Linguists have long been intrigued by the constraints on where pronouns, reflexive pronouns, and full noun phrases can appear. These constraints are about how these elements can be interpreted, depending on where they appear in a structure, rather than being about movement or dele- tion. There are also many poverty-of-stimulus problems in the relations among pronouns, reflexive pronouns, and full noun phrases. Consider the facts in (12) and (13). The pronouns she andher may refer to Kim in (12a,b) but not in (12c,d).
(12) a. Kimiloves heri,jmother.
b. Kimiexpected shei,jwould win.
c. Kimiexpected herjto win.
d. Kimiloves herj.
Sentences (13a,b) may be statements about one person named Kim (so the same index is possible), but (13c,d,e) may only be interpreted as state- ments about two people of the same name (distinct indices). We know this independently of context or of any aspect of the speech situation; we seem to know this simply from the form of the expression.
Other restrictions on movement and deletion.
Not all movements and deletions are subject to the restric- tions we have described here. WH- movement under some circumstances, for example, is sub- ject to restrictions we do not have the space to illustrate.
Use of subscripts to indicate coref- erence.
We express corefer- ence by using the sub- scripted indices i and j; elements referring to the same person or referent will have the same subscripted index. In (12a,b) Kim may refer to the same person (and have the same index i) as her and she,but herand shemay also refer to some other (female) person, indicated by the index j. In con- trast, in (12c,d) her must refer to some- body else than (and has a different index from) Kim.
(13) a. Kimi’s father says Kimi,jis happy.
b. Kimi’s father loves Kimi,j’s mother.
c. Kimiloves Kimj’s mother.
d. Kimisays Kimjis happy.
e. Kimisays Kimj’s mother is happy.
How does the form of the expression convey all this information?
Why, for example, may her refer to Kim in (12a) but the two Kims in (13c) may not refer to the same person? Why may she refer to Kim in (12b) but not her in (12c)? Here is another area where children acquire a system which goes far beyond the input they receive. Again we have elaborate subconscious knowledge, which is not acquired through instruction of any kind; most readers would not have been aware of these distinctions until they read the last paragraph. A child may hear (12a) in a context where her clearly refers to Kim or in a context where her refers to another woman unnamed in this expression, perhaps the queen of England. On the other hand, sentence (12d) is heard only in a context where her refers to another woman – in fact to any woman other than Kim. Children come to know this without being supplied with evidence or being told that her cannot refer to Kim, unlike in (12a). If there is no learning here, then that would explain why we do not observe children making errors in the reference of names and pronouns (except in a very specific domain, which we will not discuss) – they show no signs of learning by trial-and-error. But how can we say that there is no learning? Is there an alternative?
Twenty-five years ago the well-known linguist Noam Chomsky pro- posed theBinding Theoryas a solution to these poverty-of-stimulus prob- lems (Chomsky 1981). The Binding Theory permitted a dramatic simplifi- cation of these facts, if we assume that it is a component of UG. The Binding Theory is stated, somewhat roughly, in (14). Like all components of UG, it is available to humans in advance of experience, actually enabling us to interpretour experience. The Binding Theory divides nom- inals(a cover term for nouns and pronouns) into three types: anaphors like himself,themselves,pronounslike she,her,their, and names(everything else).
(14) Binding Theory
Principle A: Anaphors are coindexed with the subject of their Domain.
Principle B: Pronouns are not coindexed with the subject of their Domain.
Principle C: Names are not coindexed with the subject of any clause located to their left in the sentence in which the name appears.
Each nominal has a Domain, which is roughly its clause. The Binding Theory determines whether each nominal is coindexed with the subject of its clause or a clause to its left, or not. If the nominal iscoindexed with
the subject of its own or another clause to the left, it is said to be bound.
That is how the Binding Theory gets its name.
(15) a. [IP[DPKim’s mother]washed herself].
b. [IP[DPKim’s mother]washed her].
c. [IP[DPKim’s mother] said that [IP[DP the doctor]washed her]].
d. [IPKim said that [IP[DP the doctor]washed her]].
e. [IPKimsaid that [IP[DP the doctor]washed Kim]].
Let’s see how these three simple principles predict the facts of English nominals. For each sentence, you should check to see what each nominal can and cannot refer to. Next, we have to first determine which of the three principles in (14) applies, and then check whether the theory match- es your judgments.
