Quantificational Binding Does Not Require C-Command

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).

[1]  David Lebeaux,et al.  Relative Clauses, Licensing, and the Nature of the Derivation , 1991 .

[2]  I. Heim.  E-Type pronouns and donkey anaphora , 1990 .

[3]  Johan Rooryck,et al.  Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8 , 2009 .

[4]  Janneke Huitink,et al.  Modals, Conditionals and Compositionality , 2002 .

[5]  Norbert Hornstein,et al.  Logical Form: From Gb to Minimalism , 1995 .

[6]  J. Higginbotham.  Pronouns and Bound Variables , 1980 .

[7]  Sandra Chung,et al.  The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro , 1998 .

[8]  K. Vijay-Shanker,et al.  Primitive C‐Command , 2001 .

[9]  C. Barker.  Continuations and the Nature of Quantification , 2002 .

[10]  김광섭.  Reconstruction Effects in Relative Clauses , 2003 .

[11]  Pauline Jacobson,et al.  Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences , 1994 .

[12]  Heidi Harley,et al.  Possession and the double object construction , 2002 .

[13]  Chris Barker.  Reconstruction as delayed evaluation 1 , 2007 .

[14]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[15]  Ken Safir,et al.  The Syntax of Anaphora , 2004 .

[16]  E. G. Ruys,et al.  Weak Crossover as a Scope Phenomenon , 2000, Linguistic Inquiry.

[17]  Richard S. Kayne.  The Antisymmetry of Syntax , 1994 .

[18]  Erhard W. Hinrichs,et al.  Theory and Evidence in Semantics , 2009 .

[19]  R. Larson.  On the double object construction , 1988 .

[20]  Paul Portner,et al.  Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning , 2011 .

[21]  K. Safir.  The Syntax of (In)dependence , 2004 .

[22]  Pilar Barbosa,et al.  Is the best good enough? : optimality and competition in syntax , 1998 .

[23]  Florian Schwarz,et al.  Two Types of Definites in Natural Language , 2009 .

[24]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[25]  David Pesetsky,et al.  Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades , 1994 .

[26]  T. Wasow.  Anaphoric relations in English , 1972 .

[27]  E. Williams.  Thematic structure in syntax , 1994 .

[28]  L.C.J. Barbiers.  The syntax of interpretation , 1995 .

[29]  Simon Charlow,et al.  Can DP Be a Scope Island? , 2008, ESSLLI Student Sessions.

[30]  Daniel Büring,et al.  Binding Theory by Daniel Büring , 2005 .

[31]  Annabel Cormack.  Definitions: Implications for Syntax, Semantics, and the Language of Thought , 1998 .

[32]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  Scope and binding , 2011 .

[33]  C. Barker,et al.  Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding , 2008 .

[34]  Daniel Büring.  Crossover Situations , 2004 .

[35]  Christian Barker.  Remark on Jacobson 1999: Crossover as a Local Constraint , 2005 .

[36]  Paul D. Elbourne.  Situations and individuals , 2005 .

[37]  T. Reinhart.  Anaphora and semantic interpretation , 1983 .

[38]  R. May.  Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation , 1985 .

[39]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Bound Variables and C‐Command , 2002, J. Semant..

[40]  Stanley Peters,et al.  Anaphora and quantification in situation semantics , 1990 .

[41]  Paul M. Postal,et al.  Cross-over phenomena , 1971 .

[42]  Yael Sharvit,et al.  Functional Relative Clauses , 1999 .

[43]  Uli Sauerland.  DP is Not a Scope Island , 2005, Linguistic Inquiry.

[44]  Christian Barker,et al.  Explaining Crossover and Superiority as Left-to-right Evaluation , 2006 .

[45]  Pauline Jacobson.  Towards a Variable-Free Semantics , 1999 .

[46]  Geoffrey K. Pullum,et al.  A theory of command relations , 1990 .