 We will look at binding theory, the remaining aspects of it. What is binding theory mean in one sentence? A theory around interpretation of noun phrases. Interpretation in other words could mean a relationship between two of them. Are two noun phrases in a sentence dependent on one another? Are there references or interpretations? Are there relationships between two or not? If there is what kind of relationship, if there is not how independent are they? Is what we mean by interpretations and this is what we formalize and this is what when gets formalized is called binding theory which is an important component of the principles and parameters approach of natural language. So yesterday we looked at reflexives and reciprocals which we called together anaphors and pronouns and r expressions which mean referential expression in short. We saw examples of these things and then we saw some examples where we find them dependent on one another and in some we saw they are not dependent on one another. So we need to understand this in a little bit more formal sense and then we will look at how to basically formalize what aspects of its interpretation help us formalize these things. So let us see this is what we saw yesterday. Pronominal elements like himself, herself, itself are anaphors he, she, it, they, his, are you, yours these are pronominal elements and then independent noun phrases, n p s like John, the student, the teacher, these are computers, phones, these are referential expressions which where we have seen that anaphors that is reflexives and reciprocals they have to depend on something else in the sentence for their interpretations. Our expressions do not have to depend on anything in the sentence for their interpretations and pronouns have absolutely pronouns are little bit tricky where they are sometimes dependent on something else for interpretations and sometimes they are not. It has three parts each part is called principle A, principle B and principle C. Principle A deals with anaphors, principle B deals with pronouns and principle C deals with our expressions. Principle A the A in principle A has nothing to do with anaphors it is just in alphabetical order now not even in alphabetical order it is in a particular order principle A for anaphors, principle B for pronouns, principle C for our expressions. We saw these examples where we know John is an R expression himself is an is a reflexive him is a pronoun. Looking at sentence number 2 we saw it is ambiguous and it is not good only in one interpretation where where him is dependent on John then it is not then it is not good. If him is not dependent on someone else then it is okay and likewise we saw other examples. Then we stopped with this when we said there are problem the problem is that we see some specific configuration for specific configuration governing occurrence of these elements it is not it is not fair to simply say some couple of things about these things it requires some serious attention and then we see that there the configuration is different for different categories okay. And when we want to and once we look at that these sentences that is grammaticality or ungrammaticality of these sentences with respect to those configurations then we see that the grammaticality or ungrammaticality of these sentences can be explained with a with binding theory okay because such a such a look at it at the configurations of these sentences help us understand help us understand not only not only the distribution of these these things these elements rather what underlying what are the things that underlyingly governed and then we put them as what we call binding theory. So let us look at some more issues related to this enough words and pronouns let us first look at enough words that is the flexips is called referentially dependent okay rather we can also say they are coreferential what do we mean by that the way we it has something to do with the way we indicate them okay which is the two noun phrases have same index and the way we do it we put same index for the two noun phrases and then we say they are coreferential or and co-indexed both which is when we say John saw himself in the mirror himself and John have same index do you see that with we have with a subscript I we are putting we are indicating coreferentiality this is this is all that we mean when we say co-indexed to describe coreferential coreferentiality simple right we can say the same thing with words that himself in this sentence refers to John but to show that configurationally we are putting indices on both same indices on both of them if we want to show that they are not co-indexed with one another then we put two different indices at two different end piece you can see that these are in this sentence they are co-indexed with one another these things are just not that important you can you can just take a look at this and see what we what we mean by them now let us look at this and this is something which I have just talked to you that is the there is another word that I want to introduce to you which I think I referred yesterday antecedent when two NPs are co-indexed with one another they carry same index for a for a reflexive pronoun the antecedent is the NP that precedes it okay am I am I right when I say antecedent means something that that precedes it right antecedent by definition cannot follow right so and when we understand antecedent in that context of precedence and not following we need to bring in the structure of this sentence in our mind too that is the antecedent is always going to be higher in the structure than the reflexives I am coming to that pronouns are co-indexed with one another yeah yeah yeah I am coming to that coming to that let let let me first let let me first introduce reference select sorry reflexives to you in little bit