![CONTI..
Using this term, we can now sum up in terms of the actual Binding principles.
A. An anaphor is bound in a local domain.
B. A pronominal is free is a local domain.
C. A referring expression is free.
For example: Jane wanted [the girl to help herself]
Principle A applies because ‘herself’ is an anaphor and therefore bound to
‘the girl’ within the local domain of the embedded clause, not to the Jane in
the main clause. Principle C also requires the referring expression Jane to
refer to some one outside the sentence.
Finally Binding theory demonstrates that UG is not concerned with
information specific to one language, say English, the Binding principles are
couched at a level of abstraction that may be used for any human language.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/bindingtheory-210729145248/85/Binding-theory-7-320.jpg)
Binding theory
- 2. Binding Theory Binding theory deals with whether expression in the sentence may refer to the same entities as other expressions. One of the topics in traditional grammar was how pronouns related to their antecedents As Cobbett puts ‘t’ ‘Never write a personal pronoun without duly considering what noun it will, upon a reading of the sentence, be found to relater to’ Binding theory is basically concerned with the same issue of how pronouns and other types of noun relate to each other but it extend the antecedent / pronoun relationship to other categories is a rigorous fashion. Binding theory is concerned with connections among noun phrases that have to do with such semantic properties as dependence of reference including the connection between a pronoun and its antecedent.ds the
- 3. example: Peter Killed him. This implies that there is some entity to which Peter may be used to refer; the noun Peter relates a piece of language to a postulated piece of the world, hence it may be called a referring expression. To know who is being talked about means knowing which person called Peter is referred to from other information than that contained in the sentence. The Same applies to ‘him’ known as a pronominal; another person is being talked about who is not mentioned; we have to deduce for our selves who was shot. But one thing is clear that Peter and him do not refer to the same person. Some structured relationship or lack of relationship, between Peter and him prevents them referring to the same entity. In the sentence: Peter shot himself. himself refers to the same person as Peter.
- 4. CONTI… This information depends not on knowing who Peter is but on knowing the syntactic relationship between Peter and himself, that is, on the internal structure of the sentence. Binding theory accounts for the differences in the interpretations of Peter – him and himself – how the speaker knows when two such expressions may refer to the same person and when they may not. Binding theory describes when different expressions may be co – indexed – when him or himself may refer to the same person as Peter. One possible way of explaining Binding is to consider the class of word involved.
- 5. CONTI.. Three word – classes are relevant: Referring expressions. Anaphors Pronominals Nouns such as Peter are classed as referring expressions in that their reference is necessarily to something in the discourse outside the sentence rather than to some other element in the sentence. The word ‘himself’ refers to the class of anaphors. The word ‘him’ belongs to the class of pronominals. Pronominals do not have antecedent that are nouns within the same clause.
- 6. CONTI.. The crucial difference between anaphors, pronominals and referring expressions is the area of the sentence within which they can be bound; anaphors are bound within the clause. pronominals may be bound by NPS in other clauses or be free to take their reference outside the sentence. referring expressions are always free. Binding theory is chiefly concerned with giving more precisions to the area within which binding may or may not take place. Binding theory in fact uses a slightly different concept called the local domain, of which the clause is one example.
- 7. CONTI.. Using this term, we can now sum up in terms of the actual Binding principles. A. An anaphor is bound in a local domain. B. A pronominal is free is a local domain. C. A referring expression is free. For example: Jane wanted [the girl to help herself] Principle A applies because ‘herself’ is an anaphor and therefore bound to ‘the girl’ within the local domain of the embedded clause, not to the Jane in the main clause. Principle C also requires the referring expression Jane to refer to some one outside the sentence. Finally Binding theory demonstrates that UG is not concerned with information specific to one language, say English, the Binding principles are couched at a level of abstraction that may be used for any human language.
- 8. Minimalist Program The Minimalist Program (MP) is a major line of inquiry that has been developing inside Generative Grammar since the early nineties. Chomsky presents MP as a program, not as a theory. Conceptual framework to guide the developmental grammatical theory For Chomsky there are minimalist questions but the answers can be framed in any theory Why language has the properties it has? MP explains the specific view of syntactic grammar