Scribd
Upload
444 views4 pages

Binding Theory

Binding theory examines how noun phrases in sentences refer to each other. It defines two types of command relations - C-command and M-command - based on dominance and branching in a tree structure. There are three principles of binding theory: Principle A specifies that anaphors must be bound within their governing category, Principle B states that pronouns cannot be bound within their governing category, and Principle C indicates that full noun phrases cannot be bound at all.

Uploaded by

Maruf Alam Munna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
444 views4 pages

Binding Theory

Binding theory examines how noun phrases in sentences refer to each other. It defines two types of command relations - C-command and M-command - based on dominance and branching in a tree structure. There are three principles of binding theory: Principle A specifies that anaphors must be bound within their governing category, Principle B states that pronouns cannot be bound within their governing category, and Principle C indicates that full noun phrases cannot be bound at all.

Uploaded by

Maruf Alam Munna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Binding theory

Binding theory is part of the GOVERNMENT/BINDING THEORY. It examines


connections between noun phrases in sentences and explores the way they relate
and refer to each other.

C-command: α C-COMMANDS β if
a. α does not dominate β, and
b. the first branching node that dominates α also dominates β.

In this definition again α and β stand for particular categories. For example, in
tree above we can let α be NP-1 Sally and see if it C-commands NP-2 herself
(=β). Clause (a) of the definition requires that NP-1 does not dominate NP-2. This
is true because NP-1 is not directly above NP-2 in the same branch of the tree.
Clause (b) requires that the first branching node that dominates NP-1, which is IP-
2, also dominates NP-2. IP-2 does dominate NP-2, so NP-1 C-commands NP-2.
Now let’s check whether NP-1 Sally C-commands NP-3 her according to the
definition. This time we set α = NP-1 and β = NP-3. Clause (a) is met because NP-1
does not dominate NP-3. Clause (b) fails, however, because the first branching
node that dominates NP-1 is still IP-2 and NP-3 is not under (dominated by) IP-2.
A simple way to think of C-command is to start with your α category, go up the
tree one level to where it branches, then α C-commands everything down in the
other branch. So, if the category you are concerned about (β) is in that other
branch, α C-commands β.

M-command: α M-COMMANDS β if
a. α does not dominate β, and
b. the first maximal projection that dominates α also dominates β.
We can see how C-command and M-command differ using the simple X-bar tree
below:

If we choose the NP specifier to be α, we know from above that it C-commands


everything in the right branch below the maximal projection XP. M-command will
give exactly the same results for this choice of α; in simple terms, M-command
says to go up the tree from α until you reach a maximal projection, then α M-
commands everything in the other branches below that maximal projection. The
reason C-command and M-command give the same results in this case is that the
first branching node above the specifier is also the first maximal projection
above it.
The difference between these two types of command relations shows up when α
is a head X0. Now the first branching node above X0 is X’, so the head only C-
commands its complements. M-command, however, reaches up to the maximal
projection and then goes down the other branches, so both the complements and
the specifier are included.

Principles of Binding Theory:


A. Anaphors (e.g. reflexives and reciprocals) must be A-bound in their governing
category.
B. Pronouns must not be A-bound in their governing category.
C. Full NPs (also called denoting expressions or R(eferential)-expressions) must
not be A-bound.
Principle A says that an anaphor can only be used when the position that A-binds
it is local enough: In tree above, NP-2 Max is close enough to NP-3 so that the
anaphor himself is correct; NP-1 Sally is too far away to use herself in NP-3.

Principle B says that a pronoun can only be used if it is not A-bound at all, or if its
A-binder is far enough away. This is why him cannot be used in NP-3 to refer back
to NP-2 Max but her may refer back to NP-1 Sally.

Finally, Principle C says that nonpronominals may not be A-bound at all. This is to
rule out repetition of full nominals.

*John hit John


*Sally thought that Max disliked Sally/Max.

You might also like