CAS LX 522 Syntax IA phraseComplements vs. adjunctsBinding TheoryR-expressions and anaphorsPronounsThe problemIndices and antecedentsSlide 9Slide 10Constraints on co-referenceJohn’s mother[NP John’s mother]Slide 14BindingSlide 16Tree relationsSlide 18Slide 19Slide 20Slide 21Slide 22Slide 23Slide 24Slide 25Principle ABinding domainsSlide 28Slide 29Slide 30Principle BPrinciple CSlide 33Slide 34Constraints on interpretationSlide 36Slide 37Negative Polarity ItemsSlide 39LicensingAnySlide 42Slide 43Slide 44Giving trees to ditransitivesSlide 46Slide 47Problems continue…Slide 49Some clues from idiomsIdioms in ditransitivesSo V and PP are sisters…Where’s the V? Where’s the OBJ?CausativesDitransitives againSlide 56Slide 57Exercise to ponderEpisode 4a. Binding Theory, NPIs, c-Episode 4a. Binding Theory, NPIs, c-command, ditransitives, and little command, ditransitives, and little vv4.3-4.44.3-4.4CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax IA phraseA phraseA full phrase can A full phrase can have all of these have all of these piecespieces(plus perhaps some (plus perhaps some additional adjuncts)additional adjuncts)specifiercomplementhead[X, …]XXPintermediateprojectionmaximalprojectionminimalprojectionadjunctXPmaximalprojectionComplements vs. adjunctsComplements vs. adjunctsPPs seem to be freely reorderable— when they are PPs seem to be freely reorderable— when they are adjuncts.adjuncts.I ate lunch on Tuesday at Taco Bell with PatI ate lunch on Tuesday at Taco Bell with PatI ate lunch on Tuesday with Pat at Taco BellI ate lunch on Tuesday with Pat at Taco BellI ate lunch with Pat on Tuesday at Taco BellI ate lunch with Pat on Tuesday at Taco BellI ate lunch on Tuesday with Pat at Taco Bell I ate lunch on Tuesday with Pat at Taco Bell etc…etc…But consider But consider glance at Chrisglance at Chris..I glanced at Chris on TuesdayI glanced at Chris on Tuesday*I glanced on Tuesday at Chris*I glanced on Tuesday at ChrisOk: Why?Ok: Why?Binding TheoryBinding TheoryBinding Theory consists of three Binding Theory consists of three Principles that govern the allowed Principles that govern the allowed distribution of NPs.distribution of NPs.Pronouns: Pronouns: hehe, , herher, , itit, , sheshe, …, …Anaphors:Anaphors: himselfhimself, , herselfherself, , itselfitself, …, …R-expressions:R-expressions: JohnJohn, , the studentthe student, …, …R-expressions and anaphorsR-expressions and anaphorsR-expressionsR-expressions are NPs like are NPs like PatPat, or , or the professorthe professor, or , or an unlucky farmeran unlucky farmer, which get their meaning by , which get their meaning by referringreferring to something in the world. Most NPs to something in the world. Most NPs are like this.are like this.An An anaphoranaphor does does notnot get its meaning from get its meaning from something in the world—it depends on something in the world—it depends on something else in the sentence.something else in the sentence.JohnJohn saw saw himselfhimself in the mirror. in the mirror.MaryMary bought bought herselfherself a sandwich. a sandwich.PronounsPronounsA A pronounpronoun is similar to an anaphor in that is similar to an anaphor in that it doesn’t refer to something in the world it doesn’t refer to something in the world but gets its reference from somewhere but gets its reference from somewhere else.else.JohnJohn told Mary that told Mary that hehe likes pizza. likes pizza.MaryMary wondered if wondered if sheshe agreed. agreed.……but it doesn’t but it doesn’t needneed to be something in to be something in the sentence.the sentence.Mary concluded that Mary concluded that hehe was crazy. was crazy.The problemThe problemThere are very specific configurations in which pronouns, There are very specific configurations in which pronouns, anaphors, and R-expressions can/must be used. anaphors, and R-expressions can/must be used. Even Even though both though both hehe and and himselfhimself could refer to could refer to JohnJohn below, you below, you can’t just choose freely between them.can’t just choose freely between them.John saw himself.John saw himself.*John saw him.*John saw him.John thinks that Mary likes him.John thinks that Mary likes him.*John thinks that Mary likes himself.*John thinks that Mary likes himself.John thinks that he is a genius.John thinks that he is a genius.*John thinks that himself is a genius.*John thinks that himself is a genius.The question Binding Theory strives to answer is: When The question Binding Theory strives to answer is: When do you use anaphors, pronouns, and R-expressions?do you use anaphors, pronouns, and R-expressions?Indices and antecedentsIndices and antecedentsAnaphors and pronouns are Anaphors and pronouns are referentially referentially dependentdependent; they can (or must) be ; they can (or must) be co-co-referential referential with another NP in the sentence.with another NP in the sentence.The way we indicate that two NPs are co-The way we indicate that two NPs are co-referential is by means of an referential is by means of an indexindex, usually a , usually a subscripted letter. Two NPs that share the subscripted letter. Two NPs that share the same index (that are same index (that are coindexedcoindexed) also share ) also share the same referent.the same referent.JohnJohnii saw himself saw himselfii in the mirror. in the mirror.Indices and antecedentsIndices and antecedentsJohnJohnii saw himself saw himselfii in the mirror. in the mirror.An index functions as a “pointer” into our mental An index functions as a “pointer” into our mental model of the world.model of the world.John John here is a name that “points” to our mental here is a name that “points” to our mental representation of some guy, John, which we notate representation of some guy, John, which we notate by giving the pointing relation a label (“i”).by giving the pointing relation a label (“i”).himself himself here shares the same pointing relation, it here shares the same pointing relation, it “points” to the same guy John that “points” to the same guy John that JohnJohn does. does.So, any two NPs that share an index (pointing So, any two NPs that share an index (pointing relation) relation) necessarily necessarily refer to the same thing.refer to the same thing.Indices and
View Full Document
![Nom from finite T no case from nonfinite T (T [inf], M to)](https://media.gradebuddy.com/documents/386389/7a3e15e0-7507-4825-a32d-f3e6fb67d2eb.png)
Unlocking...