Movement, Binding and Argument Structure

Argument structure of predicates

Every predicate, whether a verb, adjective or preposition, specifies how many arguments it requires and which semantic role each argument receives. This specification is its argument structure. Arguments are the participants that a head selects and needs in order to complete its meaning, whereas adjuncts are optional modifiers that add information such as time, place or manner. The relation is asymmetric. A head selects its complements, so the head depends on them, but an adjunct is not selected by the element it modifies, so the converse inference does not hold. A statement that some phrase is an argument of a head therefore does not automatically make the head an adjunct of that phrase.

Counting arguments is a basic skill. A ditransitive verb such as give takes three core arguments: an agent or subject, a theme or direct object, and a recipient or indirect object. The verb break illustrates how one predicate maps its arguments onto different positions. It can take an agent subject, as in John broke the window, a theme subject with no agent expressed, or an instrument subject, as in The stone broke the window. In each case the grammatical function (subject, object) differs from the semantic role (agent, theme, instrument). Object is a grammatical function, not a semantic role, so one should never label an NP as an object in a semantic column.

Verbs are also classified by how they assign their subject. Unaccusative verbs such as collapse, fall, die and arrive take an internal argument as their subject and describe involuntary change of state or motion. Unergative verbs such as run and joke take an agentive subject and describe voluntary activity. Because unaccusative subjects originate as objects of the verb, they behave differently under tests such as the there-insertion and past participle tests.

Some verbs take an object followed by an as-phrase. Verbs such as regard, view and identify take a direct object and an as-phrase that predicates something of that object, and the as-phrase can be passivized, as in The Beast was regarded as incompetent. The verb strike in the sense of seem to someone is different. Its object is an experiencer and the as-phrase does not function as a predicate of the object in the same way, so the passive is ungrammatical.

Theta roles are assigned by lexical heads, such as verbs, prepositions and nouns, to their complements in a local configuration. According to the Theta Criterion, each argument receives exactly one theta role and each theta role is assigned to exactly one argument. A subject is not restricted to the agent role, since it can bear experiencer, theme or location roles. An object is likewise not restricted to theme, because it can bear goal, patient or experiencer roles. An indirect object is an argument and normally bears a role such as goal or recipient, so it does need one.

Quick check: count the arguments the verb requires, identify each argument's grammatical function, and then identify its semantic role separately.

Binding Theory principles A, B, C

Binding Theory governs the distribution of noun phrases according to three principles. Principle A states that an anaphor, such as a reflexive or reciprocal, must be bound in its local domain. Principle B states that a pronoun must be free in its local domain. Principle C states that an R-expression, such as a proper name, must be free everywhere. To be bound, an element must be c-commanded by a coindexed antecedent. A node A c-commands a node B if the first branching node dominating A also dominates B and A does not dominate B. The local domain is roughly the minimal clause containing the element and its governing predicate and subject.

Apply these ideas with simple contrasts. Priya admires herself is well formed because the anaphor is bound by Priya in the same clause. Priya admires her is well formed only if her refers to someone else, since a pronoun in that position cannot be coreferential with its local subject. Her mother admires Priya is acceptable because the pronoun does not c-command the name, so Principle C is not violated. In contrast, He thinks Priya is clever is ruled out when he refers to Priya, because the pronoun c-commands the R-expression.

An anaphor needs a local antecedent. A sentence in which a reflexive lacks an antecedent inside its governing category violates Principle A. The antecedent may lie outside the clause, which is not enough for an anaphor.