c-command - Knowledge (XXG)

856:, 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. 1298:, 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. 1398:(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 1039:’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 1121: 1067: 1047: 1144:. 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. 1386:. 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. 573: 60: 984:

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.

1374:

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

1018:

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

1280:

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

996:

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’

568:

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

992:

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

1373:

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

983:

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

366:

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

829:

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,

542:

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

1595:

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

1213:

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

859:

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

467:

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.

411:

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.

1019:

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.

1402:(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. 880:

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.

838:

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.

243: 1031:

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.

1623:

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

872:(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 629:

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.

379: 294: 742: 684: 559:

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.

1070:

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

329:(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. 1717:

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

1475:

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).

847:

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)

513:

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.

1889:

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.

462:

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

1333:

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.

826:

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.

1511:

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

1681:

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).

1633:

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).

1124:

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.

997:

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:

1556:

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).

968:

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

2163: 2063:

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

1059:

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:

27:

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

1754:

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

1362:. 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 584:), would counteract the idea of coreference despite being marked as +coref. Rules that maintain a leftward movement will keep supporting coreferencing. 2637: 1538:

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

830:

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

1547:

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

597:. This is denoted by the first stage of the concept of c-command. In the initial emergence of coreference, Jackendoff (1972). officially states... 1906:

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

1940:

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

805:

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

2132: 861: 1876:

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

2505: 2172: 893:

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

1690:

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

1484:

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

2854: 931:

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

2592: 2246: 2713: 2587: 2156: 572: 2365: 2186: 1892:

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

2251: 1699:

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

1672:

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

1654:

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

1294:

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

297:

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

2339: 2859: 2733: 2395: 2216: 1736:

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

865: 1614:

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

777:. Reinhart thanks Nick Clements for suggesting both the term and its abbreviation. Reinhart (1976) states that... 2738: 2688: 2450: 2149: 2017: 1958:

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

1395: 772: 762:

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

449:

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

48: 1972:

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

2798: 2657: 2236: 1745:

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

1427: 36: 289:

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

2793: 2334: 1399: 1003:(1) Precedence is useful as it can be used to explain asymmetry which can not be explained through c-command 2003:

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

2823: 2490: 2460: 2435: 2375: 2274: 2206: 1642:

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

1447: 1432: 1412: 993:

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

382:

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

44: 2718: 2612: 2577: 2465: 2440: 2284: 2201: 1417: 456: 32: 471:

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

72:

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

2703: 2510: 2289: 2107: 2081:

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

1466:

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

129:. For a node (N1) to c-command another node (N2) the parent of N1 must establish dominance over N2. 2788: 2753: 2698: 2642: 2545: 2530: 2500: 2480: 2455: 2324: 2309: 1605:

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

1565:

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

1529:

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

1358:

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

2833: 2758: 2728: 2693: 2673: 2602: 2582: 2520: 2515: 2425: 2415: 2400: 2344: 2053: 1800:

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

869: 853: 28: 17: 2113: 730:

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

2102: 2813: 2768: 2748: 2708: 2647: 2617: 2597: 2390: 2319: 2128: 1050:

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

443:

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

2818: 2743: 2632: 2410: 2064: 1963: 1941: 1911: 1853: 1382:. In addition, noun phrases also become more prominent in representation when syntactically 227: 1012:(2) The natural utterance and construction of sentences justify using a form of precedence. 2864: 2622: 2525: 2420: 2385: 1586:

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

1577:(often read as "k-command"), proposed by Lasnik (1976). See Keshet (2004) in this regard. 786:

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

2808: 2803: 2723: 2607: 2485: 2380: 2221: 1120: 1066: 1046: 1028: 767: 40: 2141: 2848: 2495: 2470: 2304: 2121: 2031:. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Available online at 1848:

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

707:

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

2763: 2683: 2550: 2430: 2314: 2294: 1708:

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

976:

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

802:

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

715:

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

464: 231: 1990:. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. 1520:

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

1394:

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

378: 293: 1326:. Pronouns tend to refer back to the salient object within the sentence, such as 1214:

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

2678: 2652: 2535: 2299: 2226: 1951:

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

1422: 594: 208:

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

1782:

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

242: 2828: 2475: 2241: 2196: 2191: 2068: 1991: 1967: 1934: 1442: 849: 569:

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

326: 21: 1945: 1765: 181:

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

2627: 2445: 2370: 2349: 2279: 2231: 2211: 2123:

