On the Status of Binding Out of Nominals

Daniel Plensiak (2022 USC PhD Graduate)

plesniak@usc.edu

The Korean Generative Grammar Circle Spring Conference,

May 13^th, 2023

1

Introduction

2

Main Claims

• As claimed in Reinhart 1983, there is a definite relationship between bound variable anaphora (BVA) interpretations and syntactic structure (via c-command)

​

• This relationship is obscured by other sources of BVA, which has historically resulted in confusion with regards to the status of so-called possessor binding and other such phenomena.

​

• By applying careful diagnostic tests, we can disentangle the effects of each source, allowing us to clearly see the constraining effects of c-command on BVA.

3

Outline

• First, a brief background on the meaning and significance of “binding out of nominals” and the approach to be taken to analyzing it.

​

• Then, the predictions of said approach, which involve diagnosing the properties of a given binder and bindee for a given individual at a given time and using said properties to determine when BVA will or will not be possible.

​

• Finally, evidence from the judgements of myself and others (speakers of English, Korean, and Japanese) which bear out the predictions in question.

4

Background

5

Bound Variable Anaphora

• BVA(X, Y) is an interpretation where the individual “denoted” by Y ranges over the set of individuals “denoted” by X. (Hoji 2015)

​

• In (1), the BVA(every teacher, his) reading is the one in which each teacher praises his own student (John praised John’s student, Bill praised Bill’s student, etc.)�� (1) Every teacher praised his student.

​

• This contrasts with a reading where ‘his student’ refers to one individual’s student in particular, say, John’s student, who was praised by every teacher.

6

C-command and BVA

• Reinhart 1983’s c-command-based account of BVA holds that BVA(X, Y) is possible only if X c-commands Y.
• This is consistent with BVA(every teacher, his)’s general acceptance in (1), as subjects asymmetrically c-command objects.
• It further predicts that BVA(every teacher, his) ought to be acceptable in (2) (c-command achieved via reconstruction) and to not be acceptable in (3) (X not c-commanding Y.

​

(2) His student, every teacher praised.

(3) His student praised every teacher.

​

• Both of these claims are generally true (more on that later).

7

Possessor Binding

• Reinhart acknowledged, however, an immediate problem for the c-command account of BVA, possessor binding (a.k.a. “spec-binding) constructions (Higginbotham, 1980) such as (4):�� (4) Every author’s mother loves his books.

​

• Many report BVA(every author, his) possible �here, despite ‘every author’ being embedded �in ‘every author’s mother’ and thus not �(traditionally at least) c-commanding ‘his’.

8

“Theory neutral” tree of (4)

Responses

• Some, most notably Kayne (1994), have tried to reform syntactic theory such that possessors in the subject do have the appropriate syntactic relationship with the object for BVA (e.g., by slightly redefining c-command)

​

• However, such accounts are are not limited to possessors; as May (1985) noted the BVA(every city, it) reading in (5) is widely accepted (where ‘every city’ is not a embedded in a possessor but in a modifying PP)�� (5) Someone from every city hates it.

​

• The exceptions appear endless, leading some, such as Barker (2012), to declare that c-command/syntactic structure does not constraint BVA at all.

9

The Multi-Source Account of BVA

• Ueyama (1998) argues for a more nuanced version of the Reinhartian account, wherein c-command-based BVA is just one of three distinct types of BVA.

​

• The other two are:
• Precedence-based BVA (BVA(X, Y) requiring X to precede Y)
• “Quirky” (semantic/pragmatic/cognitive-based) BVA, requiring certain interpretative conditions to be met.

​

• Though Ueyama does not pursue this particular topic at length, her account provides a clear solution: binding out of nominals (from possessors, PP’s, etc.) is due to non-c-command sources of BVA (precedence or quirky).

10

Experimental Evidence

• Plesniak (2022a,b) shows experimental evidence that �Ueyama’s account makes the correct predictions for �possessor-binding; when precedence and quirky-based�BVA are unavailable, possessor-binding is universally �rejected.

​

• Which choices of X and Y can participate in Quirky BVA(X, Y) is highly idiosyncratic, and must be diagnosed on an individual by individual basis, by the use of certain diagnostic tests (Hoji 2022a,b,c).
• This is true to some extent for c-command and precedence-based BVA as well.

​

• This talk aims to add further detail to these previous results, deepening our understanding of the phenomena involved via the use of linguist judgements.

