects of finite clauses and those of non-finite ones and NPs.

e.g. person, number, gender, etc.

2. In order to distinguish AGR with its subject-like properties from the NP

in the subject position.

Chomsky refers to the AGR of finite clauses as SUBJECT, the big subject.

1. The AGR in INFL is assumed to contain features that agree with its subject

govern(ECM)

Poirot_i believes [_IP himself_i to be the best detective].

governor

Weak I

bind

Reflexive

Locality and Binding Domain

Poirot_i believes [_CP that [_IP

himself_i

is the best detective

]].

a picture of

will be on show

*

bind

Chomsky proposes that in order for an element to be able to count as

a subject/SUBJECT to determine the binding domain of a reflexive

it must be an accessible subject/SUBJECT for the reflexive.

Accessible subject/SUBJECT

A is an accessible subject/SUBJECT for B if the coindexation of A and B

does not violate any grammatical principles.

​

govern

Big SUBJECT

Grammatical ?

Chomsky proposes that one of the grammatical principles

that should be considered is the i-within-I filter.

i

I ≠ subject

Reflexive

The i-within-i filter

* [_Ai…B_i…]

[_NPi a picture of [_NPi himself ]]

a coindexation this is banned because it would violate the i-within-I filter.

≠ subject

In the literature the binding domain

defined in Principle A (4) is often referred to as

the governing category (GC).

Principle A (4)

In the literature the binding domain defined in Principle A (4) is often referred to as

the governing category (GC).

Anaphors: �Reflexives and Reciprocals

Reciprocals are inherently plural and hence

need a plural antecedent for their interpretation.

Reciprocals such as each other, just like reflexives,

are also referentially dependant and are subject

to the same interpretative constraints as reflexives.

*

Each other are ill.

The students

attacked

each other .

Big SUBJECT

i

i

The student

attacked

each other .

i

i

bind

number

*

No antecedent

Pronouns

Consider

(a) Poirot had hurt him .

​

(b) Poirot had hurt himself .

The pronoun him in (a) must refer to an entity different from the subject NP Poirot,

while a reflexive in the same position (b) must refer to the entity denoted by Poirot.

Whereas the reflexive must be bound in (b), the pronoun must be free.

Reflexives and pronouns should be in complementary distribution.

i

j

i

j

Principle B

Pronouns must be free locally, but may be bound outside their GC.

Pronouns

Interpretation of pronouns

A pronoun must be free in its governing category

1. Where the governing category is the minimal domain containing the pronoun,

its governor and an accessible subject/SUBJECT.

​

(2) Where free is not bound.

Poirot had hurt him .

i

j

pronoun

governor

SUBJECT

Referential Expressions

R-expressions

R-expressions do not tolerate any A-binding

they must be free everywhere.

Principle of interpretation of R-expressions

They told stories about Mary .

R-expressions must be free everywhere.

Principle C

Binding Theory

The principles

A lot of people seem to confused about

what the binding theory does.

The principles of binding theory are supposed to tell three things:

🞜 Principle A

An anaphor must be bound in its governing category.

🞜 Principle B

A pronoun must be free in its governing category.

🞜 Principle C

An R-expression must be free everywhere.

Anything that falls outside of the three Principles is exempt.

Problems in the Binding Theory

Consider the application of the binding theory in the following examples

They_i told [_NP stories about each other_i]

*They_i told [_NP my stories about each other_i]

*They_i told [_NP stories about them_i]

They_i told [_NP my stories about them_i]

NP因為缺少subject，所以GC擴至整個句子

根據Principle A，anaphor must be bound in its GC

My出現在NP的spec位置，

整個NP即為GC

因此anaphor must be bound。

相較於前兩句

這兩句的pronoun在GC裏must be free

Implicit Arguments

bind

bind

bind

bind

Consider the grammaticality contrast in the following pair

Problems in the Binding Theory�- Implicit Arguments

2b. They_i heard [_NP stories about them_i]

The grammaticality of (2b) raises a problem:

the pronoun them is coindexed with a c-commanding NP.

If the GC of the pronoun is the entire sentence, as it is structurally parallel to (2a),

then the grammaticality of the sentence is unexpected.

- An explanation suggests that the interpretation of (2a) in comparison with (2b)

is based on who does the story-telling.

Therefore, Chomsky proposes that there is an implicit subject inside the NPs.

3a. *They_i told [_NP SU_i stories about them_i]

3b. They_i heard [_NP SU_j stories about them_i]

- In (2a) the pronoun is bound, hence violates Principle B of the binding theory.

2a. *They_i told [_NP stories about them_i]

GC

bind

GC

bind

?