Transcript Theta theory

CAS LX 522
Syntax I
Week 5b. q-Theory (with a little
more binding theory)
Binding

Principle A of the Binding Theory (preliminary):
An anaphor must be bound.
*
DP
IP
DPi
John
I
I
-ed
IP
VP
V
see
DPi
himself
DPi
John D
’s
I
D
DP
mother
I
-ed
VP
V
see
DPi
himself
Principle A

This also explains why the following
sentences are ungrammatical:
*Himselfi saw Johni in the mirror.
 *Herselfi likes Maryi’s father.
 *Himselfi likes Mary’s fatheri.


There is nothing which c-commands
and is coindexed with himself and
herself. The anaphors are not bound,
which violates Principle A.
Binding domains

But this is not the end of the story; consider



*Johni said that himselfi likes pizza.
*Johni said that Mary called himselfi.
In these sentences the DP John c-commands
and is coindexed with (=binds) himself,
satisfying our preliminary version of Principle
A—but the sentences are ungrammatical.


John didn’t say that anyone likes pizza.
John didn’t say that Mary called anyone.
Binding domains
Johni saw himselfi in the mirror.
 Johni gave a book to himselfi.
 *Johni said that himselfi is a genius.
 *Johni said that Mary dislikes himselfi.



What is wrong? John binds himself in
every case. What is different?
In the ungrammatical cases, himself is
in an embedded clause.
Binding domains

It seems that not only does an anaphor need to
be bound, it needs to be bound nearby (or
locally).

Principle A (revised):
An anaphor must be bound in its binding
domain.
Binding Domain (preliminary):
The binding domain of an anaphor is the
smallest clause containing it.
Principle A



The definition of binding domain is very
complicated (this occupied many
syntacticians in the early ’80s).
A clause (IP) delimits a binding domain.
But other things do too…
Mary likes [DP John’s picture of himselfi ].
 *Maryi likes [DP John’s picture of herselfi ].
 Maryi wants [DP a picture of herselfi ].

Binding domain


Let’s say this:
The binding domain for an anaphor is the
smallest of:
An IP that dominates it.
 A DP, with a specifier, that dominates it.


Note! This is not perfect, but it is a pretty
close approximation.
Pronouns
*Johni saw himi in the mirror.
 Johni said that hei is a genius.
 Johni said that Mary dislikes himi.
 Johni saw himj in the mirror.



How does the distribution of pronouns
differ from the distribution of anaphors?
It looks like it is just the opposite.
Principle B

Principle B
A pronoun must be free in its binding domain.
Free
Not bound


*Johni saw himi.
Johni’s mother saw himi.
Principle C

We now know where pronouns and
anaphors are allowed. So what’s wrong
with these sentences? The pronouns
are unbound as needed for Principle B.
What are the binding relations here?

*Hei likes Johni.
*Shei said that Maryi fears clowns.
Hisi mother likes Johni.


Principle C




Binding is a means of assigning reference.
R-expressions have intrinsic reference;
they can’t be assigned their reference from
somewhere else.
R-expressions can’t be bound, at all.
Principle C
An r-expression must be free.
Binding Theory





Principle A. An anaphor must be bound in its
binding domain.
Principle B. A pronoun must be free in its
binding domain.
Principle C. An r-expression must be free.
The binding domain for an anaphor is the
smallest of (i) An IP that dominates it, (ii) A DP,
with a specifier, that dominates it.
Bound: coindexed with a c-commanding
antecedent (Free: not bound).
Constraints on interpretation


Binding Theory is about interpretation.
Only a structure that satisfies Binding
Theory is interpretable.
pronounce
Lexicon
Merge
Workbench
interpret
Constraints on interpretation

If we put together a tree that isn’t
interpretable, the process (derivation) is
sometimes said to crash.
pronounce
Lexicon
Merge
Workbench
interpret
Constraints on interpretation

If we succeed in putting together a tree
that is interpretable (satisfying the
constraints), we say the process
(derivation) converges.
pronounce
Lexicon
Merge
Workbench
interpret
Exercise to ponder

Young kids (5-6 years) seem to accept
sentences like (1) as meaning what (2) means
for adults.



(1) Mama Bear is pointing to her.
(2) Mama Bear is pointing to herself.
Suppose that contrary to appearances, kids do
know and obey Principle B. Look carefully at the
definitions of Binding Theory. If Principle B isn’t
the problem, what do you think kids are getting
wrong to allow (1) to have the meaning of (2)?

Think in particular about how you decide which index
to assign to her. What is the implication of having the
same index? What is the implication of having
*MBi is pointing to heri.


(1) *Mama Beari is pointing to heri.
(2) Mama Beari is pointing to herselfi.


(3) Mama Beari is pointing to herj.


Principle B: A pronoun must be free within its binding
domain. Free = not bound. Bound by = coindexed
with and c-commanded by.
Indexes signify a “pointing relation”. Coindexation
implies coreference.
Raining implies wet streets. Do wet streets imply
raining?
Verbs and arguments


Verbs come in several types…
Some have only a subject, they can’t have an
object—the intransitive verbs.


Some need an object—the transitive verbs.


Sleep: Bill slept; *Bill slept the book.
Hit: *Bill hit; Bill hit the pillow.
Some need two objects—ditransitive verbs.

Put: *Bill put; *Bill put the book;
Bill put the book on the table.
Verbs and arguments

The “participants” in an event denoted by
the verb are the arguments of that verb.

Some verbs require one argument
(subject), some require two arguments
(subject and object), some require three
arguments (subject, indirect object, direct
object).
Predicates

We will consider verbs to be predicates
which define properties of and/or relations
between the arguments.
Bill hit the ball
 There was a hitting, Bill did the hitting, the ball
was affected by the hitting.


Different arguments have different roles in
the event. (e.g., The hitter, the hittee)
Subcategorization

Not all transitive verbs (that take just one
object) can take the same kind of object.
Sue knows [DP the answer ]
 Sue knows [CP that Bill left early ]
 Sue hit [DP the ball ]
 *Sue hit [CP that Bill left early]


So know can take either a DP or a CP as
its object argument; hit can only take a DP
as its object argument.
Selection

Verbs also exert semantic control of the
kinds of arguments they allow: selection.

For example, many verbs can only have a
volitional (agentive) subject:
Bill likes pizza. Bill kicked the stone.
 #Pizza likes anchovies. #The stone kicked
Bill.

The lexicon


A major component of our knowledge of a language is
knowing the words and their properties (the lexicon).
In the lexicon, we have the words (lexical items)
stored with their properties, like:







Syntactic category (N, V, Adj, P, C, I, …)
Number of arguments required
Subcategorization requirements (syntax)
Selectional requirements (semantics)
Pronunciation
…
These pretty much just have to be learned separately
for each verb in the language.
Thematic relations


It has come to be standard practice to
think of the selectional restrictions in terms
of the thematic relation that the argument
has to the verb—the role it plays in the
event.
One thematic relation is agent of an
action, like Bill in:

Bill kicked the ball.
Common thematic relations


Agent: initiator or doer in the event
Theme: affected by the event, or
undergoes the action


Experiencer: feel or perceive the event


Bill kicked the ball.
Bill likes pizza.
Proposition: a statement, can be
true/false.

Bill said that he likes pizza.
Thematic relations

Goal:



Source:


Bill ate the burrito with a plastic spork.
Benefactive:


Bill took a pencil from the pile.
Instrument:


Bill ran to Copley Square.
Bill gave the book to Mary. (Recipient)
Bill cooked dinner for Mary.
Location:

Bill sits under the tree on Wednesdays.
Thematic relations

Armed with these terms, we can describe
the semantic connection between the verb
and its arguments.

Ray gave a grape to Bill.
Ray: Agent, Source, …
 A grape: Theme
 Bill: Goal, Recipient, …

q-roles



An argument can participate in several
thematic relations with the verb (e.g.,
Agent, Goal).
In the syntax, we assign a special
connection to the verb called a “q-role”,
which is a collection of thematic relations.
For the purposes of syntax, the q-role (the
collection of relations) is much more
central than the actual relations in the
collection.
q-roles


We will often need to make reference to a
particular q-role, and we will often do this
by referring to the most prominent relation
in the collection.
For example, in Bill hit the ball, we say that
Bill has the “Agent q-role”, meaning it has
a q-role containing the Agent relation,
perhaps among others.
The Theta Criterion



Although an argument can have any
number of thematic relations in the qrole…
Each argument has exactly one q-role.
On the other side, verbs (as we’ve seen)
are recorded in the lexicon with the
number of participants they require; each
participant must have a q-role as well.
The Theta Criterion



Verbs have a certain number of q-roles to assign
(e.g., say has two), and each of those must be
assigned to a distinct argument.
Meanwhile, every argument needs to have
exactly one q-role (it needs to have at least one,
it can’t have more than one).
This requirement that there be a one-to-one
match between the q-roles a verb has to assign
and the arguments receiving q-roles is the Theta
Criterion.
Theta Grids

We can formalize the information about q-roles in
the lexical entry for a verb by using a theta grid,
like so:
give


Source/Agent
Theme
Goal
i
j
k
The columns each represent a q-role, the indices
in the lower row will serve as our connection to the
actual arguments; e.g.
Johni gave [the book]j [to Mary]k.
Theta Grids

Johni gave [the book]j [to Mary]k.
give
Source/Agent
Theme
Goal
i
j
k
The first q-role is
assigned to the subject.
It is the external q-role.
It is often designated by
underlining it.
The other q-role are
internal q-roles.
Theta Grids

The q-roles in the theta grid are obligatory. (Optional
things like on the hill are not in the q-grid).
give

Source/Agent
Theme
Goal
i
j
k
Adjuncts are related to the verb via thematic
relations (e.g., instrument, location, etc.), but an
adjunct does not get a q-role. They are optional.
The Theta Criterion in action

An example: push.
push


Theme
i
j
Billi pushed the shopping cartj.


Agent
Fine, push assigns two q-roles, one (the external q-role) is
assigned to Bill, the other (the internal q-role) is assigned
to the shopping cart. There are two arguments here, each
gets a q-role.
*Billi pushed. (j?)
*Billi pushed the shopping cartj the corner?.
The Theta Criterion in action

An example: cough.
cough
Agent
i

Billi coughed.


Fine, cough assigns one q-role (the external q-role), to Bill.
There are one arguments here, and it gets a q-role.
*Billi coughed the shopping cart?.
“Argument”?

The q-criterion:



every q-role in the q-grid is assigned to exactly
one argument.
every argument is assigned exactly one q-role.
The second half protects us against superfluous
arguments. But it’s hard to evaluate this if we
don’t know what an argument is.

It’s hard to say, actually. There are some further
concepts that we should have before we can even
start to state this accurately. For now, let’s just
suppose that DPs and CPs are necessarily
arguments, and PPs usually aren’t.
The EPP

With the Theta Criterion in our toolbox, let’s take a
look at a special kind of sentence (which will turn
out to tell us something important about syntax).




It rained.
It snowed.
How many q-roles does rain assign?
If we think about it, it doesn’t really mean anything
at all. It is not a participant in the event; it really
can’t be getting a q-role. (cf. also Spanish).
The EPP

So, the theta grid for rain really looks like
this:
The EPP


Given the q-Criterion and the fact that rain
doesn’t have any q-roles to assign, what’s
it doing there? And why doesn’t it violate
the q-Criterion?
As to the first question, the conclusion that
syntacticians have come to is that the it is
there due to a separate constraint, which
goes by the name EPP.
The EPP

The EPP
All clauses have subjects.

The idea is that there must be something in the
subject position (SpecIP) of every clause.

Because rain has no arguments (no q-roles), a
special, contentless pronoun (it) has to be inserted
to in order to have a grammatical sentence. This
kind of “empty it” is called an expletive or a
pleonastic pronoun. It is not an argument (in this
use).