11

From Plesniak 2022a

Hypotheses and Predictions

12

Three Sources, Three Patterns

• Considering the general “X within subject” schema in (6) and its scrambled/topicalized equivalent in (7):�� (6) [_Subj … X…] V [_Obj…Y…], e.g., X’s mother praised Y’s books.� (7) [_Obj…Y…], [_Subj … X…] V, e.g., Y’s books, X’s mother praised.�
• If BVA(X, Y) can be based on quirky, then BVA(X, Y) may be acceptable in either (6) or (7)
• If BVA(X, Y) cannot be based on quirky but can be based on precedence, then BVA(X, Y) may be acceptable in (6), but not in (7)
• If BVA(X, Y) cannot be based on quirky or precedence, but can be based on c-command, then BVA(X, Y) will not be acceptable in (6) or (7).

13

Diagnostic Procedure (I)

• To determine if BVA(X, Y) (for specific X and Y and a specific person at a specific time) can be based on quirky, we can follow Ueyama (1998) and check if it can occur in cases where X does not c-command or precede Y, in particular:�� (8) Y’s N V X. E.g., (3), His student praised every teacher.

​

• As Hoji 2022b discusses, there are in fact two types of quirky that can lead to BVA in (8); only one is relevant for the types of constructions we’re interested in.
• This has to do with the embedding of X; we can avoid potential issues by modifying (8) such that X is also embedded:

​

(9) Y’s N1 V X’s N2. E.g., His student praised every teacher’s friends.

​

14

Diagnostic Procedure (II)

• If we determine that a particular BVA(X, Y) cannot be based on quirky, we then determine if it can be based on precedence, by looking constructions where X precedes but clear does not c-command Y:

​

(10) [_s[_Clause…X…] [_Clause…Y…]]. � E.g., When each man enters, I will praise his tie.

​

• Further, if BVA(X, Y) acceptance in (10) is based on precedence, it should disappear when Y is moved ahead of X, as in:

(11) [_s[_Clause…Y…] [_Clause…X…]].� E.g., I will praise his tie when each man enters.� (12) [_s Y [_Clause…X…] [_Clause…___…]].� E.g., His tie, I will praise when each man enters.

15

Diagnostic Procedure (III)

• Finally, if it seems that BVA(X, Y) cannot be based on quirky or precedence, we check whether it can be based on precedence-less c-command, as in the OSV reconstruction case:

​

(13) [_Obj…Y…], [_Subj X] V. e.g., (2), His student, every teacher praised.

​

• There is a chance BVA(X, Y) cannot be based on any of these three sources (the individual never accepts it, for example) or something else is complicating the diagnosis.
• This is no problem, as we are simply trying to identify clear choices of X and Y that can be clearly diagnosed in this way for the individual in question.

16

Basic Predictions

(6) [_Subj … X…] V [_Obj…Y…].

(7) [_Obj…Y…], [_Subj … X…] V.

(8) Y’s N V X.

(9) Y’s N1 V X’s N2.

(10) [_s[_Clause…X…] [_Clause…Y…]].

(11) [_s[_Clause…Y…] [_Clause…X…]].

(12) [_s Y [_Clause…X…] [_Clause…___…]].

(13) [_Obj…Y…], [_Subj X] V.

17

For a particular individual, X, and Y

Check for Quirky BVA(X, Y) via (8) and (9)

If Possible

BVA(X, Y) may be acceptable in both (6) and (7)

Check for Precedence BVA(X, Y)�via (10), (11), and (12)

If Impossible

BVA(X, Y) may be acceptable in (6), but won’t be in (7)

If Possible

Check for C-command BVA(X, Y) via (13)

If Impossible

If Possible

BVA(X, Y) won’t be acceptable in (6) or (7)

No prediction

If Impossible

The Test

• I, a speaker of English, and two other linguists, speakers of Japanese and Korean, checked each of these three predictions against our own judgements.

​

• That is, using the diagnostics, we found X-Y pairs that
• (a) allowed quirky BVA(X, Y)
• (b) did not allow BVA(X, Y) but did allow precedence BVA(X, Y)
• (c) did not allow quirky or precedence BVA(X, Y), but did allow c-command BVA(X, Y)

​

• We then checked the acceptability of BVA(X, Y) with instantiations of (6) and (7), where X was embedded in various elements inside the subject, including possessors, modifying PP’s, and relative clauses.

18

Results

19

20

YY’s Korean–Diagnostics (I)

• Quirky: USC와 UCLA – 거기

(14) 거기의 학생들이 USC와 UCLA를 칭찬했다. BVA: ✓

“There’s students praised USC and UCLA.”

