52
Binding Theory (Principle A) National Changhua University of Education Course: Advance Syntax Instructor: Dr. Shuying Yang Group members: Hans (M0241016 黃達翰) Jack (M0141009 馮國政) Stephanie (M0241004 林庭瑜)

The proposal of advanced syntax, especially in binding theory

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Binding Theory

(Principle A)

National Changhua University of Education

Course: Advance Syntax

Instructor: Dr. Shuying Yang

Group members:

Hans (M0241016 黃達翰)

Jack (M0141009 馮國政)

Stephanie (M0241004 林庭瑜)

Outline

Introduction

ECM verbs in binding

Subject accessibility

DP-trace in binding

Conclusions

Pedagogical Implications

Limitations

Introduction

Background of the study

• Principle A

• (a) Susani punched herselfi on the face.

• *(b) Susani punched herselfj on the face.

Introduction

• Background of the study

• Principle B

• (a) Johni likes himj very much.

• *(b) Johni likes himi very much.

Introduction

• Background of the study

• Principle C

• (a) Ii want Johnj to leave.

• *(b) Ii want Johni to leave.

Introduction

Motivation of the Study

• (a) Ii want myselfi to be killed.

• (b) Jacki considered himselfi to be stupid.

• (c) Jack believes that he is stupid.

Introduction

Motivation of the study

• (a) Jacki takes every criticisms of himselfi.

• (b) Jacki said that Sam’s pictures of himselfi

were ugly.

Introduction

Motivation of the study

• (a) Mary is believed t to be a genius.

• (b) *Mary is believed t may be a genius.

Introduction

Motivation of the study

• (a) Sally seems t to be intelligent.

• (b) *Sally seems t will be intelligent.

ECM verbs in binding

Hans Huang

ECM Verbs in Binding

Observe the following sentences. Finiteness of

the sentences seems to affect binding situation.

1. *Johni believes himselfi is handsome.

2. Johni believes himselfi to be handsome.

ECM Verbs in Binding

Two ways to solve the problem.

1. Subject-to-object raising phenomenon

2. Redefine binding domain

Subject-to-object raising phenomenon

• The DP himself moves to the specifier of AgrOPfor case reasons, thus it moves out of the CP, its original binding domain.

• Its new binding domain will be the whole matrix sentence which contains the ECM verb ‘believe’.

• In this case, it will contain its binder (antecedent) John

• The anaphor himself would be properly bound by matrix subject John and thus the sentence is grammatical.

Redefine binding domain

• The binding domain for anaphor must contain

an XP, in which the head X governs and give

case to anaphor.

• Government: node X governs node Y if node

X c-commands node Y and there is no node G

such G is c-commanded by X and G

asymmetrically c-commands Y.

Redefine binding domain

Johni believes himselfi to be handsome.

• The matrix verb ‘believe’ governs and

exceptionally gives an accusative case to the

embedded subject ‘himself’, therefore the

binding domain for the anaphor extends to the

whole matrix clause.

• Meanwhile, ‘himself’ is bound by the matrix

subject ‘John’.

• Thus, the sentence is grammatical.

Redefine binding domain

*Johni believes himselfi is handsome.

• The embedded clause is a finite clause of CP

structure. The anaphor ‘himself’ is governed

and given a nominative case by the finite T.

• Yet, there is no binder which can bind the

anaphor ‘himself’ in its binding domain.

Therefore, ‘himself’ is free, the sentence is

ungrammatical.

Question!!!

*Johni believes himselfi is handsome.

Question:

What prevents the embedded subject from being governed by the matrix verb ‘believe’?

Answer: The CP barrier!!!!

• It is said that the CP barrier in a finite clause will be strong enough to prevent the embedded subject ‘himself’ from being governed by the external governor, namely the matrix verb ‘believe’.

CP barrier

Question!!!

However, when it comes to nonfinite

embedded clause, since the embedded subject

doesn’t have a case, the ECM verb then will

resolve this kind of CP layer to exceptionally

give an accusative case to the embedded

subject. In this case, TP alone will be too weak

to defend from the government of the external

ECM verb to the embedded subject.

John believes [TP himself to be handsome].

Johni believes himselfi to be handsome.

ECM

Redefine binding domain

More examples

3. Maryi expects herselfi to be tall.

4. *Maryi wants Johnj to help herselfi.

5. Maryi wants Johnj to help himselfj.

Redefine binding domain

Maryi expects herselfi to be tall.

• The embedded subject is governed and given an accusative case by matrix ECM verb.

• The binding domain for anaphors thus is the whole matrix sentence containing the ECM verb, not the embedded clause.

• Thus, the reflexive “herself” is properly bound by the matrix subject “Mary” and therefore the sentence is grammatical.

Redefine binding domain

*Maryi wants Johnj to help herselfi.

• The governor and case assigner for herself is

the verb help so the antecedent is ‘John’.

• Since ‘herself’ cannot find a proper binder in

its binding domain, John to herselfi, the

anaphor is free and the sentences is incorrect.

Redefine binding domain

Maryi wants Johnj to help himselfj.

• Since the reflective ‘himself’ can find a proper

binder ‘John’ in its binding domain, Johni to

help himselfi, the sentence is correct.

Problems...

However, through these two ways, we still may

falsely predict the grammaticality of the

following sentences.

• *Johni believes [any description of himselfi]i.

(Johni believes [any description of himselfi]j.

• Johni believes that a [picture of himselfi]j is on

sale.

Subject Accessibility

Jack Feng

Subject Accessibility

a. Johni thinks that a picture of himselfi is on

sale.

b. * Johni thinks that Mary bought a picture of

himselfi.

c. * Johni thinks that himselfi should win the

election.

