Misplaced Pages

#887112

72-424: The following sentences illustrate some basic facts of binding. The words that bear the index i should be construed as referring to the same person or thing. These sentences illustrate some aspects of the distribution of reflexive and personal pronouns. In the first pair of sentences, the reflexive pronoun must appear for the indicated reading to be possible. In the second pair, the personal pronoun must appear for

144-555: A discourse: for example, "Please, forward the information to myself , Anything else for yourself today?". (Note that me and you would be more concise in such instances.) Within the linguistics literature, reflexives with discourse antecedents are often referred to as logophors . Standard English allows use of logophors in some contexts: for example, "John was angry. Embarrassing pictures of himself were on display." However, within Standard English, this logophoric use of reflexives

216-539: A genuine reflexive grammatical function the word saját (one's own) is added before the reflexive pronoun: The second reflexive mechanism in Hungarian is the word ön (self) which is most commonly used as a prefix with the meaning of (one)self- , For example öngyilkos (suicide victim, lit. "self-murderer") and önfeláldozni (to sacrifice oneself). This can be combined with the reflexive pronouns above to express intensity or formality: The prefix ön can also be used in

288-579: A given constituent cannot be omitted from a sentence, clause, or phrase without resulting in an unacceptable expression, that constituent is NOT an adjunct, e.g. Further diagnostics used to distinguish between arguments and adjuncts include multiplicity, distance from head, and the ability to coordinate. A head can have multiple adjuncts but only one object argument (=complement): Object arguments are typically closer to their head than adjuncts: Adjuncts can be coordinated with other adjuncts, but not with arguments: The distinction between arguments and adjuncts

360-410: A nominal are determined by the values of these features, either plus or minus. Thus, a nominal that is [-anaphor, -pronominal] is an R-expression (referring expression), such as a common noun or a proper name . A nominal that is [-anaphor, +pronominal] is a pronoun, such as he or they , and a nominal that is [+anaphor, -pronominal] is a reflexive pronoun, such as himself or themselves . Note that

432-588: A recipient: for example, "I want to get me some supper." While this was seemingly standard in Old English through the Early Modern Period (with "self" constructs primarily used for emphatic purposes), it is held to be dialectal or nonstandard in Modern English. It is also common in informal speech to use myself in a conjunctive phrase when 'me' would suffice: "She stood by Jane and myself." Also myself

504-449: A reflexive pronoun will end in -self or -selves , and refer to a previously named noun or pronoun ( myself , yourself , ourselves , themselves , etc.). English intensive pronouns , used for emphasis, take the same form. In generative grammar , a reflexive pronoun is an anaphor that must be bound by its antecedent (see binding ). In a general sense, it is a noun phrase that obligatorily gets its meaning from another noun phrase in

576-403: Is a configurational notion that acknowledges the syntactic configuration as primitive. Basic subject - object asymmetries, which are numerous in many languages, are explained by the fact that the subject appears outside of the finite verb phrase (VP) constituent, whereas the object appears inside it. Subjects therefore c-command objects, but not vice versa. C-command is defined as follows: Given

648-534: Is a factor influencing where at least some pronouns can appear. A theory of binding should be capable of predicting and explaining the differences in distribution seen in sentences like these. It should be able to answer questions like: What explains where a reflexive pronoun must appear as opposed to a personal pronoun? When does linear order play a role in determining where pronouns can appear? What other factor (or factors) beyond linear order help predict where pronouns can appear? The following three subsections consider

720-475: Is acceptable in this case, but if c-command were the key notion helping to explain where the reflexive can and must appear, then the reading should be impossible since himself is not c-commanded by Larry . As reflexive and personal pronouns occur in complementary distribution, the notion of c-command can also be used to explain where personal pronouns can appear. The assumption is that personal pronouns cannot c-command their antecedent, e.g. In both examples,

792-448: Is also a difference between normal and reflexive genitives, the latter being used only in the singular: In the latter case, sin is a case of a reflexive possessive pronoun , i.e. it reflects that the subject in the phrase (Anna) owns the object (the book). The Esperanto third-person reflexive pronoun is si , or sia for the possessive (to which can be added -j for plural agreement and -n for direct object). In French ,

SECTION 10

#1732852495888

864-454: Is also investigated in terms of subcategorization . Take the sentence John helped Bill in Central Park on Sunday as an example: An adverbial adjunct is a sentence element that often establishes the circumstances in which the action or state expressed by the verb takes place. The following sentence uses adjuncts of time and place: Notice that this example is ambiguous between whether