In (15a), who can herself refer to?Herselfis an anaphor, so it should obey Principle A, meaning it is coindexed with (and refers to) the subject of its own clause – its inflection phrase (IP). The boldface, italicized determiner phrase in (15a) is the subject of this clause, so herselfmust be coindexed with Kim’s mother. It can’t refer to just Kimbecause Kimis only partof the subject. So the only possible interpretation of herself in (15a) is that it refers to Kim’s mother.
In (15b), her may refer to Kim or to some other female person not men- tioned in the sentence. Heris a pronoun, so Principle B applies. Principle B says that hercannot refer to the subject of its own clause. If herreferred to Kim’s mother, the subject of its clause, it would be bound within its Domain, like herselfis in (15a). But the rule for pronouns is the opposite of the rule for anaphors; it is forbidden for pronouns to be bound within their Domains. So hercannot refer to Kim’s mother. Hercan very well refer to Kim in (15b), because Kimis only part of the subject. Simply put, the pro- noun herin (15b) cannot refer to its own subject. Beyond that, it may refer to any female person that makes sense in context, even if she is not men- tioned in the sentence.
(15c) introduces an additional complexity, an embedded clause. The doc- toris the subject of the clause in which the pronoun heris located, so according to Principle B the doctorcannot bind her; they can’t refer to the same person. Although Kim’s motheris the subject of an IP, it doesn’t mat- ter, since the Domain for heris only the lower IP. Whatever relationships we find beyond the pronoun’s IP don’t matter. In fact, her could refer to Kim’s mother, to Kim, or to some other female person. The Binding Theory doesn’t tell us what hercan refer to – just that it can’t refer to the subject of its own clause – heris free to refer to anyone else. Similarly, in (15d), her may be coindexed with Kim, but doesn’t have to be, because Kimis outside of the Domain of the pronoun her.
The considerations in (15e) are different. Kimis a name, so Principle C of the Binding Theory applies. Principle C is the only one that doesn’t refer to a Domain. It says that names must not be bound by anysubject to their left in a sentence, period. The DP the doctoris a leftward subject, so
The Binding Theory cannot be learned from the language that young children hear. It is part of UG, part of what children bring to their initial experience with language. As part of UG, children already “know” the three categories of nominals and the restrictions on their coreference.
Children need only learn from language experience which words in their language fit into these categories – which words are anaphors, which are pronouns, and which are names. This they can do from positive evidence in the sentences that they hear. Once a child has learned that themselves is an anaphor, her a pronoun, and so on, all the appropriate indexing rela- tions follow, with no further learning required. The result is a simple sys- tem that covers an infinite number of possibilities.
Box 3.3 Exceptions that prove the rule
Occasionally, you might encounter examples like the one in the Bo Nanas cartoon that clearly violate the Binding Theory. The last clause in what Bo says contains a violation of Principle B, that a pronoun cannot refer to the subject of its own clause. The last clause in the cartoon has the structure in (i).
(i) [CP[IPI didn’t [VPlike me very much]]]
The pronoun merefers to Bo Nanas, who is also the referent of I. Iis the subject of the clause con- taining me. The Binding Theory says that the anaphor myselfis required here (and that mehere cannot refer to the subject of its clause). But this exception actually provesthe rule. Bo Nanas has sent himself a gift of leftover Halloween candy to make himself feel special. He wants it to seem that the package has been sent by someone else. His comment on the shabbiness of the gift is in the context of the pretence that the “I” who sent the gift is someone other than the “me” who received it. In that sense, Bo Nanas the sender is not the same person as Bo Nanas the receiver, and the cartoonist, John Kovaleski, exploits the Binding Theory to make that point. If there were no Principle B, the use of mewould not be nearly so effective.
Notice also that (i) is the complement of the verb thought. That, which could have appeared adjacent to thought, has been deleted, as permitted by the principle in (11). The use of myselfin the if-clause in the cartoon is an example of the adverbial use of an anaphor, which we don’t cover in this chapter, although it turns out to conform to the Binding Theory.
it cannot refer to Kim. But the other Kimis excluded as well. It’s not in the same clause as the lower Kim, but it is still a leftward subject. As a result, (15d) necessarily refers to two Kims; the lower Kim must be a different per- son than the higher Kim.
© 2004, The Washington Post Writers Group.
Reprinted with permission