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

2032: 1437: 1040: 820: 741: 218:

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

89:

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

2089: 1915: 1886:

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

1128:

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

683: 1322:

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

2540: 2329: 1857: 440:, and we can only interpret that someone else thinks that John is smart. 1820:

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

255:

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

1383: 1281:

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

1036: 1791:

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

59: 1986:

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

1378:, increases the prominence compared to unambiguous pronouns, such as 1318:

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

1573:

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

1178:

are lexical items that serve as external and internal arguments for

691:

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

1155:

are lexical items that serve as external and internal arguments of

2405: 1119: 1065: 682: 571: 246:

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

58: 2038:

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

1953:

The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of Language

43:

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

2074:

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

489:

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

2145: 1974:

Modern studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar

1190:

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

1167:

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

534:

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

1256:(2e) *John thinks she is good, and Tom thinks Mary is not good 593:

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

1493:

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

1043:

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

226:

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

1955:(pp. 246– 323). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 888:

a quantifier must take scope over any pronoun that it binds

1976:(pp. 160–186). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1209:

Looking at Binding Relations in Inter-Argument Structures

1055:

Looking at Binding Relations in Intra-Argument Structures

1022: 551:

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

63:

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

2084:

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

1883:

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

1880:(pp. 79–100). Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. 222:

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

189:

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

2052:

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

1827:

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

1663:

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

169:

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

1931:. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Twenty-Five. MIT Press. 852:

in English correlates positively with a hierarchy of

349:

In this example, two interpretations could be made:

2114:

Some Basic Concepts in Government and Binding Theory

1841:

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

1727:

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

1229:(2b) She fainted when the blonde girl heard the news 770:

in her 1976 dissertation and is a shortened form of

2781: 2666: 2570: 2563: 2358: 2267: 2260: 2179: 1220:(2a) The blond girl fainted when she heard the news 633:This is, then, edited by Lasnik (1976) in which... 2120: 1197:is a two-place main clause predicate and takes on 576:Any rule that maintains a rightward movement of NP 273:Every branching node dominating A also dominates B 1763:See this website for focal attention definition. 1182:, a three-place predicate. The two lexical items 119:moving only downwards in the tree (never upwards) 2638:Segmented discourse representation theory (SDRT) 2076:An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory 1901:Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora 608:in a sentence, there is no entry in the table NP 1998:The unity of unbounded dependency constructions 1205:the embedded clause, as its internal argument. 1159:, a two-place predicate. The two lexical items 1023:Cho's investigation of Chomsky's binding theory 699:According to this rule, it is essential that NP 132:Based upon this definition of dominance, node N 642:cannot be interpreted as coreferential with NP 2157: 1922:Introduction to Government and Binding Theory 1274:(2g) After he entered the room, John sat down 1265:(2f) *He sat down after John entered the room 749:m-commands Det but doesn't c-command it; b) V 527:x(man(x)): x thinks x is intelligent. (bound) 8: 2024:. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 580:(especially when crossing to the right of NP 1992:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2542-7_1 1979:Lasnik, H. (1976). Remarks on coreference. 1247:(2d) John has arrived and he will visit you 1238:(2c) He has arrived and John will visit you 724:c) *Lucy greets the customers Lucy serves. 360:(ii) John thinks that someone else is smart 111:in the tree and one can trace a path from N 2567: 2264: 2164: 2150: 2142: 1201:the subject, as its external argument and 782:A commands node B iff the branching node ⍺ 721:b) *She greets the customers Lucy serves. 2033:http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16400 1937:(2004-05-20). "24.952 Syntax Squib". MIT. 718:a) Lucy greets the customers she serves. 2090:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781317389019-10 1873:, 3rd edition. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. 1045: 987: 740: 727:d) She greets the customers she serves. 377: 292: 270:Neither A nor B dominates the other, and 241: 2014:. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1459: 367:different subscripts under the DP John 316:as denoted by the different subscripts. 79:A and B are children or daughters of M. 2000:. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. 2593:Discourse representation theory (DRT) 2119:Isac, Daniela; Charles Reiss (2013). 1772:. American Psychological Association. 1650: 1648: 1502:Definitions taken from Lasnik (1989). 1344:and my hairties in it? Have you seen 753:c-commands N but doesn't m-command it 738:, which hint at potential dominance. 7: 2047:Anaphora and semantic interpretation 2012:Head-driven phrase structure grammar 1132:the anaphor, is the entire sentence 862:Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar 20:and related frameworks, a node in a 2506:Quantificational variability effect 2173:Formal semantics (natural language) 814:projection dominating ⍺ dominates β 394:is smart, with the two DPs showing 125:is a parent, grandparent, etc. of N 76:M is a parent or mother to A and B. 2058:The Blackwell companion to syntax, 1996:Levine, R. and Hukari, T. (2006). 875: 520:(3) thinks that is intelligent. 402:as denoted by the same subscripts. 192:A c-commands B, C, D, E, F, and G. 14: 1924:, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. 1871:Syntax: A generative introduction 1864:Syntax: A generative introduction 1815:Accessing noun-phrase antecedents 1340:(ii) "Where is my black bag with 988:Wuijts' response to Barker's work 842: 794:is of the same category type as ⍺ 2029:The syntactic domain of anaphora 2010:Pollard, C. and Sag, I. (1994). 1824:, (pp. 614–633). MIT Press. 1027:Keek Cho investigates Chomsky's 543:reading in (3a) states that for 355:(i) John thinks that he is smart 277:As such, we get sentences like: 2022:English syntax: An introduction 1903:. New York. ISBN 9781138883123. 1134:The tall boy will hurt himself. 2588:Combinatory categorial grammar 2088:(pp. 71–116). Routledge. 1960:Journal of Memory and Language 1908:Journal of Memory and Language 1894:Journal of Memory and Language 1766:"APA Dictionary of Psychology" 954:(7) The man who traveled with 937:(6) The man who traveled with 85:M is a grandparent to C and D. 1: 2366:Antecedent-contained deletion 2110:, University of Pennsylvania 972:in a sentence (6) refers to 843:Bruening's take on c-command 2127:. Oxford University Press. 886:Barker’s Scope Requirement: 876:Barker's input on c-command 2881: 2247:Syntax–semantics interface 2086:Syntax-Phonology Interface 1929:The antisymmetry of syntax 1111:believes that we hate Jina 866:Lexical Functional Grammar 834:Criticism and Alternatives 2739:Question under discussion 2689:Conversational scoreboard 2466:Intersective modification 2451:Homogeneity (linguistics) 2069:10.1007/s10988-005-6580-7 1968:10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.003 1836:Lexical functional syntax 1396:Autism Spectrum Disorders 810:⍺ c-commands β iff every 670:is not a pronoun, then NP 224:asymmetrically c-commands 198:C c-commands D, F, and G. 47:. The term is short for " 2799:Distributional semantics 2060:ch.9. Oxford: Blackwell. 1946:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00402 1878:British American Studies 790:which dominates B, and ⍺ 662:precedes and commands NP 650:precedes and commands NP 509:Quantificational Binding 220:symmetrically c-commands 2855:Syntactic relationships 2794:Computational semantics 2531:Subsective modification 2335:Propositional attitudes 1400:high-functioning autism 1107:(1c)*The matronly woman 695:is or isn’t a pronoun. 658:is not a pronoun. If NP 616:, enter in the table NP 547:, they each think that 432:Where c-commands but 238:Where c-command is used 55:Definition and examples 2824:Philosophy of language 2461:Inalienable possession 2441:Free choice inferences 2436:Faultless disagreement 2207:Generalized quantifier 2103:c-command and pronouns 2078:. Hoboken: John Wiley. 2005:Journal of Linguistics 1916:10.1006/jmla.1999.2694 1448:quantified expressions 1433:Government and Binding 1125: 1072: 1051: 1035:Cho (2019) challenges 819:This became known as " 754: 696: 687:If in the sentence, NP 585: 555:, they all think that 403: 317: 247: 64: 2719:Plural quantification 2613:Inquisitive semantics 2578:Alternative semantics 2049:. London: Croom Helm. 2045:Reinhart, T. (1983). 2027:Reinhart, T. (1976). 1920:Haegeman, L. (1994). 1123: 1069: 1049: 744: 686: 678:are noncoreferential. 575: 381: 296: 245: 201:D c-commands C and E. 62: 2704:Function application 2511:Responsive predicate 2501:Privative adjectives 1899:Garnham, A. (2015). 1866:. Oxford: Blackwell. 1850:Journal of Semantics 1834:Bresnan, J. (2001). 1817:. London: Routledge. 1596:Reinhart (1981:612). 1366:with the antecedent 758:Stage Two: Dominance 589:Stage 1: Coreference 82:A and B are sisters. 2789:Cognitive semantics 2754:Strawson entailment 2699:Existential closure 2643:Situation semantics 2546:Temperature paradox 2516:Rising declaratives 2481:Modal subordination 2456:Hurford disjunction 2416:Discourse relations 1981:Linguistic Analysis 1910:. 42 (4): 526–544. 1869:Carnie, A. (2013). 1862:Carnie, A. (2002). 1090:(1b)*The short lady 870:dependency grammars 854:syntactic functions 436:cannot co-refer to 251:Standard Definition 162:does not dominate N 151:does not dominate N 68:Standard Definition 2834:Semantics of logic 2759:Strict conditional 2729:Quantifier raising 2694:Downward entailing 2674:Autonomy of syntax 2603:Generative grammar 2583:Categorial grammar 2521:Scalar implicature 2426:Epistemic modality 2401:De dicto and de re 2040:Linguistic Inquiry 1988:Essays on Anaphora 1927:Kayne, R. (1994). 1858:10.1093/jos/19.1.1 1829:Studia Linguistica 1822:Linguistic Inquiry 1813:Ariel, M. (2016). 1770:dictionary.apa.org 1354:In sentence (ii), 1203:that we hate Jina, 1193:In sentence (1c), 1170:In sentence (1b), 1147:In sentence (1a), 1126: 1073: 1052: 766:was introduced by 755: 697: 586: 404: 318: 262:c-commands a node 248: 65: 29:syntactic movement 18:generative grammar 2860:Generative syntax 2842: 2841: 2814:Logic translation 2777: 2776: 2769:Universal grinder 2749:Squiggle operator 2709:Meaning postulate 2648:Supervaluationism 2618:Intensional logic 2598:Dynamic semantics 2559: 2558: 2391:Crossover effects 2340:Tense–aspect–mood 2320:Lexical semantics 2134:978-0-19-953420-3 2071:. ISSN 0165-0157. 2042:, 12(4), 605–635. 1948:. ISSN 1664-1078. 1896:, 56(3), 357–383. 1845:, 90(1), 342–388. 1831:, 53(3), 227–250. 1330:in sentence (i). 1078:will hurt himself 1074:(1a) The tall boy 816: 799: 680: 626: 407:Definite Anaphora 314:non-coreferential 2872: 2819:Linguistics wars 2744:Semantic parsing 2633:Montague grammar 2568: 2411:Deontic modality 2265: 2252:Truth conditions 2187:Compositionality 2180:Central concepts 2166: 2159: 2152: 2143: 2138: 2126: 2054:H. van Riemsdijk 2007:, 11(1), 140-147 1801: 1798: 1792: 1789: 1783: 1780: 1774: 1773: 1761: 1755: 1752: 1746: 1743: 1737: 1734: 1728: 1725: 1719: 1715: 1709: 1706: 1700: 1697: 1691: 1688: 1682: 1679: 1673: 1670: 1664: 1661: 1655: 1652: 1643: 1640: 1634: 1631: 1625: 1621: 1615: 1612: 1606: 1603: 1597: 1593: 1587: 1584: 1578: 1563: 1557: 1554: 1548: 1545: 1539: 1536: 1530: 1527: 1521: 1518: 1512: 1509: 1503: 1500: 1494: 1491: 1485: 1482: 1476: 1473: 1467: 1464: 1308:? Have you seen 1136:The antecedent, 1098:a picture of him 808: 780: 636: 598: 422:thinks that John 228:Richard S. Kayne 173:also dominates N 143:if and only if: 99:dominates node N 2880: 2879: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2838: 2773: 2662: 2623:Lambda calculus 2555: 2526:Sloppy identity 2486:Opaque contexts 2421:Donkey anaphora 2386:Counterfactuals 2354: 2256: 2175: 2170: 2135: 2118: 2099: 2094: 1852:. 19(1): 1–34. 1809: 1804: 1799: 1795: 1790: 1786: 1781: 1777: 1764: 1762: 1758: 1753: 1749: 1744: 1740: 1735: 1731: 1726: 1722: 1716: 1712: 1707: 1703: 1698: 1694: 1689: 1685: 1680: 1676: 1671: 1667: 1662: 1658: 1653: 1646: 1641: 1637: 1632: 1628: 1622: 1618: 1613: 1609: 1604: 1600: 1594: 1590: 1585: 1581: 1564: 1560: 1555: 1551: 1546: 1542: 1537: 1533: 1528: 1524: 1519: 1515: 1510: 1506: 1501: 1497: 1492: 1488: 1483: 1479: 1474: 1470: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1452: 1408: 1392: 1292: 1287: 1114: 1110: 1097: 1093: 1081: 1077: 1025: 990: 961: 957: 944: 940: 924: 920: 907: 903: 878: 845: 836: 797: 793: 789: 785: 760: 752: 748: 737: 733: 714: 710: 706: 702: 694: 690: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 641: 623: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 591: 583: 579: 566: 511: 470: 469: 460: 439: 435: 425: 421: 409: 374: 370: 342: 338: 323: 290: 253: 240: 214:G c-commands F. 211:F c-commands G. 195:B c-commands A. 176: 172: 165: 161: 154: 150: 142: 135: 128: 124: 121:; that is, if N 118: 114: 110: 106: 102: 98: 70: 57: 12: 11: 5: 2878: 2876: 2868: 2867: 2862: 2857: 2847: 2846: 2840: 2839: 2837: 2836: 2831: 2826: 2821: 2816: 2811: 2809:Inferentialism 2806: 2804:Formal grammar 2801: 2796: 2791: 2785: 2783: 2779: 2778: 2775: 2774: 2772: 2771: 2766: 2761: 2756: 2751: 2746: 2741: 2736: 2731: 2726: 2724:Possible world 2721: 2716: 2711: 2706: 2701: 2696: 2691: 2686: 2681: 2676: 2670: 2668: 2664: 2663: 2661: 2660: 2655: 2650: 2645: 2640: 2635: 2630: 2625: 2620: 2615: 2610: 2608:Glue semantics 2605: 2600: 2595: 2590: 2585: 2580: 2574: 2572: 2571:Formal systems 2565: 2561: 2560: 2557: 2556: 2554: 2553: 2548: 2543: 2538: 2533: 2528: 2523: 2518: 2513: 2508: 2503: 2498: 2496:Polarity items 2493: 2488: 2483: 2478: 2473: 2468: 2463: 2458: 2453: 2448: 2443: 2438: 2433: 2428: 2423: 2418: 2413: 2408: 2403: 2398: 2393: 2388: 2383: 2381:Conservativity 2378: 2373: 2368: 2362: 2360: 2356: 2355: 2353: 2352: 2347: 2345:Quantification 2342: 2337: 2332: 2327: 2322: 2317: 2312: 2307: 2302: 2297: 2292: 2287: 2282: 2277: 2271: 2269: 2262: 2258: 2257: 2255: 2254: 2249: 2244: 2239: 2234: 2229: 2224: 2222:Presupposition 2219: 2214: 2209: 2204: 2199: 2194: 2189: 2183: 2181: 2177: 2176: 2171: 2169: 2168: 2161: 2154: 2146: 2140: 2139: 2133: 2116: 2111: 2108:Node relations 2105: 2098: 2097:External links 2095: 2093: 2092: 2082: 2079: 2072: 2061: 2050: 2043: 2036: 2025: 2015: 2008: 2001: 1994: 1984: 1977: 1970: 1956: 1949: 1938: 1932: 1925: 1918: 1904: 1897: 1890: 1887: 1884: 1881: 1874: 1867: 1860: 1846: 1839: 1832: 1825: 1818: 1810: 1808: 1805: 1803: 1802: 1793: 1784: 1775: 1756: 1747: 1738: 1729: 1720: 1710: 1701: 1692: 1683: 1674: 1665: 1656: 1644: 1635: 1626: 1616: 1607: 1598: 1588: 1579: 1558: 1549: 1540: 1531: 1522: 1513: 1504: 1495: 1486: 1477: 1468: 1458: 1456: 1453: 1451: 1450: 1445: 1440: 1435: 1430: 1425: 1420: 1415: 1409: 1407: 1404: 1391: 1388: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1304:(i) "Where is 1291: 1288: 1286: 1283: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1075: 1029:binding theory 1024: 1021: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 989: 986: 966: 965: 964: 963: 959: 955: 949: 948: 947: 946: 942: 938: 929: 928: 927: 926: 922: 918: 912: 911: 910: 909: 905: 901: 895: 894: 890: 889: 877: 874: 844: 841: 835: 832: 795: 791: 787: 783: 768:Tanya Reinhart 759: 756: 750: 746: 735: 731: 712: 711:(denoted as NP 708: 704: 703:(denoted as NP 700: 692: 688: 675: 671: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 639: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 590: 587: 581: 577: 565: 562: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 528: 510: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 495:b. Otherwise, 493: 477:a. An anaphor 459: 457:Binding Theory 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 437: 433: 430: 429: 428: 427: 423: 419: 408: 405: 372: 371:and the DP he 368: 364: 363: 362: 361: 358: 356: 347: 346: 345: 344: 340: 336: 322: 319: 287: 286: 285: 284: 275: 274: 271: 252: 249: 239: 236: 216: 215: 212: 209: 202: 199: 196: 193: 190: 179: 178: 174: 170: 167: 163: 159: 156: 152: 148: 140: 133: 126: 122: 116: 112: 108: 104: 100: 96: 87: 86: 83: 80: 77: 69: 66: 56: 53: 41:Tanya Reinhart 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2877: 2866: 2863: 2861: 2858: 2856: 2853: 2852: 2850: 2835: 2832: 2830: 2827: 2825: 2822: 2820: 2817: 2815: 2812: 2810: 2807: 2805: 2802: 2800: 2797: 2795: 2792: 2790: 2787: 2786: 2784: 2780: 2770: 2767: 2765: 2762: 2760: 2757: 2755: 2752: 2750: 2747: 2745: 2742: 2740: 2737: 2735: 2732: 2730: 2727: 2725: 2722: 2720: 2717: 2715: 2712: 2710: 2707: 2705: 2702: 2700: 2697: 2695: 2692: 2690: 2687: 2685: 2682: 2680: 2677: 2675: 2672: 2671: 2669: 2665: 2659: 2656: 2654: 2651: 2649: 2646: 2644: 2641: 2639: 2636: 2634: 2631: 2629: 2626: 2624: 2621: 2619: 2616: 2614: 2611: 2609: 2606: 2604: 2601: 2599: 2596: 2594: 2591: 2589: 2586: 2584: 2581: 2579: 2576: 2575: 2573: 2569: 2566: 2562: 2552: 2549: 2547: 2544: 2542: 2539: 2537: 2534: 2532: 2529: 2527: 2524: 2522: 2519: 2517: 2514: 2512: 2509: 2507: 2504: 2502: 2499: 2497: 2494: 2492: 2491:Performatives 2489: 2487: 2484: 2482: 2479: 2477: 2474: 2472: 2471:Logophoricity 2469: 2467: 2464: 2462: 2459: 2457: 2454: 2452: 2449: 2447: 2444: 2442: 2439: 2437: 2434: 2432: 2429: 2427: 2424: 2422: 2419: 2417: 2414: 2412: 2409: 2407: 2404: 2402: 2399: 2397: 2394: 2392: 2389: 2387: 2384: 2382: 2379: 2377: 2374: 2372: 2369: 2367: 2364: 2363: 2361: 2357: 2351: 2348: 2346: 2343: 2341: 2338: 2336: 2333: 2331: 2328: 2326: 2323: 2321: 2318: 2316: 2313: 2311: 2308: 2306: 2305:Evidentiality 2303: 2301: 2298: 2296: 2293: 2291: 2288: 2286: 2283: 2281: 2278: 2276: 2273: 2272: 2270: 2266: 2263: 2259: 2253: 2250: 2248: 2245: 2243: 2240: 2238: 2235: 2233: 2230: 2228: 2225: 2223: 2220: 2218: 2215: 2213: 2210: 2208: 2205: 2203: 2200: 2198: 2195: 2193: 2190: 2188: 2185: 2184: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2167: 2162: 2160: 2155: 2153: 2148: 2147: 2144: 2136: 2130: 2125: 2124: 2117: 2115: 2112: 2109: 2106: 2104: 2101: 2100: 2096: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2073: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2048: 2044: 2041: 2037: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2023: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2009: 2006: 2002: 1999: 1995: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1982: 1978: 1975: 1971: 1969: 1965: 1962:. 82: 18–40. 1961: 1957: 1954: 1950: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1936: 1933: 1930: 1926: 1923: 1919: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1902: 1898: 1895: 1891: 1888: 1885: 1882: 1879: 1875: 1872: 1868: 1865: 1861: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1844: 1840: 1837: 1833: 1830: 1826: 1823: 1819: 1816: 1812: 1811: 1806: 1797: 1794: 1788: 1785: 1779: 1776: 1771: 1767: 1760: 1757: 1751: 1748: 1742: 1739: 1733: 1730: 1724: 1721: 1714: 1711: 1705: 1702: 1696: 1693: 1687: 1684: 1678: 1675: 1669: 1666: 1660: 1657: 1651: 1649: 1645: 1639: 1636: 1630: 1627: 1624:(2006:278f.). 1620: 1617: 1611: 1608: 1602: 1599: 1592: 1589: 1583: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1562: 1559: 1553: 1550: 1544: 1541: 1535: 1532: 1526: 1523: 1517: 1514: 1508: 1505: 1499: 1496: 1490: 1487: 1481: 1478: 1472: 1469: 1463: 1460: 1454: 1449: 1446: 1444: 1441: 1439: 1436: 1434: 1431: 1429: 1426: 1424: 1421: 1419: 1416: 1414: 1411: 1410: 1405: 1403: 1401: 1397: 1389: 1387: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1371: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1331: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1297: 1289: 1284: 1282: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1211: 1210: 1206: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1191: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1168: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1145: 1143: 1140:, c-commands 1139: 1135: 1131: 1122: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1068: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1057: 1056: 1048: 1044: 1042: 1038: 1033: 1030: 1020: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 994: 985: 981: 979: 975: 971: 962:met the shah* 953: 952: 951: 950: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 916: 915: 914: 913: 899: 898: 897: 896: 892: 891: 887: 884: 883: 882: 873: 871: 867: 863: 857: 855: 851: 840: 833: 831: 827: 824: 822: 817: 815: 813: 806: 803: 800: 798: 778: 776: 774: 769: 765: 757: 743: 739: 728: 725: 722: 719: 716: 685: 681: 679: 634: 631: 627: 625: 600:If for any NP 596: 588: 574: 570: 563: 561: 558: 554: 550: 546: 533: 529: 526: 522: 521: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 508: 502: 498: 494: 492: 488: 484: 480: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 466: 458: 455: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 441: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 406: 401: 397: 393: 392: 387: 386: 380: 376: 359: 357: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 328: 320: 315: 312:but they are 311: 310: 305: 302: 301: 295: 291: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 272: 269: 268: 267: 265: 261: 256: 250: 244: 237: 235: 233: 230:'s theory of 229: 225: 221: 213: 210: 207: 203: 200: 197: 194: 191: 188: 184: 183: 182: 168: 157: 146: 145: 144: 138: 130: 120: 92: 84: 81: 78: 75: 74: 73: 67: 61: 54: 52: 50: 46: 42: 38: 34: 30: 26: 23: 19: 2764:Type shifter 2734:Quantization 2684:Continuation 2551:Veridicality 2431:Exhaustivity 2396:Cumulativity 2315:Indexicality 2295:Definiteness 2290:Conditionals 2217:Logical form 2122: 2085: 2075: 2057: 2046: 2039: 2028: 2021: 2011: 2004: 1997: 1987: 1980: 1973: 1959: 1952: 1928: 1921: 1907: 1900: 1893: 1877: 1870: 1863: 1849: 1842: 1838:. Blackwell. 1835: 1828: 1821: 1814: 1796: 1787: 1778: 1769: 1759: 1750: 1741: 1732: 1723: 1713: 1704: 1695: 1686: 1677: 1668: 1659: 1638: 1629: 1619: 1610: 1601: 1591: 1582: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1561: 1552: 1543: 1534: 1525: 1516: 1507: 1498: 1489: 1480: 1471: 1462: 1393: 1379: 1375: 1372: 1367: 1363: 1360:my black bag 1359: 1355: 1353: 1345: 1341: 1332: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1317: 1309: 1305: 1295: 1293: 1285:Implications 1279: 1212: 1208: 1207: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1192: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1169: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1146: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1127: 1058: 1054: 1053: 1034: 1026: 1017: 995: 991: 982: 977: 973: 969: 967: 958:denied that 945:met the shah 941:denied that 930: 925:met the shah 921:denied that 908:met the shah 904:denied that 885: 879: 858: 846: 837: 828: 825: 818: 811: 809: 807: 804: 801: 781: 779: 771: 763: 761: 729: 726: 723: 720: 717: 698: 637: 635: 632: 628: 624:(OBLIGATORY) 599: 592: 567: 557:someone (he) 556: 552: 548: 544: 541: 531: 524: 512: 500: 496: 490: 486: 482: 478: 461: 442: 431: 410: 400:co-reference 399: 395: 390: 389: 388:thinks that 384: 383: 365: 348: 339:thinks that 324: 313: 308: 307: 303: 299: 298: 288: 276: 263: 259: 257: 254: 232:Antisymmetry 223: 219: 217: 205: 186: 180: 136: 131: 94: 90: 88: 71: 24: 15: 2679:Context set 2653:Type theory 2536:Subtrigging 2300:Disjunction 2227:Proposition 2018:Radford, A. 1569:. The term 1423:Coreference 1370:is harder. 868:(LFG), and 773:constituent 595:coreference 499:is free in 398:as well as 321:Syntax Tree 283:(1) likes 49:constituent 2849:Categories 2829:Pragmatics 2476:Mirativity 2242:Speech act 2197:Entailment 2192:Denotation 1935:Keshet, E. 1807:References 1718:relations. 1443:Parse tree 1428:Government 1094:showed her 1071:m-command. 970:each woman 850:word order 620:- coref NP 612:+ coref NP 396:c-command, 327:Parse tree 304:c-commands 137:c-commands 107:is above N 51:command". 25:c-commands 22:parse tree 2628:Mereology 2564:Formalism 2446:Givenness 2371:Cataphora 2359:Phenomena 2350:Vagueness 2280:Ambiguity 2232:Reference 2212:Intension 2202:Extension 1571:c-command 1567:c-command 1438:m-command 1041:m-command 821:m-command 764:c-command 549:they (he) 91:dominance 2782:See also 2667:Concepts 2541:Telicity 2376:Coercion 2330:Negation 2325:Modality 2275:Anaphora 2056:(eds.), 2020:(2004). 1983:2, 1-22. 1843:Language 1413:Anaphora 1406:See also 1368:my brush 1356:my brush 1342:my brush 1328:my brush 1320:my brush 1306:my brush 1130:himself, 864:(HPSG), 666:, and NP 426:is smart 343:is smart 206:does not 187:does not 45:anaphora 2285:Binding 1575:kommand 1418:Binding 1384:clefted 1195:beliefs 1165:himself 1153:himself 1142:himself 1037:Chomsky 812:maximal 775:command 564:History 553:all men 545:all man 465:Chomsky 258:A node 33:binding 2865:Syntax 2714:Monads 2261:Topics 2131: 1390:Autism 1376:he/she 1290:Memory 1199:woman, 1180:showed 734:and NP 674:and NP 654:and NP 646:iff NP 604:and NP 418:(3) He 147:Node N 139:node N 95:Node N 35:, and 2406:De se 2310:Focus 2268:Areas 2237:Scope 1455:Notes 483:bound 325:In a 166:, and 37:scope 2129:ISBN 1186:and 1184:lady 1174:and 1172:lady 1163:and 1157:hurt 1151:and 917:(5) 900:(4) 745:a) N 385:John 335:(2) 309:John 266:iff 115:to N 103:if N 2658:TTR 2065:doi 1964:doi 1942:doi 1912:doi 1854:doi 1188:her 1176:her 1161:boy 1149:boy 1138:boy 978:she 974:she 823:." 530:b. 523:a. 485:in 481:is 373:(m) 369:(i) 341:i/m 306:DP 16:In 2851:: 2035:). 1768:. 1647:^ 1380:it 1364:it 1348:?" 1346:it 1324:it 1312:?" 1310:it 1296:it 980:. 638:NP 438:i* 424:i* 391:he 375:. 300:He 234:. 204:E 185:M 93:: 39:. 31:, 2165:e 2158:t 2151:v 2137:. 2067:: 1966:: 1944:: 1914:: 1856:: 1113:i 1109:i 1096:i 1092:i 1080:i 1076:i 960:i 956:i 943:j 939:i 923:i 919:i 906:i 902:i 796:1 792:2 788:2 784:1 751:2 747:3 736:2 732:1 713:x 709:1 705:y 701:2 693:x 689:y 676:1 672:1 668:2 664:2 660:1 656:2 652:2 648:1 644:2 640:1 622:2 618:1 614:2 610:2 606:2 602:1 582:2 578:1 532:∀ 525:∀ 501:β 497:α 491:β 487:β 479:α 434:i 420:i 337:i 264:B 260:A 177:. 175:2 171:1 164:1 160:2 158:N 155:, 153:2 149:1 141:2 134:1 127:2 123:1 117:2 113:1 109:2 105:1 101:2 97:1

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