LIN 4500/6502 HW5 Answer Key

Chapter 5

GP2: C-command and Binding

[NOTE: My trees here are in X-bar theory, but if yours are more basic, based on PSRs, that is ok]

A. [The book about [the president]i ]k didn’t bother himi.

(i) No binding relationship

(ii) The DP ‘the president’ doesn’t c-command the DP ‘him,’ and binding requires both c-command and
coindexing. Therefore, binding is not possible.

B. [The book about [the president]i ]k didn’t bother himi.

(i) No binding relationship.

m
er as
(ii) The DP ‘the book about the president’ and the DP ‘him’ are not coindexed. Therefore, no binding

co
relationship is possible (even though the former does c-command the latter).

eH w
Tree for A and B:

o.
rs e
ou urc
o
aC s
vi y re
ed d
ar stu
sh is
Th

C. [The book about [the president]i ]k sold itselfk.

(i) Yes, there is a binding relationship.

(ii) The DP ‘the book about the president’ c-commands the anaphor ‘itself’ and is coindexed with it.
Therefore, it binds it.

https://www.coursehero.com/file/18961597/HW5-Answer-Key/
 m
er as
co
eH w
o.
D. [Andyi’s constant lack of effort]k dismayed [hisi father]m.
rs e
ou urc
(i) There is no binding relationship.

(ii) The DP ‘Andy’ does not c-command the pronoun ‘his’ even though they are coindexed. Therefore,
binding is not possible.
o
aC s
vi y re

E. [Andyi’s constant lack of effort]k dismayed [hisn father]m.

(i) There is no binding relationship.

(ii) The DP ‘Andy’ does not c-command and is not coindexed with the pronoun ‘his.’ Therefore, binding is
ed d

not possible.
ar stu
sh is
Th

https://www.coursehero.com/file/18961597/HW5-Answer-Key/
 m
er as
co
eH w
o.
rs e
ou urc
o
aC s
vi y re

Chapter 5, GP4
(a) *Michaeli loves himi.

The problem is that ‘him,’ a pronoun, is c-command by and coindexed with ‘Michael’ in its immediate
ed d

syntactic domain (the local CP). This makes ‘Michael’ a binder of ‘him.’ Principle B states, however, that
ar stu

pronouns must be free in their local syntactic domain. This sentence violates Principle B.

(b) *Hei loves Michaeli.

sh is

The problem is that ‘Michael,’ an R-expression, is c-command by and coindexed with ‘him.’ This makes
Th

‘he’ a binder of ‘Michael.’ However, Principle C states that R-expressions must be free. This sentence
violates Principle C.

(c) *Michaeli’s fatherj loves himselfi.

The problem is that ‘himself,’ an anaphor, is not c-commanded by ‘Michael,’ the DP that it is coindexed
with. This means that ‘Michael’ does not bind ‘himself’ in (c). However, Principle A states that anaphors
must be bound in their local domain (in this case, the local CP). Since ‘himself’ is not bound, this
sentence violates Principle A.

(d) *Michaeli’s fatherj loves himj.

https://www.coursehero.com/file/18961597/HW5-Answer-Key/
 The problem is that ‘him,’ a pronoun, is c-command by and coindexed with the DP ‘Michael’s Father’ in
its immediate syntactic domain (the local CP). This makes ‘Michael’s father’ a binder of ‘him.’ Principle B
states, however, that pronouns must be free in their local syntactic domain. This sentence violates
Principle B.

(e) *Susani thinks that John should marry herselfi.

In (e), Susan c-commands and is coindexed with ‘herself.’ It is therefore a binder of ‘herself.’ However,
Principle A states that an anaphor must be bound in its local syntactic domain that also contains a
potential antecedent. In (e), the local syntactic domain is the embedded CP and this does contain a
potential antecedent, ‘John.’ Therefore, ‘herself’ is not bound by an antecedent within its local domain.
This sentence violates Principle A.

