Class Note for LINGUIST 601 at UMass(2)
Class Note for LINGUIST 601 at UMass(2)
Popular in Course
Popular in Department
This 9 page Class Notes was uploaded by an elite notetaker on Friday February 6, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to a course at University of Massachusetts taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 11 views.
Reviews for Class Note for LINGUIST 601 at UMass(2)
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 02/06/15
b Susan believes him to be a genius Pronouns do not require a sentenceiintemal antecedent However if they do have a sentence internal antecedent then it must be featureicompatible with the pronoun 7 a Vladislavi thinks that hem is a genius b Vladislavi thinks that shewMA is a genius o The antecedent of the anaphor must cicommand the anaphor 8 Stephin si mother likes himselfi a b Stephin si mother likes himi o That Stephini is always ignored irritates himselfi fl That Stephini is always ignored irritates himi Pronouns do not have a cicommand requirement The antecedents of the pronouns in 8b 1 do not cicommand them 0 The antecedent of the anaphor cannot be too far from the anaphor 9 a Stephini thinks that Claudia likes himselfi b Claudia thinks that Stephini likes himselfi The antecedent ofa pronoun cannot be too close to the anaphor 10 a Stephini thinks that Claudia likes himi b Claudia thinks that Stephini likes himi 12 Binding Domains The intuition is that anaphors must have a binder that is close enough while pronouns may not have a binder that is too close ll NP1 binds another NP iff NP1 cicommands NP and NP1 and NP are coiindexed An NP is bound iff there is an NP st NP binds NP 12 a Condition A An anaphor must be locally bound b Condition B A pronoun must not be locally bound c Condition C An Riexpression can not be bound What does locally bound mean In particular what constitutes local local in the context of the binding theory binding domain Thus the binding conditions can be restated as 13 a Condition A An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain b Condition B A pronoun must not be bound in its binding domain c Condition C An Riexpression can not be bound 14 Binding Domain Attempt l the binding domain of an NP is the smallest TP that contains it 13 Problems with 14 14 goes quite far in capturing the examples we have seen so far In fact it explains every single example discussed in this handout up until this point It can also explain cases of ambiguity like the following 15 They pointed the guns at each other Despite this it is ultimately inadequate ECM provides one environment where 14 makes incorrect predictions 16 a Vladislavi believes Tphimselfi to be a genius b Vladislavi believes Tphlmg to be a genius By 14 the binding domain ofthe subject of the embedded TP is the embedded TP Therefore we incorrectly predict that 16a should be ungrammatical and that 16b should be grammatical One might think 17 to also be a counterexample 17 a Johni tried Tp to kill himselfi b Johni tried Tp to kill himi Given our assumptions it isn t a counterexample Why We might have the intuition that what is going wrong in 16 is that we are dealing with a non nite TP and that therefore we should reformulate 14 as follows 18 Binding Domain Attempt 2 the binding domain of an NP is the smallest nite TP that contains it However ECM proves to be a problem once again 19 a Ristoi considers Liina to be fond of himselfi b Ristoi considers Liina to be fond of himi By 18 the binding domain of himselfhim in 19 is the entire sentence 7 the entire sentence is the minimal nite clause that contains the anaphorpronoun Hence 19a is incorrectly predicted to be good and 19b to be bad 0 Reverse engineering points out that we need to distinguish between the subject of an ECM in nitive and the object of an ECM in nitive The binding domain of the subject of the ECM in nitive seems to be larger than that of the object of the ECM in nitive 14 Reformulating Binding Domains 0 Binding domain of the subject of the ECM in nitive includes the clause of the ECM verb 0 Binding domain of the object of the ECM in nitive includes only the ECM in nitive 20 Binding Domain Attempt 3 the binding domain of an NP is the smallest clause that contains i the NP ii its caseimarker and iii a higher subject 2 The Role of Subjects 20 our last de nition of binding domain makes reference to the notion subject By subject we mean an NP in the SpecTP The new de nition allows us to handle properly the examples in 21 and 22 21 Subjects a Sebastieni considers Tphimselfi to be intelligent b Sebastieni considers Tphlmg to be intelligent Sebastieni believes that Tp himselfi is intelligent P d Sebastieni believes that Tp hei is intelligent 22 Objects a Sebastieni considers TpMiguel to be fond of himselfi b Sebastien considers TpMigueli to be fond of himselfi c Sebastieni believes that TpMiguel is fond of himselfi fl Sebastien believes that TpMigueli is fond of himselfi 21 Subjects Across Categories Above we de ned subject as an NP in SpecTP This assumption requires revision We already assume that subjects do not originate in SpecTP They are merged in lower 297 positions from where they raise to SpecTP to get case 23 a Roland might VpRoland visit Klaus b Roland might be Ap Roland nice Roland might be pp Roland in Amsterdam 9 1 Roland might be Np Roland a star lfwe supply case to the various 297positions then overt subjects can appear there 24 a lwatched Vp Roland visit Klaus b l ndconsider Ap Roland nice lwant pp Roland in Amsterdam 9 d lconsider Np Roland a star So we will extend subject to mean an NP that occupies the SpecXP position of any XP 22 Binding Domains don t have to be TPs The notion of binding domain made reference to the smallest clause that contains the pronounanaphor Now that we are talking about subjects across categories we will need to replace smallest clause by smallest XP The evidence 25 VP a Keni watched Vp Rolandj hit himselfjMA b Keni watched Vp Rolandj hit himicj 26 AP a Keni considers AP Rolandj fond of himselfjMA b Keni considers AP Rolandj fond of himicj 27 Bindin Domain Attem t4 the bindin domain ofan NP is the smallest XP that contains g P g i the NP ii its caseimarker and iii a subject 23 Optional Subjects NPs allow for optionality with respect to subjects ie some NPs but not all have subjects So NPs constitute a binding domain or not depending upon the presence or absence of a subject Our theory makes correct predictions with regard to the cases in 28 28 Marci will believe any positive description of himselfi a b Marci will believe Annie s description of himselfi P Marci will believe Annie s description of himW 1 Annie will believe Marc si description ofhimself j e Annie will believe Marc si description ofhiij What are the judgements about 29 Marci will believe any positive description of himi Our theory so far correctly predicts that 28a is grammatical For the same reason it should also predict that 29 is ungrammatical This is indeed the judgement reported in the literature However there seems to be a dialect split here For some speakers 29 is ungrammatical while for others it is ok Other examples are also found of environments where there is no complementarity between prof nouns and anaphors These are for the most part cases where the anaphorpronoun appears inside an NF 30 a Artemisi lost a beautiful picture of herselfi that I had given her U Artemisi lost a beautiful picture of heri that I had given her 31 a They heard stories about each otherithemselvesi b Theyi heard stories about themi Complementarity is not lost with all NPs 32 a Jacobi took a picture of himselfihimi b Jacobi saw a picture of himselfihimi Speakers pretty consistently nd complementarity in take a picture environments but there seems to be optionality for at least some speakers otherwise The generalization seems to be that complei mentarity holds in semiiidiomatic environmenst like take a picture or tell a story but not generally1 In 3032 the relevant NP is in object position Nonicomplementary distribution also emerges when the NP is in subject position 33 a Jonahi thinks that Tp a beautiful picture of himselfi is hanging on the outside wall of the gym b Jonahi thinks that Tp a beautiful picture of himi is hanging on the outside wall of the gym Various scholars have taken cases where the complementarity between anaphors and pronouns breaks down to be instantiating a different module of grammar They propose that anaphors that appear in these environments are Iogophors which they argue have distinct properties see Reinhart and Reuland 1993 Classical binding theory see Chomsky 1981 Chomsky 1986 does not make distinctions be tween anaphors in NPs and anaphors elsewhere The following extensions were proposed to handle the special issues raised by anaphors in NPs 3 Binding Theory Extensions 31 Accessible Subjects Contrast 33 which is repeated here as 34 with 35 34 a Jonahi thinks that Tp a beautiful picture of himselfi is hanging on the outside wall of the gym b Jonahi thinks that Tp a beautiful picture of himi is hanging on the outside wall of the gym 5 35 Jonahi thinks that Tp himselfi is intelligent b Jonahi thinks that Tp hei is intelligent We will focus on the contrast between 34a and 35a 36 Binding Domain Attempt 4 the binding domain ofan NP is the smallest XP that contains i the NP ii its caseimarker and iii a subject 20 The binding domain for himselfin both 34a and 35a is the embedded TP Hence we predict that both should be ungrammatical This is correct for both 35a but incorrect for 34a Now consider how the binding domain for himselfis determined for 34a and 35a 37 a For himselfin 34a caseemarker of himself of subject a beautiful picture of himself 1Implicit Arguments have been argued to play a role here See Williams 1985 b For himselfin 35a caseemarker of himself 10 subject himself The problem intuitively is that the anaphor is either contained in the subject or is the subject Such a subject is not accessible to the anaphor This suggests the following revision of the binding theory 38 Binding Domain Attempt 5 the binding domain of an NP is the smallest XP that contains i the NP ii its caseemarker and iii an accessible subject But don t we predict that 35a should be good We do But this is not a problem given that we have another way of ruling out 35a himselfis accusative but appears in a nominative position To properly test the predictions made by 38 we would need a language which has nominative anaphors o himselfin accusative subject positions does ne but this is not surprising 39 a Matti would like for himselfi to win b Matti considers himselfi to be competent 0 We also need to say that each other cannot appear in nominative positions 40 a Elena and Artemish know that each otheri isare wonderful b Elena and Artemish know that theyi are wonderful The binding domain of each other in 40a is the entire clause and so it has to be blocked by some thing other than binding theory 32 Binding Theory Compatibility We are still left with the breakdown of complementarity between the distribution of anaphors and pronouns The problem of complementarity also arises with possessive pronouns 41 a Maya likes heri husband b Mayai thinks that ldan dislikes heri husband c ldan and Doriti like each other si booksZ her as a possessive pronoun can be bound locally and also nonelocally By the de nition of binding domain sketched so far in 4la the binding domain of the pronoun should be the whole TP This incorrectly predicts that 4la should be ungrammatical due to a violation of Condn C One possibility is tojust say that the possessive her is systematically ambiguous between a pro noun her and an anaphor her own Thus 4la would involve the anaphor and 41b would involve the pronoun This line of reasoning receives some support from the fact that English doesn t seem to have a simplex possessive re exive pronoun 42 a Thomasi saw his sister 2What are thejudgements concerning ldan and Don39t think that Maya likes each other s books b Thomas saw himself si sister c Thomas saw self si sister Other languages do not have this lexical gap and there we nd what our binding theory predicts 43 Hindi a Thomasine apnii behiniko dekhiaa ThomasiErg selff s sisteriAcc seeinv Thomasi saw hisim sister b Thomasine usikii behiniko dekhiaa ThomasiErg heiGenf sisteriAcc seeinv Thomasi saw hisiMA sister This line of reasoning may be correct but it does not account for the lack of complementarity in anaphorpronoun distribution that we found with anaphorspronouns inside NPs These were cases where both a pronoun and an anaphor can felicitously appear 44 a Bruce thinks that Tp a beautiful picture of himselfhimi is hanging on the outside wall of the gym b Theyi heard stories about themthemselvesi lfwe reverse engineer from 44 and the basic binding conditions as we know them we are forced to the conclusion that contrary to our assumption anaphors and pronouns are not required to have the same binding domain In both 44a b the binding domain ofthe anaphor would include the matrix subject but the binding domain of the pronoun would not ie the binding domain of the anaphor would be bigger than the binding domain of the pronoun Why would anaphors and pronouns have different binding domains Further why would the binding domain of the anaphor be larger than the binding domain of the pronoun The following answer suggests itself anaphors need to be locally bound while pronouns need to be locally free 0 So we want to give the anaphor a binding domain where it in principle has a chance to get bound ie there is an accessible subject 0 The binding domain for the pronoun can be more conservatively de ned 7 any subject like element accessible or not will do Expletive subjects satisfy the in principle 45 a Migueli said that it seemed to himselfi that we were trying to speak Dutch b Migueli said that it seemed to himi that we were trying to speak Dutch 46 Binding Domain Final Attempt for now a For Anaphors the binding domain of an NP is the smallest XP that contains i the NP ii its caseimarker and iii an accessible subject b For Pronouns the binding domain of an NP is the smallest XP that contains i the NP ii its caseimarker and iii a subject It was mentioned earlier that there is speaker variation concerning the acceptability of 101mg saw a picture ofhimi It is possible that this variation can be related to what counts as a subject in 46 The speakers who permit coreference would be analyzing the determiner as a subject while those who do not allow for coreference will not allow it to satisfy the subject requirement 4 Digression Garden Path Sentences 47 a The daughter of the king s son likes himself Christina Willis pc b The horse raced past the barn fell c I drove my aunt from Peoria s car References Chomsky N 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding Foris Dordrecht Chomsky N 1986 Knowledge of Language its Nature Origin and Use Praeger New York NY Reinhart T and E Reuland 1993 Re exivity Linguistic Inquiry 244 6577720 Williams E 1985 PRO and the subject of NP Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33 2977315 Introduction to Transformational Grammar LINGUIST 601 November 19 2004 Binding Binding Theory determines the interpretation and distribution of pronouns and anaphors It is formulated in terms of three principles Condition A which applies to anaphors Condition B which applies to pronouns and Condition C which applies to name and other referential expressions Reexpressions We have already discussed Condition C 1 Condition C a pronoun cannot refer to an Reexpression that it cecommands We now focus on Conditions A and B of the binding theory 1 Condition A Condition A governs the distribution and interpretation of anaphors Anaphors are dependent nominal elements which must have a sentenceeinternal antecedent Unlike pronouns they can not generally refer to a sentenceeexternal contextual element Most languages have two kinds of anaphoric elements 2 a reflexives himself herself themselves myself ourselves yourself b reciprocals each other The discussion here will focus largely on re exives Most of what we will propose for re exives will also apply to reciprocals but reciprocals introduce additional complexity which we will not get into here 11 Properties of Anaphors o Anaphors unlike pronouns must have an antecedent within the sentence 3 a Himselfarrived b He arrived The ungrammaticality of 3a can be plausibly attributed to an inability of himselfto appear in a nominative position 4 does not run into this problem 4 a For himself to leave now would be good b For him to leave now would be good 0 Anaphors must have featureecompatible antecedents 5 a Stephini likes himselfi b Claudiai likes himselfi 6 a Susani believes himselfi to be a genius
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'