Binding Theory

1. GB Binding Theory

• Principle A: Reflexives are bound within a binding domain

• Principle B: Pronouns are free within a binding domain

• Principle C: Full-NPS are referentially independent

  • cf. epiphet

• Binding domain of X : minimal NP,TP containing ...

  • X
  • X's case assigner
  • subject (not containing X)

• Susan expects stories about herself to be flattering

  • herself를 포함하는 minimal NP는 [stories about herself]
  • herself의 case assigner 'about'은 있지만 주어는 없음
  • 그 다음 minimal TP는 [stories about herself to be flattering]. 그러나 여전히 주어 없음

• 따라서 binding domain은 문장 전체. 그래서 her가 아니라 herself 필요

• Susan expects my stories about her to be flattering

  • her를 포함하는 minimal NP는 [my stories about her]
  • her의 case assigner 'about'도 있고 주어 'my'도 있음
  • 따라서 binding domain은 [my stories about her]. 그래서 herself가 아니라 her

 

2. Binding and Coreference

• variable/semantic binding → almost c-command (c-command보다 포괄적임)
• (syntactic) binding → c-command

(syntactic) binding으로 설명할 수 없는 것들

• No boy loves himself → 'No boy'에 지칭없는데 어떻게 bind?
  • variable (semantic) biding은 referential 하지 않아도 가능
  • cf. coreference는 꼭 referential 해야 함

almost c-command

• c-command & c-command 하는 것의 Spec & c-command 하는 것의 adjunct, complement
  • Spec: [[Every boy]'s mother] worries about him
  • Adjunct: [A friend [of each contestant]] stood behind her
  • Complement: [The grade [that [each student receives]]] is recorded in her file
• 단, sentence boundary를 넘을 순 없음
  • No boy left because he felt dejected
  • *No boy left. He felt dejected.

Coreference

• refer to the same individual (의미,통사론이랑 상관없이 그냥 같은 것을 지칭)
  • ex. Susan went to sleep. She was exhausted

Binding vs Coreference

John loves his shoes, and Bill does too

• binding: John도 John의 신발을, Bill도 Bill의 신발을 좋아함 → sloppy reading
• coreference: John이 John의 신발을, Bill도 John의 신발을 좋아함 → strict reading
  • pronoun의 의미 고정
• variable binding requires almost c-command
• coreference is constrained by Principle B and C (syntactic binding)

3. Obviation

• reflexive는 이동 다녀도 한 번만 bound 된 적 있으면 ok
• pronoun, Full NP는 단 한 번이라도 binding condition 어기면 out

Principle B,C에 어긋나는데 정문인 것들 (Rule I와 Principle B,C 예측이 다름)

• Everyone hated Lucifer. Only he himself pities him → 'himself' not bound, 'him' bound
• He is Colonel Weisskopf → Full NP is bound
• I dreamt that I was Brigitte Bardot and I kissed me → 'me' bound

⇒ Rule I에 따르면 정문이라서

• preference for variable binding over coreference
• coreference와 variable binding이 indistinguishable interpretation이면 coreference 불가능, binding만 가능
  • Rule I에서 binding은 variable binding (sem- + syn- binding 모두 포함, 둘이 구분 X)
  • syntax > semantics > pragmatics : herself > her > Full NP

⇒ 위의 세 문장 모두 coreference interpretation ≠ binding interpretation이라 coreference 가능, 정문

Rule I와 Principle B,C의 예측이 같은 경우

• *He worships John → Rule I: binding 해석과 corefer 해석 같은데 binding 하지 않았으니 비문

Rule I가 coreference 허용하는 경우

1. absence of c-command
   • [[Problems with his visa] mean [that John cannot come on tour]]
2. coreference interpretation ≠ binding interpretation
   • 그럼 둘 중 하나만 고르는 게 아니라 모두 허용

epithet: a referentially dependent full NP

1. 아무 관계 아님 → coreference

• I asked my boss for a raise, but the bastard refused (a)
  • configuration상 variable binding 불가능

2. almost c-command → variable binding

• Every boy's mother wishes the little angel would clean his room (b)
  • quantified NP binds an epithet
  • quantified NP ≠ referential하지만, variable binding은 non-referential해도 됨

3. c-command → Principle C 위반, 비문

• Full NP should be free, not bound
• My boss said that *the bastard can't give me a raise (c)
• *Every boy thinks the little angel deserves more pocket money

⇒ Rule I 없으면 1번 설명 불가능. 그런데 Rule I만으로는 2,3 구분할 수 없음. 따라서 Rule I, Principle B,C 모두 필요함

⇒ Principle B,C,는 syntactic binding과 관련 (3과 나머지 구분)

⇒ Rule I는 semantic binding과 관련 (2,3과 나머지 구분)

⇒ NP cannot bind an epithet which it c-commands, but it can bind an epithet which it almost c-commands

 

	(a)	(b)	(c)
Rule I	not bound	bound	bound
Principle B,C	not bound	not bound	bound

 

→ Principle B,C에 따랐을 때 "not bound"였으면 syntactically free(not bound)라는 뜻이니까 epithet(Full NP) 사용 가능

→ Rue I에 따랐을 때, "bound"였으면 semantically bound 가능하다는 뜻

→ 둘다 "not bound"라고 했으면 binding 아예 불가능 → coreference만 가능

 

 

4. Connectivity

• movement does not affect binding relations
  • 이동했어도, 이동 전의 자리 기준(base position)으로 binding 생각해야 한다
• exempt anaphora: reflexive without a locally c-commanding antecedent
  • Which picture of himself does [John think __ [Mary likes __]]?
• Lebeaux's generalization: complement는 connectivity의 영향을 받지만 adjunct는 아니다
  • complement: *[Whose claim that [John is nice]] did he believe __?
    • base position인 __ 에 있을 때 기준 John이 free하지 않아서 비문
  • adjunct: [Which story [that John wrote]] did he like __ ?
    • adjunct는 which story가 이미 이동한 상태에서 덧붙여지므로 __ 기준으로 binding 고려할 필요 없음