Skip Navigation

Journal of Semantics 2002 19(1):1-34; doi:10.1093/jos/19.1.1
© 2002 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carminati, M. N.
Right arrow Articles by Rayner, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Bound Variables and C-Command

Maria Nella Carminati1, Lyn Frazier1 and Keith Rayner2

1 Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 USA. e-mail: lyn{at}linguist.umass.edu 2 Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 USA

It has long been assumed in linguistics that bound variable interpretations of pronouns are possible (only) when a quantified expression c-commands the pronoun. In two studies in which readers' eye movements were recorded, we examined the processing of pronouns bound by universal quantifiers. Experiment 1 compared examples where the quantifier c-commands the pronoun (‘Every British soldier thought he killed an enemy soldier’) with examples where it doesn't (‘Every British soldier aimed and then he killed an enemy soldier’). Although there were no first pass differences, re-reading time showed that both quantifier examples took longer to read than nonquantified controls (‘The old British soldier...’), but there was no special penalty in examples when the quantifier failed to c-command the pronoun. Experiment 2 investigated intersentential binding (telescoping): ‘John Frederick/Each executive/Every executive went home. He broiled a steak. He ate dinner. Then he watched television.’ Second pass and total reading times in the region containing the first pronoun were longer for quantified examples than name examples. But there was no indication that telescoping is tightly restricted, for example, to contexts with ‘each’ or to discourses describing stereotypical events composed of predictable subevents. The results suggest that bound variable interpretations are more generally and more readily available than is often assumed. They fit well with Bosch's (1983) attempt to limit pronoun occurrences to just two types: anaphoric referential pronouns and syntactic agreement pronouns. On this view, ‘bound variable’ interpretations without c-command are really anaphoric pronouns with inferred antecedents. This view is discussed along with the challenges it faces.

Received 12.01.01. Revised 15.01.02.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J SemanticsHome page
A. Lascarides and M. Stone
A Formal Semantic Analysis of Gesture
J Semantics, November 1, 2009; 26(4): 393 - 449.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.