Our current theory

We have PSRs in our head.

• They allow us to generate “grammatical” sentences.
• ungrammatical phrases are never generated
• psrs show constituency
• structural relations exist

So what generates these rules?

And can the justification for our theory make new and correct conclusions?

Dependencies as a syntactic phenomena

examples:

1. It was a bagel that Zheng ate (gap)
   1. Filler gap dependency
2. The key to the doors is missing
   1. Agreement dependency
3. Jane had done the job herself.
   1. Reference dependency

Binding Theory

Binding Theory: Theory of the syntactic restrictions on which phrases of the same class can appear in a sentence.

Example: R-expressions, Anaphors, Pronominals

• R-expressions: NP that derives its meaning from a subsistent entity in the world.
• Anaphor: NP that gets its meaning from referring to another NP in the sentence.
  • Antecedent: NP that gives meaning to another NP.
  • Anaphors must always have an antecedent in the same sentence
• Pronoun: NP that may or may not have an antecedent
  • Refers to something in the context (indexical),
  • But it may not have an antecedent in the sentence itself
  • Pronouns and anaphors can also be antecedents
• Index: marker for labelling world references

[Heidi (antecedent)] bopped [herself (anaphor)] on [the head] with [a zucchini].

[Heidi]$_i$ bopped [herself]$_i$ on [the head]$_j$ with [a zucchini]$_k$.

Heidi and herself are coindexed $i$.

What is Binding

1. [Heidi]$_j$ slapped [herself]$_j$.
2. [Heidi_j’s mother]$_i$ slapped [herself]$_i$.
3. *[Heidi_j’s mother]$_i$ slapped [herself]$_j$.

A binds B iff

1. A c-commands B
2. and A and B are coindexed.

Hence binding is coindexation when one NP c-commands the other.

Anaphors in binding

1. [Herself]$_j$ slapped [Heidi]$_j$.
2. *[Heidi_j’s mother]$_i$ slapped [herself]$_j$.

Hypothesis 1.0: An anaphor must be bound by an antecedent R-expression.

Important: The binder (antecedent) must c-command the bindee (anaphor/pronominal).

Locality Conditions

*[Heidi]$_i$ said [that [herself]$_i$ discoed with Art].

The anaphor seems to need to find its antecedent in the same clause. This is called a locality constraint.

Locality constraint: A certain rule must be satisfied within a certain locality.

Binding domain (ver. 1): The clause containing the NP

Hypothesis 2.0 (Principle A): An anaphor must be bound by an antecedent R-expression in its binding domain.

Alt hypothesis: An anaphor must be c-commanded by its antecedent without any other R-expression in between

• Structural Relation
• Locality Restriction

Distribution: Free vs Bound

1. [Heidi]$_i$ said that [she]$_i$ discoed with Art.
2. [Heidi]$_i$ said that [she]$_k$ discoed with Art.
3. [Heidi]$_i$ played with [herself]$_i$.
4. [Heidi]$_i$ played with [her]$_j$.
5. *[Heidi]$_i$ played with [her]$_i$.

• 1 and 2 show that pronouns can be unbound, or bound to antecedent.
• 2 and 5 show that pronouns can only be bound to antecedent outside of the binding domain of the pronoun.
• Unbound NPs are free.
• 3 and 4 demonstrate grammatical uses of anaphors and pronouns within the binding domain.

Principle B: A pronouns must not be bound to an antecedent (i.e. free) in its binding domain.

The distribution of pronouns and anaphors are mutually exclusive.

1. [Oliver]$_i$ beheaded [George]$_i$

What about identity statements (“A is B”)?

Principle C: R-expression must be free.

Is binding principle universal

• No across languages (try w. others)
• No within English?
  • While he$_i$ was overseas, Zheng$_i$ fell down.

X-bar Theory

1. X-bar theory
2. X-bar theory pt 2

Summary

Motivation: Replacement test in the following sentence:

I bought [the big [book] [of poems] [with [the blue cover]]] and not the small [one].

I bought [the big [book] [of poems] [with [the blue cover]]] and not the small [one] with the red cover.

Why is a collection of sister constituents of the NP replaceable with one? Why is this applicable on several levels?

Ans proposed: embedded structure.

Theory statements

• all phrases must have heads (endocentricity)
• anything in an X-bar rule that isn’t a head must be an optional phrase
• Head introduction Rule (The termination rule)
  • X’ $\rightarrow$ X (WP)
• Recursive X’ Rule
  • X’ $\rightarrow$ X’ (YP)
• Specifier rule
  • XP $\rightarrow$ X’ (ZP)
  • How to motivate the existence of ZP?
  • We can imagine languages with many determiners! Why all langs we see only have one? (falsifiable by counterex!!)
    • i.e. why do we remove the XP from X’?
• How to draw the tree?
  • proform replacement:
    • “one” (within NP)
    • “do so” (within VP)
    • “so”/”that way” (within AdjP, AdvP, PP)
  • Conjunction on X’

Adjunct YP: Sister to some X’ and daughter of another X’

Complement YP: Sister to the head X and daughter of another X’

How to determine complements (data required):

1. Is the YP’s sibling replaceable?
   1. the book of poems
   2. vs *the *one of poems
   3. book must be an X instead of X’
2. Can the YP’s sibling X be replaced by another X’?
   1. One way to test: can we insert in another one of the YPs?
   2. the book of poems
   3. vs *the [book of fiction] of poems

Distinguishing specifiers, complements and adjuncts

• Only one specifier, must be on the outermost level
• Complement can only appear next to the head
• You can only conjoin a complement with complement, adjunct with adjunct, but not complement with adjunct
• One-replacement will not work on N (*the one of X)
• Do-so replacement will not work on V (*W ate a bagel and X do so a banana)

X-bar usage: Justifying word order variations

Problems:

1. How to generate VSO? S will be intervening the VP containing V and O.
2. In some sentences there can be several word orders for different XP types.
   1. German: $T’ \rightarrow T \ VP; \ V’ \rightarrow NP \ V$.

Housekeeping

1. Projections of the head X:
   1. ancestor X’ (intermediate projections)
   2. XP (maximal projection).
2. Principle of Modification:
   1. if a YP modifies X, then it must be dominated by some projection of X.
3. Direct Object:
   1. NP/CP that is complement of V
4. Word order:
   1. the complements/adjuncts may appear before or after the head depending on the language
   2. Language parameterization