In linguistics, binding is the phenomenon in which anaphoric elements such as pronouns are grammatically associated with their antecedents. For example, in the English sentence "Mary saw herself", the anaphor "herself" must refer to "Mary": its referent is "bound" by the antecedent. Binding can be licensed or blocked in certain contexts or syntactic configurations, e.g. the pronoun "her" cannot be bound by "Mary" in the English sentence "Mary saw her". While all languages have binding, restrictions on it vary even among closely related languages. Binding has been a major area of research in syntax and semantics since the 1970s and, as the name implies, is a core component of government and binding theory.
Some basic examples and questions The following sentences illustrate some basic facts of binding. The words that bear the index i should be construed as referring to the same person or thing.
a. Fredi is impressed with himselfi. – Indicated reading obligatory b. *Fredi is impressed with himi. – Indicated reading impossible
a. *Susani asked Arthur to help herselfi. – Indicated reading impossible b. Susani asked Arthur to help heri. – Indicated reading easily possible
a. Suei said shei was tired. – Indicated reading easily possible b. *Shei said Suei was tired. – Indicated reading impossible
a. Fred'si friends venerate himi. – Indicated reading easily possible b. ?Hisi friends venerate Fredi. – Indicated reading unlikely
These sentences illustrate some aspects of the distribution of reflexive and personal pronouns. In the first pair of sentences, the reflexive pronoun must appear for the indicated reading to be possible. In the second pair, the personal pronoun must appear for the indicated reading to be possible. The third pair shows that at times a personal pronoun must follow its antecedent, and the fourth pair further illustrates the same point, although the acceptability judgement is not as robust. Based on such data, one sees that reflexive and personal pronouns differ in their distribution and that linear order (of a pronoun in relation to its antecedent or postcedent) is a factor influencing where at least some pronouns can appear. A theory of binding should be capable of predicting and explaining the differences in distribution seen in sentences like these. It should be able to answer questions like: What explains where a reflexive pronoun must appear as opposed to a personal pronoun? When does linear order play a role in determining where pronouns can appear? What other factor (or factors) beyond linear order help predict where pronouns can appear?
Binding domains The following three subsections consider the binding domains that are relevant for the distribution of pronouns and nouns in English. The discussion follows the outline provided by the traditional binding theory (see below), which divides nominals into three basic categories: reflexive and reciprocal pronouns, personal pronouns, and nouns (common and proper).
Reflexive and reciprocal pronouns ("anaphors") When one examines the distribution of reflexive pronouns and reciprocal pronouns (which are often subsumed under the general category of "anaphor"), one sees that there are certain domains that are relevant, a "domain" being a syntactic unit that is clause-like. Reflexive and reciprocal pronouns often seek their antecedent close by, in a binding domain that is local, e.g.
a. Fredi praises himselfi. – Indicated reading obligatory b. *Fredi praises himi. – Indicated reading impossible
a. The girlsi like each otheri. – Indicated reading obligatory b. *The girlsi like themi. – Indicated reading impossible
These examples illustrate that there is a domain within which a reflexive or reciprocal pronoun should find its antecedent. The a-sentences are fine because the reflexive or reciprocal pronoun has its antecedent within the clause. The b-sentences, in contrast, do not allow the indicated reading, a fact illustrating that personal pronouns have a distribution that is different from that of reflexive and reciprocal pronouns. A related observation is that a reflexive and reciprocal pronoun often cannot seek its antecedent in a superordinate clause, e.g.
a. Susan thinks that Jilli should praise herselfi. – Indicated reading (almost) obligatory b. ??Susani thinks that Jill should praise herselfi. – Indicated reading very unlikely
a. They asked whether the girlsi like each otheri. – Indicated reading (almost) obligatory b. ??Theyi asked whether the girls like each otheri. – Indicated reading very unlikely
When the reflexive or reciprocal pronoun attempts to find an antecedent outside of the immediate clause containing it, it fails. In other words, it can hardly seek its antecedent in the superordinate clause. The binding domain that is relevant is the immediate clause containing it.
Personal pronouns
Personal pronouns have a distribution that is different from reflexive and reciprocal pronouns, a point that is evident with the first two b-sentences in the previous section. The local binding domain that is decisive for the distribution of reflexive and reciprocal pronouns is also decisive for personal pronouns, but in a different way. Personal pronouns seek their antecedent outside of the local binding domain containing them, e.g.
a. Fredi asked whether Jim mentioned himi. – Indicated reading easily possible b. *Fred asked whether Jimi mentioned himi. – Indicated reading impossible
a. Ginai hopes that Wilma will mention heri. – Indicated reading easily possible b. *Gina hopes that Wilmai will mention heri. – Indicated reading impossible
In these cases, the pronoun has to look outside of the embedded clause containing it to the matrix clause to find its antecedent. Hence based on such data, the relevant binding domain appears to be the clause. Further data illustrate, however, that the clause is actually not the relevant domain:
a. Fredi likes the picture of himi. – Indicated reading possible
b. Ginai has heard the rumor about heri. – Indicated reading possible
Since the pronouns appear within the same minimal clause containing their antecedents in these cases, one cannot argue that the relevant binding domain is the clause. The most one can say based on such data is that the domain is "clause-like".