936-504: Is an adjunct. A more detailed definition of the adjunct emphasizes its attribute as a modifying form, word, or phrase that depends on another form, word, or phrase, being an element of clause structure with adverbial function. An adjunct is not an argument (nor is it a predicative expression ), and an argument is not an adjunct. The argument–adjunct distinction is central in most theories of syntax and semantics. The terminology used to denote arguments and adjuncts can vary depending on

1008-466: Is assuming that within its binding domain, a reflexive pronoun may not outrank its antecedent (or postcedent). Consider the third example sentence from the previous section in this regard: The approach based on rank does not require a particular configurational relationship to hold between a reflexive pronoun and its antecedent. In other words, it makes no prediction in this case, and hence does not make an incorrect prediction. The reflexive pronoun himself

1080-430: Is by means of the stem mag- which behaves much like standard postpositions and case endings in Hungarian in that it can take the six personal suffixes to form the following personal pronouns: Thus formed, these reflexive pronouns are in the nominative (i.e. subject) case and can take any case ending or postposition: magamnak (for myself), magunk előtt (in front of ourselves), magát (himself/herself (acc.)). However

1152-576: Is central to most theories of syntax and grammar. Predicates take arguments and they permit (certain) adjuncts. The arguments of a predicate are necessary to complete the meaning of the predicate. The adjuncts of a predicate, in contrast, provide auxiliary information about the core predicate-argument meaning, which means they are not necessary to complete the meaning of the predicate. Adjuncts and arguments can be identified using various diagnostics. The omission diagnostic, for instance, helps identify many arguments and thus indirectly many adjuncts as well. If

1224-524: Is embedded within the subject noun phrase, which means that it is not the subject and hence does not outrank the object Larry . A theory of binding that acknowledges both linear order and rank can at least begin to predict many of the marginal readings. When both linear order and rank combine, acceptability judgments are robust, e.g. This ability to address marginal readings is something that an approach combining linear order and rank can accomplish, whereas an approach that acknowledges only c-command cannot do

1296-594: Is functional rank. These two competing concepts (c-command vs. rank) have been debated extensively and they continue to be debated. C-command is a configurational notion; it is defined over concrete syntactic configurations. Syntactic rank, in contrast, is a functional notion that resides in the lexicon; it is defined over the ranking of the arguments of predicates . Subjects are ranked higher than objects, first objects are ranked higher than second objects, and prepositional objects are ranked lowest. The following two subsections briefly consider these competing notions. C-command

1368-457: Is generally limited to positions where the reflexive does not have a coargument. The newer non-standard usage does not respect this limitation. In some cases, reflexives without local antecedents may be better analyzed as emphatic pronouns without any true reflexive sense. It is common in some dialects of English to use standard object pronouns to express reflexive relations, especially in the first and sometimes second persons, and especially for

1440-420: Is impossible if the pronoun precedes its antecedent. The following sentences suggest that pure linear can indeed be important for the distribution of pronouns: While the coreferential readings indicated in these b-sentences are possible, they are unlikely. The order presented in the a-sentences is strongly preferred. The following, more extensive data sets further illustrate that linear order is important: While

1512-458: Is much less clear than the simple omission diagnostic (and the other diagnostics) suggests. Most accounts of the argument vs. adjunct distinction acknowledge a further division. One distinguishes between obligatory and optional arguments. Optional arguments pattern like adjuncts when just the omission diagnostic is employed, e.g. The existence of optional arguments blurs the line between arguments and adjuncts considerably. Further diagnostics (beyond

SECTION 20

#1732852495888

1584-413: Is normally used when the object of a sentence is the same as the subject. Each personal pronoun (such as I , you , he and she ) has its own reflexive form: These pronouns can also be used intensively , to emphasize the identity of whomever or whatever is being talked about: Intensive pronouns usually appear near and/or before the subject of the sentence. Usually after prepositions of locality it

1656-536: Is preferred to use a personal object pronoun rather than a reflexive pronoun: Compare: Certain verbs have reflexive pronouns in some languages but not in English: Compare to French: The list of such verbs: Non-reflexive use of reflexive pronouns is rather common in English. Most of the time, reflexive pronouns function as emphatic pronouns that highlight or emphasize the individuality or particularity of

1728-412: Is still considered formal and correct. Relfexive pronouns in the nominative case exist but have no logical reflexive function. Rather they have an intensifying purpose and follow the subject (if given): note the absence of non-reflexive subject pronoun in the latter case where the verb marking implies the subject. In order to intensify a relfexive pronoun in any other case, i.e. a reflexive pronoun with

1800-399: Is that the domain is "clause-like". The distribution of common and proper nouns is unlike that of reflexive, reciprocal, and personal pronouns. The relevant observation in this regard is that a noun is often reluctantly coreferential with another nominal that is within its binding domain or in a superordinate binding domain, e.g. The readings indicated in the a-sentences are natural, whereas

1872-477: Is used when 'I' would be more appropriate; for example, Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying, "Hamilton and myself were daily pitted in the cabinet like two cocks." In Mandarin Chinese , the reflexive pronoun is 自 ( zì ) 己 ( jǐ ) , meaning "self". The antecedent it refers to can be inferred by context, which is generally the subject of the sentence: The antecedent can be reiterated before

1944-424: The acceptability judgements here are nuanced, one can make a strong case that pure linear order is at least in part predictive of when the indicated reading is available. The a- and c-sentences allow the coreferential reading more easily than their b- and d-counterparts. While linear order is an important factor influencing the distribution of pronouns, it is not the only factor. The following sentences are similar to

2016-458: The accusative case marking -t is often omitted in magamat (myself), and magadat (yourself) remaining magam and magad respectively. This is also the case with possessed nouns using the same personal endings e.g. házam (my house), and kocsid (your car) both of which can be interpreted in less formal language as either nominative or accusative depending on context. Nonetheless, using the accusative ending -t (as in házamat and kocsidat )

2088-530: The adjunct in the garden modifies the verb saw (in which case it is Lorna who saw the dog while she was in the garden) or the noun phrase the dog (in which case it is the dog who is in the garden). The definition can be extended to include adjuncts that modify nouns or other parts of speech (see noun adjunct ). An adjunct can be a single word, a phrase , or an entire clause . Most discussions of adjuncts focus on adverbial adjuncts, that is, on adjuncts that modify verbs, verb phrases, or entire clauses like

2160-456: The adjuncts in the examples throughout this article is a constituent. Adjuncts can be categorized in terms of the functional meaning that they contribute to the phrase, clause, or sentence in which they appear. The following list of the semantic functions is by no means exhaustive, but it does include most of the semantic functions of adjuncts identified in the literature on adjuncts: The distinction between arguments and adjuncts and predicates

2232-408: The adjuncts in the three examples just given. Adjuncts can appear in other domains, however; that is, they can modify most categories. An adnominal adjunct is one that modifies a noun: for a list of possible types of these, see Components of noun phrases . Adjuncts that modify adjectives and adverbs are occasionally called adadjectival and adadverbial . Adjuncts are always constituents . Each of

Binding (linguistics) - Misplaced Pages Continue

2304-537: The analyses just given sometimes employ a special convention to distinguish adjuncts from arguments. Some dependency grammars , for instance, use an arrow dependency edge to mark adjuncts, e.g. The arrow dependency edge points away from the adjunct toward the governor of the adjunct. The arrows identify six adjuncts: Yesterday , probably , many times , very , very long , and that you like . The standard, non-arrow dependency edges identify Sam , Susan , that very long story that you like , etc. as arguments (of one of

2376-452: The associations with the three conditions are so firmly anchored in the study of binding that one often refers to, for example, "Condition A effects" or "Condition B effects" when describing binding phenomena. Reflexive pronoun A reflexive pronoun is a pronoun that refers to another noun or pronoun (its antecedent ) within the same sentence. In the English language specifically,

2448-501: The b-sentences are very unusual. Indeed, sentences like these b-sentences were judged to be impossible in the traditional binding theory according to Condition C (see below). Given a contrastive context, however, the b-sentences can work, e.g. Susan does not admire Jane, but rather Susan i admires Susan i . One can therefore conclude that nouns are not sensitive to binding domains in the same way that reflexive, reciprocal, and personal pronouns are. The following subsections illustrate

2520-446: The binary division of the clause (S → NP + VP) associated with most phrase structure grammars , this definition sees a typical subject c-commanding everything inside the verb phrase (VP), whereas everything inside the VP is incapable of c-commanding anything outside of the VP. Some basic binding facts are explained in this manner, e.g. Sentence a is fine because the subject Larry c-commands

2592-443: The binding domains that are relevant for the distribution of pronouns and nouns in English. The discussion follows the outline provided by the traditional binding theory (see below), which divides nominals into three basic categories: reflexive and reciprocal pronouns, personal pronouns, and nouns ( common and proper ). When one examines the distribution of reflexive pronouns and reciprocal pronouns (which are often subsumed under

