This proposal introduces the problem in binding theory. It is a classroom assignment in NCUE, Taiwan. This proposal was completed by three graduated students and presented in the advanced syntax class.

1. Binding Theory
(Principle A)
National Changhua University of Education
 Course: Advance Syntax
 Instructor: Dr. Shuying Yang
 Group members:
Hans (M0241016 黃達翰)
Jack (M0141009 馮國政)
Stephanie (M0241004 林庭瑜)

2. Outline
 Introduction
 ECM verbs in binding
 Subject accessibility
 DP-trace in binding
 Conclusions
 Pedagogical Implications
 Limitations

3. Introduction
Background of the study
• Principle A
• (a) Susani punched herselfi on the face.
• *(b) Susani punched herselfj on the face.

4. Introduction
• Background of the study
• Principle B
• (a) Johni likes himj very much.
• *(b) Johni likes himi very much.

5. Introduction
• Background of the study
• Principle C
• (a) Ii want Johnj to leave.
• *(b) Ii want Johni to leave.

6. Introduction
Motivation of the Study
• (a) Ii want myselfi to be killed.
• (b) Jacki considered himselfi to be stupid.
• (c) Jack believes that he is stupid.

7. Introduction
Motivation of the study
• (a) Jacki takes every criticisms of himselfi.
• (b) Jacki said that Sam’s pictures of himselfi
were ugly.

8. Introduction
Motivation of the study
• (a) Mary is believed t to be a genius.
• (b) *Mary is believed t may be a genius.

9. Introduction
Motivation of the study
• (a) Sally seems t to be intelligent.
• (b) *Sally seems t will be intelligent.

10. ECM verbs in binding
Hans Huang

11. ECM Verbs in Binding
Observe the following sentences. Finiteness of
the sentences seems to affect binding situation.
1. *Johni believes himselfi is handsome.
2. Johni believes himselfi to be handsome.

12. ECM Verbs in Binding
Two ways to solve the problem.
1. Subject-to-object raising phenomenon
2. Redefine binding domain

13. Subject-to-object raising phenomenon
• The DP himself moves to the specifier of AgrOP
for case reasons, thus it moves out of the CP, its
original binding domain.
• Its new binding domain will be the whole matrix
sentence which contains the ECM verb ‘believe’.
• In this case, it will contain its binder (antecedent)
John
• The anaphor himself would be properly bound by
matrix subject John and thus the sentence is
grammatical.

15. Redefine binding domain
• The binding domain for anaphor must contain
an XP, in which the head X governs and give
case to anaphor.
• Government: node X governs node Y if node
X c-commands node Y and there is no node G
such G is c-commanded by X and G
asymmetrically c-commands Y.

16. Redefine binding domain
Johni believes himselfi to be handsome.
• The matrix verb ‘believe’ governs and
exceptionally gives an accusative case to the
embedded subject ‘himself’, therefore the
binding domain for the anaphor extends to the
whole matrix clause.
• Meanwhile, ‘himself’ is bound by the matrix
subject ‘John’.
• Thus, the sentence is grammatical.

17. Redefine binding domain
*Johni believes himselfi is handsome.
• The embedded clause is a finite clause of CP
structure. The anaphor ‘himself’ is governed
and given a nominative case by the finite T.
• Yet, there is no binder which can bind the
anaphor ‘himself’ in its binding domain.
Therefore, ‘himself’ is free, the sentence is
ungrammatical.

19. Question!!!
*Johni believes himselfi is handsome.
Question:
What prevents the embedded subject from being
governed by the matrix verb ‘believe’?
Answer: The CP barrier!!!!
• It is said that the CP barrier in a finite clause will
be strong enough to prevent the embedded subject
‘himself’ from being governed by the external
governor, namely the matrix verb ‘believe’.

20. CP barrier

21. Question!!!
However,when it comes to nonfinite
embedded clause, since the embedded subject
doesn’t have a case, the ECM verb then will
resolve this kind of CP layer to exceptionally
give an accusative case to the embedded
subject. In this case, TP alone will be too weak
to defend from the government of the external
ECM verb to the embedded subject.
John believes [TP himself to be handsome].
Johni believes himselfi to be handsome.
ECM

22. Redefine binding domain
More examples
3. Maryi expects herselfi to be tall.
4. *Maryi wants Johnj to help herselfi.
5. Maryi wants Johnj to help himselfj.

23. Redefine binding domain
Maryi expects herselfi to be tall.
• The embedded subject is governed and given
an accusative case by matrix ECM verb.
• The binding domain for anaphors thus is the
whole matrix sentence containing the ECM
verb, not the embedded clause.
• Thus, the reflexive “herself” is properly bound
by the matrix subject “Mary” and therefore the
sentence is grammatical.

24. Redefine binding domain
*Maryi wants Johnj to help herselfi.
• The governor and case assigner for herself is
the verb help so the antecedent is ‘John’.
• Since ‘herself’ cannot find a proper binder in
its binding domain, John to herselfi, the
anaphor is free and the sentences is incorrect.

25. Redefine binding domain
Maryi wants Johnj to help himselfj.
• Since the reflective ‘himself’ can find a proper
binder ‘John’ in its binding domain, Johni to
help himselfi, the sentence is correct.

26. Problems...
However, through these two ways, we still may
falsely predict the grammaticality of the
following sentences.
• *Johni believes [any description of himselfi]i.
(Johni believes [any description of himselfi]j.
• Johni believes that a [picture of himselfi]j is on
sale.

27. Subject Accessibility
Jack Feng

28. Subject Accessibility
a. Johni thinks that a picture of himselfi is on
sale.
b. * Johni thinks that Mary bought a picture of
himselfi.
c. * Johni thinks that himselfi should win the
election.

29. Subject Accessibility
• Chomsky (1981) introduced the concept of the
“accessible” subject as a way of solving the
problems
• α is an accessible subject for an anaphor β if
and only if (hypothetical) coindexation
between the anaphor and the subject violates
no grammatical principle.

30. Subject Accessibility
a. * John thinks that Mary bought a picture of
himself.
b. * John thinks that [ a picture of himselfi]i is
on sale.
Any violation of
grammar
principle ?

31. Subject Accessibility
• I-Within-I Filter
• *[ …Xi…]i
• [γ . . . δ . . . ]
• *[The picture of iti]i is on the table.
• [The picture of iti ]j is on the table.

32. Subject Accessibility
• Johni thinks that a picture of himselfi is on sale.
• Therefore, although the minimal XP which
contains the anaphor, its governor and a subject is
the embedded TP, the subject of that TP is not
accessible to the anaphor. Therefore, it is allowed
(and required) to look higher in order to find an
antecedent.

33. Subject Accessibility
• Definition of Accessibility
• α is accessible to β if and only if β is in the c-
command domain of α, and assignment to β of
the index of α would not violate the
i-within-i condition.
The boys were afraid [that [pictures of
themselves] would be on sale]

34. Subject Accessibility

35. Subject Accessibility
• The boys were afraid [that [γ pictures of
themselvesi]i wouldi be on sale].
• Other kinds of DP ??
– DP trace

36. DP-trace in Binding
Stephanie Lin

37. DP-trace in Binding
• DP traces occur at the two major DP-movement
transformations, Passivization and Raising.
• Since in both transformations, the trace is always
co-indexed and c-commanded by its antecedent in
the argument position.
• DP trace is seen as an anaphor in nature and
therefore must obey Binding Condition, Principle A.

38. Recall:
Eg. Johni likes himselfi.
CP
Spec. C’
C TP
DP T’
Johni T VP
-s
[3rd sg.] V’
[present]
V DP
likes himselfi

39. DP-movements: Passivization structure
 Examples:
1) Mary was awarded t the first prize.
2) Mary is believed t to be the winner.
3) *Mary is believed t may be the winner.

40. 1) Mary was awarded t the first prize.
• The DP trace was governed by the verb “awarded”, so
the Binding Domain is the whole sentence.
• And, the antecedent is the moved DP, which the
antecedent binds the DP trace.
• Thus, in Passivization DP trace is like an anaphor in
behavior and abides by the Principle A.
• Sentence (1) is grammatical.

41. 2) Mary is believed t to be the winner.
CP
Spec. C’
C TP1
Binding DP T’
Domain Mary T VP
is V’
V TP2
believed DP T’
t T VP
to V’
V DP
be the winner.

42. 3) *Mary is believed t may be the winner.
BD
CP
Spec. C’
C TP1
DP T’
Mary T VP
is V’
[3rd sg.]
[present] V CP2
believed Spec. C’
C TP2
Binding Spec. T’
Domain t T G VP
may Spec. V’
[+ Finite] t V DP
be the winner.

43. DP-movements: Raising structure
 Examples:
4) Sally seems t to be best singer.
5) *Sally seems t Mike to like t.
6) *Sally seems t will be best singer.

44. 4) Sally seems t to be best singer.
CP
Spec. C’
C TP1
Binding DP T’
Domain Sally T VP
[3rd sg.] V’
[present] V TP2
seems DP T’
ti T VP
to V’
V DP
be the best singer.

45. • DP trace is in the object position governed by the
verb “like”, so the Binding Domain is the embedded
clause.
• The subject in the embedded sentence (Mike)
doesn’t have the same index as the DP trace, and the
DP trace can’t be bound by its antecedent
• Therefore, this sentence is incorrect.
(ungrammatical)
5) *Sallyi seems Mikej to like ti.
BD

46. 6) *[TP1 Sally seems TP2 t will be best singer.
BD
• DP trace is inside a tensed sentence and governed by
TENSE (the finite INFL); thus, the Binding Domain
is the embedded clause and there is no antecedent
under the lower TP (TP2).
• And, the subject of the embedded clause (the DP
trace) in the specifier of VP is raised to the higher
place, the specifier of TP2.
• So, the DP trace can’t find its antecedent.

47. Conclusions
• To explain ‘ECM verb’ structure problems: (2 ways)
• First, ECM verbs would have subject-to-object
raising condition.
• And, anaphors will raise to the specifier of the
AgrOP for case reason, so it moves out of its
original position in CP.
• The new binding domain with a co-indexed
antecedent c-commands anaphor, so the sentence is
grammatical.

48. Conclusions
• Next, we redefine the binding domain.
• Binding domain of anaphors must contain an XP,
where the head X governs and gives case to them.
• Because ECM verbs can resolve CP barriers in
nonfinite embedded clause, ECM verbs can govern
nonfinite embedded subject.

49. Conclusions
• One copy of an anaphor in a chain must be bound
within the smallest CP or DP containing it and the
first potential antecedent.
• Moreover, in order for a subject to count as an
“accessible” subject (potential antecedent) for an
anaphor, it must fulfill two requirements.

50. Conclusions
• Lastly, we check if the DP trace could follow the
Binding Condition.
• DP traces occur at the two major DP-movement
transformations, Passivization and Raising.
• In both transformations, the trace is always co-
indexed and c-commanded by its antecedent in the
argument position.
• Thus, DP trace is seen as an anaphor in nature and
obeys Principle A.

51. Pedagogical Implications
Based on the findings in the present project
• First, the findings could provide EFL teachers
with more professional knowledge toward
English anaphors.
• Second, EFL teachers might be able to help
students judge the grammaticality of the
usages of English anaphors as well.

52. Limitations
• First, the limited discussion of one language
becomes a problem.
• Second, the complexity of the sentence
structures might create some new issues.