Jump to content

c-command

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Luckas-bot (talk | contribs) at 09:40, 27 September 2011 (r2.7.1) (Robot: Adding zh:C-command). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In syntax, c-command is a relationship between nodes in parse trees. Originally defined by Tanya Reinhart (1976, 1983),[1] it corresponds to the idea of "siblings and all their descendants" in family trees.

Definition and Example

A simple syntax tree.

The definition of c-command is based partly on the relationship of dominance. A node "dominates" another node if it is above it in the tree (it is a parent, grandparent, etc.)

Using this definition of dominance, node A c-commands node B if and only if:

  • A does not dominate B
  • B does not dominate A
  • The first branching node that dominates A, also dominates B[2][3]

For example, according to this definition, in the tree at the right,

  • M does not c-command any node because it dominates all other nodes.
  • A c-commands B, C, D, E, F, and G.
  • B c-commands A.
  • C c-commands D, F, and G.
  • D c-commands C and E.
  • E c-commands D, F and G.
  • F c-commands G.
  • G c-commands F.

Origin of term

The term "c-command" was introduced by Reinhart in her 1976 MIT dissertation (p. 32),[citation needed] and is a shortened form of "constituent command." Reinhart herself thanks Nick Clements for suggesting both the term and its abbreviation. As discussed by Andrew Carnie,[4] the term "c-command" may also have been chosen so as to contrast with the similar notion kommand (often read as "k-command"), proposed by Howard Lasnik in 1976.[5]

C-command and the first branching node

The above definition specified that the domain of c-command is the first branching node that dominates A. This relationship is sometimes known as strict c-command.[6] Without this specification, c-command would be limited to cases in which the first node of any sort dominating A also dominates B. The following tree illustrates how these two accounts differ in their result. If all nodes are considered, then A does not c-command any other nodes, because B dominates it and does not dominate any other nodes; if only branching nodes are considered, then B is irrelevant in evaluating the third criterion, and A does c-command D, E, and F.

See also

References

  1. ^ See also Howard Lasnik (1975) and Noam Chomsky (1981).
  2. ^ Haegeman, Liliane (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. p. 147.
  3. ^ Carnie, Andrew (2002). Syntax: A Generative Introduction (1st ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. p. 75.
  4. ^ Carnie, Andrew (2002). Syntax: A Generative Introduction (1st ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. p. 77.
  5. ^ Keshet, Ezra (2004-05-20). "24.952 Syntax Squib" (PDF). MIT.
  6. ^ Haegeman, Liliane (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. p. 137.
  • Harris, C. L. and Bates, E. A. (2002) 'Clausal backgrounding and pronominal reference: A functionalist approach to c-command'. Language and Cognitive Processes 17(3):237-269.
  • Contemporary Linguistics by William O'Grady, Michael Dobrovolsky, and Mark Aronoff. Bedford/St. Martin's. 1997 (third edition).
  • Reinhart, Tanya M. (1976). The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). (Available online at http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16400).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-command&oldid=452667723"