In linguistics, binding is the phenomenon in which anaphoric elements such as pronouns are grammatically associated with their antecedents.
The following three subsections consider the binding domains that are relevant for the distribution of pronouns and nouns in English.
Reflexive and reciprocal pronouns often seek their antecedent close by, in a binding domain that is local, e.g.
A related observation is that a reflexive and reciprocal pronoun often cannot seek its antecedent in a superordinate clause, e.g.
The distribution of common and proper nouns is unlike that of reflexive, reciprocal, and personal pronouns.
Indeed, sentences like these b-sentences were judged to be impossible in the traditional binding theory according to Condition C (see below).
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 the extent to which pure linear order impacts the distribution of pronouns.
A simple hypothesis concerning the distribution of many anaphoric elements, of personal pronouns in particular, is that linear order plays a role.
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 following sentences are similar to the c- and d-sentences in the previous section insofar as an embedded clause is present.
The conclusion that one can draw from such data is that there are one or more other factors beyond linear order that are impacting the distribution of pronouns.
In both examples, the personal pronoun she does not c-command its antecedent Alice, resulting in the grammaticality of both sentences despite reversed linear order.
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 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.
A theory of binding that acknowledges both linear order and rank can at least begin to predict many of the marginal readings.
[10] 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).
[clarification needed] Note that the term anaphor here is being used in a specialized sense; it essentially means "reflexive".