more detail and then I am coming to principle D when we talk about pronouns do we sorry both can be co-indexed okay right yeah I what you are saying is we didn't have examples in the same place that that's what I'm telling you I'm coming to that I don't have an example ready from the top of my mind but I'm coming to coming to that example in a couple of minutes couple of minutes so do do these things follow any constraint now in this in the second sentence also you see they are co-indexed right if if which is to say we just cannot put one condition that they must be co-indexed John and himself must be co-indexed does not guarantee grammaticality of the sentence in sentence to they are co-indexed but the sentence is not grammatical right look at look at we even if we talk about precedence right is not giving us an answer we can say antecedent must always proceed is not giving us an answer because look at the third sentence John's mother saw himself is that sentence good it's what is the why is the sentence not good it has an antecedent they are co-indexed what's wrong with that sentence the antecedent appears to be John's mother not John that's the problem in other words even if the the reflexive himself looks like it can have its antecedent only John because it's himself it does not have access to that in a configurational sense when you draw the structure of the sentence then you will realize that it doesn't it it is it does not fulfill certain aspects for being antecedent for this reflexive what are those aspects that it doesn't fulfill and how do we how do we explain this thing look at this these two structures and then you will be able to see why so what's the difference between one and two why is one good and two not good that is why is one grammatical in the two and grammatical the see the difference between the two structures John precedes in both the cases John is co-indexed in both the cases the argument is we need to say something else in order to define the domain for reflexives and its antecedent to occur we need to say something else and that something else again you you might you might have guessed by now is taking us to okay hold on there is one more thing which I am which I am presenting to you without saying it that we are talking about the sentence so we are saying they must be co-indexed the antecedent must proceed and we are also saying that they must be within the same sentence still we find some sort of ungrammaticality then we need to talk about what what's missing here is is what we need to add to explain ungrammaticality of two and what we need to say is the antecedent everything else that we have said is a still true but we need to add that the antecedent must c command the and the reflexive the antecedent must c command the reflexive is antecedent John c commanding the reflexive into do do we remember the definition of c command what's the what's the definition of c command what are the two two requirements for c command a doesn't dominate b and b doesn't dominate a hold on hold on one part a doesn't dominate b and b doesn't dominate a does a dominate b into a that is np John does not dominate np himself they are co-indexed right they are there is an antecedent and even if we look at c command John does not dominate himself and himself does not dominate John clear what's the second condition for c command this is where it does not in so the first branching node dominating a must also dominate b that condition of c command is not being fulfilled here into the first branching node dominating a is np which is not dominating the which is not dominating b therefore John does not c command himself therefore despite being within the same sentence despite being co-indexed with one another and despite John being the antecedent of himself the sentence is environmental therefore configurationally speaking what what becomes the most significant constraint on the presence that is occurrence of an NFR within the same domain is being in c commanding domain that an NFR must be in the c commanding domain of its antecedent a reflexive must be in the c commanding domain of its antecedent then the sentence is grammatical can I ask you a question at this this point when we have a when we when we have a sentence like okay let me come back to that question little later so we this this is what we talked in one the np John c commands np himself clear do you do you agree that np John c commanding np himself it's it's a John is not dominating himself and himself is not dominating John that that was the reason why I wanted you to understand for the first time in the first place the the the relationship called dominance and precedence so np John does not dominate np himself and himself does not definitely does not dominate np John that that's quite obvious however the first branching node dominating np which is ip also dominates himself therefore they are in the c commanding domain okay therefore it is good and you have seen why that is not grammatical okay however somebody answered this question somebody said that the antecedent looks like the entire np in their spec position that is John's mother right if we are talking about the entire np then that np c commands the the the reflexive the the np downstairs but John's mother saw himself if if we say the whole np is the antecedent for it then what's what's the violation the not not the agreement indexes indices is the problem John's mother and himself two cannot carry the same index the as long as they are carrying the same index then it's going to run into difficulty John's father saw himself then the sentence would be grammatical John John doesn't c command John's father whole np c commands that that is to say you see here here is what we are talking about you're saying John's father saw himself the sentence is that is that