转换生成语法：约束理论和反约束理论.ppt

1、Binding and Binding theory,Binding theory,Binding theory deals with the distribution of DPs as determined by their referential properties in combination. Case theory deals with the distribution of DPs as determined by their case properties.,Three different classes of overt DPS,DPs,Anaphors,Pronouns,

2、R-expression,Reffering DPs,Names,Reciprocals,Reflexives,The referential properties of DPs can be assumed to be encoded in them in terms of referential features.,Antecedent,The notion antecedent is temporarily defined above as the category which bears the same index as an anaphor or a pronoun. This c

3、ondition is met by the coach in relation to the anaphor himself in the following examples, and yet the coach cannot serve as a legitimate antecedent for the anaphor in the examples given below : 1a. * The coachs assistants blame himself. 1b. * DP the coachsi D D NP assistants blame himselfi,Antecede

4、nt,The antecedent of an anaphor or a pronoun must Bear the same index as the anaphor or pronoun C-command the anaphor or pronoun Both conditions of the principles given above are met by the DP the coachs assistant in (2) 2a. The coachs assistants blame themselves 2b.,IP,Spec,I,Spec,DP1,D,DP2,NP,D,I,

5、V,VP,DP,V,The coachs assistants blame themselves,Co-reference,The distinction between co-reference and binding is : The combination of co-indexation and c-command results in a relationship called Binding ; The relationship which involves only co-indexation is called Co-reference. For example, Johnsi

6、 boss criticized himi. Although him can take John as its antecedent, John is not in a c-command relation with him, so they are not in a binding relationship.,C-command domain,John said Mary criticized him. John criticized him. John criticized himself. It seems that the pronoun can not be in a close

7、position to the anticedent. d. He said that Mary criticized John. e. After he entered the room, John sat down. f. His boss criticized John. Compared with d, the pronouns in e and f both has a co-reference with their antecedent. And the relation between a pronoun and its antecedent is C-command.,Bind

8、ing theory,BC A: An anaphor must have an antecedent in the sentence. BC B: A pronoun does not have to have an antecedent in the sentence. BC C: An r-expression cannot have an antecedent in the sentence. This definition are preliminary. They need to be made more precise by making them consistent with

9、 all relevant contexts.,ANAPHOR- local domain,Anaphors have the distinctive property that they are dependent on an antecedent included in the sentence for their reference. 3a. The president asks that the students help themselves. 3b. IP the presidentj asks cp IP the studentsi help themselvesi 4a. *

10、The students ask that the president helps themselves. 4b. *IP the president asks CPIP the studentsj help themselvesi (3) and (4)shows that an anaphor can be bound in a domain which is smaller than a sentence, namely a clause.,Anaphor- local domain,4a. The president heard the students stories about e

11、ach other. 4b. IP the presidentj heard DP the students i stories about each otheri (2) Suggest that the domain can be a clause, and (4) suggest that it can be a DP. Pending a more precise definition of “local domain”, let us restate BC A as in (5) which is much more restrictive than the earlier defi

12、nition. let us now turn to BC B. Recall this condition states that a pronoun does not have to have an antecedent in the sentence.,pronouns,Pronouns differ from anaphors in that they do not require an antecedent in the sentence, although they might have one. 5a. The president asks that the students h

13、elp him. 5b. IP the presidenti asks CP that IP the students help himi 5c. IP the presidenti asks CP that IP the students help himj We can see from (5) that pronouns does not have to have an antecedent in the sentence, that is to say, it can have or have not.,PRONOUNS,6a. * The president asks the stu

14、dents help them. 6b. * IP The presidentj asks CP IP the studentsi help themi . Our earlier preliminary definition of BC B stated that a pronoun does not have to have an antecedent in the sentence. It turns out that this was the wrong way to approach the condition which regulates the distribution of

15、pronouns. In other words, BC B should be defined in opposition to BC A which regulates anaphors. While an anaphor must be bound within the clause that immediately includes it, a pronoun must be free within the clause that immediately includes it.,The complementary distribution of Anaphor and Pronoun

16、s,7a. The students asks the president helps them. 7b. IP the presidenti asks CP IP the studentsj helps themi we can see the pronouns and anaphors are in complementary distribution in the sentence. Now we need to extend it to the other domain, namely DP. If this can be exemplified, we can get the con

17、clusion that anaphors and pronouns are in complementary distribution in DPS.,PRONOUNS,8a. The students heard the presidents stories about them. 8b. IP the studentsi heard DP the presidents j stories about themi 9a. * the president heard the students stories about them. 9b. * IP the president heard D

18、P the studentsi stories about themi Binding condition B A pronoun must be free in its “ local domain”,Governing Category,10a. The two presidents expected each other to leave. 10b. IP the two presidentsi expected IP each otheri to leave 11a. The two presidents expected them to leave. 11b. * IP the tw

19、o presidentsi expected IP themi to leave 11c. IP the two presidetnsi expected IP themi to leave Both (10) and (11) include a non-finite clause. 10b shows that an anaphor can occur in the subject position and can be bound by the subject of the root clause. However, a pronoun can be excluded from this

20、 context, as shown in 11c.,Governing Category,12a. * The two presidents expected that each other would leave. 12b. * IP The two presidentsi expected CP that IP each otheri would leave 13a. The two presidents expected that they would have to leave. 13b. IP The two presidentsi expected CP that IP they

21、i would have to leave The striking fact about (12) and (13) is that they present a situation which is the reverse of the one in (10) and (11). An anaphor is excluded from the subject position of an embedded finite clause, whereas a pronoun is allowed. This contrast suggests that finiteness plays a r

22、ole in determining local domain.,Nominative Island Condition (NIC),An early attempt to deal with this contrast was based on a condition called the Nominative Island Condition (NIC). This idea is that a subject position which is assigned nominative Case is an island with respect to binding, so that a

23、n anaphor cannot refer out of it. This is how (12) was excluded. In contrast, a subject position which is not assigned nominative Case is not an island, so that an anaphor can refer out of it. So let us come back to the definition of Local Domain. In 10 and 11, the expect governs the suject of the n

24、on-finite clause, while in 12 and 13, the government relationship disappears. So the government plays an important role in the binding relationship.,Nominative Island Condition (NIC),14a. The two presidents expected the students to help each other. 14b. IP The two presidents expected IP the students

25、j to help each otherj 14c. * IP The two presidents expected IP the studentsj to help each otheri Recall that our aim is to identify the propertied which determines the local domain of anaphors and pronouns. We have already identified the governor as one such property. Now we are in a position to ide

26、ntify another property, namely the subject. If a domain includes a subject, the anaphor must be bound within their domain. Because the embedded clause in 14 has a subject, the anaphor must be bound within the clause.,Let us test the hypothesis that the subject plays an important role in defining the

27、 local domain by slotting a pronoun in the place of the anaphor in 14. 15a. The two presidents expected the students to help them. 15b. * IP The two presidentsi expected IP the studentsj to help themj 15c. IP The two presidentsi expected IP the studentsj to help themi ,The idea that the subject plays an important role in defining local domain is perhaps best seen in relation to DPs. Unlike clause, DPs can have a subject optionally. We expect an anaphor included in a DP to be able to be bound from the outside if the