# 69112305

Document Sample

```					Research on Syntax Theories and Applications
Chapter 9
69112305

Chapter 9 Binding Theory and Control

Exercise 9.1
Show how the occurrence of the reflexive is consistent with the relevant binding condition in
examples (i-iii), and explain why examples (iv-vi) are excluded:

i)    Bill believes himself to be a good soccer player.
[IP Billi believes [IP himselfi to be a good soccer player]]

This embedded clause is non-finite, so it does not include a governor for the anaphor himself.

Therefore, the anaphor himself can occur in the ECM subject position, and be bound by the subject

of the root clause, namely Bill. The subject Bill has the same index with the reflexive himself, and

c-commands it. Thus, the reflexive himself has the antecedent Bill in the sentence.

ii)   Bill resents John’s criticism of himself.
[IP Billi resents [DP [John’s]j [D' D [NP criticism of himselfj]]]]

DP here includes a subject John’s, and the governor of the anaphor himself, so it qualifies as

the ‘local domain’ of the anaphor. In other words, the reflexive himself is bound within DP.

Moreover, the subject of DP John’s c-commands the reflexive himself, and they have the same index.

Thus, John’s is the antecedent of the reflexive himself.

The subject John shares the same number, person and gender features with the reflexive

himself. According to Binding theory, the r-expression John is co-indexed with the anaphor himself.

John also c-commands the anaphor. Then we could say that the r-expression John binds the anaphor

himself. In other words, John is the antecedent of the reflexive himself. Therefore, the occurrence of

the reflexive himself in (iii) is consistent with the Binding Condition A, which an anaphor must be

1
bound in its GC.

iv) *Bill believes that himself is a good soccer player.
*[IP Bill believes [CP that [IP himself is a good soccer player]]]

The reflexive himself is in the subject position of the embedded finite clause. According to

Nominative Island Condition (NIC), the anaphor himself must be bound within the embedded

clause. However, the anaphor himself does not have its antecedent in the embedded clause. All in all,

the anaphor is excluded from the subject position of an embedded finite clause.

v)   *Bill resents Mary’s criticism of himself.
*[IP Billi resents [DP [Mary’s]j [D' D [NP criticism of himselfj]]]]

DP here includes a subject Mary’s, and the governor of the anaphor himself, so it qualifies as

the ‘local domain’ of the anaphor. In other words, the reflexive himself is bound within DP.

Although the subject of DP Mary’s c-commands the reflexive himself, they do not have the same

gender feature. Thus, Mary’s does not bind the reflexive himself. Moreover, the reflexive himself

cannot be bound from outside DP due to its local domain.

Although the subject Mary c-commands the reflexive himself, the subject Mary does not share

the same gender feature with the reflexive himself. In other words, they have different indices.

Therefore, the reflexive is not consistent with the Binding Condition A. Then this sentence is

excluded.

Exercise 9.2
Show how the occurrence of the pronoun is consistent with the relevant binding condition in
examples (i-iii), and explain why examples (iv-v) are excluded. The intended interpretations are as
indicated by the indices:

i)   Billi appreciates hisi supporters.
[IP Billi appreciates hisi supporters]

2
Due to the Binding Condition B, the pronoun his must be free in its ‘local domain’. It also can

refer to the subject Bill because they share the same index.

ii)   Billi believes that hei will be a good striker.
[IP Billi believes [CP that [IP hei will be a good striker]]]

The pronoun he is in the subject position of the embedded finite clause. According to Binding

Condition B, the pronoun must be free in its GC, so it cannot be bound in the embedded clause. It

shares the same index with the root subject Bill, so it can refer to the root subject Bill.

iii) Johni does not admire himj.
[IP Johni does not admire himj]

The pronoun him is not bound within the clause due to Binding Condition B. The subject John

doesn’t serve as an antecedent for the pronoun which refers to an individual included in the

discourse.

iv) *Billi believes himi to be a good striker.
*[IP Billi believes [IP himi to be a good striker]]

Although the pronoun him is located in the subject position of the embedded non-finite clause,

it is bound within the root subject Bill. The pronoun him in this sentence refers to the root subject

Bill. However, the pronoun must be free in its GC. Therefore, this sentence is excluded.

The pronoun him is bound within the clause. However, the pronoun must be free in the clause

which includes it. Thus, this sentence is excluded.

Exercise 9.3
Explain how the examples in (i-v) are excluded by the theory outlined in this chapter. The intended
interpretations are as indicated by the indices:

i)    *He thinks that the fans admire Billi.