sentence right first John's father saw himself what we are saying is this np becomes the antecedent right and then their coindex this np c commands this if we allow this np to c command this same this np himself then it's like number one then there is no problem the whole no matter how big that np is John's father is definitely potentially big as you can see if we allow it to be the antecedent of this then there is no problem that np is in the c commanding relationship with the reflexive therefore that is that sentence is allowed okay what the reason why you're you're saying why why have we put it under shade oh okay how the branching has worked okay let's see I have tried to simplify it okay the I I know I understand your objection that how is that an np first I just wanted to keep the whole thing as an np but then I won't be able to get the then I won't be able to separate John from John's mother so it's like a genitive phrase and since I haven't talked about genitive case and genitive phrase I didn't want to get into that and then make my point right so what what I have done is this is a complex np is a big np where I see your main objection is in the head position of that np why is not an np and why is something else right so but but take take it as an np as a big np where one np is in the spec position of the whole phrase okay that is John this is the that's that's the main point I'm I'm trying to show that because the np John is in non-c commanding domain with the reflexive the sentence isn't grammatical however I agree with you that I'm not answering the complexity of this np in in details right now because it's it's definitely not it it's called you see there is another term which is called dp dp and it's called determiner phrase right and in that determiner phrase in the spec position an np is allowed okay and the in the head position a case marker like off or apostrophe will be allowed but I didn't want to use the term dp either therefore I changed the term dp to np just to make my point okay and then you have you you know that when np c commands the nfr and it is co-indexed with it and the np first is so so this is the configuration in which we say now we can I I want to introduce one more term to you we can say the antecedent John in in one that that is Peter here binds the nfr okay np if it is in if if n if the antecedent and the nfr that is reflexive or in c commanding domain then we can say np antecedent np binds the nfr and with that we can say that this is what this is what where the term binding comes from that if we if I want to say antecedent binds reflexives what do I mean the the the word binding should itself be not difficult thing for you but when we say binding in a technical sense we say they must be under under c commanding domain then the antecedent binds the np with the two condition where the antecedent must c command and antecedent must be co-indexed with the nfr that's the condition of condition called binding John's mother saw herself is the sentence grammatical John's mother saw herself that looks grammatical to me then but there's no concept of binding in the sentence because there is a mother doesn't c command but John's mother the entire np c commands definitely that's an mp look at the look at look at this this note the all I need to do is to just put whole thing together what we are saying the problem is when this np is co-indexed or this np is co-indexed then there is a problem of of c commanding but if this np is co-indexed then there is no problem of c commanding I think it's not should not be complicated for you right then there is no problem and definitely that is the reason why John's mother saw herself is okay because in that case we are neither talking about John not talking about mother of course mother is John's mother but when we say we are not talking about mother we are talking about just the np mother is not not in our case and and the reason why it it became a question for you is because you are looking at probably just mother right and John's mother is mother so this np mother is not in the c commanding relationship with the with the NFR so how how does that configuration work probably that is that is your question but that's not the case the np whole thing John's np or Peter's np the np in their spec position of the ip is in c commanding domain is c commanding the NFR then it then there is absolutely no problem okay all right so this is what the principle A says I could have just said this thing first and then gone into the details of that I have shown you everything and then I am saying stating the principle an NFR must be bound in other words reflexives and an antecedent binds an NFR and NFR must be bound right so if you see an NFR in a if a sentence with an NFR is ungrammatical high probability is probably the NFR is not bound and that is the case in number two that the NFR is not bound with the right antecedent that is the antecedent that could pass probably bind NFR is not in the c commanding domain and we know that there are two conditions that an antecedent must fulfill before it can bind the NFR and those two conditions are going same having same indices indexes indices and then being in the c command domain all right there is one more condition on that which I was I was thinking I will tell you and I should tell you at this time we have a sentence like Peter knows that himself saw John can you write the sentence Peter knows that himself saw John Peter knows that himself saw John in this sentence if you draw the structure of the sentence Peter and himself are coindexed right Peter and John are I do not have that on the screen so I can I can draw that for you as well so let us look at this we have an IP and the problem in that IP is I am sorry here is our NP Peter and then we have I and VP here is our let us let us do it