1.

Anaphoric relations and overt NPs

Introduction

So far we have been looking at formal properties of sentences. We saw that the
obligatory constituents of a sentence are required by:
The Projection principle:
Theta-theory:
We have formulated an articulated theory of phrase structure: X´ Theory.
We have discussed the distribution of NPs as regulated by Case Theory:

Today we will turn to some aspects of the interpretation of noun phrases. The module of
the grammar regulating NP interpretation will be referred to as The Binding Theory.
Remember that we are studying The Government and Binding Theory developed by
Chomsky in 1981. Government is already shown to be a structural property which is
involved in syntactic processes such as theta-marking and case-marking.

The Binding Theory is the module of the grammar that will be responsible for assigning
an appropriate interpretation to the following NPs in sentences like:

1- John admires him

2- John hurt himself
3- Mary said that she felt rather ill
4- Mary expected her to feel a little better
5- He expected Mary to feel a little better
6- He said that Mary felt a little better

We can distinguish three types of NPs:

(i) full noun phrases such as John and Mary

(ii) pronouns such as he and him
(iii) reflexive elements such as himself

Full nominal expressions refer independently. This means that the use of the full NP
indicates that there is, or is thought to be, an entity which is identifiable by the NP.
Pronouns, on the other hand, do not allow us to identify a uniquely specified referent.
We need a context to identify them:

A. What about Peter ?

B. John admires him.
The binding theory provides an explicit formulation of the grammatical constraints on
NP. The binding theory essentially examines the relations between NPs in A-positions,
it is a theory of A-binding.
The binding theory contains three principles, each of which will regulate the
distribution and interpretation of one specific type of NP.

Principle A: regulates the interpretation of elements which are referentially dependent,

such as reflexives. Principle A imposes that they (reflexives) are linked to, or bound
by, an NP in an A-position within a certain domain, the binding domain.

In John hurt himself, the reflexive himself must be bound by the subject NP John.

Principle B: This principle constraints the interpretation of pronouns: pronouns should

not be linked to an NP in an A-position within the binding domain.
The pronoun him must not be bound by the subject NP John in John admires him.

Principle C: determines the distribution and interpretation of referential expressions

like the NP John. This principle says that referential expressions must not be bound by
NPs in A-positions. He expected Mary to feel a little better. Mary cannot be interpreted
as being coreferential with he.

1. Reflexives

The reflexive and its antecedent must agree with respect to the nominal features of
person, gender and number. They depend for its interpretation on the antecedent, so,
they must be bound by an antecedent. Lack of agreement leads to ungrammaticality:

*John hurt herself

*John hurt themselves
*John hurt myself

Pronouns may also function as antecedents for reflexives:

He has hurt himself

But now consider the following sentences:

John hurt himself

*John thinks that Mary hurt himself

The first sentence is clearly grammatical

because………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….
 Why do you think the second sentence is not grammatical?
The answer is that reflexives need an antecedent (with which they agree with respect
to the features of person, gender and number) and that the antecedent must not be
too far away from the reflexive. How far? We say that the antecedent must be
bound in some local domain, the binding domain, that is, in the same clause
(IP): This is known as clause-mate condition

Mary thinks that John has hurt himself

But this condition is not enough to allow for binding of a reflexive:

*I expect himself to invite John

The reflexive and the antecedent appear in the same IP but the sentence is not
grammatical. We say that the antecedent must precede the reflexive:

I expect John to invite himself

And also there is another rule for the interpretation of reflexives:

*John´s sister invited himself

John´s brother invited himself

Reflexives must be c-commanded by its antecedent.

Binding
A binds B iff
(i) A c-commands B
(ii) A and B are coindexed

Draw the tree diagram of John´s brother invited himself

The Domain of Reflexive Binding

We have said that a reflexive must be bound by a clause-mate antecedent.

Consider the following example:

John believes himself to be the best

It is easy to see that the relation between himself and John does not satisfy the Principle
A. Why? ………………………………………………………………………………......
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
So, in order to accommodate such examples we will need to extend the domain in which
the reflexive must be bound.
The sentence above is an example of ECM where the verb believe assigns case to the
NP himself in order to satisfy The Case Filter. he NP himself is the subject of a lower
clause and also the reflexive is governed by the verb of the matrix clause, The sentence
is grammatically correct and this fact apparently allows us to extend the domain in
which we may look for an antecedent. Therefore, we reformulate Principle A:
A reflexive X must be bound in the minimal domain containing X and X´s
governor and a subject

The reformulation extends the local domain and also is complete in the sense that it
contains all the functions determined by the projection principle. It contains a head of a
projection, the predicate which assigns the theta-roles, the complements, to which the
internal theta-roles are assigned, and the subject, to which external theta-role is
assigned. For this reason, Chomsky refers to the domain defined above as a complete
functional complex (CFC)

Check the rule in the following sentences proceeding as follows:

- Find the governor of the reflexive
- 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, that is, coindexed with a c-commanding (an
agreeing) antecedent.

