c-command - Knowledge

867:, subjects precede (and c-command) objects. Moreover, subjects typically precede objects in declarative sentences in English and related languages. Going back to Bruening (2014), an argument is presented which suggests that theories of the syntax that build on c-command have misconstrued the importance of precedence and/or the hierarchy of grammatical functions (i.e. the grammatical function of subject versus object). The grammatical rules of pronouns and the variable binding of pronouns that co-occur with quantified noun phrases and wh-phrases were originally grouped together and interpreted as being the same, but Bruening brings to light that there is a notable difference between the two and provides his own theory on this matter. Bruening suggests that the current function of c-command is inaccurate and concludes that what c-command is intended to address is more accurately analyzed in terms of precedence and grammatical functions. Furthermore, the c-command concept was developed primarily on the basis of syntactic phenomena of English, a language with relatively strict word order. When confronted with the much freer word order of many other languages, the insights provided by c-command are less compelling since linear order becomes less important. 1309:, are used to refer to previous concepts that are more prominent and highly predictable, and requires an antecedent representation that it refers back to. In order for a proper interpretation to occur, the antecedent representation must be made accessible within the comprehender's mind and then aligned with the appropriate pronoun, so that the pronoun will have something to refer to. There are studies that suggest that there is a connection between pronoun prominence and the referent in a comprehender's cognitive state. Research has shown that prominent antecedent representations are more active compared to less prominent ones. 1132: 1078: 1409:(ASD) are capable of computing the hierarchical structural relationship of c-command. Khetrapal and Thornton brought up the possibility that children with ASD may be relying on a form of linear strategy for reference assignment. The study aimed to investigate the status of c-command in children with ASD by testing participants on their interpretation of sentences which incorporated the usage of c-command and a linear strategy for reference assignment. Researchers found that children with 1058: 1050:’s binding theory (1995) by showing that its definition of c-command in binding principles B and C, fails to work in different argument structures of different predicates. Cho states that binding principles use m-command-based c-command for intra-argument structures and binding principles use command-based c-command for inter argument structure. With this statement, Cho implies that the notion of c-command used in binding principles is actually 1155:. This is done in a way that allows for the categorial maximal projection of the former to c-command the categorial maximal projection of the latter. Cho argues that the notion of c-command in sentences (1a), (1b), and (1c) are in fact m-command and that the m-command-based binding principles deal with binding relations of lexical items and/or arguments that are in the same argument structure of a predicate. 584: 1397:. It has also been suggested that there is a relationship between antecedent retrieval and its sensitivity to c-command restraints on quantificational binding, and that c-command facilitates the relational information, which help to retrieve antecedents and distinguish them from quantificational phrases that allows bound variable pronoun readings from quantificational phrases that do not. 71: 995:

without c-command. This is achieved by avoiding the usage of c-command and instead focusing on the notion of precedence in order to present a system that is capable of binding variables and accounting events such as crossover violation. Barker shows that precedence, in the way of an evaluation order, can be used in the place of c-command.

1385:

memory, and are easily integrable in subsequent discourse operations. In other words, antecedent pronouns, when placed in the beginning of sentences, are easier to remember as it is held within their focal attention. Thus, the sentences are easily interpreted and understood. They also found that gendered pronouns, such as

254: 1029:

Both Barker and Wuijts state that the goal is not to eliminate c-command entirely but to recognize that there are better alternatives that exist. In other words, c-command can still be used to effectively differentiate between strong and weak crossovers but it may not be as successful in other areas

1291:

Cho not only uses sentences (2a)-(2g) to explain command-based c-command and its role in inter-argument structure binding relations but also claims that command-based c-command can account for unexplained binding relations between different argument structures joined by a conjunctive phrase as well

1007:

Wuijts further claims that a binder can adopt the outcome as an argument and bind the pronoun all through a system that utilizes continuation without the notion of c-command. Both Bruening's and Barker's alternatives to c-command for the binding of pronouns are determined as ‘adequate alternatives’

579:

Relative to the history of the concept of c-command, one can identify two stages: (i) analyses focused on applying c-command to solve specific problems relating to coreference and non-coreference; (ii) analyses which focused on c-command as a structural on a wide range of natural language phenomena

1003:

Another important work of criticism stems from Wuijts (2016) which is a response to Barker's stance on c-command and poses the question for Barker's work: How are “alternatives to c-command for the binding of pronouns justified and are these alternatives adequate?”. Wuijts dives deep into Barker's

1384:

Based on findings from memory retrieval studies, Foraker suggests that prominent antecedents have a higher retrieval time when a following pronoun is introduced. Furthermore, when sentences are syntactically clefted, antecedent representations, such as pronouns, become more distinctive in working

994:

Bruening along with other linguists such as Chung-Chien Shan and Chris Barker has gone against Reinhart's claims by suggesting that variable binding and co-reference do not relate to each other. Barker (2012) aims to demonstrate how variable binding can function through the usage of continuations

377:

In the first interpretation, John c-commands he and also co-references he. Co-reference is noted by the same subscript (i) present under both of the DP nodes. The second interpretation shows that John c-commands he but does not co-reference the DP he. Since co-reference is not possible, there are

840:

The current and widely used definition of c-command that Reinhart had developed was not new to syntax. Similar configurational notions had been circulating for more than a decade. In 1964, Klima defined a configurational relationship between nodes he labeled "in construction with". In addition,

553:

In this example, the quantifier c-commands the other pronoun and a bound variable reading is possible as the pronoun 'he' is bound by the universal quantifier 'every man'. The sentence in (3) show two possible readings as a result of the bounding of pronouns with the universal quantifier. The

1606:

The 'superiority relation' denotes the superiority as asymmetrical where nodes A and B cannot be superior to each other. The difference between Reinhart's 'c-command' and Chomsky's 'superiority relation' is that sister nodes are permitted in the former whereas it is excluded in the latter. See

1224:

Cho argues that binding relations in the intra-argument structures utilize m-command-based c-command which is limited to the binding relations of arguments and/or lexical items belonging to argument structures of the same predicate. Cho makes use of the following sentences to demonstrate how

870:

As previously suggested, the phenomena that c-command is intended to address may be more plausibly examined in terms of linear order and a hierarchy of syntactic functions. Concerning the latter, some theories of syntax take a hierarchy of syntactic functions to be primitive. This is true of

478:

in 1973 in relation to the treatment of various anaphoric phenomena, and has since been revised throughout the years. Chomsky's analysis places a constraint on the relationship between a pronoun and a variable antecedent. As such, a variable cannot be the antecedent of a pronoun to its left.

390: 305: 753: 422:

Example sentences like these shows the basic relationship of pronouns with its antecedent expression. However, looking at definite anaphora where pronouns takes a definite descriptions as its antecedent, we see that pronouns with name cannot co-refer with its antecedent within its domain.