2664-548: The c- and d-sentences in the previous section insofar as an embedded clause is present. While there may be a mild preference for the order in the a-sentences here, the indicated reading in the b-sentences is also available. Hence linear order is hardly playing a role in such cases. The relevant difference between these sentences and the c- and d-sentences in the previous section is that the embedded clauses here are adjunct clauses, whereas they are argument clauses above. The following examples involve adjunct phrases: The fact that

2736-459: The c-sentences marginally allow the indicated reading whereas the b-sentences do not at all allow this reading further demonstrates that linear order is important. But in this regard, the d-sentences are telling, since if linear order were the entire story, one would expect the d-sentences to be less acceptable than they are. The conclusion that one can draw from such data is that there are one or more other factors beyond linear order that are impacting

2808-430: The distribution of pronouns. Given that linear order is not the only factor influencing the distribution of pronouns, the question is what other factor or factors might also be playing a role. The traditional binding theory (see below) took c-command to be the all important factor, but the importance of c-command for syntactic theorizing has been extensively criticized in recent years. The primary alternative to c-command

2880-424: The extent to which pure linear order impacts the distribution of pronouns. While linear order is clearly important, it is not the only factor influencing where pronouns can appear. A simple hypothesis concerning the distribution of many anaphoric elements, of personal pronouns in particular, is that linear order plays a role. In most cases, a pronoun follows its antecedent, and in many cases, the coreferential reading

2952-402: The first two b-sentences in the previous section. The local binding domain that is decisive for the distribution of reflexive and reciprocal pronouns is also decisive for personal pronouns, but in a different way. Personal pronouns seek their antecedent outside of the local binding domain containing them, e.g. In these cases, the pronoun has to look outside of the embedded clause containing it to

Binding (linguistics) - Misplaced Pages Continue

3024-422: The general category of "anaphor"), one sees that there are certain domains that are relevant, a "domain" being a syntactic unit that is clause -like. Reflexive and reciprocal pronouns often seek their antecedent close by, in a binding domain that is local, e.g. These examples illustrate that there is a domain within which a reflexive or reciprocal pronoun should find its antecedent. The a-sentences are fine because

3096-450: The genitive postpostion का ( kā ) forming the reflexing pronoun आपस का ( āpas kā ) meaning "of ourselves". The genitive reflexive pronoun can also be used to emphasise when used with the personal genitive pronouns, so e.g. मेरा ( merā ) "mine" becomes मेरा अपना ( merā apnā ) "my very own". Alternatively, using the genitive postposition का ( kā ) with खुद ( khud ) gives मेरे खुदका ( mere khudkā ) meaning

3168-508: The head predicate or above and to the left of the subject argument, e.g. The subject is identified as an argument insofar as it appears as a sister and to the left of V(P). The modal adverb certainly is shown as an adjunct insofar as it adjoins to an intermediate projection of V or to a projection of S. In X-bar theory, adjuncts are represented as elements that are sisters to X' levels and daughters of X' level [X' adjunct [X'...]]. Theories that assume sentence structure to be less layered than

3240-406: The indicated reading to be possible. The third pair shows that at times a personal pronoun must follow its antecedent, and the fourth pair further illustrates the same point, although the acceptability judgement is not as robust. Based on such data, one sees that reflexive and personal pronouns differ in their distribution and that linear order (of a pronoun in relation to its antecedent or postcedent)

3312-600: The main clause or the embedded clause, in which case it may be necessary to reiterate the antecedent: The reflexive pronoun in Cantonese Chinese , jihgéi , cognate to Mandarin zìjǐ (and thus also written as 自己 ), also follows the same rules. This was also the case in Classical Chinese , which simply used 己 ( Old Chinese : * kəʔ ). Danish uses the separate reflexive pronoun sig for third person pronouns, and 'selv' to mark intensive. In Danish, there

3384-521: The main predicate. The matrix predicate in the first sentence is is under ; this predicate takes the two arguments It and the bush . Similarly, the matrix predicate in the second sentence is is at ; this predicate takes the two arguments The party and seven o'clock . Distinguishing between predicates, arguments, and adjuncts becomes particularly difficult when secondary predicates are involved, for instance with resultative predicates, e.g. The resultative adjective tired can be viewed as an argument of

