Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-xmwfq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T06:46:40.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Precede-and-Command Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Benjamin Bruening
Benjamin Bruening*
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
*
Department of Linguistics and Cognitive Science, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, to 19716, [bruening@udel.edu]
Get access

Abstract

The relation of c-command (Reinhart 1976, 1983) is widely believed to be the fundamental relation in syntax, underlying such diverse phenomena as coreference (the binding principles), scope and variable binding, syntactic movement, and so on. Precedence is generally held to be irrelevant. This article argues that this view is mistaken. Syntax does not involve c-command at all, but rather a much coarser notion of command, phase-command, where only phasal nodes matter, not every node in the tree. Precedence also plays an important role. The article argues this point in detail for the binding principles, and shows that the relation that is required is precede-and-command (Langacker 1969, Jackendoff 1972, Lasnik 1976), where command is phase-command. It revisits Reinhart's arguments for c-command and against precedence, and shows that those arguments do not go through. Finally, precede-and-command does not need to be stipulated, but follows from a view of grammar and processing where sentences are built in a left-to-right fashion.

Keywords

phase-commandc-commandprecedencebinding principles

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 90 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 342 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 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

Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive-cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation. Online: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000049.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus. 2012. Phases: An essay on cyclicity in syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110284225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2005. Cross-linguistic and cross-categorial distribution of datives. Advances in Greek generative syntax, ed. by Stavrou, Melita and Terzi, Arhonto, 61–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, and Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 2003. Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar: The diversity of WH-constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/2832.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark R., and Postal, Paul Μ.. 1996. More on reanalysis hypotheses. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 127–45.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2012. Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 614–33.10.1162/ling_a_00108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1990. A theory of command relations. Linguistics and Philosophy 13. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barss, Andrew, and Lasnik, Howard. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 347–54.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, Tanmoy, and Simpson, Andrew. 2007. Argument prominence and the nature of superiority violations. Argument structure, ed. by Reuland, Eric, Bhattacharya, Tanmoy, and Spathis, Giorgis, 175–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.108.12bhaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branco, Antonio. 2001. Without an index: A lexicalist account of binding theory. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG’01), 71–86. Online: http://www.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/HPSG/2001/.10.21248/hpsg.2001.5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1998. Morphology competes with syntax: Explaining typological variation in weak crossover effects. Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, ed. by Barbosa, Pilar, Fox, Danny, Hagstrom, Paul, McGinnis, Martha, and Pesetsky, David, 59–92. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 2000. Mirror theory: Syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 29–56.10.1162/002438900554280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 519–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BÜring, Daniel. 2005. Bound to bind. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 259–74.10.1162/0024389053710684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2012. On the grammar of extraction and coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30. 465–512.10.1007/s11049-011-9164-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. 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
Chung, Sandra. 2006. Properties of VOS languages. The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 3, ed. by Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 685–720. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470996591.ch52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter, and Hermon, Gabriella. 2008. VP raising in a VOS language. Syntax 11. 144–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, William D., and Dubinsky, Stanley. 2003. On extraction from NPs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 1–37.10.1023/A:1021891610437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1988. Type raising, functional composition, and non-constituent conjunction. Categorial grammars and natural language structures, ed. by Oehrle, Richard T., Bach, Emmon, and Wheeler, Deirdre, 153–97. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Elbourne, Paul. 2001. E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Semantics 9. 241–88.10.1023/A:1014290323028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel David. 1999. Un-principled syntax: The derivation of syntactic relations. Working minimalism, ed. by Epstein, Samuel David and Hornstein, Norbert, 317–45. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7305.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 1994. M-command and precedence. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 327–35.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert. 1977. On trace theory. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 35–61.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and Higginbotham, James. 1981. Opacity in NP. Linguistic Analysis 7. 347–73.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 157–96.10.1162/002438999554020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. (Linguistic inquiry monograph 35.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frank, Robert, and Vijay-Shanker, K.. 2001. Primitive c-command. Syntax 4. 164–204.10.1111/1467-9612.00043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J. 2013. Object shift in Romance. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 409–51.10.1007/s11049-013-9188-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991a. Canonical government and the specifier parameter: An ECP account of weak crossover. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991b. Syntactic variables: Resumptive pronouns and A’ binding in Palauan. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-3202-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Reinhart, Tanya. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 69–101.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1997. If you have, you can give. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 15. 193–207.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (The interpretive tract, ed. by Uli Sauerland and Orin Percus) 25. 205–46.Google Scholar