*[IP Hei thinks [CP that [IP the fans admire Billi]]]
3
The r-expression Bill cannot have an antecedent in the sentence. In this sentence, however, it is

co-indexed with the pronoun in the subject position of the root clause. Then this sentence is

excluded.

ii)   *Which playeri does hei admire most?
*[CP which playeri [C' does [IP hei admire ti most]]]
for which player x, x admires x

The pronoun in the subject position of the sentence is co-indexed with the variable. In other

words, the wh-phrase has croseed over a coindexed pronoun in the subject position. However, a

variable cannot be co-indexed with a pronoun to its left due to the Crossover. Therefore, this

sentence is excluded.

iii) *Which playeri do hisi fans admire?
*[CP which playeri [C' do [IP hisi fans admire ti]]]
for which player x, x’s fans admire x

This is an instance of Weak Crossover (WCO). The pronoun in the subject position of DP does

not c-command the variable and therefore does not bind it. Therefore, the variable cannot be

co-indexed with the pronoun.

*[IP everyonei [IP [DP hisi [D' D [NP fans]]] admire ti]]
for every x, x’s fans admire x

This is an instance of Weak Crossover (WCO). The pronoun in the subject position of DP

cannot have a co-indexation with a raised quantifier. Therefore, this sentence is excluded.

v)    *PRO left early.

PRO occurs in the subject position of the finite clause, and then it is governed by the finite I.

According to PRO Theorem, PRO must be ungoverned, so this sentence is excluded.

Exercise 9.4
It was pointed out in this chapter that binding conditions probably apply at SS. Explain whether
4
examples (i-iv) confirm this conclusion or suggest a different conclusion. Note that in (iv) the
topicalised reflexive anaphor can have as antecedent either the subject of the root clause John or the
subject of the embedded clause Bill. Both readings are possible. Make sure you take this fact into
consideration:

i)    The players seemed to each other to be winning the match.
[IP the playersi seemed to each otheri [IP ti to be winning the match]]

The DP trace is not bound in the embedded non-finite clause which does not involve a

governor. It can be bound in the root clause, so its antecedent is the root subject the player. The

anaphor each other is bound with the root clause. The subject the player and the anaphor each other

have the co-indexation, and the player also c-commands each other. Therefore, the player serves as

an antecedent of each other. Then this sentence confirms binding conditions.

ii)   Which picture of himself does John like?
DS: [CP e [IP Johni [I' does [VP like [NP which picture of himselfi]]]]]
SS: [CP [which picture of himselfi][C' does [IP Johni like tj]]]
LF: for which picture of himself x, John likes x

The anaphor himself cannot find its antecedent at SS. We may reconstruct the clause at LF. We

may assume that a null PRO occurs in Spec, NP. It co-commands the anaphor himself, so it can

serves as an antecedent for the anaphor. PRO is not bound in DP, so it can refer to the root subject

John.

iii) Himself, John does not like.
[NP himself]i, [IP John does not [VP like [NP t]i ]

Binding conditions probably apply at SS. However, this clause undergoes Topicalisation which

applies at LF. Then we should reconstruct the clause at LF. Then we may conclude that the DP-trace

arises as a result of DP-movement, so it invariably has an antecedent in the sentence, namely the

moved DP itself. It involves automatic co-indexation between the moved category and the trace.

Therefore, this clause can confirm the result of binding conditions.

iv) John believes that himself, Bill doesn’t like.
a. [IP Johni believes [CP that [NP himselfi], [IP Billj doesn’t like ti]]]

5
b. [IP Johni believes [CP that [NP himselfj], [IP Billj doesn’t like tj]]]

This clause has two interpretations (a) and (b). The reflexive himself can either refer to John or

Bill. However, binding conditions probably apply at SS. By contrast, this clause applies at LF

because it undergoes Topicalisation. Then we should reconstruct the clause at LF. Then we may

conclude that the DP-trace arises as a result of DP-movement, so it invariably has an antecedent in

the sentence, namely the moved DP itself. It involves automatic co-indexation between the moved

category and the trace.

The topicalised reflexive anaphor required an antecedent. It is bound by the nearest subject

John after the reconstruction. Therefore, the root subject John serves as an antecedent for the

anaphor. Otherwise, if the reflexive himself is bound with the embedded clause, the embedded

subject Bill would serve as an antecedent for the anaphor. Therefore, the clause involves the

interpretation (b).

Exercise 9.5
Sentences (i) and (ii) are instances of what is sometimes called long-distance anaphor biding.