(1) *John believes that himself is the best

(2) *John believes Mary´s description of himself
(3) John believes himself to be the best
(4) John believes any description of himself
(5) Mary believes John´s description of himself
2. Anaphors: Reflexives and Reciprocals

We have seen that reflexives cannot refer independently, they receive their
interpretation by virtue of being bound by an antecedent. Reciprocals such as each
other are also referentially dependent and are subject to the same interpretative
constraints as reflexives.

(1) The students attacked each other

(2) * The student attacked each other
(3) * Each other are ill
(4) The students invited each other
(5) *the student invited each other

What do you think is the most relevant characteristic of reciprocals?

Could you explain the ungrammaticality of sentence (3)?

From now on we use the general label anaphor to refer to referentially dependent NP
types: reflexives and reciprocals.

Interpretation of anaphors:
An anaphor must be bound in its governing category

3. Pronouns

Consider the interpretation of the pronoun in:

(1) Peter had hurt him

(2) Peter had hurt himself

The pronoun him must refer to an entity different from the subject Peter.
The reflexive himself being in the same position needs to be bound while the pronoun
must be free.
The question arises whether the domain in which pronouns must be free is identical to
that in which anaphors must be bound.
Provide the proper co-indexation of the pronouns in the following sentences:

(3) I expect him to invite John

(4) John invited him
(5) Mary hurt him
(6) He has hurt him
(7) John thinks that Mary hurt him
(8) John´s sister invited him
(9) John´s brother invited him
(10) John believes him to be the best
(11) John believes that he is the best
(12) John believes any description of him
(13) Mary believes John´s description of him

In (3) the pronoun is possible in the subject position of the non-finite clause. The
corresponding example with the reflexive was ungrammatical, could you explain why?

Interpretation of pronouns:

A pronoun must be free in its governing category;

Where
(i) the governing category is the minimal domain containing the pronoun,
its governor and an accessible subject
(ii) free is not bound

Conclusions:

A pronoun if bound, must be outside its governing category, for example:

Johni thinks [that [Mary doesn´t like himi]]

The pronoun must not be c-commanded by an NP. Although the pronoun is in the same
sentence: Binding= c-command and coindexation.

John´si sister invited himi/j

[John´si brother]i invited himj/*i

Consider:

John, Mary doesn´t like him

Remember that the principles established here concern A-binding. The NP John is in an
A´ position, that is, a non-argument position. Why is it not in A-position? What´s the
position of the NP John?
 This is known as left-dislocation: two objects or subjects appear in sentence structure:
one within the IP in the form of a pronominal DP and the other a non-pronominal DP in
the left or in the right periphery of the sentence, hence the terms left dislocation or right
dislocation: He insisted on buying all CDs, that guy.
4. Referential expressions

Referential expressions or R-expressions have independent reference, they do not need

an antecedent:

Johni says that hej is leaving

[His brother]i likes Johnj very much

Principle C:

R-expressions must be free everywhere

5. NP Types and features

NPs as features complexes

Anaphors have the features [+ anaphor, - pronominal]

Pronouns have the features [- anaphor, + pronominal]
R-expressions have the features [-anaphor, -pronominal]
PRO (non-overt NP) has the features [+ anaphor, +pronominal]

Explain the following sentences according to the Binding Theory:

[To teach oneself linguistics] is exciting

It is not always easy [to defend yourself in public]

The features of PRO:

Consider:

(1) John is considering whether PRO to abandon the investigation

(2) John needed a lot of courage PRO to abandon the investigation

(3) John was glad PRO to abandon the investigation

(4) PRO to abandon the investigation would be regrettable

Do you think that the interpretation of PRO is the same in all the above sentences?

The distribution of PRO:

Would it be possible to find PRO as the subject of a finite clause? Can PRO be found in
a direct object position? Is it always the subject of a non-finite clause?

Consider:

(5)*John wondered whether PRO to invite PRO

(6)*John wondered whether he should invite PRO

(7)*PRO should invite the sergeant

(8)*John wondered whether PRO should invite someone

(9)*John preferred very much for PRO to destroy something

(10)*John believed PRO to be the best detective

(5) and (6) shows that the non-overt element PRO cannot be used as a direct object. The
ungrammaticality of the sentences is due to the presence of PRO in the object position
of invite. If we replace PRO by an overt NP the sentence become grammatical
 (7) and (8) suggests that PRO cannot appear as the subject of finite clauses whether
they be main clauses or subordinate ones. If we replace PRO by an overt NP the
sentence become grammatical.

(9) and (10) provides evidence that although PRO may be the subject of some infinitival
clauses, not every infinitival construction allows PRO as its subject.

PRO and overt NPs

(11) John preferred very much PRO to invite the sergeant

(12) PRO to invite the policeman would be regrettable

(13) John wondered whether PRO to invite anyone

(14) John wondered whether he should invite anyone

(15) You should invite the sergeant

(16) John wondered whether he should invite someone

(17) John preferred very much for the detectives to destroy something
(18) John believed Peter to be the best detective

(19)*John preferred very much the police to invite the sergeant

(20) *Anyone to invite the policeman would be regrettable

Why do you think (19) and (20) are ungrammatical?