c-command

In these frameworks, c-command plays a central role in defining and constraining operations such as syntactic movement, binding, and scope.

The notion of asymmetric c-command plays a major role in Richard S. Kayne's theory of Antisymmetry.

[4] 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.

In this edition of coreference, Lasnik sets some restrictions on the permissible locations of NP1 and NP2, which hint at potential dominance.

The term c-command was introduced by Tanya Reinhart in her 1976 dissertation and is a shortened form of constituent command.

[15] 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.

Furthermore, basic S(V)O (subject-verb-object) word order in English correlates positively with a hierarchy of syntactic functions, subjects precede (and c-command) objects.

Furthermore, the c-command concept was developed primarily on the basis of syntactic phenomena of English, a language with relatively strict word order.

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.

Numerous mechanisms of syntax are then addressed in terms of this hierarchy 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.

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.

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.

Wuijts dives deep into Barker's work and concludes that the semantic interpretation of pronouns serves as functions in their own context.

[23] 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.

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 such as asymmetry which was previously mentioned.

In sentence (1a), boy and himself are lexical items that serve as external and internal arguments of hurt, a two-place predicate.

In sentence (1b), lady and her are lexical items that serve as external and internal arguments for showed, a three-place predicate.

Cho makes use of the following sentences to demonstrate how command-based c-command operates for inter-argument structure binding relations: 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 as explain why sentence (7d) is grammatical and (7e) is ungrammatical.

[31] 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.

[34] 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.

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 however Kethrapal and Thornton stress that conducting further cross-linguistic investigation is essential.

Tree 1 (use to evaluate standard definition of c-command)
Example for sentence (1)
Syntax tree for example sentence (1) using the standard definition
Tree example for sentence (3). This example shows that co-reference is not possible in definite anaphora and that DP He c-commands DP John but they are non-coreferential as denoted by the different subscripts.
Tree example for sentence (2) using constituent nodes. This example follows the first interpretation that John thinks that he is smart, with the two DPs showing c-command, as well as co-reference as denoted by the same subscripts.
Any rule that maintains a rightward movement of NP 1 (especially when crossing to the right of NP 2 ), would counteract the idea of coreference despite being marked as +coref. Rules that maintain a leftward movement will keep supporting coreferencing.
If in the sentence, NP y isn’t a pronoun, Lasnik’s rule states it as ungrammatical even if NP x is or isn’t a pronoun.
a) N 3 m-commands Det but doesn't c-command it; b) V 1 c-commands N but doesn't m-command it
A syntactic tree structure that illustrates sentence (1a) which satisfies binding principle A.
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 m-command.
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.