1. Week 5b.  -Theory (with a little more binding theory) CAS LX 522 Syntax I

2. Binding Principle A of the Binding Theory (preliminary) : An anaphor must be bound. Principle A of the Binding Theory (preliminary) : An anaphor must be bound. see himself -ed DP I DP i V VP John seehimself -ed DP i IP I DP i V VP mother DP John DP i * I IP I D D ’s

3. Principle A This also explains why the following sentences are ungrammatical: This also explains why the following sentences are ungrammatical: *Himself i saw John i in the mirror. *Himself i saw John i in the mirror. *Herself i likes Mary i ’s father. *Herself i likes Mary i ’s father. *Himself i likes Mary’s father i. *Himself i likes Mary’s father i. There is nothing which c-commands and is coindexed with himself and herself. The anaphors are not bound, which violates Principle A. There is nothing which c-commands and is coindexed with himself and herself. The anaphors are not bound, which violates Principle A.

4. Binding domains But this is not the end of the story; consider But this is not the end of the story; consider *John i said that himself i likes pizza. *John i said that himself i likes pizza. *John i said that Mary called himself i. *John i said that Mary called himself i. 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. 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. John didn’t say that anyone likes pizza. John didn’t say that anyone likes pizza. John didn’t say that Mary called anyone. John didn’t say that Mary called anyone.

5. Binding domains John i saw himself i in the mirror. John i saw himself i in the mirror. John i gave a book to himself i. John i gave a book to himself i. *John i said that himself i is a genius. *John i said that himself i is a genius. *John i said that Mary dislikes himself i. *John i said that Mary dislikes himself i. What is wrong? John binds himself in every case. What is different? What is wrong? John binds himself in every case. What is different? In the ungrammatical cases, himself is in an embedded clause. In the ungrammatical cases, himself is in an embedded clause.

6. Binding domains It seems that not only does an anaphor need to be bound, it needs to be bound nearby (or locally). It seems that not only does an anaphor need to be bound, it needs to be bound nearby (or locally). Principle A (revised): An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. Binding Domain (preliminary): The binding domain of an anaphor is the smallest clause containing it. Principle A (revised): An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. Binding Domain (preliminary): The binding domain of an anaphor is the smallest clause containing it.

7. Principle A The definition of binding domain is very complicated (this occupied many syntacticians in the early ’80s). The definition of binding domain is very complicated (this occupied many syntacticians in the early ’80s). A clause (IP) delimits a binding domain. A clause (IP) delimits a binding domain. But other things do too… But other things do too… Mary likes [ DP John’s picture of himself i ]. Mary likes [ DP John’s picture of himself i ]. *Mary i likes [ DP John’s picture of herself i ]. *Mary i likes [ DP John’s picture of herself i ]. Mary i wants [ DP a picture of herself i ]. Mary i wants [ DP a picture of herself i ].

8. Binding domain Let’s say this: Let’s say this: The binding domain for an anaphor is the smallest of: The binding domain for an anaphor is the smallest of: An IP that dominates it. An IP that dominates it. A DP, with a specifier, that dominates it. A DP, with a specifier, that dominates it. Note! This is not perfect, but it is a pretty close approximation. Note! This is not perfect, but it is a pretty close approximation.

9. Pronouns *John i saw him i in the mirror. *John i saw him i in the mirror. John i said that he i is a genius. John i said that he i is a genius. John i said that Mary dislikes him i. John i said that Mary dislikes him i. John i saw him j in the mirror. John i saw him j in the mirror. How does the distribution of pronouns differ from the distribution of anaphors? How does the distribution of pronouns differ from the distribution of anaphors? It looks like it is just the opposite. It looks like it is just the opposite.

10. Principle B Principle B A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Free Not bound Principle B A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Free Not bound *John i saw him i. *John i saw him i. John i ’s mother saw him i. John i ’s mother saw him i.

11. Principle C 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? 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? *He i likes John i. *He i likes John i. *She i said that Mary i fears clowns. *She i said that Mary i fears clowns. His i mother likes John i. His i mother likes John i.

12. Principle C Binding is a means of assigning reference. Binding is a means of assigning reference. R-expressions have intrinsic reference; they can’t be assigned their reference from somewhere else. R-expressions have intrinsic reference; they can’t be assigned their reference from somewhere else. R-expressions can’t be bound, at all. R-expressions can’t be bound, at all. Principle C An r-expression must be free. Principle C An r-expression must be free.

13. Binding Theory Principle A. An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. Principle A. An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. Principle B. A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Principle B. A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Principle C. An r-expression must be free. 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. 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). Bound: coindexed with a c-commanding antecedent (Free: not bound).

14. Constraints on interpretation Binding Theory is about interpretation. Binding Theory is about interpretation. Only a structure that satisfies Binding Theory is interpretable. Only a structure that satisfies Binding Theory is interpretable. Lexicon Workbench Merge pronounce interpret

15. Constraints on interpretation If we put together a tree that isn’t interpretable, the process (derivation) is sometimes said to crash. If we put together a tree that isn’t interpretable, the process (derivation) is sometimes said to crash. Lexicon Workbench Merge pronounce interpret

16. Constraints on interpretation If we succeed in putting together a tree that is interpretable (satisfying the constraints), we say the process (derivation) converges. If we succeed in putting together a tree that is interpretable (satisfying the constraints), we say the process (derivation) converges. Lexicon Workbench Merge pronounce interpret

17. Exercise to ponder Young kids (5-6 years) seem to accept sentences like (1) as meaning what (2) means for adults. Young kids (5-6 years) seem to accept sentences like (1) as meaning what (2) means for adults. (1) Mama Bear is pointing to her. (1) Mama Bear is pointing to her. (2) Mama Bear is pointing to herself. (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)? 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)? 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? 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?

18. *MB i is pointing to her i. (1) *Mama Bear i is pointing to her i. (1) *Mama Bear i is pointing to her i. (2) Mama Bear i is pointing to herself i. (2) Mama Bear i is pointing to herself i. Principle B: A pronoun must be free within its binding domain. Free = not bound. Bound by = coindexed with and c-commanded by. Principle B: A pronoun must be free within its binding domain. Free = not bound. Bound by = coindexed with and c-commanded by. (3) Mama Bear i is pointing to her j. (3) Mama Bear i is pointing to her j. Indexes signify a “pointing relation”. Coindexation implies coreference. Indexes signify a “pointing relation”. Coindexation implies coreference. Raining implies wet streets. Do wet streets imply raining? Raining implies wet streets. Do wet streets imply raining?

19. Verbs and arguments Verbs come in several types… Verbs come in several types… Some have only a subject, they can’t have an object—the intransitive verbs. Some have only a subject, they can’t have an object—the intransitive verbs. Sleep: Bill slept; *Bill slept the book. Sleep: Bill slept; *Bill slept the book. Some need an object—the transitive verbs. Some need an object—the transitive verbs. Hit: *Bill hit; Bill hit the pillow. Hit: *Bill hit; Bill hit the pillow. Some need two objects—ditransitive verbs. Some need two objects—ditransitive verbs. Put: *Bill put; *Bill put the book; Bill put the book on the table. Put: *Bill put; *Bill put the book; Bill put the book on the table.

20. Verbs and arguments The “participants” in an event denoted by the verb are the arguments of that verb. The “participants” in an event denoted by the verb are the arguments of that verb. Some verbs require one argument (subject), some require two arguments (subject and object), some require three arguments (subject, indirect object, direct object). Some verbs require one argument (subject), some require two arguments (subject and object), some require three arguments (subject, indirect object, direct object).

21. Predicates We will consider verbs to be predicates which define properties of and/or relations between the arguments. We will consider verbs to be predicates which define properties of and/or relations between the arguments. Bill hit the ball Bill hit the ball There was a hitting, Bill did the hitting, the ball was affected by the hitting. There was a hitting, Bill did the hitting, the ball was affected by the hitting. Different arguments have different roles in the event. (e.g., The hitter, the hittee) Different arguments have different roles in the event. (e.g., The hitter, the hittee)

22. Subcategorization Not all transitive verbs (that take just one object) can take the same kind of object. Not all transitive verbs (that take just one object) can take the same kind of object. Sue knows [ DP the answer ] Sue knows [ DP the answer ] Sue knows [ CP that Bill left early ] Sue knows [ CP that Bill left early ] Sue hit [ DP the ball ] Sue hit [ DP the ball ] *Sue hit [ CP that Bill left early] *Sue hit [ CP that Bill left early] So know can take either a DP or a CP as its object argument; hit can only take a DP as its object argument. So know can take either a DP or a CP as its object argument; hit can only take a DP as its object argument.

23. Selection Verbs also exert semantic control of the kinds of arguments they allow: selection. Verbs also exert semantic control of the kinds of arguments they allow: selection. For example, many verbs can only have a volitional (agentive) subject: For example, many verbs can only have a volitional (agentive) subject: Bill likes pizza. Bill kicked the stone. Bill likes pizza. Bill kicked the stone. #Pizza likes anchovies. #The stone kicked Bill. #Pizza likes anchovies. #The stone kicked Bill.

24. The lexicon A major component of our knowledge of a language is knowing the words and their properties (the lexicon). A major component of our knowledge of a language is knowing the words and their properties (the lexicon). In the lexicon, we have the words (lexical items) stored with their properties, like: In the lexicon, we have the words (lexical items) stored with their properties, like: Syntactic category (N, V, Adj, P, C, I, …) Syntactic category (N, V, Adj, P, C, I, …) Number of arguments required Number of arguments required Subcategorization requirements (syntax) Subcategorization requirements (syntax) Selectional requirements (semantics) Selectional requirements (semantics) Pronunciation Pronunciation … These pretty much just have to be learned separately for each verb in the language. These pretty much just have to be learned separately for each verb in the language.

25. Thematic relations It has come to be standard practice to think of the selectional restrictions in terms of the thematic relation that the argument has to the verb—the role it plays in the event. It has come to be standard practice to think of the selectional restrictions in terms of the thematic relation that the argument has to the verb—the role it plays in the event. One thematic relation is agent of an action, like Bill in: One thematic relation is agent of an action, like Bill in: Bill kicked the ball. Bill kicked the ball.

26. Common thematic relations Agent: initiator or doer in the event Agent: initiator or doer in the event Theme: affected by the event, or undergoes the action Theme: affected by the event, or undergoes the action Bill kicked the ball. Bill kicked the ball. Experiencer: feel or perceive the event Experiencer: feel or perceive the event Bill likes pizza. Bill likes pizza. Proposition: a statement, can be true/false. Proposition: a statement, can be true/false. Bill said that he likes pizza. Bill said that he likes pizza.

27. Thematic relations Goal: Goal: Bill ran to Copley Square. Bill ran to Copley Square. Bill gave the book to Mary. (Recipient) Bill gave the book to Mary. (Recipient) Source: Source: Bill took a pencil from the pile. Bill took a pencil from the pile. Instrument: Instrument: Bill ate the burrito with a plastic spork. Bill ate the burrito with a plastic spork. Benefactive: Benefactive: Bill cooked dinner for Mary. Bill cooked dinner for Mary. Location: Location: Bill sits under the tree on Wednesdays. Bill sits under the tree on Wednesdays.

28. Thematic relations Armed with these terms, we can describe the semantic connection between the verb and its arguments. Armed with these terms, we can describe the semantic connection between the verb and its arguments. Ray gave a grape to Bill. Ray gave a grape to Bill. Ray: Agent, Source, … Ray: Agent, Source, … A grape: Theme A grape: Theme Bill: Goal, Recipient, … Bill: Goal, Recipient, …

29.  -roles An argument can participate in several thematic relations with the verb (e.g., Agent, Goal). An argument can participate in several thematic relations with the verb (e.g., Agent, Goal). In the syntax, we assign a special connection to the verb called a “  -role”, which is a collection of thematic relations. In the syntax, we assign a special connection to the verb called a “  -role”, which is a collection of thematic relations. For the purposes of syntax, the  -role (the collection of relations) is much more central than the actual relations in the collection. For the purposes of syntax, the  -role (the collection of relations) is much more central than the actual relations in the collection.

30.  -roles We will often need to make reference to a particular  -role, and we will often do this by referring to the most prominent relation in the collection. We will often need to make reference to a particular  -role, and we will often do this by referring to the most prominent relation in the collection. For example, in Bill hit the ball, we say that Bill has the “Agent  -role”, meaning it has a  -role containing the Agent relation, perhaps among others. For example, in Bill hit the ball, we say that Bill has the “Agent  -role”, meaning it has a  -role containing the Agent relation, perhaps among others.

31. The Theta Criterion Although an argument can have any number of thematic relations in the  - role… Although an argument can have any number of thematic relations in the  - role… Each argument has exactly one  -role. Each argument has exactly one  -role. On the other side, verbs (as we’ve seen) are recorded in the lexicon with the number of participants they require; each participant must have a  -role as well. On the other side, verbs (as we’ve seen) are recorded in the lexicon with the number of participants they require; each participant must have a  -role as well.

32. The Theta Criterion Verbs have a certain number of  -roles to assign (e.g., say has two), and each of those must be assigned to a distinct argument. Verbs have a certain number of  -roles to assign (e.g., say has two), and each of those must be assigned to a distinct argument. Meanwhile, every argument needs to have exactly one  -role (it needs to have at least one, it can’t have more than one). Meanwhile, every argument needs to have exactly one  -role (it needs to have at least one, it can’t have more than one). This requirement that there be a one-to-one match between the  -roles a verb has to assign and the arguments receiving  -roles is the Theta Criterion. This requirement that there be a one-to-one match between the  -roles a verb has to assign and the arguments receiving  -roles is the Theta Criterion.

