Theory of binding Book

 
TOWARDS AN ALTERNATIVE
THEORY OF BINDING
Abhilasha Jain
and
B.N. Patnaik
Section VI
In the first sentence of (157) - (159), P is the root S, in which the pronoun does not have an antecedent (henceforth antecedent-free) as expected and the sentences are grammatical. In the second sentence of (157) - (159), the pronoun has been assigned an antecedent within the P and the sentence are ungrammatical, as predicted.
In (160) and (161), P is the possessive phrase uski kitab and P is the root S. In the first sentence of (160) the pronoun is antecedent-free in the P, as expected. In P, there is no argument other than the mukhya for the pronoun to choose as antecedent. But a pronoun cannot be bound in P. Thus the pronoun is antecedent-free in the sentence and the sentence is grammatical. In 160 (ii), however, the pronoun is bound by the mukhya in P . Consequently the sentence is ungrammatical.
In (161) (i), the pronoun does shave an antecedent in P but it is not bound i.e it doesnot have a mukhya as its antecedent. Hence, the sentence is grammatical. In 161 (ii) , however, the pronoun has been assigned the mukhya in P as its antecedent and the sentence is ungrammatical.
In (162), P is the possessive phrase uska ghar. P is the embedded ka-na NP. In, P the pronoun is antecedent-free. The P does not contain an argument other than the mukhya, which can be assigned as antecedent to the pronoun. Thus the pronoun is antecedent-free in P also. Outside the P the pronoun is free to choose any argument as its antecedent and the pronoun is bound by the mukhya, ram.
In (163), P is the phrase uska santulan. P is the root S. The pronoun is antecedent-free in P. In P it has been assigned the mukhya, ram, as antecedent and the sentence is ungrammatical as predicted by the theory. Notice that in this sentence even if uska had not been bound by ram, it would not have been possible to use a pronoun in the relevant position. This is because here the pronoun gets neither intrasentential reference (for reason stated above) nor does it get contextual reference, which is ruled out by the semantics of santulan kho dena. If uska has contextual reference the sentence, then (163) would have the following meaning:
X lost Y' s balance, where X is ram and Y is us.
But this is bizarre. However, an anaphor is possible in place of the pronoun in the (163) because their even though the anaphor is free in P, it is bound by ram in and the sentence is grammatical, as predicted by our theory.
In (164), uska dost is the P in which us is antecedent-free as expected. In , the root S, us has to choose the non-mukhya as its antecedent. The non-mukhya in ram. Hence us is assigned ram as its antecedent and the sentence is grammatical, as predicted. It must be borne in mind that no matter whether ram is the mukhya or not in ram ki bat (it indeed is the mukhya). Ram is not the mukhya of the predicate of the , that is manana (obey). Notice that apna cannot be used in place of uska in the possessive phrase in (164). This is beause apna does not get an antecedent in the sentence. Apna dost is the mukhya of the predicate manana, that is, it is the mukhya of Within the there cannot be another mukhya by which apna can be bound. Hence, apna remains free and the sentence is ungrammatical.
In (165), P is the possessive phrase uski dekhbhal and is the root S. In P, the pronoun is antecedent-free, as expected. The mukhya in , is ram ki ma and the non-mukhya is ram. In , the pronoun can choose the non-mukhya as its antecedent. Thus, in (165) us refers to ram. When apna is used in placeof the pronoun, it correctly chooses the mukhya of the sentence ram ki ma as its antecedent.
In (166), P is the possessive phrase uska pita. is the embedded S. In uska pita is the mukhya and the non-mukhya distinct from the pronoun is shyam. The pronoun chooses shyam as its antecedent as permitted. However, in (166), the pronoun can choose antecedents outside the . As stated earlier, outside the the pronoun can choose its antecedent freely. Thus, in (166), it chooses both the mukhya and the non-mukhya of the root S as antecedents.
Now consider the following sentences which demonstrate the effect of semantic considerations on pronoun-antecedent relation.
(167) ram ne mohan se kaha       ki voh parne me
           j                 j
ram CM mohan CM say+PAST COMP he study+Nom CM
man            lagaye
attention     put
(Ram asked Mohan to study with diligence.)
(168) *ram ne mohan se kaha ki voh parne
  i                                   i
ram CM mohan CM say+PAST COMP he study+Nom
me            man        lagaye
CM attention put+PAST
(169) ram ne mohan se kaha ki voh apni
              j                     j
ram CM mohan CM say+PAST COMP he self's
kitab pare
book read+PAST
(Ram asked Mohan t read his book)
(170) *ram ne mohan se kaha ki voh apni kitab pare
   i                                        i
ram CM mohan CM say COMP he self's book read+PAST
In (167) - (170) the pronoun occurs in an exptraposed S which is the P. P is the root S. In P, the pronoun is antecedent-free. Notice that the P is a CP* also. Beyond the CP*, the pronoun can choose its antecedents freely. Thus, in (167), it chooses the non-mukhya as its antecedent and the sentence is grammatical. However, when it is assigned the mukhya, ram, as antecedent the sentence (168) is ungrammatical. It is because of the semantics of the verb kah (in the sense of "advise"). If voh is coindexed with ram, it gives (168) the following interpretation:
X ADVISED Y that X concentrate on his studies where X is ram and Y is mohan.
This is anomalous. Hence, (168) is ungrammatical.
In (169) and (170), P is again the extraposed S and P is the root S. However, P is also CP*. Thus, outside the CP* the pronoun can choose antecedents freely. When it is assigned the non-mukhya, mohan, as antecedent (169) is grammatical. However, when it is assigned the mukhya as antecedent, as in (170), the sentence is ungrammatical. As in the case of (168), assigning the mukhya as the antecedent to the pronoun violates the semantics of the verb kah (used in the sense of "suggest"). If voh is assigned ram as the antecedent, as in (170), the sentence has the following totally anomalous ram interpretation:
X SUGGESTED to Y that X should read X's book, where X is ram and Y is mohan.
Our conclusions need not be modified in the light of the above. The theory can assign both, the mukhya and the non-mukhya as antecedent to pronouns thereby, assgning two interpretations to each sentence. One of these can be filtered out later in the propmatic component.
 
Theory of Binding Page
 
FeedBack | Contact Us | Home
ciil grammar footer