properly no and here is our CP right and then where is the where is the NFR himself here is the NFR and then it has further things Peter knows that that himself saw John right here after it is it should be simple for you now look at this if this is coindexed could be coindexed with this right this is coindexed and is this NP c commanding c commanding himself c commanding himself so they are coindexed and they are they are under the c commanding domain also why the sentence and grammatical then that is because you are right right beginning from here it is in a different domain right so the the two conditions that we are talking about for binding is is okay is good but we need to say one more thing that is the binding domain these are the two conditions for binding but the binding domain is within the end within the IP so co being coindexed being in the c commanding domain in the same IP is the actual condition for NFRs to occur being here in the spec position of another IP even though it is coindexed in the c commanding domain of its antecedent the problem is actually it is not in co not in c commanding domain you have seen c command and you have if you remember the constraint on c command was what was the constraint on that kind of c command there was a there was one more one one constraint on the c command the constraint was a finite IP we have we talked about this constraint when we were talking about assignment of cases a finite IP becomes the barrier for finite IP this IP is finite IP because we are saying knows that himself saw John okay that is a tensed IP finite IP so this finite IP becomes a barrier for c command therefore anything from outside this domain this from outside this IP intervening to c command another element is not going to be possible so actually we are saying actually when I said this c commands himself is not completely right if we ignore this constraint then it appears to be c commanding but there is a there is a constraint that it would not be c commanding so when one can defend it on the basis of c command also but please know that the binding domain for NFR is the same IP within the IP and I think I have something here to say and NFR must be bound yeah so these are the sentences you can take a look at it and then meditate and think about this himself saw John in the mirror the the three sentences that we had just seen before is ungrammatical because of coindex coindex system and and antecedent and reflexive issues and in and the issue of c command all of that will be able to explain it here is a sentence what you were talking about Mary's father likes himself something like that in in third Mary's father likes himself will be fine but himself likes Mary's father is not good because of the obvious regions that I have just explained to you so the and and this is the point that I raised that John said that himself likes pizza is not good because it is not in the c commanding domain John said that Mary called himself is not good again because the reflexive and the antecedent antecedent does not c command the reflexive they are not in the same domain I wrote this thing I I hope you understand what it means that this the NP Johns appears to be c commanding the reflexive himself if we do not look at this constraint but since we know about that constraint it is it is not possible for us to ignore so in order to dismiss this we do not have to touch the nose through a different route we can directly say that it does not appear to be c commanding because the second IP is a finite IP so what's the difference between one and two on one side and three and four on the other John saw himself in the mirror John gave a book to himself c commanding co-indexes and everything is fine John said that himself is genius is out remember the sentence from yesterday John said that himself is a genius John said that Mary dislikes himself are out for c commanding reasons and not being in the same domain so that that explains more precise so this is this is how we can put the constraints in a precise way that it is the constraint is put in terms of locality which is the same IP with locality the all we mean is the same IP and NFR must be bound in its binding domain and the binding domain is the IP the smallest clause containing it that is both NFR and that is both antecedent and reflexive must be within the same smallest clause that is the same IP look at this pronouns now I am coming to probably what you were looking for John saw him in the mirror is not good right John saw him in the mirror is not good as as it is marked here in this sentence because if we try to put same index for both then it is not right but with the same index the second sentence is all right you see that John said that he is a genius it is all right John said that Mary dislikes him that is also all right they are co-indexed so co-indexed being co-indexed is not just a problem for the pronoun please raise your hands if you see that your that question is still not answered John saw him in the mirror is okay if the indices are not the same so what is going on here in these four sentences if I just give you these four sentences and ask you to tell something about pronouns what can you say particularly knowing that now knowing the fact that you know the backgrounds of domains IP structure C command what can you say about these four sentences trust me I do not have do not have enough time I did not have enough time for quizzes otherwise these are the questions for quizzes asking you to provide generalization giving you a few sentences that that is the kind of problem one would want to struggle struggle with these are not the actual problem to make you a struggle once you once you figure one one thing you can write the answer in five minutes but these are the problems to think about so what can we say about pronouns they cannot be co-indexed within the same domain if they are in the C commanding configuration in the same IP they cannot be co-indexed if they and they are allowed to be co-indexed if they are in the different different IPs but at that time I did not talk about the same domain the and this is the fishy thing about pronouns that pronoun pronouns can be we cannot say pronouns must be free like our expressions we can only say pronouns must be free within the same domain that is principle B and the principle I am coming to that right after this slide an NFR must be bound in its mining domain and enough a pronoun must be free that is principle B okay so they can be co-indexed definitely they can be co-indexed outside the domain within the same domain if you try to co-index them the sentence results in ungrammaticality that is so then John is not so so it's not true but then it's not in the C commanding configuration as long as it is not in C commanding configuration that is fine John's mother C command John's mother saw him try to write that and see the see the structure we we just we have just seen the structure John will be under the the NP which is in the spec position so IP of the the I sorry specifier of the IP has an NP and within that NP again if we bifurcate then we get the John so the first branching node for John is going to be NP not the IP therefore it won't be able to see command him then there is no problem we have said that's not even a problem for enoughers John's mother saw himself sorry John's mother saw herself is not a problem and when we say John's mother saw him is not a problem because they are not co-indexed no they are in the same think about it slow John's mother saw him okay in this case John's mother as an NP and him as an another NP they are in the same domain but they are not co-indexed John's ma if John's mother is I him is J okay then that's there is no problem therefore the we we say that the distribution of pronoun in the distribution of pronouns pronouns and an offer appear different and this is the difference which which which says which leads us to principle B which says a pronoun must be free in the binding domain okay free means not bound that is the conditions that apply for binding C command and co-indexism must not work for them is the meaning of being free so the moment you say John saw him and try to put the co-indexism if if the indices are not the same then the sentence is all right and there that is what explains ambiguity if we say it has two meanings A and B with different index indices principle B explains both of them right John's here is the here is the sentence that you were talking about John's mother saw him is fine I'm sorry the index is wrong index is wrongly given I should have put John's mother in square bracket and then given it the index and then this sentence will be okay understand the difference between principle I and principle B sorry yeah yeah definitely you're talking about sentence number two right no no no the the problem is sentence number two is here this is how it should have been done John's mother saw him what what what I have done is I have put it here okay this is wrong what I should have done is I should have put it here oh right I'm sorry sorry sorry that that is also correct because the these two do not have same indices if this is I then this will be I'm sorry I'm sorry you're right that will be J yes and right now it is right now it is correct I'm sorry right now it is correct because they are not in the they can be co-indexed as long as they are not in the C commanding domain they can be co-indexed and then there is no problem you're right well we understand principle A principle B the differences between the two meaning of binding meaning of not being bound and then bringing in C command and the structural configuration to explain interpretations of noun phrases we understand this yeah can I pronoun and enough for be co-indexed with one another something like he saw himself yes true it this can be done as long as they are still following the same same constraints they are in the same binding domain they are co-indexed they are C commanding one another and within the same IP absolutely no problem okay absolutely no problem so that's that's principle B and then finally principle C to in in short give me another two minutes says our expression needs to be free everywhere that is for its reference and interpretation it doesn't depend on anything within the sentence when we say must be free everywhere we mean within the sentence must be free when it's not free in the world in the world that is in the larger context it depends on something for interpretation but in the sentence it is free when we look at the sentences the the he likes John if we try to put the index together then the sentence is wrong why because we are trying to get the reference for our expression John from he where it's violating principle C the John cannot take and take reference from anything within the sentence he saw John he likes John perfectly all right sentence by itself as long as he is i and john is j perfectly fine she she said that Mary fears clowns sentence could be good as long as she and Mary have different indices his mother likes John same problem no no no hold on hold on what's going on there is a problem here right just just forget that sentence the i am done with my point with the first two sentences so our expressions must be free everywhere NFR must be bound and pronouns must be free in the binding domain could be bound that is could be co-indexed with something outside the bound binding domain but within the binding domain it must be free these are the three principles of binding theory in which we need to understand binding domain and what we mean by being bound with the notion of ip x bar and c command that's all