(f) *John thinks that Susani should kiss heri.

m
er as
The problem is that ‘her,’ a pronoun, is c-command by and coindexed with ‘Susan’ in its immediate
syntactic domain (the local CP). This makes ‘Susan’ a binder of ‘her.’ Principle B states, however, that

co
eH w
pronouns must be free in their local syntactic domain. This sentence violates Principle B.

o.
Chp 5, CP1 rs e
ou urc
What problems does the following sentence raise for the binding theory we have sketched? Can you
think of a solution?
o

[Which pictures of himselfi ] does John i despise?

aC s
vi y re

It poses a serious problem: Principle A states that anaphors must be bound within their local syntactic
domain that contains a potential antecedent. However, in the sentence above, it is difficult to see how
‘John’ could c-command ‘himself’ when ‘himself’ comes before ‘John.’ Nevertheless, the sentence is
grammatical.
ed d
ar stu

A potential solution comes up when we think about the non-question form of this sentence, which
would be:

Johni despises [which pictures of himselfi].

sh is
Th

In the question form, the DP ‘which picture of himself’ has moved to the front of the sentence (Spec,CP).
But note that in this non-question form, where the moved DP is put in its original position as the object
of the verb, ‘John’ does c-command ‘himself’ and Principle A is not violated. This suggests that binding
theory can hold before an NP undergoes movement.

Chp 5; CP 4 Japanese zibunzisin

Question 1: On the basis of the data in (a), zibunzisin seems to be an anaphor. It must be coindexed with
the antecedent inside its local domain (the local CP) and cannot be coindexed with an antecedent
outside that local CP. This is a behavior we associated with anaphors according to Principle A. If it were a
pronoun, we would expect coindexation with a local c-commanding antecedent to be ill formed,
according to Principle B.

https://www.coursehero.com/file/18961597/HW5-Answer-Key/
 Question 2: No, I do not need to revise my analysis. In the data in (b), zibunzisin is in the subject, not
object position. Therefore, I assume it is not c-commanded by Maryo. It therefore does not have a
potential antecedent within its local CP. According to Principle A, this means the local CP does not count
as its local syntactic domain. Instead, the local syntactic domain will be the matrix clause, which does
contain a potential antecedent, Johnwa. The reason that it might seem odd to native English speakers is
just because ‘himself’ cannot be in a finite subject position in English, but it looks like zibunzisin has no
problem with that, taking object case marking in (a) and subject case marking in (b).
If we did not take the full definition of Principle A into account, then this would be a problem since
zibunzisin would seem to be bound from outside its local syntactic domain.

Question 3: The problem with the sentence in (c) is that Maryo is being bound by the c-commanding and
coindexed zibunsinga. This is a violation of Principle C, which says that R-expressions must be free.

Chapter 17:
CP 3 Japanese Zibunzisin, take II

m
er as
As mentioned above, it is acceptable in subject position because, unlike English anaphors, zibunzisin is
case-neutral. It can take on both the object case marker –o as well as the subject case marker –ga.

co
eH w
CP 5: Western American English

o.
Some speakers find this grammatical:
rs e
ou urc
Heidii doesn’t like Nate’s pictures of herselfi.

First, according to principle A this should not be grammatical since ‘herself’ has a potential antecedent
o

(Nate) in its local syntactic domain (the DP ‘nate’s pictures of herself.’). Also, note that swapping ‘Nate’
aC s

for a feminine name like ‘Mary’ will make the sentence ungrammatical. So, it is the gender mismatch
vi y re

between ‘herself’ and ‘Nate’ that seems to be allowing the grammatical judgement here. Perhaps these
speakers do not consider ‘Nate’ to be a potential antecedent for ‘herself’ because of this. In that case,
Principle A can stay in tact. We only need to clarify that a ‘potential antecedent’ must match an anaphor
in gender.
ed d
ar stu

We can take this further and ask about number as well. In fact, I bet most speakers find the following
grammatical (or at least not totally ungrammatical):

?We don’t like Nate’s pictures of ourselves.

sh is
Th

Again, same logic. ‘Nate’ doesn’t match in number with ‘ourselves,’ so it is not judged a potential
antecedent. Importantly, note that this seems to only apply when the local domain is a DP. It doesn’t
work on CPs. I bet all speakers still find these ungrammatical, though we’d want to gather data to
confirm:

*Heidi wants Nate to like herself.

*We want Nate to like ourselves.

We can also test it for person:

?I don’t like her pictures of myself

?Heidi doesn’t like my pictures of herself.

https://www.coursehero.com/file/18961597/HW5-Answer-Key/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)