Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-qr5l4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-03T15:57:10.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

C-command vs. scope: An experimental assessment of bound-variable pronouns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Keir Moulton  and
Chung-hye Han
Keir Moulton*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
Chung-hye Han*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
*
Department of Linguistics Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drive Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada, [kmoulton@sfu.ca], [chunghye@sfu.ca]
Department of Linguistics Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drive Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada, [kmoulton@sfu.ca], [chunghye@sfu.ca]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While there are very clearly some structural constraints on pronoun interpretation, debate remains as to their extent and proper formulation (Bruening 2014). Since Reinhart 1976 it has commonly been reported that bound-variable pronouns are subject to a c-command requirement. This claim is not universally agreed upon and has recently been challenged by Barker (2012), who argues that bound pronouns must merely fall within the semantic scope of a binding quantifier. In the processing literature, recent results have been advanced in support of c-command (Cunnings et al. 2015, Kush et al. 2015). However, none of these studies separates semantic scope from structural c-command. In this article, we present two self-paced reading studies and one off-line judgment task which show that when we put both c-commanding and non-c-commanding quantifiers on an equal footing with regard to their ability to scope over a pronoun, we nonetheless find a processing difference between the two. Semantically legitimate but non-c-commanded bound variables do not behave like c-commanded bound variables in their search for an antecedent. The results establish that c-command, not scope alone, is relevant for the processing of bound variables. We then explore how these results, combined with other experimental findings, support a view in which the grammar distinguishes between c-commanded and non-c-commanded variable pronouns, the latter perhaps being disguised definite descriptions (Cooper 1979, Evans 1980, Heim 1990, Elbourne 2005).

Keywords

c-commandscopebound-variable/covarying pronounsgender-mismatch effectsself-paced reading

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 94 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 191 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, Catherine. 2004. The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity. Evansville, IL: Northwestern University dissertation.Google Scholar
Anderssen, Jan. 2011. Quantification, misc. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Artstein, Ron. 2005. Quantificational arguments in temporal adjunct clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 28. 541-97. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-005-6921-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon, and Partee, Barbara H.. 1980. Anaphora and semantic structure. Chicago Linguistic Society (Parasession on pronouns and anaphora) 16(2). 1–28.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2012. Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 614-33. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00108.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1990. A theory of command relations. Linguistics and Philosophy 13. 1–34. DOI: 10.1007/BF00630515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris, and Shan, Chung-Chieh. 2008. Donkey anaphora as in-scope binding. Semantics and Pragmatics 1:1. DOI: 10.3765/sp.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Levy, Roger, Scheepers, Christoph; and Tily, Harry J.. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68. 255-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, Douglas M. 2005. Fitting linear mixed models in R: Using the lme4 package. R News: The Newsletter of the R Project 5. 27–30. Online: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/Rnews_2005-1.pdf.Google Scholar
Beghelli, Filippo, and Stowell, Tim. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. Ways of scope taking, ed. by Szabolcsi, Anna, 71–108. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, Stephen. 1987. Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantification. Issues in semantics (University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 12), ed. by Blevins, Jim and Vainikka, Ann, 8–23. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2008. Donkey pluralities: Plural information states versus non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31. 129–209. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-008-9035-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian, and Dotlačil, Jakub. 2015a. Sentence-internal ‘same’ and its quantificational licensors: A new window into the processing of inverse scope. Semantics and Pragmatics 8:1. DOI: 10.3765/sp.8.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian, and Dotlačil, Jakub. 2015b. Strategies for scope taking. Natural Language Semantics 23. 1–19. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-014-9109-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Precede-and-command revisited. Language 90. 342-88. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2014.0037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2004. Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics 12. 23–62. DOI: 10.1023/B:NALS.0000011144.81075.a8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carminati, Maria Nella, Frazier, Lyn; and Rayner, Keith. 2002. Bound variables and c-command. Journal of Semantics 19. 1–34. DOI: 10.1093/jos/19.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Dynamics of meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures in government and binding. (Studies in generative grammar 9.) Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cooper, Robin. 1979. The interpretation of pronouns. Syntax and semantics, vol. 10: Selections from the third Groningen Round Table, ed. by Heny, Frank and Schnelle, H., 61–92. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cunnings, Ian, Patterson, Clare; and Felser, Claudia. 2014. Variable binding and co-reference in sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 71. 39–56. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, Ian, Patterson, Clare; and Felser, Claudia. 2015. Structural constraints on pronoun binding and coreference: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Frontiers in Psychology 6:840. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00840.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dillon, Brian, Mishler, Alan, Sloggett, Shayne; and Phillips, Colin. 2013. Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language 69. 85–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotlačil, Jakub, and Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2015. The manner and time course of updating quantifier scope representations in discourse. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30. 305-23. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2014.918631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbourne, Paul D. 2001. E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Semantics 9. 241-88. DOI: 10.1023/A:1014290323028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbourne, Paul D. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Kotek, Hadas. 2016. A streamlined approach to online linguistic surveys. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34. 481-95. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-015-9305-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 337-62. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178164.Google Scholar
Filik, Ruth, Sanford, Anthony J.; and Leuthold, Hartmut. 2008. Processing pronouns without antecedents: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20. 1315-26. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foppolo, Francesca. 2009. The puzzle of donkey anaphora resolution. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 38. 297–310.Google Scholar
Foraker, Stephani, and McElree, Brian. 2007. The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory and Language 56. 357-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnham, Alan. 2001. Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Geach, Peter. 1962. Reference and generality. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2002. Donkey business. Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 129-56. DOI: 10.1023/A:1014624331450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2011. Accessibility and anaphora. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, ed. by Heusinger, Klaus von, Maienborn, Claudia, and Portner, Paul, 1988–2011. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter C., and Hendrick, Randall. 1998. The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science 22. 389–424. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog2204_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14. 39–100. DOI: 10.1007/BF00628304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Patrick G., Patel-Grosz, Pritty, Fedorenko, Evelina; and Gibson, Edward. 2015. Constraints on donkey pronouns. Journal of Semantics 32. 619-48. DOI: 10.1093/jos/ffu009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13. 137-77. DOI: 10.1007/BF00630732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (The interpretive tract) 25. 205-46.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ioup, Georgia. 1975. Some universals for quantifier scope. Syntax and semantics, vol. 4, ed. by Kimball, John, 37–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Just, Marcel A., Carpenter, Patricia A.; and Woolley, Jacqueline D.. 1982. Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 111. 228-38. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228.Google ScholarPubMed
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. Formal methods in the study of language, ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen A. G., Janssen, T. M. V., and Stokhof, Martin B. J., 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans, and Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kazanina, Nina, Lau, Ellen F., Lieberman, Moti, Yoshida, Masaya; and Phillips, Colin. 2007. The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 56. 384–409. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12. 607-53. DOI: 10.1007/BF00627775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1974. The semantics of scope in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Kurtzman, Howard S., and MacDonald, Maryellen C.. 1993. Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition 48. 243-79. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90042-T.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kush, Dave. 2013. Respecting relations: Memory access and antecedent retrieval in incremental sentence processing. College Park: University of Maryland dissertation.Google Scholar
Kush, Dave, Lidz, Jeffrey; and Phillips, Colin. 2015. Relation-sensitive retrieval: Evidence from bound variable pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language 82. 18–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Brockho, Per Bruun; and Haubo, Rune Christensen, Bojesen. 2014. lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2. 0–11. Online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest.Google Scholar
Lewis, Richard L., Vasishth, Shravan; and Van Dyke, Julia A.. 2006. Computation principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 10. 447-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, Shevaun, and Phillips, Colin. 2015. Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44. 27–46. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-014-9329-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElree, Brian. 2000. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29. 111-23. DOI: 10.1023/A:1005184709695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElree, Brian, Foraker, Stephani; and Dyer, Lisbeth. 2003. Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 48. 67–91. DOI: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00515-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, Janet, and Swinney, David. 1989. The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18. 5–19. DOI: 10.1007/BF01069043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, Janet, and Swinney, David. 2003. The psycholinguistics of anaphora. Anaphora: A reference guide, ed. by Barss, Andrew, 72–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieuwland, Mante S. 2014. ‘Who's he?‘: Event-related brain potentials and unbound pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language 76. 1–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel-Grosz, Pritty, and Grosz, Patrick. 2017. Revisiting pronominal typology. Linguistic Inquiry 48. 259-97. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Jonathan W. 2007. PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 162. 8–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, Colin. 2006. The real-time status of island phenomena. Language 82. 795–823. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2006.0217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poesio, Massimo, and Zucchi, Alessandro. 1992. On telescoping. Semantics and linguistic theory, vol. 2, ed. by Barker, Chris and Dowty, David, 347-66. Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. Modern studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar, ed. by Reibel, David A. and Schane, Sanford, 201-44. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1987. Modal subordination, anaphora and distributivity. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 1995. Adverbial quantification over events. Natural Language Semantics 3. 1–31. DOI: 10.1007/BF01252883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. 2009. Two types of definites in natural language. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Stowe, Laurie A. 1986. Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 1. 227-45. DOI: 10.1080/01690968608407062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturt, Patrick. 2003. The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 48. 542-62. DOI: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00536-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tunstall, Susanne Lynn. 1998. The interpretation of quantifiers: Semantics & processing. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
van Gompel, Roger P. G, and Liversedge, Simon P.. 2003. The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1. 128-39. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.128.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1962. Each and every, any and all. Mind 71. 145-60. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2252113.Google Scholar
Xiang, Ming, Dillon, Brian; and Phillips, Colin. 2009. Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain and Language 108. 40–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.10.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed