Quantificational binding does not require C-command

Christian Barker

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    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 languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)614-633
    Number of pages20
    JournalLinguistic Inquiry
    Volume43
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Oct 2012

    Fingerprint

    evidence
    C-command
    Quantifiers
    Counterexample
    Pronoun

    Keywords

    • Binding
    • C-command
    • Quantification
    • Reinhart's generalization
    • Scope

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Linguistics and Language
    • Language and Linguistics

    Cite this

    Quantificational binding does not require C-command. / Barker, Christian.

    In: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 43, No. 4, 10.2012, p. 614-633.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Barker, Christian. / Quantificational binding does not require C-command. In: Linguistic Inquiry. 2012 ; Vol. 43, No. 4. pp. 614-633.
    @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 = "Christian Barker",
    year = "2012",
    month = "10",
    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, Christian

    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

    VL - 43

    SP - 614

    EP - 633

    JO - Linguistic Inquiry

    JF - Linguistic Inquiry

    SN - 0024-3892

    IS - 4

    ER -