Syntax Binding Theory Lecture

Structural ambiguity n Syntax I n Binding theory This sentence has two possible meanings; either John said it in the kitchen, or Bill slipped in the kitchen (according to John). n n IP DP John Structural ambiguity I¢ VP I -ed V say IP DP John C that Negative Polarity Items V¢ V say I¢ V slip PP in the CP kitchen n IP DP Bill PP in the kitchen John said that Bill didn’t slip in any room in the house. Suddenly, it has only one meaning. Why? n C that VP I -ed n VP IP DP Bill John said that Bill will leave yesterday. John said that Bill will leave tomorrow. I¢ I -ed CP John said that Bill slipped in the kitchen. n John said: In no room did Bill slip. *John said in any room: Bill didn’t slip. I¢ VP slip I -ed IP DP John NPIs I¢ V say IP DP John VP I -ed * I¢ n VP I -ed CP C that Negative Polarity Items V¢ IP DP Bill V say I¢ I -dn’t VP V slip PP in any room… n PP in any CP room… C that How about: n John didn’t say that Bill slipped in any room in the house. What do we predict? IP DP Bill I¢ I -dn’t VP slip 1 IP DP John DP John VP I -dn’t V say IP NPIs I¢ I -ed V say I¢ V slip n IP DP Bill I¢ Ungrammaticality I¢ n Up to now, we have focused on describing sentences. We see that a sentence is possible, we ask how it is formed structurally. n 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. VP I -ed V¢ V say PP in any CP room… C that IP DP Bill I¢ I -dn’t n 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. n n Binding Theory n Binding Theory consists of three Principles that govern the allowed distribution of DPs. n Pronouns: he, her, it, she, … Anaphors: himself, herself, itself, … R-expressions: John, the student, … 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). We have been designing an observationally adequate system—we can do better than that. VP slip Ungrammaticality n Both meanings are good, because both possible structural positions for the NPI are c-commanded (thus licensed) by the negation. IP DP John …He said that when he was out in the yard… …He said that she slipped on the sidewalk… VP slip I -ed Ungrammaticality * n n PP in any room… 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. PP in any CP room… C that VP John didn’t say that Mary slipped in any room in the house. n V¢ IP DP Bill n n VP I -dn’t CP C that Negative Polarity Items I¢ n n 2 R-expressions n 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 n An anaphor does not get its meaning from something in the world—it depends on something else in the sentence. n n Pronouns n 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. n n n n The problem n Mary concluded that he was crazy. n n n n n n Indices and antecedents n n n 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. 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. n John told Mary that he likes pizza. Mary wondered if she agreed. …but it doesn’t need to be something in the sentence. John saw himself in the mirror. Mary bought herself a sandwich. 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 n Johni saw himselfi in the mirror. n 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. n n n 3 Indices and antecedents n Constraints on co-reference Johni saw himselfi in the mirror. Johni saw himselfi. *Himselfi saw Johni. n *John i’s mother saw himself i. n n n n 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. n 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 n Principle A What is the difference between the relationship between John and himself in the first case and in the second case? * DP i John I¢ I -ed VP V see DP i John D ’s *Himselfi saw Johni in the mirror. *Herselfi likes Maryi’s father. n *Himselfi likes Mary’s father i. n I¢ D¢ DP mother This also explains why the following sentences are ungrammatical: n IP DP IP n I -ed VP V see n DP i himself DP i himself There is nothing which c-commands and is coindexed with himself and herself. The anaphors are not bound, which violates Principle A. Binding domains n But this is not the end of the story; consider n n n Binding domains *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. n n John didn’t say that anyone likes pizza. John didn’t say that Mary called anyone. Johni saw himselfi in the mirror. Johni gave a book to himselfi. n *John i said that himself i is a genius. n *John i said that Mary dislikes himself i. n n n n What is wrong? John binds himself in every case. What is different? In the ungrammatical cases, himself is in an embedded clause. 4 Binding domains Principle A n It seems that not only does an anaphor need to be bound, it needs to be bound nearby (or locally). n n Principle A (revised): An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. n n 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 ]. n *Mary i likes [DP John’s picture of herselfi ]. n Mary i wants [DP a picture of herselfi ]. n Binding Domain (preliminary): The binding domain of an anaphor is the smallest clause containing it. Binding domain n n Let’s say this: The binding domain for an anaphor is the smallest of: n n n Pronouns 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. *Johni saw himi in the mirror. n John i said that he i is a genius. n John i said that Mary dislikes him i. n John i saw him j in the mirror. n n n How does the distribution of pronouns differ from the distribution of anaphors? It looks like it is just the opposite. Principle B n Principle B A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Principle C n 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? n *Hei likes Johni. *Shei said that Maryi fears clowns. Hisi mother likes Johni. Free Not bound n n *Johni saw himi. Johni’s mother saw himi. n n 5 Principle C n n n n Binding Theory 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. n n n n n Constraints on interpretation n n Binding Theory is about interpretation. Only a structure that satisfies Binding Theory is interpretable. 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 n If we put together a tree that isn’t interpretable, the process (derivation) is sometimes said to crash. pronounce Lexicon pronounce Lexicon Merge Workbench Workbench interpret Constraints on interpretation n 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 n Young kids (5-6 years) seem to accept sentences like (1) as meaning what (2) means for adults. n n n (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)? n interpret Merge 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? 6