Nouns The distribution of common and proper nouns is unlike that of reflexive, reciprocal, and personal pronouns. The relevant observation in this regard is that a noun is often reluctantly coreferential with another nominal that is within its binding domain or in a superordinate binding domain, e.g.
a. Susani admires herselfi. – Indicated reading obligatory b. #Susani admires Susani. – Indicated reading possible, but special context necessary
a. Fredi thinks that hei is the best. – Indicated reading easily possible b. #Fredi thinks that Fredi is the best. – Indicated reading possible, but special context necessary
The readings indicated in the a-sentences are natural, whereas the b-sentences are very unusual. Indeed, sentences like these b-sentences were judged to be impossible in the traditional binding theory according to Condition C (see below). Given a contrastive context, however, the b-sentences can work, e.g. Susan does not admire Jane, but rather Susani admires Susani. One can therefore conclude that nouns are not sensitive to binding domains in the same way that reflexive, reciprocal, and personal pronouns are.
Linear order The following subsections illustrate the extent to which pure linear order impacts the distribution of pronouns. While linear order is clearly important, it is not the only factor influencing where pronouns can appear.
Linear order is a factor
A simple hypothesis concerning the distribution of many anaphoric elements, of personal pronouns in particular, is that linear order plays a role. In most cases, a pronoun follows its antecedent, and in many cases, the coreferential reading is impossible if the pronoun precedes its antecedent. The following sentences suggest that pure linear can indeed be important for the distribution of pronouns:
a. Jim'si grade upsets himi. – Indicated reading easily possible b. ?Hisi grade upsets Jimi. – Indicated reading unlikely
a. Larry'si family avoids himi. – Indicated reading easily possible b. ?Hisi family avoids Larryi. – Indicated reading unlikely
a. We spoke to Tina'si mother about heri. – Indicated reading easily possible b. ?We spoke to heri mother about Tinai. – Indicated reading unlikely
While the coreferential readings indicated in these b-sentences are possible, they are unlikely. The order presented in the a-sentences is strongly preferred. The following, more extensive data sets further illustrate that linear order is important:
a. Sami mentioned twice that hei was hungry. – Indicated reading easily possible b. *Hei mentioned twice that Sami was hungry. – Indicated reading impossible c. That Sami was hungry, hei mentioned twice. – Indicated reading possible d. ?That hei was hungry, Sami mentioned twice. – Indicated reading unlikely
a. You asked Fredi twice when hei would study. – Indicated reading easily possible b. *You asked himi twice when Fredi would study. – Indicated reading impossible c. When Fredi would study, you asked himi twice. – Indicated reading possible d. ?When hei would study, you asked Fredi twice. – Indicated reading unlikely
While the acceptability judgements here are nuanced, one can make a strong case that pure linear order is at least in part predictive of when the indicated reading is available. The a- and c-sentences allow the coreferential reading more easily than their b- and d-counterparts.
Linear order is not the only factor
While linear order is an important factor influencing the distribution of pronouns, it is not the only factor. The following sentences are similar to the c- and d-sentences in the previous section insofar as an embedded clause is present.
a. When the boysi are at home, theyi play video games. – Indicated reading easily possible b. When theyi are at home, the boysi play video games. – Indicated reading possible
a. If Susani tries, shei will succeed. – Indicated reading easily possible b. If shei tries, Susani will succeed. – Indicated reading possible
While there may be a mild preference for the order in the a-sentences here, the indicated reading in the b-sentences is also available. Hence linear order is hardly playing a role in such cases. The relevant difference between these sentences and the c- and d-sentences in the previous section is that the embedded clauses here are adjunct clauses, whereas they are argument clauses above. The following examples involve adjunct phrases:
a. Rosai found a scratch in Ben's picture of heri. – Indicated reading easily possible b. *Shei found a scratch in Ben's picture of Rosai. – Indicated reading impossible c. ?In Ben's picture of Rosai, shei found a scratch. – Indicated reading unlikely d. In Ben's picture of heri, Rosai found a scratch. – Indicated reading possible
a. Zeldai spent her sweetest hours in heri bed.– Indicated reading easily possible b. *Shei spent her sweetest hours in Zelda'si bed. – Indicated reading impossible c. ??In Zelda'si bed, shei spent her sweetest hours. – Indicated reading very unlikely d. In heri bed, Zeldai spent her sweetest hours. – Indicated reading possible
The fact that the c-sentences marginally allow the indicated reading whereas the b-sentences do not at all allow this reading further demonstrates that linear order is important. But in this regard, the d-sentences are telling, since if linear order were the entire story, one would expect the d-sentences to be less acceptable than they are. The conclusion that one can draw from such data is that there are one or more other factors beyond linear order that are impacting the distribution of pronouns.
Configuration vs. function