BINDING THEORY

Anaphors, pronouns and referential expressions

There are four kinds of noun phrases: anaphors, pronouns and referential expressions.
Hey! Wheres the fourth one? Well, wait a while!
1) Johni admires himselfi
2) Johni admires himj
3)
4) Johni admires Maryj
What about (3)? Well, just wait a while! Dont be so impatient!
i and j are referential indices. They are used to indicate co-reference (if the index is the
same) or disjoint reference (if the indices are different). In (1) there is coreference. In (2)
there is disjoint, and so there is in (4).
Himself is an anaphor. Anaphors have no reference of their own. They need an antecedent
and the antecedent must be near by. It cannot be very far. The antecedent in (1) is the
subject. If the subject is feminine, the anaphor will have to be herself. If it is plural, the
anaphor will be themselves. Anaphors may be reflexives (himself) or reciprocals (each
other)..
Him is a pronoun. It may have an antecedent or it may take its preference from pointing.
This latter use of the pronoun is called deictic and its reference is interpreted
pragmatically. If a pronoun has an antecedent, the antecedent cannot be in the subject
position. It has to be farther away, more distant. It has to be outside a certain local domain
(to be defined below).
Mary is a referential expression. Other examples can be ordinary descriptive noun phrase:
the tall boy, my brother, etc. Referential expressions (R-expressions) cannot have an
antecedent. They have full reference by themselves, so that if I say: John admires John,
there must be two Johns in the situational context and in the representation the two names
bear a different referential index.
7) Peterj says that Johni admires himselfi
8) Peterj says that Johni admires himj
9)
10) Peterj says that Johni admires Maryk
In (7) himself refers to John but it cannot refer to Peter because Peter is too far.
In (8) him may refer to Peter or to somebody else, through pointing.
In (10) the three NPs have different referents.
These referential relations are called binding (ligamiento). Binding is the theory of coreference and disjoint reference. Its a theory that shows that syntactic structure
determines referential interpretation. There are three principles involved:

Principle A of the Binding Theory:

An anaphor (reflexive or reciprocal) must have an antecedent near by, in a certain local
domain.
Principle B of the Binding Theory:
A pronoun may have an antecedent, but not near by, only outside a certain local domain.
Principle C of the Binding Theory:
A referential expression cannot have an antecedent (anywhere)
When an expression has an antecedent, we say that the antecedent binds it. The
expression is bound by its antecedent. If an expression has no antecedent, we say that the
expression is free (in reference).
For an antecedent to bind an expression, the antecedent must be in a hierarchically higher
position (or at least at the same level, not lower). The antecedent must c-command the
expression.
Binding is c-command and co-indexing.
Examples of c-command:
Johni says that hei is intelligent
He may refer to John. It may refer to somebody else mentioned before or being pointed
to. Usually the interpretation of the sentence in isolation is co-referential.
IP
NP
John

I
I
[pres]

VP
V
V
says

CP
C
C
that

IP
NP
he

I
I
[pres]

VP
V
V
is

AP
A
A
intelligent

John c-commands he. To c-command means to be higher up in the tree.

A node A c-commands a node B iff A does not dominate B and B does not dominate A
and the first branching node that dominates A also dominates B.
In the tree above, John, the subject, c-commands all the other nodes in the tree, because it
doesnt dominate them (it doesnt include them) and none of the other nodes dominates
(includes) the subject, and the first branching node that dominates the subject John, i.e.
IP, also dominates all the other nodes (includes them).
When a noun c-commands a pronoun, the pronoun may refer to it.
But when a pronoun c-commands a noun, the pronoun cannot refer to it.
Thats why in the following sentence, John and he are not co-referential:
Hej says that Johni is intelligent
In this sentence there must be two different people involved and he refers to somebody
mentioned before or somebody that is pointed to.
Binding theory determines the interpretation of noun phrases, in particular matters of coreference and disjoint reference.
Anaphors are defined in terms of the features [+anaphoric] and [-pronominal].
Pronouns are [-anaphoric] and [+pronominal].
Referential expressions are [-anaphoric] and [-pronominal].
The search for elegance, balance and symmetry, makes us wonder whether there isnt a
category with the features [+anaphoric] and [+pronominal]. Perhaps it will be the missing
one in the list at the top of these notes: number 3. Lets keep our minds open and discuss
other related structures first. So far we have the following picture:
Anaphors
Pronouns
R-expressions

[+a, -p]
[-a, +p]
[+a, +p]
[-a, -p]

OVERT
John admires himself
John admires him
John admires John

The anaphor himself, the pronoun him, and the r-expression John are overt because they
are pronounced. Lets have a look at the same categories, in their covert state, as empty
categories, i.e. not pronounced:
Anaphor:
John is admired t
Passive Voice Construction
John seems t to be sad
Subject Raising Construction
Pronouns
pro vino ayer
Omitted subject in Spanish
?
R-expressions What did you buy t?
Wh-movement
In all these sentences there is an element which is understood in a position where it is not
pronounced.

In the case of the passive, the trace is an anaphor because it is interpreted only by looking
at the antecedent, which is near by. The same thing happens in the subject raising
construction.
In the Spanish sentence pro is interpreted in terms of the inflection on the verb. It is a
covert pronoun.
And in the question, the trace is interpreted in terms of the antecedent wh-word. It is a
referential expression, but this will only be understood later on.
So now, lets complete the picture including both overt and covert NPs.
Anaphors

[+a, -p]

Pronouns

[-a, +p]
[+a, +p]
[-a, -p]

R-expressions

OVERT
John admires himself
John admires him

COVERT
John is admired t
John seems t to be sad
pro vino ayer

John admires John

What did you buy t ?

Now lets see if we can complete the picture by trying to find a category with the features
[+a, +p]. That category seems to be the omitted subject of the infinitive:
1) I want PRO to buy a book
2) PRO to try and get promotion, Jane courted with her boss
In (1) PRO is an anaphor because it has its antecedent very near by.
In (2) PRO is a pronoun because the antecedent is far away.
So PRO seems to have the two features marked positively: it is an anaphoric pronoun, or
a pronominal anaphor. But there is no overt category corresponding to this empty
category, so one box is going to remain empty.
OVERT
John admires himself

Anaphors

[+a, -p]

Pronouns
Anaphoric
PRO

[-a, +p]
[+a, +p]

John admires him

R-expressions

[-a, -p]

John admires John

COVERT
John is admired t
John seems t to be sad
pro vino ayer
I want PRO to buy a book
PRO to try and get promotion,
Jane courted with her boss
What did you buy t ?

We might as well ask why this is so. Why doesnt PRO have a corresponding overt
category? The reason is that PRO is an anaphor and so it should always be bound in a
local domain, but it is also a pronoun and so it should never be bound in a local domain.
This is a contradiction. Principles A and B of the Binding Theory cannot apply to PRO.
We will have to develop another theory for PRO, to account for the uses of PRO. Its
properties emerge from Binding Theory but the principles that govern the use and
interpretation of PRO will have to be formulated in terms of a different module: the
Control module or theory.