3456-494: The main reflexive pronoun is 'se' , with its indefinite form soi . There are also intensifying reflexive pronouns, such as moi-même , toi-même , lui-même/elle-même/soi-même , nous-mêmes , vous-mêmes and eux-mêmes/elles-mêmes , similar in meaning (but not often used) to myself, yourself, etc. French also uses reflexive verbs to express actions that somebody is doing to themselves. Many of these are related to daily routine. For example, In German ,

3528-455: The manner of saját , above, but the sense is more formal than intensive. Adjunct (grammar) In linguistics , an adjunct is an optional, or structurally dispensable , part of a sentence, clause, or phrase that, if removed or discarded, will not structurally affect the remainder of the sentence. Example: In the sentence John helped Bill in Central Park , the phrase in Central Park

3600-417: The matrix clause to find its antecedent. Hence based on such data, the relevant binding domain appears to be the clause. Further data illustrate, however, that the clause is actually not the relevant domain: Since the pronouns appear within the same minimal clause containing their antecedents in these cases, one cannot argue that the relevant binding domain is the clause. The most one can say based on such data

3672-557: The matrix predicate made . But it is also definitely a predicate over him . Such examples illustrate that distinguishing predicates, arguments, and adjuncts can become difficult and there are many cases where a given expression functions in more ways than one. The following overview is a breakdown of the current divisions: This overview acknowledges three types of entities: predicates, arguments, and adjuncts, whereby arguments are further divided into obligatory and optional ones. Many theories of syntax and grammar employ trees to represent

SECTION 50

#1732852495888

3744-519: The noun. Grammatically, the position of reflexive pronouns in this usage is either right after the noun the pronouns are emphasizing or, if the noun is subject, after-verb-or-object position is also possible. For example, "Why don't you yourself do the job?", "Why don't you do the job yourself ?", or "I want to fix my phone itself ; I will not fix your watch as well." Some speakers use reflexive pronouns without local linguistic antecedents to refer to discourse participants or people already referenced in

3816-420: The object himself , whereas sentence b does not work because the object Larry does not c-command the subject himself . The assumption has been that within its binding domain, a reflexive pronoun must be c-commanded by its antecedent. While this approach based on c-command makes a correct prediction much of the time, there are other cases where it fails to make the correct prediction, e.g. The reading indicated

3888-472: The object is the same person as the subject; but, in "They like them(selves)", there can be uncertainty about the identity of the object unless a distinction exists between the reflexive and the nonreflexive. In some languages, this distinction includes genitive forms: see, for instance, the Danish examples below. In languages with a distinct reflexive pronoun form, it is often gender-neutral . A reflexive pronoun

3960-407: The omission diagnostic and the others mentioned above) must be employed to distinguish between adjuncts and optional arguments. One such diagnostic is the relative clause test. The test constituent is moved from the matrix clause to a subordinate relative clause containing which occurred/happened . If the result is unacceptable, the test constituent is probably NOT an adjunct: The particular merit of

4032-497: The one hand between arguments and adjuncts and on the other hand between optional arguments and adjuncts, and they grant a central position to these divisions in the overarching theory. Many phrases have the outward appearance of an adjunct but are in fact (part of) a predicate instead. The confusion occurs often with copular verbs, in particular with a form of be , e.g. The PPs in these sentences are NOT adjuncts, nor are they arguments. The preposition in each case is, rather, part of

4104-439: The personal pronoun she does not c-command its antecedent Alice , resulting in the grammaticality of both sentences despite reversed linear order. The alternative to a c-command approach posits a ranking of syntactic functions (SUBJECT > FIRST OBJECT > SECOND OBJECT > PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT). Subject-object asymmetries are addressed in terms of this ranking. Since subjects are ranked higher than objects, an object can have

4176-421: The reflexive case is not distinguishable from the accusative and dative cases except in the third person reflexive. As discussed above, the reflexive case is most useful when handling third person because it is not always clear that pronouns refer to the same person, whereas in the first and second persons, it is clear: he hit him and he hit himself have different meanings, but I hit me and I hit myself mean

4248-404: The reflexive or reciprocal pronoun attempts to find an antecedent outside of the immediate clause containing it, it fails. In other words, it can hardly seek its antecedent in the superordinate clause. The binding domain that is relevant is the immediate clause containing it. Personal pronouns have a distribution that is different from reflexive and reciprocal pronouns, a point that is evident with

4320-405: The reflexive or reciprocal pronoun has its antecedent within the clause. The b-sentences, in contrast, do not allow the indicated reading, a fact illustrating that personal pronouns have a distribution that is different from that of reflexive and reciprocal pronouns. A related observation is that a reflexive and reciprocal pronoun often cannot seek its antecedent in a superordinate clause, e.g. When

4392-475: The reflexive pronoun खुद ( khud ) [from PIE * swé ] meaning "self" and pronoun अपना ( apnā ) [from PII * HáHtmā "self"] which is the possessive reflexive pronoun and both these pronouns are used with all the three, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, persons. There is also the pronoun आपस ( āpas ) which is used with either the inessive case-marker में ( mẽ ) forming the reflexive pronoun आपस में ( āpas mẽ ) meaning "among ourselves" or

SECTION 60

#1732852495888

4464-408: The reflexive pronoun; this can be used to refer to an antecedent that's not the subject: Like English, the reflexive can also be used to emphasize the antecedent: The reflexive can also be the subject of an embedded clause. Also unlike English, the reflexive can refer to antecedents outside of the embedded clause. Because of this, it may be ambiguous whether the antecedent refers to the subject of

4536-462: The relative clause test is its ability to distinguish between many argument and adjunct PPs, e.g. The reliability of the relative clause diagnostic is actually limited. For instance, it incorrectly suggests that many modal and manner adjuncts are arguments. This fact bears witness to the difficulty of providing an absolute diagnostic for the distinctions currently being examined. Despite the difficulties, most theories of syntax and grammar distinguish on

4608-447: The right of the object argument, e.g. The object argument each time is identified insofar as it is a sister of V that appears to the right of V, and the adjunct status of the adverb early and the PP before class is seen in the higher position to the right of and above the object argument. Other adjuncts, in contrast, are assumed to adjoin to a position that is between the subject argument and

4680-425: The same as मेरा अपना ( merā apnā ). These reflexive pronouns can be used with case-marking postpositions as shown below in the table to the right. आपस ( āpas ) — "oneselves" अपने आप ( apne āp ) — "by oneself", "automatically" apnā apne apnī apne apne apnõ apnī apniyõ Hungarian has two primary means of expressing reflexivity. The most common

4752-498: The same thing although the former is nonstandard English. Because the accusative and dative cases are different, the speaker must know whether the verb is reflexive accusative or reflexive dative. There are very few reflexive dative verbs, which must be memorised to ensure that the correct grammar is used. The most notable one is (sich) weh tun (to hurt oneself): Ich tue mir weh. (I hurt myself.) See also German pronouns . In Hindi , there are two primary reflexive pronouns,

4824-595: The same. The exploration of binding phenomena got started in the 1970s and interest peaked in the 1980s with Government and Binding Theory , a grammar framework in the tradition of generative syntax that is still prominent today. The theory of binding that became widespread at that time serves now merely as reference point (since it is no longer believed to be correct). This theory distinguishes between 3 different binding conditions: A, B, and C. The theory classifies nominals according to two features, [±anaphor] and [±pronominal], which are binary. The binding characteristics of

4896-477: The sentence. Different languages have different binding domains for reflexive pronouns, according to their structure. In Indo-European languages , the reflexive pronoun has its origins in Proto-Indo-European . In some languages, some distinction exists between normal object and reflexive pronouns, mainly in the third person: whether one says "I like me" or "I like myself", there is no question that

4968-399: The structure of sentences. Various conventions are used to distinguish between arguments and adjuncts in these trees. In phrase structure grammars , many adjuncts are distinguished from arguments insofar as the adjuncts of a head predicate will appear higher in the structure than the object argument(s) of that predicate. The adjunct is adjoined to a projection of the head predicate above and to

5040-496: The subject as its antecedent, but not vice versa. With basic cases, this approach makes the same prediction as the c-command approach. The first two sentences from the previous section are repeated here: Since the subject outranks the object, sentence a is predictably acceptable, the subject Larry outranking the object himself . Sentence b, in contrast, is bad because the subject reflexive pronoun himself outranks its postcedent Larry . In other words, this approach in terms of rank

5112-471: The term anaphor here is being used in a specialized sense; it essentially means "reflexive". This meaning is specific to the Government and Binding framework and has not spread beyond this framework. Based on the classifications according to these two features, three conditions are formulated: While the theory of binding that these three conditions represent is no longer held to be valid, as mentioned above,

5184-411: The theory at hand. Some dependency grammars , for instance, employ the term circonstant (instead of adjunct ), following Tesnière (1959). The area of grammar that explores the nature of predicates , their arguments, and adjuncts is called valency theory . Predicates have valency; they determine the number and type of arguments that can or must appear in their environment. The valency of predicates

#887112