(15) 거기의 학생들이 USC와 UCLA의선생님들을 칭찬했다. BVA: ✓� “There’s students praised USC and UCLA’s professors.” �

• Precedence: 모든 작가 – 그
• 그의 친구가 모든 작가(의 작품)을 칭찬했다. BVA:﹡� “His friend praised every author(‘s work).”
• 모든 작가가 도착할 때 나는 그의 작품을 칭찬할 것이다. BVA: ✓� “When every author arrives, I will praise his work.”
• 그의 작품을 모든 작가가 도착할 때 나는 칭찬할 것이다. BVA:﹡� “His work, when every author arrives, I will praise.”

​

21

YY’s Korean–Diagnostics (II)

• C-command: 모든 작가 – 자신

(19) 자신의 친구가 모든 작가(의 작품)을 칭찬했다. BVA:﹡� “Self’s friend praised every author(‘s work).”

(20) 모든 작가가 도착할 때 나는 자신의 작품을 칭찬할 것이다. BVA:﹡� “When every author arrives, I will praise self’s work.”

21. 자신의 작품을 모든 작가가 도착할 때 나는 칭찬할 것이다. BVA:﹡� “Self’s work, when every author arrives, I will praise.”
22. 자신의 작품을 모든 작가가 칭찬한다. BVA: ✓� “Self’s work, every author praises.”

​

22

YY’s Korean–Quirky BVA

• BVA(X, Y) with X embedded in subject as possessor:

(23) USC와 UCLA의선생님들이 거기의 학생들을 칭찬했다. BVA: ✓� “USC and UCLA’s professors praised there’s students.”

(24) 거기의 학생들을 USC와 UCLA의선생님들이 칭찬했다. BVA: ✓� “There’s students, USC and UCLA’s professors praised.”

• BVA(X, Y) with X embedded in subject within PP modifier:

(25) USC와 UCLA 근처의 선생님들이 거기의 학생들을 칭찬했다. BVA: ✓� “Professors near USC and UCLA praised there’s students.”

(26) 거기의 학생들을 USC와 UCLA 근처의 선생님들이 칭찬했다. BVA: ✓� “There’s students, professors near USC and UCLA praised.”

• BVA(X, Y) with X embedded in subject within RC modifier:

(27) USC와 UCLA에 있는 선생님들이 거기의 학생들을 칭찬했다. BVA: ✓� “Professors at USC and UCLA praised there’s students.”

(28) 거기의 학생들을 USC와 UCLA에 있는 선생님들이 칭찬했다. BVA: ✓� “There’s students, professors at USC and UCLA praised.”

​

23

YY’s Korean–Precedence BVA

• BVA(X, Y) with X embedded in subject as possessor:

(29) 모든 작가의 친구가 그의 작품을 칭찬했다. BVA: ✓� “Every author’s friend praised his work.”

(30) 그의 작품을 모든 작가의 친구가 칭찬했다. BVA: ﹡� “His work, every author’s friend praised.”

• BVA(X, Y) with X embedded in subject within PP modifier:

(31) 모든 작가 옆의 사람이 그의 작품을 칭찬했다. BVA: ✓� “A person next to every author praised his work.”

(32) 그의 작품을 모든 작가 옆의 사람이 칭찬했다. BVA: ﹡� “His work, a person next to every author praised.”

• BVA(X, Y) with X embedded in subject within RC modifier:

(33) 모든 작가 옆에 있는 사람이 그의 작품을 칭찬했다. BVA: ✓� “A person who was next to every author praised his work.”

(34) 그의 작품을 모든 작가 옆에 있는 사람이 칭찬했다. BVA: ﹡� “His work, a person who was next to every author praised.”

24

YY’s Korean–C-command BVA

• BVA(X, Y) with X embedded in subject as possessor:

(29) 모든 작가의 친구가 자신의 작품을 칭찬했다. BVA: ﹡� “Every author’s friend praised self’s work.”

(30) 자신의 작품을 모든 작가의 친구가 칭찬했다. BVA: ﹡� “Self’s work, every author’s friend praised.”

• BVA(X, Y) with X embedded in subject within PP modifier:

(31) 모든 작가 옆의 사람이 자신의 작품을 칭찬했다. BVA: ﹡� “A person next to every author praised self’s work.”