Subject Accessibility

• Chomsky (1981) introduced the concept of the

“accessible” subject as a way of solving the

problems

• α is an accessible subject for an anaphor β if

and only if (hypothetical) coindexation

between the anaphor and the subject violates

no grammatical principle.

Subject Accessibility

a. * John thinks that Mary bought a picture of

himself.

b. * John thinks that [ a picture of himselfi]i is

on sale.

Any violation of

grammar

principle ?

Subject Accessibility

• I-Within-I Filter

• *[ …Xi…]i

• [γ . . . δ . . . ]

• *[The picture of iti]i is on the table.

• [The picture of iti ]j is on the table.

Subject Accessibility

• Johni thinks that a picture of himselfi is on sale.

• Therefore, although the minimal XP which contains the anaphor, its governor and a subject is the embedded TP, the subject of that TP is not accessible to the anaphor. Therefore, it is allowed (and required) to look higher in order to find an antecedent.

Subject Accessibility

• Definition of Accessibility

• α is accessible to β if and only if β is in the c-

command domain of α, and assignment to β of

the index of α would not violate the

i-within-i condition.

The boys were afraid [that [pictures of

themselves] would be on sale]

Subject Accessibility

Subject Accessibility

• The boys were afraid [that [γ pictures of

themselvesi]i wouldi be on sale].

• Other kinds of DP ??

– DP trace

DP-trace in Binding

Stephanie Lin

DP-trace in Binding

• DP traces occur at the two major DP-movement

transformations, Passivization and Raising.

• Since in both transformations, the trace is always co-indexed and c-commanded by its antecedent in the argument position.

• DP trace is seen as an anaphor in nature and therefore must obey Binding Condition, Principle A.

Recall:

Eg. Johni likes himselfi.

CP

Spec. C’

C TP

DP T’

Johni T VP

-s

[3rd sg.] V’ [present]

V DP

likes himselfi

DP-movements: Passivization structure

Examples:

1) Mary was awarded t the first prize.

2) Mary is believed t to be the winner.

3) *Mary is believed t may be the winner.

1) Mary was awarded t the first prize.

• The DP trace was governed by the verb “awarded”, so the Binding Domain is the whole sentence.

• And, the antecedent is the moved DP, which the antecedent binds the DP trace.

• Thus, in Passivization DP trace is like an anaphor in behavior and abides by the Principle A.

• Sentence (1) is grammatical.

2) Mary is believed t to be the winner.

CP

Spec. C’

C TP1

Binding DP T’

Domain Mary T VP

is V’

V TP2

believed DP T’

t T VP

to V’

V DP

be the winner.

3) *Mary is believed t may be the winner.

BD

CP

Spec. C’

C TP1

DP T’

Mary T VP

is V’[3rd sg.]

[present] V CP2

believed Spec. C’

C TP2

Binding Spec. T’

Domain t T G VP

may Spec. V’

[+ Finite] t V DP

be the winner.

DP-movements: Raising structure

Examples:

4) Sally seems t to be best singer.

5) *Sally seems t Mike to like t.

6) *Sally seems t will be best singer.

4) Sally seems t to be best singer.

CP

Spec. C’

C TP1

Binding DP T’

Domain Sally T VP

[3rd sg.] V’

[present] V TP2

seems DP T’

ti T VP

to V’

V DP

be the best singer.

• DP trace is in the object position governed by the

verb “like”, so the Binding Domain is the embedded

clause.

• The subject in the embedded sentence (Mike)

doesn’t have the same index as the DP trace, and the

DP trace can’t be bound by its antecedent

• Therefore, this sentence is incorrect.

(ungrammatical)

5) *Sallyi seems Mikej to like ti.

BD

6) *[TP1 Sally seems TP2 t will be best singer.BD

• DP trace is inside a tensed sentence and governed by

TENSE (the finite INFL); thus, the Binding Domain

is the embedded clause and there is no antecedent

under the lower TP (TP2).

• And, the subject of the embedded clause (the DP

trace) in the specifier of VP is raised to the higher

place, the specifier of TP2.

• So, the DP trace can’t find its antecedent.

Conclusions

• To explain ‘ECM verb’ structure problems: (2 ways)

• First, ECM verbs would have subject-to-object

raising condition.

• And, anaphors will raise to the specifier of the

AgrOP for case reason, so it moves out of its

original position in CP.

• The new binding domain with a co-indexed

antecedent c-commands anaphor, so the sentence is

grammatical.

Conclusions

• Next, we redefine the binding domain.

• Binding domain of anaphors must contain an XP,

where the head X governs and gives case to them.

• Because ECM verbs can resolve CP barriers in

nonfinite embedded clause, ECM verbs can govern

nonfinite embedded subject.

Conclusions

• One copy of an anaphor in a chain must be bound

within the smallest CP or DP containing it and the

first potential antecedent.

• Moreover, in order for a subject to count as an

“accessible” subject (potential antecedent) for an

anaphor, it must fulfill two requirements.

Conclusions

• Lastly, we check if the DP trace could follow the

Binding Condition.

• DP traces occur at the two major DP-movement

transformations, Passivization and Raising.

• In both transformations, the trace is always co-

indexed and c-commanded by its antecedent in the

argument position.

• Thus, DP trace is seen as an anaphor in nature and

obeys Principle A.

Pedagogical Implications

Based on the findings in the present project

• First, the findings could provide EFL teachers

with more professional knowledge toward

English anaphors.

• Second, EFL teachers might be able to help

students judge the grammaticality of the

usages of English anaphors as well.

Limitations

• First, the limited discussion of one language

becomes a problem.

• Second, the complexity of the sentence

structures might create some new issues.