Menu
Home
People
Places
Arts
History
Plants & Animals
Science
Life & Culture
Technology
Reference.org
Government and binding theory
open-in-new
<h2 id="government">Government</h2> <p>The main application of the <i><a href="/facts/Government_(linguistics)/dyh4gmGw">government</a></i> relation concerns the assignment of <a href="/facts/Grammatical_case/5caTQalU">case</a>. Government is defined as follows: </p><p>A governs B if and only if </p> <ul><li>A is a governor and</li> <li>A <a href="/facts/M-command/lLJ70VAE">m-commands</a> B and</li> <li>no barrier intervenes between A and B.</li></ul> <p>Governors are heads of the <a href="/facts/Lexical_category/WbQ89MHX">lexical categories</a> (V, N, A, P) and <a href="/facts/Tensed_I/jgezemln">tensed I</a> (T). A <a href="/facts/M-command/lLJ70VAE">m-commands</a> B if A does not <a href="/facts/Dominance_(linguistics)/ItRR4ltB">dominate</a> B and B does not dominate A and the first maximal projection of A dominates B, where the maximal projection of a head X is XP. This means that for example in a structure like the following, A <a href="/facts/M-command/lLJ70VAE">m-commands</a> B, but B does not <a href="/facts/M-command/lLJ70VAE">m-command</a> A: </p><p>In addition, barrier is defined as follows:<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:9" href="#fn:9"><sup>9</sup></a> A barrier is any node Z such that </p> <ul><li>Z is a potential governor for B and</li> <li>Z <a href="/facts/C-command/ItRR4ltB">c-commands</a> B and</li> <li>Z does not <a href="/facts/C-command/ItRR4ltB">c-command</a> A</li></ul> <p>The government relation makes case assignment unambiguous. The tree diagram below illustrates how DPs are governed and assigned case by their governing heads: </p><p>Another important application of the government relation constrains the occurrence and identity of <a href="/facts/Trace_(linguistics)/H6Hkxacu">traces</a> as the <a href="/facts/Empty_category_principle/MAzANyMQ">Empty Category Principle</a> requires them to be properly governed. </p> <h2 id="binding">Binding</h2> <p><a href="/facts/Binding_(linguistics)/hW5us5Cd">Binding</a> can be defined as follows: </p> <ul><li>An element α binds an element β if and only if α <a href="/facts/C-command/ItRR4ltB">c-commands</a> β, and α and β corefer.</li></ul> <p>Consider the sentence "Johni saw hisi mother", which is diagrammed below using simple <a href="/facts/Phrase_structure_rules/B867agmG">phrase structure trees</a>. </p><p>The NP "John" c-commands "his" because the first parent of the NP, S, contains "his". "John" and "his" are also coreferential (they refer to the same person), therefore "John" binds "his". </p><p>On the other hand, in the ungrammatical sentence "*The mother of Johni likes himselfi", "John" does not c-command "himself", so they have no binding relationship despite the fact that they corefer. </p><p>The importance of binding is shown in the grammaticality or ungrammaticality of the following sentences: </p> <ol><li>*Johni saw himi.</li> <li>Johni saw himselfi.</li> <li>*Himselfi saw Johni.</li> <li>*Johni saw Johni.</li></ol> <p>Binding is used, along with particular binding principles, to explain the ungrammaticality of statements 1, 3, and 4. The applicable rules are called Binding Principle A, Binding Principle B, and Binding Principle C. </p> <ul><li>Principle A: an anaphor (reflexive or reciprocal, such as "each other") must be bound in its governing category (roughly, the clause).</li></ul> <p>Since "himself" is not c-commanded by "John" in sentence [3], Principle A is violated. </p> <ul><li>Principle B: a pronoun must be free (i.e., not bound) within its governing category (roughly, the clause).</li></ul> <p>In sentence [1], "him" is bound by "John", violating Principle B. </p> <ul><li>Principle C: an <a href="/facts/R-expression/M6heELEX">R-expression</a> must be free (i.e., not bound). R-expressions (e.g. "the dog" or "John") are referential expressions: unlike pronouns and anaphora, they independently refer, i.e., pick out entities in the world.</li></ul> <p>In sentence [4], the first instance of "John" binds the second, violating Principle C. </p><p>Note that Principles A and B refer to "governing categories"—domains which limit the scope of binding. The definition of a governing category laid out in <i>Lectures on Government and Binding</i><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:10" href="#fn:10"><sup>10</sup></a> is complex, but in most cases the governing category is essentially the minimal clause or complex NP. </p> <p>Notes </p> <p>Further reading </p> <ul><li><a href="/facts/Liliane_Haegeman/yDsylHlD">Liliane Haegeman</a> (1994). <i>Introduction to Government and Binding Theory</i> (Second Edition). Blackwell.</li></ul> <h2 id="external-links">External links</h2> Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: <i>Government and Binding Theory</i> <ul><li><a href="https://mexico.sil.org/sites/mexico/files/e002-introgb.pdf">A step-by-step introduction to the Government and Binding theory of syntax</a></li></ul> <h2 id="references">References</h2> <ol> <li id="fn:1"><p>Chomsky, Noam (1993) [1981]. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Mouton de Gruyter. <a href="/wiki/Lectures_on_Government_and_Binding:_The_Pisa_Lectures" target="_blank">/wiki/Lectures_on_Government_and_Binding:_The_Pisa_Lectures</a> <a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:2"><p>Chomsky, Noam (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 6. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262530422. <a href="9780262530422" target="_blank">9780262530422</a> <a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:3"><p>Chomsky, Noam (1986). Barriers. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 13. MIT Press. <a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:4"><p>Chomsky, Noam (2002) [1957]. Syntactic Structures (Second ed.). Mouton de Gruyter. <a href="/wiki/Syntactic_Structures" target="_blank">/wiki/Syntactic_Structures</a> <a href="#fnref:4" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:5"><p>Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press. <a href="/wiki/Aspects_of_the_Theory_of_Syntax" target="_blank">/wiki/Aspects_of_the_Theory_of_Syntax</a> <a href="#fnref:5" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:6"><p>Chomsky, Noam (1970). Remarks on Nominalization. In Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar (1972). The Hague: Mouton. Pages 11–61. <a href="http://babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/mrg.readings/Chomsky1970_Nominalization.pdf" target="_blank">http://babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/mrg.readings/Chomsky1970_Nominalization.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:6" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:7"><p>Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press. <a href="/wiki/The_Minimalist_Program" target="_blank">/wiki/The_Minimalist_Program</a> <a href="#fnref:7" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:8"><p>Chomsky, Noam (2005). "Three Factors in Language Design" (PDF). Linguistic Inquiry. 36 (36): 1–22. doi:10.1162/0024389052993655. S2CID 14954986. <a href="http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/linguistic_inquiry/v036/36.1chomsky.pdf" target="_blank">http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/linguistic_inquiry/v036/36.1chomsky.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:8" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:9"><p>see "Minimality" in Haegeman 1994:163f. <a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:10"><p>Chomsky, Noam (1993) [1981]. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Mouton de Gruyter. <a href="/wiki/Lectures_on_Government_and_Binding:_The_Pisa_Lectures" target="_blank">/wiki/Lectures_on_Government_and_Binding:_The_Pisa_Lectures</a> <a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> </ol>