1030:

such as asymmetry which was previously mentioned. Wuijts concludes that a better alternative without c-command may be preferred and suggests that the current alternatives to c-command point to precedence, the binary relation between nodes in a tree structure, to be of great importance.

695: 1413:(HFA) did not show any difficulties with computing the hierarchical relationship of c-command. The results suggest that children with HFA do not have syntactic deficiency however Kethrapal and Thornton stress that conducting further cross-linguistic investigation is essential. 891:

Like Bruening, Barker (2012) provides his own input on c-command, stating that it is not relevant for quantificational binding in English. Although not a complete characterization of the conditions in which a quantifier can bind a pronoun, Barker proposes a scope requirement.

849:

Over the years, the validity and importance of c-command for the theory of syntax have been widely debated. Linguists such as Benjamin Bruening have provided empirical data to prove that c-command is flawed and fails to predict whether or not pronouns are being used properly.

1042:

and proposes that lexical items in the same argument structures that stem from the same predicates, require an m-command-based binding relation whereas lexical items in arguments structures that stem from different predicates require c-command based binding relations.

1634:

HPSG addresses the c-command effects in terms of o-command (obliqueness command). The syntactic functions are ranked in terms of their level of "obliqueness", subjects being the least oblique of all the functions. See Pollard and Sag (1994:248) and Levine and Hukari

883:(DGs). The hierarchy of syntactic functions that these frameworks posit is usually something like the following: SUBJECT > FIRST OBJECT > SECOND OBJECT > OBLIQUE OBJECT. Numerous mechanisms of syntax are then addressed in terms of this hierarchy 640:

In other words, this rule states that any noun phrases that have not been associated with a coreference rule, are assumed to be noncoreferential. The tree to the right specifies this through the cyclical leftward movement of the pronoun and/or noun.

570:

is intelligent. In general, for a pronoun to be bound by the quantifier and bound variable reading made possible, (i) the quantifier must c-command the pronoun and (ii) both the quantifier and pronoun have to occur in the same sentence.

1081:

A syntactic tree structure that illustrates sentence (1b) is ill-formed. The pronoun 'her' is bound in its governing category which violates binding principle B. Cho (2019) argues that the notion of c-command being used is actually

340:(syntax tree), nodes A and B are replaced with a DP constituent, where the DP John c-commands DP he. In a more complex sentence, such as (2), the pronoun could interact with its antecedent and be interpreted in two ways. 1728:

Refer to Cho, K. (2019, 87-95) for an elaborate analysis containing syntax trees and argumentation on how sentences (2a)-(2g) demonstrate how command-based c-command operates for inter-argument structure binding

1486:

The definition of c-command given here is taken from Haegeman (1994:147). The same or similar definitions of c-command can be found in numerous textbooks on syntax, e.g. Radford (2004:75) and Carnie (2013:127).

858:

In most cases, c-command correlates with precedence (linear order); that is, if node A c-commands node B, it is usually the case that node A also precedes node B. Furthermore, basic S(V)O (subject-verb-object)

524:

Compared to definite anaphora, quantificational expressions works differently and is more restrictive. As proposed by Reinhart in 1973, a quantificational expression must c-command any pronoun that it binds.

1900:

Foraker, S. (2004). The mechanisms involved in the prominence of referent representations during pronoun coreference (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 2004). UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations.

473:

The notion of c-command can be found in frameworks such as Binding Theory, which shows the syntactic relationship between pronouns and its antecedent. The binding theory framework was first introduced by

1344:

Furthermore, the more active an antecedent representation is the more it is readily available for interpretation when a pronoun emerges, which are then useful for operations such as pronoun resolution.

837:

The tree to the right compares the two definitions in this stage. Reinhart's "c-command" focuses on the branching nodes whereas Chomsky's "m-command" focuses on the maximal projections.

1522:

Although Barker (2012) provides counterexamples to the c-command requirement in quantificational binding, he also mentions Reinhart's proposal and motivation for the need of c-command

1692:

See more on what led Wuijts to this conclusion of the semantic interpretation of pronouns and their functions in Wuijts' work "Binding pronouns with and without c-command" (2015).

1644:

LFG addresses the c-command effects in terms of a straightforward ranking of syntactic functions associated with f-structure (functional structure). See Bresnan (2001:198).

1135:

A syntactic structure that illustrates sentence (1c) is ill-formed. Sentence (1c) violates binding principle C and Cho (2019) argues that this uses the notion of m-command.

1008:

which accurately show how co-reference and variable binding can operate without c-command. Wuijts brings forth two primary points that justify using a form of precedence:

1567:

Lasnik's rule accounts for the concept of "precede-and-command" which hints at a potential dominance factor which is later explored in Stage 2. See Reinhart (1981:607).

979:

The sentence in (7) indicates that cannot scope over and shows that the quantifier does not take scope over the pronoun. As such, there is no interpretation where

2074:

Shan, Chung-Chieh; Barker, Chris (2006). "Explaining Crossover and Superiority as Left-to-right Evaluation". Linguistics and Philosophy. 29 (1): 91–134.

1070:

By analyzing the following sentences, Cho is able to support the argument that the notion of c-command used in binding principles is actually m-command:

38:

its sister node and all of its sister's descendants. In these frameworks, c-command plays a central role in defining and constraining operations such as

1765:

It is important to note that Foraker & McElree (2007) makes a distinction between active versus passive representations that is not elaborated here.

1373:. The antecedent my black bag is more active in the representation in the comprehender's mind, as it is more prominent, and coreference for the pronoun 595:), would counteract the idea of coreference despite being marked as +coref. Rules that maintain a leftward movement will keep supporting coreferencing. 1549:

Jackendoff and Lasnik both explore the concept of c-command through the interactions found in coreferencing. See Lightfoot (1975) and Lasnik (1976).

841:

Langacker proposed a similar notion of "command" in 1969. Reinhart's definition has also shown close relations to Chomsky's 'superiority relation.'

1558:

Jackendoff's pronominal coreference rule accounts for the pronoun and/or noun cycling that plays a key role in coreferencing. See Lightfoot (1975).

608:. This is denoted by the first stage of the concept of c-command. In the initial emergence of coreference, Jackendoff (1972). officially states... 1917:

Garrod, S. and Terras, M. (May 2000). The Contribution of Lexical and Situational Knowledge to Resolving Discourse Roles: Bonding and Resolution.

1951:

Khetrapal, Neha; Thornton, Rosalind (2017). "C-Command in the Grammars of Children with High Functioning Autism". Frontiers in Psychology. 8.

816:

Chomsky adds a second layer to the previous edition of the c-command rule by introducing the requirement of maximal projections. He states...

