C-command

In generative grammar and related frameworks, a node in a parse tree c-commands 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 syntactic movement, binding, and scope. Tanya Reinhart introduced c-command in 1976 as a key component of her theory of anaphora. The term is short for "constituent command".

In generative grammar and related frameworks, a node in a parse tree c-commands 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 syntactic movement, binding, and scope. Tanya Reinhart introduced c-command in 1976 as a key component of her theory of anaphora. The term is short for "constituent command". ==Definition and examples== ===Standard Definition=== A simplification of the standard definition on c-command is as follows: A node A c-commands a node B iff Neither A nor B dominates the other, and Every branching node dominating A also dominates B As such, we get sentences like: (1) [John] likes [her] Where [node A] John c-commands [node B]. This means that [node A] also c-commands [node C] and [node D], which means that John c-commands both [likes] and [her]. ===Binding Theory=== 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 Chomsky 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. The first major revision to binding theory is found in Chomsky (1980) with their standard definitions: a. An anaphor α is bound in β if there is a category c-commanding it and coindexed with it in β b. Otherwise, α is free in β ===Quantificational Binding=== 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. (3) [Every man] thinks that [he] is intelligent. a. ∀x(man(x)): x thinks x is intelligent. (bound) b. ∀x(man(x)): x thinks y is intelligent. (coreferential or 'free') In this example, the quantifier [every man] c-commands the other pronoun [he] 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 reading in (3a) states that for all man, they each think that they (he) are intelligent. Meanwhile, sentence (3b) state that for all men, they all think that someone (he) 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. ==History== 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 that include but are not limited to tracking coreference and non-coreference. ==Criticism and Alternatives== 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. ==Implications== ===Memory=== The notion of c-command shows the relation of pronouns with its antecedent expression. In general, pronouns, such as it, 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. (i) "Where is my brush? Have you seen it?" In sentence (i), there is an active representation of the antecedent my brush in the comprehender's mind and it coreferences with the following pronoun it. Pronouns tend to refer back to the salient object within the sentence, such as my brush in sentence (i). 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. (ii) "Where is my black bag with my brush and my hairties in it? Have you seen it?" In sentence (ii), my brush is less prominent as there are other objects within the sentence that are more prominent, such as my black bag. 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 it with the antecedent my brush is harder. 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 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 he/she, increases the prominence compared to unambiguous pronouns, such as it. In addition, noun phrases also become more prominent in representation when syntactically clefted. 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. ===Autism=== Recent research by Khetrapal and Thornton (2017) questioned whether children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (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 high-functioning autism (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, but Kethrapal and Thornton stress that conducting further cross-linguistic investigation is essential. ==See also== Anaphora Binding Coreference Government Government and Binding m-command Parse tree quantified expressions ==Notes== ==References== Ariel, M. (2016). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge. Barker, C. (2012). Quantificational Binding Does Not Require C-command. Linguistic Inquiry, (pp. 614–633). MIT Press. Boeckx, C. (1999). Conflicting C-command requirements. Studia Linguistica, 53(3), 227–250. Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical functional syntax. Blackwell. Bruening, B. (2014). Precede-and-command revisited. Language, 90(1), 342–388. Carminati, M. N., Frazier, L., and Rayner, K. (2002). Bound Variables and C-Command. Journal of Semantics. 19(1): 1–34. Carnie, A. (2002). Syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Carnie, A. (2013). Syntax: A generative introduction, 3rd edition. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Cho, K. (2019). Two Different C-commands in Intra-Argument Structures and Inter-Argument Structures: Focus on Binding Principles B and A. British American Studies (pp. 79–100). Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. Chomsky, N. (1995). "The Minimalist Program". MIT Press. Frawley, W. (2003). C-command. "International Encyclopedia of Linguistics". 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. Foraker, S. and McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3), 357–383. Garnham, A. (2015). Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. New York. ISBN 9781138883123. Garrod, S. and Terras, M. (May 2000). The Contribution of Lexical and Situational Knowledge to Resolving Discourse Roles: Bonding and Resolution. Journal of Memory and Language. 42 (4): 526–544. Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Twenty-Five. MIT Press. Keshet, E. (2004-05-20). "24.952 Syntax Squib". MIT. Khetrapal, Neha; Thornton, Rosalind (2017). "C-Command in the Grammars of Children with High Functioning Autism". Frontiers in Psychology. 8. . ISSN 1664-1078. Klima, E. S. (1964). Negation in English. In J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz (eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of Language (pp. 246– 323). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Kush, D., Lidz, J., and Philips, C. (2015). Relation-sensitive retrieval: Evidence from bound variable pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language. 82: 18–40. Langacker, R. W. (1969). On pronominalization and the chain of command. In D. A. Reibel and S. A. Schane (eds), Modern studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar(pp. 160–186). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Lasnik, H. (1976). Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis 2, 1-22. Lasnik, H. (1989). A selective history of modern binding theory. In: Essays on Anaphora. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2542-7_1 Levine, R. and Hukari, T. (2006). The unity of unbounded dependency constructions. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. Lightfoot, D.W. (1975). Reviewed work: Semantic interpretation in generative grammar by Ray S. Jackendoff. Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 140–147 Pollard, C. and Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Radford, A. (2004). English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Reinhart, T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Available online at http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16400). Reinhart, T. (1981). Definite NP anaphora and C-command domains. Linguistic Inquiry, 12(4), 605–635. Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm. Reuland, E. (2007). Binding Theory. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, ch.9. Oxford: Blackwell. Shan, Chung-Chieh; Barker, Chris (2006). "Explaining Crossover and Superiority as Left-to-right Evaluation". Linguistics and Philosophy. 29 (1): 91–134. . ISSN 0165-0157. Sportiche, D., Koopman, H. J., and Stabler, E. P. (2013; 2014). An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory. Hoboken: John Wiley. Wuijts, Rogier (October 29, 2015). "Binding pronouns with and without c-command". Utrecht University. Zhang, H. (2016). The c-command condition in phonology. Syntax-Phonology Interface (pp. 71–116). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781317389019-10 ==External links== c-command and pronouns Node relations, University of Pennsylvania Some Basic Concepts in Government and Binding Theory

Text derived from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1364503037 under CC BY-SA 4.0; modifications have been made.