Explain whether they are problematic for the theory of binding outlined in this chapter. If you reach
the conclusion that they are problematic, try to think of a possible way of accounting for them:

i)    The players thought that pictures of themselves were on sale.
[IP the playersi thought [CP that [IP [DP [NP PROi [N' pictures of themselvesi]]] were on sale]]]

The anaphor themselves is bound in DP, so it requires a coindexed c-commanding antecedent

in DP. The r-expression the players does not qualify as its antecedent since the player is outside DP.

By contrast, PRO does since it c-commands the anaphor themselves, and also occurs with DP.

Therefore, we assume that the DP includes a null PRO subject. According to the PRO Theorem,

PRO cannot be governed in DP, so it can refer to the players outside of DP.

ii)   The players thought each other’s pictures were on sale.
[IP the playersi thought [CP [IP [DP [PRO]i [D' D [NP [each other’s]i picture]] were on sale]]]

The anaphor each other’s is bound in DP, so it requires a coindexed c-commanding antecedent

in DP. We may assume that the DP includes a null PRO subject which serves as an antecedent of the
6
anaphor each other’s. According to PRO Theorem, PRO cannot be governed in DP, so it can refer to

the root subject the players.

Exercise 9.6
Example (i) appears to include a reflexive anaphor without an antecedent. ((ii)b) appears to include
a pronoun in an illicit domain. Explain whether in your view these examples are problematic for the
theory of binding outlined in this chapter:

i)    Speaker: This paper is written by Mary and myself.
[IP this paper is written [PP [P by [DP Mary and [PRO]i myselfi]]]]
Active sentence: [IP Maryi and Ij myselfj write this paperk.]

Like the active sentence above, the reflexive myself in (i) must have its antecedent I. It is the

strong form of the pronoun I. In (i), however, we can’t find the antecedent of the reflexive. Then we

may assume that there is null PRO which is the antecedent of the reflexive myself. Therefore, this

clause is not problematic for Binding Theory.

ii)   a. Speaker A: I don’t like you in this mood.
b. Speaker B: I don’t like me in this mood either.

This conversation occurs in the casual speech, so it is informal. The pronoun me in (iib) is

allowed to occur. According to Binding Theory, the pronoun must be free in its GC. It is co-indexed

with the subject I, so it also can refer to the pronoun I. Therefore, it is not problematic for Binding

Theory.

Exercise 9.7
(i) is an example of parasitic gap constructions. Explain why (ii-v) are not possible parasitic gap
constructions, and spell out what they reveal about the licensing of parasitic gaps:

i)    Which player did the coach sign without testing?
[CP which playeri [C' did [IP the coach [VP sign ti] [without [CP Opi [IP testing [e]]]]]]]]

Wh-movement of the wh-phrase which player takes place directly from the object position of

the verb sign. Moreover, the movement of a null operator to the Spec, CP inside the adjunct phrase

arises. Moreover, it is satisfied with the conditions on the licensing of parasitic gaps, so this
7
sentence does not give rise to a violation of Parasitic Gaps.

ii)   *Which player left before the coach could test?
*[CP which playeri [IP ti left [before the coach could test [e]]]]

The variable in the subject position of the main clause c-commands the adjunct phrase, namely

the parasitic gap. However, a variable in the subject position cannot license a parasitic gap, so this

clause is excluded.

iii) *Which coach signed which player without testing?
*[CP [which coach]i [which player]j [IP ti signed tj [without testing [e]]]]

This clause is an multiple wh-question with one wh-phrase in Spec, CP and the other in situ at

SS. The movement of the wh-phrase which player applies in the mapping from SS onto LF.

Therefore, this clause is excluded because LF variables cannot license parasitic gaps.

iv) *The coach signed every player without testing.
*[IP every playeri [IP the coach singed ti [without testing [e]]]]

This clause involves a quantifier phrase every player, so it would be raised at LF. According to

Parasitic Gaps, a parasitic gap is licensed at SS by a variable only. However, LF variables cannot

license parasitic gaps, so this clause is excluded.

v)    *The coach signed the player without testing.
*[IP the coach signed the player [without testing [e]]]

There is an overt DP in the object position of the main clause. According to Parasitic Gaps, the

gap inside the adjunct phrase is parasitical upon the presence of a variable inside the main clause.

However, this clause does not include a variable. In other words, the parasitic gap in the adjunct

phrase is not licensed. Therefore, this clause is excluded.

8

```
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
 views: 3 posted: 11/20/2011 language: English pages: 8