Syntax and Semantics of Binding Theory

Daniel Büring (Cologne)

Binding Theory (BT) is concerned with the question under which

conditions an NP can, may or mustn't refer to the same object

as a second NP (or referentially depend on it). It turns out

that both the form of the NPs (ordinary NPs vs. names vs.

pronouns vs. quantified NPs etc.) and their syntactic relation

to each other are crucial for their referential options. So by

its very nature, Binding Theory relies on semantic data but at

the same time has an intimate relation to syntax. Accordingly,

we will be concerned with the syntactic conditions on binding

but also be precise about what syntactic binding really

expresses, when it come to interpretation. The inevitable

moral will be that any binding theory must make semantic sense

(but that -- as a compensation -- semantics does some of the

work for us).

In week 1 we will slowly acquaint ourselves with the

binding behavior of the various kinds of NPs, aptly summarized

in the standard ABC of binding of Chomsky (1981), and much

refined in the work of Reinhart (1983) -- the grande dame of

BT -- and Reinhart & Reuland (1993). Due emphasis will be put

on the distinction between binding and coreference.

In week 2 we will already take up with heavier stuff: How

does binding interact with movement, ellipsis, and (perhaps)

focus? What do these tell us about the best way to treat

binding syntactically and semantically?

The bulk of the examples will be from Germanic languages,

but -- time allowing -- we will have a look at others (e.g.

long distance reflexives in Chinese) as well. The course will

start at a rather basic level and requires no familiarity with

binding theory or formal semantics.