Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T23:31:25.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Precede-and-command revisited revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Jan-Wouter Zwart
Jan-Wouter Zwart*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
*
[c.j.w.zwart@rug.nl]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Basing his argumentation on an analysis of condition C effects, Bruening (2014) proposes to replace the familiar notion of c-command underlying dependency relations with a precede-and-command condition, which defines dependency relations as precedence relations within a local domain (phase). In this reply I argue that condition C effects cannot be used to show the relevance of phases for the definition of syntactic dependency, and I question the conceptual necessity of the notion phase as currently defined.

Keywords

condition C effectsc-commandphasesdependency relationsprecedencediscourseR-expressions

Information

Type
Replies
Information
Language , Volume 91 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. e169 - e178
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 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

Baker, Mark C. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Pronouns and repeated nouns. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Precede-and-command revisited. Language 90. 2. 342–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2012. Unconventional mergers. Ways of structure building, ed. by Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam and Valmala, Vidal, 143–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D. 1999. Un-principled syntax: The derivation of syntactic relations. Working minimalism, ed. by Epstein, Samuel D. and Hornstein, Norbert, 317–45. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D., Kitahara, Hisatsugu; and Seely, T. Daniel. 2014. Labeling by minimal search: Implications for successive-cyclic A-movement and the conception of the postulate ‘phase’. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 463–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 337–62.Google Scholar
Fortuny, Jordi. 2008. The emergence of order in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1976. Pronouns and reference. Syntax and semantics, vol. 7: Notes from the linguistic underground, ed. by McCawley, James D., 275–335. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1969. On pronominalization and the chain of command. Modern studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar, ed. by Reibel, David A. and Schane, Sanford A., 160–86. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Steven G. 1981. A lexical analysis of the English auxiliary verb system. Lexical grammar, ed. by Hoekstra, Teun, van, Harry Hulst, der, and Moortgat, Michael, 215–54. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, David R. 2004. Two types of variable elements in Hmong anaphora. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, ms.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.].Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, and Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 657–720.Google Scholar
Schladt, Mathias. 2000. The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. Reflexives: Form and functions, ed. by Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Curl, Traci S., 103–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tancredi, Chris. 1997. Pronouns and perspectives. Atomism and binding, ed. by Bennis, Hans, Pica, Pierre, and Rooryck, Johan, 381–407. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Pieter Meijes. 1985. Frisian reference grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa DeMena. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. Working minimalism, ed. by Epstein, Samuel D. and Hornstein, Norbert, 251–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 1989. Object shift as an A-movement rule. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11. 256–71.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2004. The format of dependency relations. Indiana University Syntax Fest lectures, June 22-July 1. Online: http://www.let.rug.nl/~zwart/college/docs/indiana/zwart1.pdf.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2005. Verb-second as a function of Merge. The function of function words and functional categories, ed. by Dikken, Marcel den and Tortora, Christina M., 11–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2006. Baker's generalization in a derivational theory of binding. Groningen: University of Groningen, ms. Online: http://www.let.rug.nl/zwart/docs/bindingproc.pdf.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2009. Prospects for top-down derivation. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8. 161–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2011a. Structure and order: Asymmetric Merge. The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, ed. by Boeckx, Cedric, 96–118. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2011b. The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar