Binding (linguistics)

In linguistics, binding is a property that concerns anaphores and R-expressions. The definition of binding has changed little from its initial conception; the final version of it is as follows:

* An element A binds an element B if and only if A c-commands B, and A and B are co-referent.

In the sentence "John saw his mother", "John" and "his" are co-referent, and "John" c-commands "his". Therefore "John" binds "his".

On the other hand, in the sentence "A friend of John saw his mother", "John" does not c-command "his", so they have no binding relationship, regardless of whether they are co-referent (which they may be; the example is ambiguous).

The importance of binding is shown in the grammaticality of the following sentences:

* John saw him. (ungrammatical with co-reference)
* John saw himself. (unambiguously co-referent)
* Himself saw John. (ungrammatical)
* John saw John. (ungrammatical, unless it refers to two distinct Johns)

Binding is used, along with particular binding principles, to explain the ungrammaticality of those statements. The applicable rules are called Binding Principle A, Binding Principle B, and Binding Principle C. BPA states that a pronoun must never be bound within its domain. If, in the first statement, "John" and "him" are co-referent, then there is a binding relationship between them, violating the principle and resulting in ungrammaticality. BPB states that reflexives (and reciprocals, such as "each other") must always be bound in their domains. Since there is nothing to bind "himself" in the third sentence, that principle is violated. Principle C states that R-expressions (proper names, for the most part) must never be bound; in the fourth sentence, the first instance of "John" binds the second, resulting in the ungrammaticality.

Note that Principles A and B refer to domains. It is difficult to define a domain in a way that explains all the data, though the definition may be related to movement islands and the Phase Impenetrability Constraint.

---