(toc) #title= (Table of Content)
Government Theory
Government theory specifies that adjacency relations should hold between the head and elements that are dependent on them. The minimal definition of government is:
A. a governs if and only if
(i) a is a head
(ii) a m-commands ß
B. A lexical head a governs a category
ß if and only if a m-commands ß and ß m-commands a.
In government theory, lexical heads (N, V, P, etc.) are governors; they govern and assign case to their NPs. Consider (1) below:
1. Nobody saw John
This will be represented as (2):
2. Nobody [saw [John]
VP
VP
V1
V NP
saw John
In the above example, the lexical head V dominates and governs the object NP (John) that it immediately dominates and assigns Accusative Case to it. In this case, we say that V and NP are sisters.
We also observe from the above example that the VP is the head. It is possible to delete V1 from the tree and this will not change the fact that V dominates and governs NP. For instance, we can have the representation as in (3) deleting the intermediate node:
3. VP
V NP
Government thus specifies adjacency relations holding between the head and the elements dependent on it. It is the head that governs all other elements dependent on it.
Binding Theory
In the previous section, we discussed adjacency relations holding between the head and the elements dependent on it. Here, we shall examine long-distance relations called binding. Binding is a type of referential dependency, whereby the reference of the bound element is exactly the reference of the antecedent. Consider the example in (1):
1. Every girl likes her mother
In this example, every girl binds her. The reference of her is dependent on the reference of the antecedent. This type of binding is called variable binding because the pronoun her is interpreted as a variable bound by its antecedent.
Reference is a relationship between part of a sentence and the external world. A referring expression picks out some entity in the world. Binding is, therefore, a semantic relation since it involves reference.
In order to represent the relation of referential dependency, we use indexing (i). The index of an NP correlates with what the NP refers to. Thus, if two NPs have the same index, they refer to the same thing; that is, they co-refer. If they have different indices, this indicates that they refer to different things. Semantics interprets the indices, mapping a particular index into a particular referent in the world. However, it is important to recognize that referential dependence and coreference are different relations, as can be seen in sentences where a quantifier phrase binds a variable as in (2):
2. [No student]i thought that hei would pass.
In this sentence, the NP no student does not refer to anyone, yet he is coindexed with this NP and is (referentially) dependent on it. But he and no student are not coreferential.
There are three principles or conditions under which binding theory holds:
(a) An anaphor must be bound in its domain.
(b) A pronominal must be free in its domain.
(c) An R-expression must be free.
Anaphors refer to reflexives (e.g., himself, herself, themselves, etc.) and reciprocals (such as each other, one another, etc.). Pronominal refers to pronouns (e.g., him, he, she, etc.) while R-expressions (referring expressions) refer to names (e.g., John, Mary, tiger, etc.).
Let us consider more examples to illustrate the principles discussed above.
3. (a) Johni likes himselfi
(b) Maryi believes herselfi
(c) Mary and Susani love each otheri
4. (a) John’si mother likes himi
(b) Every girli thought that shei would win
5. (a) Ngozi’si mother-in-law adores Ngozii
(b) Bill returned Peter’si book to Peteri
In the above, examples 3(a)-(c) illustrate principle (a). In all the cases, the indexed NPs are coreferential. In 3(a), John coindexes with himself; in 3(b) Mary coindexes with herself and in 3(c) Mary and Susan coindex with each other. Examples 4(a) and (b) and 5(a) and (b) illustrate principles (b) and (c) respectively.
Bounding Theory
Bounding theory imposes restrictions on the movement of phrases within a sentence. Some transformations we shall consider in the next module seem to be bounded in the sense that they can move constituents from one place to another. Some can move constituents over a long distance while some can move constituents over a limited distance. For example, NP movement in passive structures can move an NP across a single IP boundary as in (1):
1. [NP
] was said [John to believe [Mary to be wrong]]
and this results in the grammatical sentence (2):
2. John was said to believe Mary to be wrong. However, passivization (NP movement) intervening IP boundaries so that movement is shown in (3):
3. [NP ] was said [John to believe
IP IP
As we see from the ungrammaticality of the resultant sentence (4):
4. *Mary was said John to believe to be wrong.
The theory illustrates the subjacency condition which states: Movement cannot cross more than one bounding node, where bounding nodes are IP and NP. Let us consider more illustrative examples: (t = tree)
5. (a) [whoi would [ [ti that John saw ti] surprised Susan]
IP
CP movement
(b) *[whoi would [ [a funny picture of ti] surprised Susan]
IP NP
As exemplified in 5(a) above, extraction of the wh-word may pass through the specifier of the lower CP without violating the subjacency condition, but in 5(b) the movement has violated the subjacency condition because extraction from subject NP is not allowed. As evident in the sentence, IP and NP are the nodes that are bounding.
Let us consider I-movement which is bounded in much the same way, for example, it can move the italicized auxiliary out of I into C across a single intervening IP boundary as in (6):
6. [C ] [John might suspect that [he will resign]]
IP IP
This results in the grammatical sentence (7):
7. Might John suspect that he will resign?
However, I-movement cannot move the subordinate clause Auxiliary will across the two bracketed IP boundaries in (8):
8. [C ] [John might suspect that [he will resign]]
X I movementX
Since the resultant sentence (9) is ungrammatical:
9. *Will John might suspect that he resign?
How can we account for the fact that both NP movement and I-movement appear to be bounded in much the same way (i.e., they are unable to move a constituent out of more than one containing IP node)? The most principled answer to this question would be to posit that it is an inherent property of all movement rules that they are intrinsically bounded. That is to say, transformations can move constituents so far (e.g., out of a single containing IP node) and no further.
Conclusion
In this unit, we have discussed various relations holding within sentences. It should be noted that these relations interact in the analysis of the sentence, and the fact that we have discussed them reinforces understanding. You should familiarize yourself with these terms and observe how they interact.
Summary
In this unit, you have learned:
- That government refers to the adjacency relations that hold between the head and the elements dependent on it.
- That binding refers to the relations that hold between noun phrases and their antecedents.
- That bounding refers to the restrictions imposed on the movement of elements within a sentence.
Tutor-Marked Assignment
Explain the following terms as clearly as possible:
(a) Government
(b) Binding
(c) Bounding
Leave a comment behind