In response to a question I got over email, let me just give a couple of examples of evaluating Binding Theory satisfaction and violations.

For Binding Theory, the thing to keep in mind is that binding only goes one direction, from higher in the tree to lower in the tree. For the most part, things that are further left in an English sentence are higher in the tree than things that are further right, although it is more complicated when there is a larger constituent on the left (like John’s mother).

Specifically, a node A binds a node B when A c-commands B and they share an index.

So, in something like John_i told Mary that he_i saw himself_i we have three things that share the index i. There are no larger constituents to worry about here. The binding relations are:

• John_i binds he_i.
• John_i binds himself_i.
• he_i binds himself_i.

So, everything binds to the right. (Though, keep in mind, binding really depends on c-command, not just being to the right. See the second example below).

Then, to evaluate Binding Theory, you look at each one in turn.

• John_i is an R-expression, and is not bound by anything.
• Principle C says that R-expressions cannot be bound.
• So, Principle C is satisfied (for John_i).

• he_i is a pronoun, and is bound by John_i.
• Principle B says that pronouns cannot be bound within their binding domain.
• The binding domain for he_i is the clause containing it.
• The clause containing it is (that) he saw himself, and John is not inside.
• So, Principle B is satisfied (for he_i).

• himself_i is an anaphor, and is bound by John_i and he_i.
• Principle A says that anaphors must be bound within their binding domain.
• The binding domain for himself_i is the clause containing it.
• The clause containing it is (that) he saw himself, and he_i (but not John_i) is inside.
• So, Principle A is satisfied (for himself_i) by virtue of being bound by he_i.

A more complicated example would be one like: His_i mother thinks John_i is a genius.

• Here, nothing binds anything else.
• His_i is inside the constituent His_i mother and so it does not c-command John_i.
• John_i is further down the tree and so clearly does not c-command his_i.

• For his_i, Principle B says it must not be bound within its binding domain.
• The whole sentence is the binding domain.
• But nothing binds his_i at all, so it is safe.
• Principle B is satisfied (for his_i).

• For John_i, Principle C says it must not be bound.
• Nothing binds John_i, so it too is safe.
• Principle C is satisfied (for John_i).

And, of course, these results are what we want, since both sentences are grammatical.

One last example, this one is not good: *John_i saw him_i.

• John_i binds him_i.
• John_i must not be bound according to Principle C.
• And it is not, so Principle C is satisfied (for John_i).

• him_i must not be bound within its binding domain, according to Principle B.
• But it is bound, by John_i, and John_i is within the binding domain.
• So, him_i violates Principle B.
• And, indeed, the sentence is ungrammatical.