Hestvik, Arild. 1991. Subjectless binding domains. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 455–96.10.1007/BF00135355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hestvik, Arild, and Philip, William. 2001. Syntactic vs. logophoric binding: Evidence from Norwegian child language. Syntax and semantics, vol. 33: Long-distance reflexives, ed. by Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella, and James Huang, C.-T., 119–39. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 2000. Negative polarity items: Triggering, scope, and c-command. Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives, ed. by Horn, Laurence and Kato, Yasuhiko, 115–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip. 2010. A linearization account of either… or constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28. 275–314.10.1007/s11049-010-9090-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.].Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1976. Conjunction reduction, gapping, and right node raising. Language 52. 535–62.10.2307/412719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. On Larson's analysis of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 427–56.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1980. Lexical decomposition in Montague grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 7. 121–36.10.1515/thli.1980.7.1-3.121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1991. Negation. Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Stechow, Arnim von and Wunderlich, Dieter, 560–96. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Janke, Vikki, and Neeleman, Ad. 2009. Ascending and descending VPs in English. Ascending and descending VPs in English: University College London, ms. Online: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000861.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2012. Pronouns vs. Pronouns vs: University of Massachusetts Amherst, ms. Online: http://people.umass.edu/kbj/homepage/Content/Pronouns.pdf.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1979. Raising to oblique in Modern Greek. Berkeley Linguistics Society 5. 114–28.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1990. Is raising to prepositional object a natural language grammatical construction? Studies in relational grammar 3, ed. by Postal, Paul and Joseph, Brian D., 261–76. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2004. Prepositions as probes. Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, ed. by Belletti, Adriana, 192–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and Takami, Ken-ichi. 1993. Grammar and discourse principles: Functional syntax and GB theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1968. Pronouns and reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1969. On pronominalization and the chain of command. Modern studies in English, ed. by Reibel, David A. and Schane, Sanford A., 160–86. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 335–91.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 589–632.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1976. Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis 2. 1–22.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1989. On the necessity of binding conditions. Essays on anaphora, ed. by Lasnik, Howard, 149–72. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-2542-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Move a: Conditions on its application and output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation. [Distributed by the Graduate Linguistic Student Association.].Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried. 2003. Phrase structure paradoxes, movement, and ellipsis. The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, ed. by Schwabe, Kerstin and Winkler, Susanne, 187–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 506–16.10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Robert D. 2011. Linearization and its discontents. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2011), 12646. Online: http://www.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/HPSG/2011/.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. by Mchombo, Sam A., 113–50. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37. 69109.10.1162/002438906775321184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1984. Raising, subcategorization and selection in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 441–85.10.1007/BF00417056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. College Park: University of Maryland College Park dissertation.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1992. The double-object construction, domain asymmetries, and linear precedence. Linguistics 30. 837–71.10.1515/ling.1992.30.5.837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco. 1998. Post-verbal asymmetries in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 313–46.10.1023/A:1006051703562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara h., Meulen, Alice ter; and Wall, Robert E.. 1990. Mathematical methods in linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.].Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 37–90.10.1162/002438903763255922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 261–303.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul Μ. 1966. Anote on ‘understood transitively’. International Journal of American Linguistics 32. 90–93.10.1086/464886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul Μ. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul Μ. 2004. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195166712.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea, and Travis, Lisa. 2000. V-initial languages: X or XP movement and adverbial placement. The syntax of verb-initial languages, ed. by Carnie, Andrew and Guilfoyle, Eithne, 117–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3846.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, and Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 657720.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 1999. Dependency formation and directionality of tree construction. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Papers on morphology and syntax, cycle two) 34. 67–105.Google Scholar
Roelofsen, Floris. 2010. Condition B effects in two simple steps. Natural Linguistic Semantics 18. 115–40.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. Geen eenheid. Tabu 25. 194–97.Google Scholar
Sailor, Craig, and Thoms, Gary. 2013. On the non-existence of non-constituent coordination and non-constituent ellipsis. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 31, to appear.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2005a. Minimize restrictors! (Notes on definite descriptions, condition C and epithets). Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9. 385–416.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2005b. Non-redundancy: Towards a semantic reinterpretation of binding theory. Natural Language Semantics 13. 1–92.10.1007/s11050-004-2440-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shan, Chung-Chieh, and Barker, Chris. 2006. Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29. 91–134.10.1007/s10988-005-6580-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takano, Yuji. 2003. How antisymmetric is syntax? Linguistic Inquiry 34. 516–26.10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk, and Williams, Edwin. 1986. Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar