Quantificational binding does not require C-command

Chris Barker

doi:10.1162/ling_a_00108

Quantificational binding does not require C-command

Chris Barker

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Some version of the following claim is almost universally assumed: a quantifier must c-command any pronoun that it binds. Yet as I show, the evidence motivating this claim is not particularly strong. In addition, I gather here a wide variety of systematic counterexamples, some well-known, others new. I conclude that c-command is not relevant for quantificational binding in English (nor is any refinement or extension of c-command).

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	614-633
Number of pages	20
Journal	Linguistic Inquiry
Volume	43
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00108
State	Published - Oct 2012

Keywords

Binding
C-command
Quantification
Reinhart's generalization
Scope

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Language and Linguistics
Linguistics and Language

Access to Document

10.1162/ling_a_00108

Cite this

@article{f68e1b1b78d74fc9bdf6597a80a099b9,

title = "Quantificational binding does not require C-command",

abstract = "Some version of the following claim is almost universally assumed: a quantifier must c-command any pronoun that it binds. Yet as I show, the evidence motivating this claim is not particularly strong. In addition, I gather here a wide variety of systematic counterexamples, some well-known, others new. I conclude that c-command is not relevant for quantificational binding in English (nor is any refinement or extension of c-command).",

keywords = "Binding, C-command, Quantification, Reinhart's generalization, Scope",

author = "Chris Barker",

year = "2012",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1162/ling_a_00108",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "43",

pages = "614--633",

journal = "Linguistic Inquiry",

issn = "0024-3892",

publisher = "MIT Press Journals",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantificational binding does not require C-command

AU - Barker, Chris

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - Some version of the following claim is almost universally assumed: a quantifier must c-command any pronoun that it binds. Yet as I show, the evidence motivating this claim is not particularly strong. In addition, I gather here a wide variety of systematic counterexamples, some well-known, others new. I conclude that c-command is not relevant for quantificational binding in English (nor is any refinement or extension of c-command).

AB - Some version of the following claim is almost universally assumed: a quantifier must c-command any pronoun that it binds. Yet as I show, the evidence motivating this claim is not particularly strong. In addition, I gather here a wide variety of systematic counterexamples, some well-known, others new. I conclude that c-command is not relevant for quantificational binding in English (nor is any refinement or extension of c-command).

KW - Binding

KW - C-command

KW - Quantification

KW - Reinhart's generalization

KW - Scope

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84869218885&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84869218885&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1162/ling_a_00108

DO - 10.1162/ling_a_00108

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84869218885

SN - 0024-3892

VL - 43

SP - 614

EP - 633

JO - Linguistic Inquiry

JF - Linguistic Inquiry

IS - 4

ER -

Quantificational binding does not require C-command

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this