  Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem has given rise to a broad and productive line
of research in mathematical logic, where the classification process of
decidable classes of first-order sentences represent only one of the remarkable
results. According to the criteria used to identify the particular classes of
interest, this process was declined into several research programs, of which
some of the most deeply investigated are the ones classifying sentences in
prenex normal form in base of their prefix vocabulary. Unfortunately, almost
all of these approaches did not shed any light on the reasons why modal logic
is so robustly decidable. Trying to answer to this question, Andreka, van
Benthem, and Nemeti introduced the guarded fragment of first-order logic, which
generalizes the modal framework by essentially retaining all its fundamental
properties. They started, so, a completely new research program based on the
way quantifications can be relativized. Although this approach succeeded in its
original task, we cannot consider it satisfactory in spotting the reasons why
some complex extensions of modal logic are well-behaved. In particular, by just
using the related results, we are not able to derive the decidability of
multi-agent logics for strategic abilities. In this paper, aiming to lay the
foundation for a more thorough understanding of some of these decidability
questions, we introduce a new kind of classification based on the binding forms
that are admitted in a sentence, i.e., on the way the arguments of a relation
can be bound to a variable. We describe a hierarchy of first-order fragments
based on the Boolean combinations of these forms, showing that the less
expressive one is already incomparable with the guarded logic and related
extensions. We also prove, via a new model-theoretic technique, that it enjoys
the finite-model property and a PSpace satisfiability problem.