1887:

Cho, K. (2019). Two Different C-commands in Intra-Argument Structures and Inter-Argument Structures: Focus on Binding Principles B and A.

2174: 904:

As such, a quantifier can take scope over a pronoun only if it can take scope over an existential inserted in the place of the pronoun

2648: 1701:

Wuijts' justification behind these 2 points can be further explored in his work "Binding pronouns with and without c-command" (2015).

1495:

The standard definition is a simplification based on the many variations on c-command that can be found in pg. 616 in Barker (2012).

942:

The sentence in (5) indicates that scopes over and this supports the claim that can take scope over a pronoun such as in (4).

17: 2143: 872: 2516: 2183: 1903:

Foraker, S. and McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations.

1710:

See Cho, K. (2019) for an in-depth analysis of the requirement form-command-based binding vs. c-command based binding.

1683:

An explanation on what led Shan and Barker to this conclusion can be found in Shan, Chung-Chieh; Barker, Chris (2006).

1665:

For more evidence and counterexamples to the requirement of c-command in quantificational binding, see Barker (2012).

1305:

The notion of c-command shows the relation of pronouns with its antecedent expression. In general, pronouns, such as

308:

Tree example for sentence (3). This example shows that co-reference is not possible in definite anaphora and that DP

2865: 1747:

In his book, Garnham (2015) elaborates more on how we interpret anaphora and expressions such as definite pronouns.

1625:

C-command's failure to predict the proper usage of pronouns is discussed in Bruening's article in Language (2014).

788:. Reinhart thanks Nick Clements for suggesting both the term and its abbreviation. Reinhart (1976) states that... 2603: 1969:

Kush, D., Lidz, J., and Philips, C. (2015). Relation-sensitive retrieval: Evidence from bound variable pronouns.

773:

This leads to Stage 2 of the concept of c-command in which particular dominance is thoroughly explored. The term

460:

A given pronoun must be interpreted as non-coreferential with any distinct non-pronouns in its c-command domain

1983:

Langacker, R. W. (1969). On pronominalization and the chain of command. In D. A. Reibel and S. A. Schane (eds),

2724: 2598: 2257: 2167: 1756:

Garrod & Terras (2000) discusses the anaphoric interpretation in terms of bonding and resolution processes.

2376: 2197: 300:

Where John c-commands . This means that also c-commands and , which means that John c-commands both and .

1014:(1) Precedence is useful as it can be used to explain asymmetry which can not be explained through c-command 2014:

Lightfoot, D.W. (1975). Reviewed work: Semantic interpretation in generative grammar by Ray S. Jackendoff.

1653:

Concerning DGs emphasis on the importance of syntactic functions, see for instance Mel'c̆uk (1988:22, 69).

1004:

work and concludes that the semantic interpretation of pronouns serves as functions in their own context.

393:

Tree example for sentence (2) using constituent nodes. This example follows the first interpretation that

2262: 2870: 2744: 2406: 2227: 876: 482:

The first major revision to binding theory is found in Chomsky (1980) with their standard definitions:

83:

Common terms to represent the relationships between nodes are below (refer to the tree on the right):

2749: 2699: 2461: 2350: 2160: 2118: 2092:

Wuijts, Rogier (October 29, 2015). "Binding pronouns with and without c-command". Utrecht University.

2028: 1406: 783: 59: 1477:

Terms to represent the relationships between nodes is taken from Sportiche et al. (2014;2013, p. 24)

583: 140:. For a node (N1) to c-command another node (N2) the parent of N1 must establish dominance over N2. 2809: 2668: 2247: 1616:

Refer to Bruening's article in Language (2014) which provides debates on the validity of c-command.

1438: 47: 1576:

Carnie (2002:57) mentions this point, i.e. that Reinhart thanked Clements for suggesting the term

1540:

See Carminati, Frazier, & Rayner (2002) for more information on bound variables and c-command.

1369:

is less prominent as there are other objects within the sentence that are more prominent, such as

2804: 2345: 1811:

Khetrapal and Thornton provide reasoning behind this hypothesis in Khetrapal and Thornton (2018).

1410: 2124: 741:

In this edition of coreference, Lasnik sets some restrictions on the permissible locations of NP

2834: 2501: 2471: 2446: 2386: 2285: 2217: 2113: 1458: 1443: 1423: 55: 1061:

A syntactic tree structure that illustrates sentence (1a) which satisfies binding principle A.

2729: 2623: 2588: 2476: 2451: 2295: 2212: 1428: 475: 467: 454:

In response of the limits of c-command, Reinhart proposes a constraint on definite anaphora:

43: 1393:. In addition, noun phrases also become more prominent in representation when syntactically 2714: 2521: 2300: 1023:(2) The natural utterance and construction of sentences justify using a form of precedence. 1597:

Chomsky takes Reinhart's definition of c-command to formulate m-command. See Zhang (2016).

8: 2799: 2764: 2709: 2653: 2556: 2541: 2511: 2491: 2466: 2335: 2320: 1588:(often read as "k-command"), proposed by Lasnik (1976). See Keshet (2004) in this regard. 797:

most immediately dominating A either dominates B or is immediately dominated by a node ⍺

2844: 2769: 2739: 2704: 2684: 2613: 2593: 2531: 2526: 2436: 2426: 2411: 2355: 2064: 880: 864: 39: 28: 2152: 2824: 2779: 2759: 2719: 2658: 2628: 2608: 2401: 2330: 2139: 2132: 2042:. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Available online at 1859:

Carminati, M. N., Frazier, L., and Rayner, K. (2002). Bound Variables and C-Command.

718:

in the tree on the left) be a pronoun for the sentence to be grammatical, despite NP

2829: 2754: 2643: 2421: 2075: 1974: 1952: 1922: 1864: 1719:

Refer to Cho, K. (2019) for a deeper understanding of what led Cho to this finding.

987:

and coreference is not possible, which is indicated with a different subscript for

813:

In other words, “⍺ c-commands β iff every branching node dominating ⍺ dominates β”

726:

on the tree) being a pronoun or not. This can be shown through the examples below.

238: 2001:. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. 1531:

Example sentence can be found on pg. 2 in Carminati, Frazier, & Rayner (2002).

1405:

Recent research by Khetrapal and Thornton (2017) questioned whether children with

2875: 2633: 2536: 2431: 2396: 1337:. Pronouns tend to refer back to the salient object within the sentence, such as 1225:

command-based c-command operates for inter-argument structure binding relations:

1962:

Klima, E. S. (1964). Negation in English. In J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz (eds.),

219:

c-command any node because it does not have a sister node or any daughter nodes.

2819: 2814: 2734: 2618: 2496: 2391: 2232: 1793:

See Foraker's (2004) dissertation on the prominence of referent representations

1039: 778: 51: 2079: 2002: 1978: 580:

that include but are not limited to tracking coreference and non-coreference.

2859: 2506: 2481: 2315: 1956: 1776: 192:

For example, according to the standard definition, in the tree at the right,

2134:

I-language: An Introduction to Linguistics as Cognitive Science, 2nd edition

2043: 229:

If node A c-commands node B, and B also c-commands A, it can be said that A

100:

The standard definition of c-command is based partly on the relationship of

2774: 2694: 2561: 2441: 2325: 2305: 2100: 1926: 1897:

Frawley, W. (2003). C-command. "International Encyclopedia of Linguistics".

1139:

By analyzing sentence (1a), it is apparent that the governing category for

242: 1333:

in the comprehender's mind and it coreferences with the following pronoun

2689: 2663: 2546: 2310: 2237: 1868: 1433: 1131: 1077: 1057: 605: 451:, and we can only interpret that someone else thinks that John is smart. 1831:

Barker, C. (2012). Quantificational Binding Does Not Require C-command.

266:

A simplification of the standard definition on c-command is as follows:

2839: 2486: 2252: 2207: 2202: 1945: 1453: 1292:

as explain why sentence (7d) is grammatical and (7e) is ungrammatical.

860: 337: 32: 1802:

Based on the results of the study by Kush, Lidz, & Philips (2015).

2638: 2456: 2381: 2360: 2290: 2242: 2222: 1997:

Lasnik, H. (1989). A selective history of modern binding theory. In:

1448: 1389:, increases the prominence compared to unambiguous pronouns, such as 1329:

In sentence (i), there is an active representation of the antecedent

1051: 831: 389: 304: 1584:

may also have been chosen so as to contrast with the similar notion

1189:

are lexical items that serve as external and internal arguments for

702:

isn’t a pronoun, Lasnik’s rule states it as ungrammatical even if NP

2551: 2340: 1166:

are lexical items that serve as external and internal arguments of

253: 1033: 257:

Syntax tree for example sentence (1) using the standard definition

2049:

Reinhart, T. (1981). Definite NP anaphora and C-command domains.

1964:

The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of Language

1394: 1047: 752: 54:

introduced c-command in 1976 as a key component of her theory of

2085:

Sportiche, D., Koopman, H. J., and Stabler, E. P. (2013; 2014).

694: 500:

if there is a category c-commanding it and coindexed with it in

1985:

Modern studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar

1201:

are also in the same argument structure of the same predicate.

1178:

are also in the same argument structure of the same predicate.

545:

x(man(x)): x thinks y is intelligent. (coreferential or 'free')

1267:(2e) *John thinks she is good, and Tom thinks Mary is not good 604:

The development of ‘c-command’ is introduced by the notion of

2416: 1504:

See Lasnik (1989) for more history on modern binding theory.

1054:

and both c-command and m-command have their own limitations.

237:

B. The notion of asymmetric c-command plays a major role in

70: 1966:(pp. 246– 323). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 899:

a quantifier must take scope over any pronoun that it binds

1987:(pp. 160–186). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1220:

Looking at Binding Relations in Inter-Argument Structures

1066:

Looking at Binding Relations in Intra-Argument Structures

562:

are intelligent. Meanwhile, sentence (3b) state that for

74:

Tree 1 (use to evaluate standard definition of c-command)

2095:

Zhang, H. (2016). The c-command condition in phonology.

1894:

Chomsky, N. (1995). "The Minimalist Program". MIT Press.

1891:(pp. 79–100). Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. 233:

B. If A c-commands B but B does not c-command A, then A

200:

c-command any node because it dominates all other nodes.

2182: 2063:

Reuland, E. (2007). Binding Theory. In M. Everaert and

1838:

Boeckx, C. (1999). Conflicting C-command requirements.

1674:

Example sentences taken from page 618 in Barker (2012).

180:

The first (i.e. lowest) branching node that dominates N

1942:. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Twenty-Five. MIT Press. 863:

in English correlates positively with a hierarchy of

360:

In this example, two interpretations could be made:

2125:

Some Basic Concepts in Government and Binding Theory

1852:

Bruening, B. (2014). Precede-and-command revisited.

1738:

See Ariel (2016) to read more about noun prominence.

1240:(2b) She fainted when the blonde girl heard the news 998: 781:

in her 1976 dissertation and is a shortened form of

1231:(2a) The blond girl fainted when she heard the news 644:This is, then, edited by Lasnik (1976) in which... 2131: 1208:is a two-place main clause predicate and takes on 587:Any rule that maintains a rightward movement of NP 284:Every branching node dominating A also dominates B 2129: 1774:See this website for focal attention definition. 1193:, a three-place predicate. The two lexical items 130:moving only downwards in the tree (never upwards) 2857: 2649:Segmented discourse representation theory (SDRT) 2087:An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory 1912:Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora 619:in a sentence, there is no entry in the table NP 2009:The unity of unbounded dependency constructions 1768: 1216:the embedded clause, as its internal argument. 1170:, a two-place predicate. The two lexical items 1034:Cho's investigation of Chomsky's binding theory 853: 710:According to this rule, it is essential that NP 143:Based upon this definition of dominance, node N 886: 653:cannot be interpreted as coreferential with NP 2168: 1933:Introduction to Government and Binding Theory 1285:(2g) After he entered the room, John sat down 1276:(2f) *He sat down after John entered the room 844: 760:m-commands Det but doesn't c-command it; b) V 538:x(man(x)): x thinks x is intelligent. (bound) 2035:. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 591:(especially when crossing to the right of NP 2003:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2542-7_1 1990:Lasnik, H. (1976). Remarks on coreference. 1258:(2d) John has arrived and he will visit you 1249:(2c) He has arrived and John will visit you 735:c) *Lucy greets the customers Lucy serves. 519: 371:(ii) John thinks that someone else is smart 122:in the tree and one can trace a path from N 2175: 2161: 1212:the subject, as its external argument and 793:A commands node B iff the branching node ⍺ 732:b) *She greets the customers Lucy serves. 248: 65: 2044:http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16400 1948:(2004-05-20). "24.952 Syntax Squib". MIT. 729:a) Lucy greets the customers she serves. 2101:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781317389019-10 1884:, 3rd edition. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. 1130: 1076: 1056: 751: 738:d) She greets the customers she serves. 693: 582: 388: 303: 281:Neither A nor B dominates the other, and 261: 252: 69: 2025:. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 768: 599: 378:different subscripts under the DP John 327:as denoted by the different subscripts. 90:A and B are children or daughters of M. 14: 2858: 2011:. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. 78: 2604:Discourse representation theory (DRT) 2156: 2130:Isac, Daniela; Charles Reiss (2013). 1783:. American Psychological Association. 1661: 1659: 1513:Definitions taken from Lasnik (1989). 1355:and my hairties in it? Have you seen 764:c-commands N but doesn't m-command it 749:, which hint at potential dominance. 2058:Anaphora and semantic interpretation 2023:Head-driven phrase structure grammar 1775: 1143:the anaphor, is the entire sentence 873:Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar 417: 31:and related frameworks, a node in a 2517:Quantificational variability effect 2184:Formal semantics (natural language) 825:projection dominating ⍺ dominates β 405:is smart, with the two DPs showing 136:is a parent, grandparent, etc. of N 87:M is a parent or mother to A and B. 24: 2069:The Blackwell companion to syntax, 2007:Levine, R. and Hukari, T. (2006). 1656: 531:(3) thinks that is intelligent. 413:as denoted by the same subscripts. 203:A c-commands B, C, D, E, F, and G. 25: 2887: 2107: 1935:, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. 1882:Syntax: A generative introduction 1875:Syntax: A generative introduction 1826:Accessing noun-phrase antecedents 1351:(ii) "Where is my black bag with 999:Wuijts' response to Barker's work 805:is of the same category type as ⍺ 466: 2040:The syntactic domain of anaphora 2021:Pollard, C. and Sag, I. (1994). 1835:, (pp. 614–633). MIT Press. 1038:Keek Cho investigates Chomsky's 554:reading in (3a) states that for 366:(i) John thinks that he is smart 288:As such, we get sentences like: 2033:English syntax: An introduction 1914:. New York. ISBN 9781138883123. 1805: 1796: 1787: 1759: 1750: 1741: 1732: 1722: 1713: 1704: 1695: 1686: 1677: 1668: 1647: 1638: 1628: 1619: 1610: 1600: 1591: 1570: 1561: 1552: 1295: 1145:The tall boy will hurt himself. 2599:Combinatory categorial grammar 2099:(pp. 71–116). Routledge. 1971:Journal of Memory and Language 1919:Journal of Memory and Language 1905:Journal of Memory and Language 1777:"APA Dictionary of Psychology" 1543: 1534: 1525: 1516: 1507: 1498: 1489: 1480: 1471: 965:(7) The man who traveled with 948:(6) The man who traveled with 331: 96:M is a grandparent to C and D. 13: 1: 2377:Antecedent-contained deletion 1817: 2121:, University of Pennsylvania 983:in a sentence (6) refers to 854:Bruening's take on c-command 7: 2138:. Oxford University Press. 1416: 897:Barker’s Scope Requirement: 887:Barker's input on c-command 10: 2892: 2258:Syntax–semantics interface 2097:Syntax-Phonology Interface 1940:The antisymmetry of syntax 1122:believes that we hate Jina 877:Lexical Functional Grammar 845:Criticism and Alternatives 574: 2792: 2750:Question under discussion 2700:Conversational scoreboard 2677: 2581: 2574: 2477:Intersective modification 2462:Homogeneity (linguistics) 2369: 2278: 2271: 2190: 2080:10.1007/s10988-005-6580-7 1979:10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.003 1847:Lexical functional syntax 1407:Autism Spectrum Disorders 1400: 1300: 821:⍺ c-commands β iff every 681:is not a pronoun, then NP 235:asymmetrically c-commands 209:C c-commands D, F, and G. 58:. The term is short for " 2810:Distributional semantics 2071:ch.9. Oxford: Blackwell. 1957:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00402 1889:British American Studies 1465: 801:which dominates B, and ⍺ 673:precedes and commands NP 661:precedes and commands NP 520:Quantificational Binding 231:symmetrically c-commands 2866:Syntactic relationships 2805:Computational semantics 2542:Subsective modification 2346:Propositional attitudes 1411:high-functioning autism 1118:(1c)*The matronly woman 706:is or isn’t a pronoun. 669:is not a pronoun. If NP 627:, enter in the table NP 558:, they each think that 443:Where c-commands but 249:Where c-command is used 66:Definition and examples 18:Dominance (linguistics) 2835:Philosophy of language 2472:Inalienable possession 2452:Free choice inferences 2447:Faultless disagreement 2218:Generalized quantifier 2114:c-command and pronouns 2089:. Hoboken: John Wiley. 2016:Journal of Linguistics 1927:10.1006/jmla.1999.2694 1459:quantified expressions 1444:Government and Binding 1136: 1083: 1062: 1046:Cho (2019) challenges 830:This became known as " 765: 707: 698:If in the sentence, NP 596: 566:, they all think that 414: 328: 258: 75: 2730:Plural quantification 2624:Inquisitive semantics 2589:Alternative semantics 2060:. London: Croom Helm. 2056:Reinhart, T. (1983). 2038:Reinhart, T. (1976). 1931:Haegeman, L. (1994). 1134: 1080: 1060: 755: 697: 689:are noncoreferential. 586: 392: 307: 256: 212:D c-commands C and E. 73: 2715:Function application 2522:Responsive predicate 2512:Privative adjectives 1910:Garnham, A. (2015). 1877:. Oxford: Blackwell. 1861:Journal of Semantics 1845:Bresnan, J. (2001). 1828:. London: Routledge. 1607:Reinhart (1981:612). 1377:with the antecedent 769:Stage Two: Dominance 600:Stage 1: Coreference 93:A and B are sisters. 2800:Cognitive semantics 2765:Strawson entailment 2710:Existential closure 2654:Situation semantics 2557:Temperature paradox 2527:Rising declaratives 2492:Modal subordination 2467:Hurford disjunction 2427:Discourse relations 1992:Linguistic Analysis 1921:. 42 (4): 526–544. 1880:Carnie, A. (2013). 1873:Carnie, A. (2002). 1101:(1b)*The short lady 881:dependency grammars 865:syntactic functions 447:cannot co-refer to 262:Standard Definition 173:does not dominate N 162:does not dominate N 79:Standard Definition 2845:Semantics of logic 2770:Strict conditional 2740:Quantifier raising 2705:Downward entailing 2685:Autonomy of syntax 2614:Generative grammar 2594:Categorial grammar 2532:Scalar implicature 2437:Epistemic modality 2412:De dicto and de re 2051:Linguistic Inquiry 1999:Essays on Anaphora 1938:Kayne, R. (1994). 1869:10.1093/jos/19.1.1 1840:Studia Linguistica 1833:Linguistic Inquiry 1824:Ariel, M. (2016). 1781:dictionary.apa.org 1365:In sentence (ii), 1214:that we hate Jina, 1204:In sentence (1c), 1181:In sentence (1b), 1158:In sentence (1a), 1137: 1084: 1063: 777:was introduced by 766: 708: 597: 415: 329: 273:c-commands a node 259: 76: 40:syntactic movement 29:generative grammar 2871:Generative syntax 2853: 2852: 2825:Logic translation 2788: 2787: 2780:Universal grinder 2760:Squiggle operator 2720:Meaning postulate 2659:Supervaluationism 2629:Intensional logic 2609:Dynamic semantics 2570: 2569: 2402:Crossover effects 2351:Tense–aspect–mood 2331:Lexical semantics 2145:978-0-19-953420-3 2082:. ISSN 0165-0157. 2053:, 12(4), 605–635. 1959:. ISSN 1664-1078. 1907:, 56(3), 357–383. 1856:, 90(1), 342–388. 1842:, 53(3), 227–250. 1341:in sentence (i). 1089:will hurt himself 1085:(1a) The tall boy 827: 810: 691: 637: 418:Definite Anaphora 325:non-coreferential 16:(Redirected from 2883: 2830:Linguistics wars 2755:Semantic parsing 2644:Montague grammar 2579: 2578: 2422:Deontic modality 2276: 2275: 2263:Truth conditions 2198:Compositionality 2191:Central concepts 2177: 2170: 2163: 2154: 2153: 2149: 2137: 2065:H. van Riemsdijk 2018:, 11(1), 140-147 1812: 1809: 1803: 1800: 1794: 1791: 1785: 1784: 1772: 1766: 1763: 1757: 1754: 1748: 1745: 1739: 1736: 1730: 1726: 1720: 1717: 1711: 1708: 1702: 1699: 1693: 1690: 1684: 1681: 1675: 1672: 1666: 1663: 1654: 1651: 1645: 1642: 1636: 1632: 1626: 1623: 1617: 1614: 1608: 1604: 1598: 1595: 1589: 1574: 1568: 1565: 1559: 1556: 1550: 1547: 1541: 1538: 1532: 1529: 1523: 1520: 1514: 1511: 1505: 1502: 1496: 1493: 1487: 1484: 1478: 1475: 1319:? Have you seen 1147:The antecedent, 1109:a picture of him 819: 791: 647: 609: 433:thinks that John 239:Richard S. Kayne 184:also dominates N 154:if and only if: 110:dominates node N 21: 2891: 2890: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2849: 2784: 2673: 2634:Lambda calculus 2566: 2537:Sloppy identity 2497:Opaque contexts 2432:Donkey anaphora 2397:Counterfactuals 2365: 2267: 2186: 2181: 2146: 2110: 2105: 1863:. 19(1): 1–34. 1820: 1815: 1810: 1806: 1801: 1797: 1792: 1788: 1773: 1769: 1764: 1760: 1755: 1751: 1746: 1742: 1737: 1733: 1727: 1723: 1718: 1714: 1709: 1705: 1700: 1696: 1691: 1687: 1682: 1678: 1673: 1669: 1664: 1657: 1652: 1648: 1643: 1639: 1633: 1629: 1624: 1620: 1615: 1611: 1605: 1601: 1596: 1592: 1575: 1571: 1566: 1562: 1557: 1553: 1548: 1544: 1539: 1535: 1530: 1526: 1521: 1517: 1512: 1508: 1503: 1499: 1494: 1490: 1485: 1481: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1463: 1419: 1403: 1303: 1298: 1125: 1121: 1108: 1104: 1092: 1088: 1036: 1001: 972: 968: 955: 951: 935: 931: 918: 914: 889: 856: 847: 808: 804: 800: 796: 771: 763: 759: 748: 744: 725: 721: 717: 713: 705: 701: 688: 684: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 634: 630: 626: 622: 618: 614: 602: 594: 590: 577: 522: 481: 480: 471: 450: 446: 436: 432: 420: 385: 381: 353: 349: 334: 301: 264: 251: 225:G c-commands F. 222:F c-commands G. 206:B c-commands A. 187: 183: 176: 172: 165: 161: 153: 146: 139: 135: 132:; that is, if N 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 81: 68: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2889: 2879: 2878: 2873: 2868: 2851: 2850: 2848: 2847: 2842: 2837: 2832: 2827: 2822: 2820:Inferentialism 2817: 2815:Formal grammar 2812: 2807: 2802: 2796: 2794: 2790: 2789: 2786: 2785: 2783: 2782: 2777: 2772: 2767: 2762: 2757: 2752: 2747: 2742: 2737: 2735:Possible world 2732: 2727: 2722: 2717: 2712: 2707: 2702: 2697: 2692: 2687: 2681: 2679: 2675: 2674: 2672: 2671: 2666: 2661: 2656: 2651: 2646: 2641: 2636: 2631: 2626: 2621: 2619:Glue semantics 2616: 2611: 2606: 2601: 2596: 2591: 2585: 2583: 2582:Formal systems 2576: 2572: 2571: 2568: 2567: 2565: 2564: 2559: 2554: 2549: 2544: 2539: 2534: 2529: 2524: 2519: 2514: 2509: 2507:Polarity items 2504: 2499: 2494: 2489: 2484: 2479: 2474: 2469: 2464: 2459: 2454: 2449: 2444: 2439: 2434: 2429: 2424: 2419: 2414: 2409: 2404: 2399: 2394: 2392:Conservativity 2389: 2384: 2379: 2373: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2364: 2363: 2358: 2356:Quantification 2353: 2348: 2343: 2338: 2333: 2328: 2323: 2318: 2313: 2308: 2303: 2298: 2293: 2288: 2282: 2280: 2273: 2269: 2268: 2266: 2265: 2260: 2255: 2250: 2245: 2240: 2235: 2233:Presupposition 2230: 2225: 2220: 2215: 2210: 2205: 2200: 2194: 2192: 2188: 2187: 2180: 2179: 2172: 2165: 2157: 2151: 2150: 2144: 2127: 2122: 2119:Node relations 2116: 2109: 2108:External links 2106: 2104: 2103: 2093: 2090: 2083: 2072: 2061: 2054: 2047: 2036: 2026: 2019: 2012: 2005: 1995: 1988: 1981: 1967: 1960: 1949: 1943: 1936: 1929: 1915: 1908: 1901: 1898: 1895: 1892: 1885: 1878: 1871: 1857: 1850: 1843: 1836: 1829: 1821: 1819: 1816: 1814: 1813: 1804: 1795: 1786: 1767: 1758: 1749: 1740: 1731: 1721: 1712: 1703: 1694: 1685: 1676: 1667: 1655: 1646: 1637: 1627: 1618: 1609: 1599: 1590: 1569: 1560: 1551: 1542: 1533: 1524: 1515: 1506: 1497: 1488: 1479: 1469: 1467: 1464: 1462: 1461: 1456: 1451: 1446: 1441: 1436: 1431: 1426: 1420: 1418: 1415: 1402: 1399: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1315:(i) "Where is 1302: 1299: 1297: 1294: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1090: 1086: 1040:binding theory 1035: 1032: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1000: 997: 977: 976: 975: 974: 970: 966: 960: 959: 958: 957: 953: 949: 940: 939: 938: 937: 933: 929: 923: 922: 921: 920: 916: 912: 906: 905: 901: 900: 888: 885: 855: 852: 846: 843: 806: 802: 798: 794: 779:Tanya Reinhart 770: 767: 761: 757: 746: 742: 723: 722:(denoted as NP 719: 715: 714:(denoted as NP 711: 703: 699: 686: 682: 678: 674: 670: 666: 662: 658: 654: 650: 632: 628: 624: 620: 616: 612: 601: 598: 592: 588: 576: 573: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 539: 521: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 506:b. Otherwise, 504: 488:a. An anaphor 470: 468:Binding Theory 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 448: 444: 441: 440: 439: 438: 434: 430: 419: 416: 383: 382:and the DP he 379: 375: 374: 373: 372: 369: 367: 358: 357: 356: 355: 351: 347: 333: 330: 298: 297: 296: 295: 286: 285: 282: 263: 260: 250: 247: 227: 226: 223: 220: 213: 210: 207: 204: 201: 190: 189: 185: 181: 178: 174: 170: 167: 163: 159: 151: 144: 137: 133: 127: 123: 119: 115: 111: 107: 98: 97: 94: 91: 88: 80: 77: 67: 64: 52:Tanya Reinhart 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2888: 2877: 2874: 2872: 2869: 2867: 2864: 2863: 2861: 2846: 2843: 2841: 2838: 2836: 2833: 2831: 2828: 2826: 2823: 2821: 2818: 2816: 2813: 2811: 2808: 2806: 2803: 2801: 2798: 2797: 2795: 2791: 2781: 2778: 2776: 2773: 2771: 2768: 2766: 2763: 2761: 2758: 2756: 2753: 2751: 2748: 2746: 2743: 2741: 2738: 2736: 2733: 2731: 2728: 2726: 2723: 2721: 2718: 2716: 2713: 2711: 2708: 2706: 2703: 2701: 2698: 2696: 2693: 2691: 2688: 2686: 2683: 2682: 2680: 2676: 2670: 2667: 2665: 2662: 2660: 2657: 2655: 2652: 2650: 2647: 2645: 2642: 2640: 2637: 2635: 2632: 2630: 2627: 2625: 2622: 2620: 2617: 2615: 2612: 2610: 2607: 2605: 2602: 2600: 2597: 2595: 2592: 2590: 2587: 2586: 2584: 2580: 2577: 2573: 2563: 2560: 2558: 2555: 2553: 2550: 2548: 2545: 2543: 2540: 2538: 2535: 2533: 2530: 2528: 2525: 2523: 2520: 2518: 2515: 2513: 2510: 2508: 2505: 2503: 2502:Performatives 2500: 2498: 2495: 2493: 2490: 2488: 2485: 2483: 2482:Logophoricity 2480: 2478: 2475: 2473: 2470: 2468: 2465: 2463: 2460: 2458: 2455: 2453: 2450: 2448: 2445: 2443: 2440: 2438: 2435: 2433: 2430: 2428: 2425: 2423: 2420: 2418: 2415: 2413: 2410: 2408: 2405: 2403: 2400: 2398: 2395: 2393: 2390: 2388: 2385: 2383: 2380: 2378: 2375: 2374: 2372: 2368: 2362: 2359: 2357: 2354: 2352: 2349: 2347: 2344: 2342: 2339: 2337: 2334: 2332: 2329: 2327: 2324: 2322: 2319: 2317: 2316:Evidentiality 2314: 2312: 2309: 2307: 2304: 2302: 2299: 2297: 2294: 2292: 2289: 2287: 2284: 2283: 2281: 2277: 2274: 2270: 2264: 2261: 2259: 2256: 2254: 2251: 2249: 2246: 2244: 2241: 2239: 2236: 2234: 2231: 2229: 2226: 2224: 2221: 2219: 2216: 2214: 2211: 2209: 2206: 2204: 2201: 2199: 2196: 2195: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2178: 2173: 2171: 2166: 2164: 2159: 2158: 2155: 2147: 2141: 2136: 2135: 2128: 2126: 2123: 2120: 2117: 2115: 2112: 2111: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2091: 2088: 2084: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2059: 2055: 2052: 2048: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2034: 2030: 2027: 2024: 2020: 2017: 2013: 2010: 2006: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1993: 1989: 1986: 1982: 1980: 1976: 1973:. 82: 18–40. 1972: 1968: 1965: 1961: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1947: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1934: 1930: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1913: 1909: 1906: 1902: 1899: 1896: 1893: 1890: 1886: 1883: 1879: 1876: 1872: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1848: 1844: 1841: 1837: 1834: 1830: 1827: 1823: 1822: 1808: 1799: 1790: 1782: 1778: 1771: 1762: 1753: 1744: 1735: 1725: 1716: 1707: 1698: 1689: 1680: 1671: 1662: 1660: 1650: 1641: 1635:(2006:278f.). 1631: 1622: 1613: 1603: 1594: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1573: 1564: 1555: 1546: 1537: 1528: 1519: 1510: 1501: 1492: 1483: 1474: 1470: 1460: 1457: 1455: 1452: 1450: 1447: 1445: 1442: 1440: 1437: 1435: 1432: 1430: 1427: 1425: 1422: 1421: 1414: 1412: 1408: 1398: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1382: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1342: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1308: 1293: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1202: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1179: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1156: 1154: 1151:, c-commands 1150: 1146: 1142: 1133: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1079: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1067: 1059: 1055: 1053: 1049: 1044: 1041: 1031: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1005: 996: 992: 990: 986: 982: 973:met the shah* 964: 963: 962: 961: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 927: 926: 925: 924: 910: 909: 908: 907: 903: 902: 898: 895: 894: 893: 884: 882: 878: 874: 868: 866: 862: 851: 842: 838: 835: 833: 828: 826: 824: 817: 814: 811: 809: 789: 787: 785: 780: 776: 754: 750: 739: 736: 733: 730: 727: 696: 692: 690: 645: 642: 638: 636: 611:If for any NP 607: 585: 581: 572: 569: 565: 561: 557: 544: 540: 537: 533: 532: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 513: 509: 505: 503: 499: 495: 491: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 477: 469: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 452: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 412: 408: 404: 403: 398: 397: 391: 387: 370: 368: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 339: 326: 323:but they are 322: 321: 316: 313: 312: 306: 302: 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 283: 280: 279: 278: 276: 272: 267: 255: 246: 244: 241:'s theory of 240: 236: 232: 224: 221: 218: 214: 211: 208: 205: 202: 199: 195: 194: 193: 179: 168: 157: 156: 155: 149: 141: 131: 103: 95: 92: 89: 86: 85: 84: 72: 63: 61: 57: 53: 49: 45: 41: 37: 34: 30: 19: 2775:Type shifter 2745:Quantization 2695:Continuation 2562:Veridicality 2442:Exhaustivity 2407:Cumulativity 2326:Indexicality 2306:Definiteness 2301:Conditionals 2228:Logical form 2133: 2096: 2086: 2068: 2057: 2050: 2039: 2032: 2022: 2015: 2008: 1998: 1991: 1984: 1970: 1963: 1939: 1932: 1918: 1911: 1904: 1888: 1881: 1874: 1860: 1853: 1849:. Blackwell. 1846: 1839: 1832: 1825: 1807: 1798: 1789: 1780: 1770: 1761: 1752: 1743: 1734: 1724: 1715: 1706: 1697: 1688: 1679: 1670: 1649: 1640: 1630: 1621: 1612: 1602: 1593: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1572: 1563: 1554: 1545: 1536: 1527: 1518: 1509: 1500: 1491: 1482: 1473: 1404: 1390: 1386: 1383: 1378: 1374: 1371:my black bag 1370: 1366: 1364: 1356: 1352: 1343: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1328: 1320: 1316: 1306: 1304: 1296:Implications 1290: 1223: 1219: 1218: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1203: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1180: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1157: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1138: 1069: 1065: 1064: 1045: 1037: 1028: 1006: 1002: 993: 988: 984: 980: 978: 969:denied that 956:met the shah 952:denied that 941: 936:met the shah 932:denied that 919:met the shah 915:denied that 896: 890: 869: 857: 848: 839: 836: 829: 822: 820: 818: 815: 812: 792: 790: 782: 774: 772: 740: 737: 734: 731: 728: 709: 648: 646: 643: 639: 635:(OBLIGATORY) 610: 603: 578: 568:someone (he) 567: 563: 559: 555: 552: 542: 535: 523: 511: 507: 501: 497: 493: 489: 472: 453: 442: 421: 411:co-reference 410: 406: 401: 400: 399:thinks that 395: 394: 376: 359: 350:thinks that 335: 324: 319: 318: 314: 310: 309: 299: 287: 274: 270: 268: 265: 243:Antisymmetry 234: 230: 228: 216: 197: 191: 147: 142: 105: 101: 99: 82: 35: 26: 2690:Context set 2664:Type theory 2547:Subtrigging 2311:Disjunction 2238:Proposition 2029:Radford, A. 1580:. The term 1434:Coreference 1381:is harder. 879:(LFG), and 784:constituent 606:coreference 510:is free in 409:as well as 332:Syntax Tree 294:(1) likes 60:constituent 2860:Categories 2840:Pragmatics 2487:Mirativity 2253:Speech act 2208:Entailment 2203:Denotation 1946:Keshet, E. 1818:References 1729:relations. 1454:Parse tree 1439:Government 1105:showed her 1082:m-command. 981:each woman 861:word order 631:- coref NP 623:+ coref NP 407:c-command, 338:Parse tree 315:c-commands 148:c-commands 118:is above N 62:command". 36:c-commands 33:parse tree 2639:Mereology 2575:Formalism 2457:Givenness 2382:Cataphora 2370:Phenomena 2361:Vagueness 2291:Ambiguity 2243:Reference 2223:Intension 2213:Extension 1582:c-command 1578:c-command 1449:m-command 1052:m-command 832:m-command 775:c-command 560:they (he) 102:dominance 2793:See also 2678:Concepts 2552:Telicity 2387:Coercion 2341:Negation 2336:Modality 2286:Anaphora 2067:(eds.), 2031:(2004). 1994:2, 1-22. 1854:Language 1424:Anaphora 1417:See also 1379:my brush 1367:my brush 1353:my brush 1339:my brush 1331:my brush 1317:my brush 1141:himself, 875:(HPSG), 677:, and NP 437:is smart 354:is smart 217:does not 198:does not 56:anaphora 2296:Binding 1586:kommand 1429:Binding 1395:clefted 1206:beliefs 1176:himself 1164:himself 1153:himself 1048:Chomsky 823:maximal 786:command 575:History 564:all men 556:all man 476:Chomsky 269:A node 44:binding 2876:Syntax 2725:Monads 2272:Topics 2142: 1401:Autism 1387:he/she 1301:Memory 1210:woman, 1191:showed 745:and NP 685:and NP 665:and NP 657:iff NP 615:and NP 429:(3) He 158:Node N 150:node N 106:Node N 46:, and 2417:De se 2321:Focus 2279:Areas 2248:Scope 1466:Notes 494:bound 336:In a 177:, and 48:scope 2140:ISBN 1197:and 1195:lady 1185:and 1183:lady 1174:and 1168:hurt 1162:and 928:(5) 911:(4) 756:a) N 396:John 346:(2) 320:John 277:iff 126:to N 114:if N 2669:TTR 2076:doi 1975:doi 1953:doi 1923:doi 1865:doi 1199:her 1187:her 1172:boy 1160:boy 1149:boy 989:she 985:she 834:." 541:b. 534:a. 496:in 492:is 384:(m) 380:(i) 352:i/m 317:DP 27:In 2862:: 2046:). 1779:. 1658:^ 1391:it 1375:it 1359:?" 1357:it 1335:it 1323:?" 1321:it 1307:it 991:. 649:NP 449:i* 435:i* 402:he 386:. 311:He 245:. 215:E 196:M 104:: 50:. 42:, 2176:e 2169:t 2162:v 2148:. 2078:: 1977:: 1955:: 1925:: 1867:: 1124:i 1120:i 1107:i 1103:i 1091:i 1087:i 971:i 967:i 954:j 950:i 934:i 930:i 917:i 913:i 807:1 803:2 799:2 795:1 762:2 758:3 747:2 743:1 724:x 720:1 716:y 712:2 704:x 700:y 687:1 683:1 679:2 675:2 671:1 667:2 663:2 659:1 655:2 651:1 633:2 629:1 625:2 621:2 617:2 613:1 593:2 589:1 543:∀ 536:∀ 512:β 508:α 502:β 498:β 490:α 445:i 431:i 348:i 275:B 271:A 188:. 186:2 182:1 175:1 171:2 169:N 166:, 164:2 160:1 152:2 145:1 138:2 134:1 128:2 124:1 120:2 116:1 112:2 108:1 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.