CAPITULO III.ANÁLISIS Y DISCUSIÓN
3.3. Desempeño profesional en el ámbito de la gestión del aprendizaje
3.3.2. Ejecución del proceso de enseñanza – aprendizaje
ENG 222 ADVANCED ENGLISH SYNTAX
UNIT 2 GOVERNMENT, BINDING AND BOUNDING
ENG 222 ADVANCED ENGLISH SYNTAX
(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 NP’s. Consider (1) below:
1. Nobody saw John
This will be represented as (2):
2. Nobody [saw [John]
V NP VP
VP
V1
V NP saw John
In the above example, the lexical head V dominates and governs its
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 highest
command. 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.
3.2 Binding Theory
ENG 222 ADVANCED ENGLISH SYNTAX
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 NP’s 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).
ENG 222 ADVANCED ENGLISH SYNTAX
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 NP’s are coreferential. In 3(a), John conindexes with himself; in 3(b) Mary coindexes with herself and in 3(c) Mary and
Susan coindexes with each other. Examples 4(a) and (b) and 5(a) and (b) illustrate principles (b) and (c) respectively.
3.3 Bounding Theory
Bounding theory imposes restriction 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]]
IP IP NP movement
and this results in the grammatical sentence (2):
2. John was said to believe Mary to be wrong.
However, passivization (NP movement) is not possible across two intervening IP boundaries so that we cannot passivize Mary in the
manner shown in (3):
3. [NP ] was said [John to believe [Mary to be wrong]]
IP IP
X NP movement X
ENG 222 ADVANCED ENGLISH SYNTAX
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 movement
(b) *[whoi would [ [a funny picture of ti] surprised Susan]
IP NP
movement
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 I movement
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 backeted IP boundaries in (8):
8. [C ] [John might suspect that [he will resign]]
IP IP
I movement X X
ENG 222 ADVANCED ENGLISH SYNTAX
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.
4.0 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, the fact that we have discussed them separately
notwithstanding. You should familiarize yourself with these terms and observe how they interact.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you have learnt:
• 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; and
• that bounding refers to the restrictions imposed on the movement of elements within a sentence.
6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT
1. Explain the following terms as clearly as possible:(a) Government (b) Binding (c) Bounding
ENG 222 ADVANCED ENGLISH SYNTAX
7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READINGS
Culicover, P.W. (1997). Principles and Parameters Oxford: O.U.P.
Freidin, Robert. (1994). Foundations of Generative Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT, Press.
Lamidi, M.T. (2000). Aspects of Chomskyan Grammar. Ibadan: Emman Publications.
Radford, Andrew. (1988). Transformational Grammar. Cambridge:
C.U.P.
ENG 222 ADVANCED ENGLISH SYNTAX