Linguistics 522

Midterm Review

Trees
Chapter 5

  1. Abelard wrote a poem with Heloise in mind.
      Right
      Also defensible (complement versus adjunct issue):

      One argument for the the idea that in mind is a complement of with (obligatoriness):

        Abelard wrote a poem with Heloise. (changes meaning)
      The following tree is wrong.
      Heloise in mind is not an NP.

      Arguments:

      1. * Eloise in mind kept him company. (Can't be a subject.)
      2. * It was [Eloise in mind] that Abelard wrote a poem with. (can't be preposed/clefted)
    1. The red volume of obscene verse from Italy
    2. The volume shocked the puritan soul of the minister with the beard quite throughly yesterday
Trees
Chap 6

  1. The Tsar was a power-hungry dictator.
  2. Spielberg believes the star to be a power-hungry dictator.
      The star was a power hungry dictator/The star to be a power hungry dictator
      Spielberg believes CP
      Spielberg believes the star to be a power-hungry dictator.
    1. John sold Mary's picture of the moon.
Binding
Theory
p. 99, (1)

  1. * Michaeli loves himi
      Principle B violation: A pronoun must be free in its binding domain; him is not free. It is bound by Michael, which is in the binding domain of him; that is, it is in the same clause.
  2. * Hei loves Michaeli
      Principle C violation: An R-Expression must be free. Michael is not free. It is bound by He. Note: There is no Principle B violation. The pronoun He is not bound. Although it is coindexed with Michael it is not C-commanded by Michael. Therefore it is not bound by Michael.
  3. * Michael'si father loves himselfi
      Principle A violation: An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain; himself is not bound. Although it is coindexed with Michael, it is not C-commanded by Michael.
      Therefore it is not bound by Michael. Note: In this sentence, Michael and himself are coindexed. Thus, this sentence represents the interpretation on which himself corefers with Michael. Therefore only the interpretation on which himself corefers with Michael is being ruled out.
  4. * Michael'si fatherj loves himj
      Principle B violation: A pronoun must be free in its binding domain; him is not free. It is bound by Michael's father, which is in the binding domain of him; that is, it is in the same clause. (so this is really just like example (1)).
  5. * Susani thinks that John should marry herselfi.
      Principle A violation: An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. Although herself is bound (it is coindexed with Susan, and C-commanded by Susan) it is not bound within its binding domain (its minimally containing clause).
  6. * John thinks that Susani should kiss heri.
      Principle B violation: A pronoun must be free in its binding domain; her is not free. It is bound by Susan, which is in the binding domain of her; that is, it is in the same clause.
Binding
Theory
p. 100, (2)

  1. Johnwai [S' [S Marygak zibunzisinok/*i hihansita ] [C to] ] itta]
      It works nicely to assume that zibunzisin is an anaphor. On the indexing that is out, we would have a Principle A violation since although zibunzisin would be bound, the binder is not in the same clause. Therefore, zibunzisin would not be bound in its binding domain
  2. Johnwai [S' [S zibunzisingai maryo korosita ] [C to] ] omotteiru]
      It no longer works nicely to assume that zibunzisin is an anaphor. On the indexing that is allowed, we should have a Principle A violation but do not. Two solutions are available. First perhaps in this position (subject position), zibuinzisin (or zibunzisinga) is a pronoun. There would be no principle B violation since the binder is not in the binding domain (same clause). Another possibility is the definition of binding domain is different in Japanese. Another possibility is that it is the same for English and Japanese, but we have the definition of binding domain wrong. In that case not only would we need to change the definition of binding domain. We would also need to account for why the direct translation of this Japanese example is bad in English:
        * John thinks that himself killed Mary.
      One possibility is that himself is the wrong case (accusative, not nominative), so this is ungrammatical for the same reason
        * John thinks that him killed Mary.
      is.
    * Johnwai [S' [S zibunzisingak maryok korosita ] [C to] ] omotteiru]
      This question can be answered independently of whether zibunzisin is a pronoun or anaphor. In either case, there is a Principle C violation here:
      Note the R-expression Maryo is bound by (C-commanded by and coindexed with) zibunzisinga. Therre is no Principle B violation if zibunzisinga is a pronoun, since it is unbound (Maryo is coindexed with it but does noit C-Command it)