33. Theta Grids We can formalize the information about  -roles in the lexical entry for a verb by using a theta grid, like so: We can formalize the information about  -roles in the lexical entry for a verb by using a theta grid, like so: The columns each represent a  -role, the indices in the lower row will serve as our connection to the actual arguments; e.g. The columns each represent a  -role, the indices in the lower row will serve as our connection to the actual arguments; e.g. John i gave [the book] j [to Mary] k. John i gave [the book] j [to Mary] k. giveSource/AgentThemeGoal ijk

34. Theta Grids John i gave [the book] j [to Mary] k. John i gave [the book] j [to Mary] k. giveSource/AgentThemeGoal ijk The first  -role is assigned to the subject. It is the external  -role. It is often designated by underlining it. The other  -role are internal  -roles.

35. Theta Grids The  -roles in the theta grid are obligatory. (Optional things like on the hill are not in the  -grid). The  -roles in the theta grid are obligatory. (Optional things like on the hill are not in the  -grid). Adjuncts are related to the verb via thematic relations (e.g., instrument, location, etc.), but an adjunct does not get a  -role. They are optional. Adjuncts are related to the verb via thematic relations (e.g., instrument, location, etc.), but an adjunct does not get a  -role. They are optional. giveSource/AgentThemeGoal ijk

36. The Theta Criterion in action An example: push. An example: push. Bill i pushed the shopping cart j. Bill i pushed the shopping cart j. Fine, push assigns two  -roles, one (the external  -role) is assigned to Bill, the other (the internal  -role) is assigned to the shopping cart. There are two arguments here, each gets a  -role. Fine, push assigns two  -roles, one (the external  -role) is assigned to Bill, the other (the internal  -role) is assigned to the shopping cart. There are two arguments here, each gets a  -role. *Bill i pushed. (j?) *Bill i pushed. (j?) *Bill i pushed the shopping cart j the corner ?. *Bill i pushed the shopping cart j the corner ?. pushAgentTheme ij

37. The Theta Criterion in action An example: cough. An example: cough. Bill i coughed. Bill i coughed. Fine, cough assigns one  -role (the external  -role), to Bill. There are one arguments here, and it gets a  -role. Fine, cough assigns one  -role (the external  -role), to Bill. There are one arguments here, and it gets a  -role. *Bill i coughed the shopping cart ?. *Bill i coughed the shopping cart ?. coughAgent i

38. “Argument”? The  -criterion: The  -criterion: every  -role in the  -grid is assigned to exactly one argument. every  -role in the  -grid is assigned to exactly one argument. every argument is assigned exactly one  -role. every argument is assigned exactly one  -role. The second half protects us against superfluous arguments. But it’s hard to evaluate this if we don’t know what an argument is. The second half protects us against superfluous arguments. But it’s hard to evaluate this if we don’t know what an argument is. It’s hard to say, actually. There are some further concepts that we should have before we can even start to state this accurately. For now, let’s just suppose that DPs and CPs are necessarily arguments, and PPs usually aren’t. It’s hard to say, actually. There are some further concepts that we should have before we can even start to state this accurately. For now, let’s just suppose that DPs and CPs are necessarily arguments, and PPs usually aren’t.

39. The EPP With the Theta Criterion in our toolbox, let’s take a look at a special kind of sentence (which will turn out to tell us something important about syntax). With the Theta Criterion in our toolbox, let’s take a look at a special kind of sentence (which will turn out to tell us something important about syntax). It rained. It rained. It snowed. It snowed. How many  -roles does rain assign? How many  -roles does rain assign? If we think about it, it doesn’t really mean anything at all. It is not a participant in the event; it really can’t be getting a  -role. (cf. also Spanish). If we think about it, it doesn’t really mean anything at all. It is not a participant in the event; it really can’t be getting a  -role. (cf. also Spanish).

40. The EPP So, the theta grid for rain really looks like this: So, the theta grid for rain really looks like this:

41. The EPP Given the  -Criterion and the fact that rain doesn’t have any  -roles to assign, what’s it doing there? And why doesn’t it violate the  -Criterion? Given the  -Criterion and the fact that rain doesn’t have any  -roles to assign, what’s it doing there? And why doesn’t it violate the  -Criterion? As to the first question, the conclusion that syntacticians have come to is that the it is there due to a separate constraint, which goes by the name EPP. As to the first question, the conclusion that syntacticians have come to is that the it is there due to a separate constraint, which goes by the name EPP.

42. The EPP The EPP All clauses have subjects. The EPP All clauses have subjects. The idea is that there must be something in the subject position (SpecIP) of every clause. The idea is that there must be something in the subject position (SpecIP) of every clause. Because rain has no arguments (no  -roles), a special, contentless pronoun (it) has to be inserted to in order to have a grammatical sentence. This kind of “empty it” is called an expletive or a pleonastic pronoun. It is not an argument (in this use). Because rain has no arguments (no  -roles), a special, contentless pronoun (it) has to be inserted to in order to have a grammatical sentence. This kind of “empty it” is called an expletive or a pleonastic pronoun. It is not an argument (in this use).

43.                       