(32) 자신의 작품을 모든 작가 옆의 사람이 칭찬했다. BVA: ﹡� “Self’s work, a person next to every author praised.”

• BVA(X, Y) with X embedded in subject within RC modifier:

(33) 모든 작가 옆에 있는 사람이 자신의 작품을 칭찬했다. BVA: ﹡� “A person who was next to every author praised self’s work.”

(34) 자신의 작품을 모든 작가 옆에 있는 사람이 칭찬했다. BVA: ﹡� “Self’s work, a person who was next to every author praised.”

​

25

Conclusion

26

Summary

• When BVA(X, Y) has been independently shown to depend on c-command, “binding out of nominals” is strictly impossible.

​

• Binding out of nominals can occur with non-c-command types of BVA, and these too can be diagnosed beforehand.

​

• Other than recognizing the multi-faceted nature of BVA, no changes to the our basic hypotheses (structure of nominals, definition of c-command, etc.) is necessary to handle these cases.

27

Closing Thoughts

• The problem of possessor binding has plagued generative syntax for 40 years now, apparently because different types of BVA were not distinguished from one another.

​

• Your specific judgements may differ from the ones reported here, but if you follow the diagnostic procedure (determining which X-Y pairs can yield quirky/precedence/c-command BVA(X, Y) for you), you should get the same judgement pattern reported.
• This is an instance of what Hoji (2022a) calls predicted correlations of judgements.

​

• The use of such correlations will (I hope) provide a key to solving other longstanding debates in generative linguistics where the influence of syntactic structure has been masked by the competing influence of other components of the language faculty.

28

References

• Barker Chris. 2012. Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry 43(4). 614-633.
• Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Higginbotham, James. 1980. Anaphora and GB: Some preliminary remarks. In Jensen, John (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society. Ottawa, Canada.
• Hoji, Hajime. 2015. Language Faculty Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Hoji, Hajime. 2022a. The key tenants of language faculty science. In Hajime Hoji, Daniel Plesniak, and Yukinori Takubo (eds.) The Theory and Practice of Language Faculty Science. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 117-168
• Hoji, Hajime. 2022b. Detection of c-command effects In Hajime Hoji, Daniel Plesniak, and Yukinori Takubo (eds.) The Theory and Practice of Language Faculty Science. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 169-222
• Hoji, Hajime. 2022c. Replication: Predicted correlations of judgement in Japanese. In Hajime Hoji, Daniel Plesniak, and Yukinori Takubo (eds.) The Theory and Practice of Language Faculty Science. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 223-328
• May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Plesniak, Daniel. 2022a. Towards a Correlational Law of Language: Three Factors Constraining Judgement Variation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California PhD dissertation.
• Plesniak, Daniel. 2022b. Predicted correlations of judgements in English. In Hajime Hoji, Daniel Plesniak, and Yukinori Takubo (eds.) The Theory and Practice of Language Faculty Science. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 329-356.
• Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Ueyama, Ayumi. 1998. Two Types of Dependency. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.

29

Thank you!

30

Backup: Some of DP’s English Sentences

(I) Each/No alien’s homeworld contacted its/the one’s spaceship.�(II) Its/the one’s spaceship, each/no alien’s homeworld contacted.

(III) A person near each/no alien contacted its/the one’s spaceship.�(IV) Its/the one’s spaceship, a person near each/no alien contacted.

(V) A person who knew each/no alien contacted its/the one’s spaceship.�(VI) Its/the one’s spaceship, a person who knew each/no alien contacted.

�(Diagnostic sentences following the model given in examples (8)-(13))

31

Backup: Some of HH’s English Sentences

• Check for quirky BVA (I), precedence BVA (II), c-command BVA (III), and then possessor binding.

(I) kare-no robotto-ga sono sumonotori-igai-o suisensita. � his-GEN robot-NOM that sumo.wrestler-others.than-ACC recommended� ‘Their robot recommended others than that sumo-wreslter.’ BVA: ﹡��(II) BVA: ﹡�

(III) kare-no robotto-o sono sumonotori-igai-ga suisensita. � his-GEN robot-ACC that sumo.wrestler-others.than-NOM recommended� ‘Their robot, others than that sumo-wrestler recommended.’ BVA: ✓��(IV) sono sumonotori-igai-no kompyuta-ga kare-no robotto-o suisensita.� that sumo.wrestler-others.than-NOM computer-ACC his-GEN robot-NOM recommended� ‘The computer of other’s than that sumo wrestler recommended their robot. BVA: ﹡�

32