C-command is a syntactic relationship in a tree where one node c-commands another if the first node's sister (or a node it dominates) contains the second node. In semantics and pragmatics, it sets the structural conditions for binding and coreference.
C-command describes a relationship between two nodes in a sentence's tree structure. A node A c-commands a node B if A does not dominate B, B does not dominate A, and the first branching node above A also contains B. A simpler way to picture it: A c-commands its sister node and everything inside that sister.
This is a structural idea, but in this course you care about it because of what it does for meaning. C-command is the backbone of binding theory, which decides when a pronoun or reflexive can refer to the same entity as another phrase. In John saw himself, the NP John c-commands himself, so the reflexive can be bound and the sentence means John saw John. When the c-command relation isn't there, that interpretation breaks down. So a piece of syntactic geometry ends up controlling who refers to whom.
C-command lives in Topic 11.2, binding theory and constraints on coreference. The whole point of that topic is showing that reference is not free: syntactic structure constrains which noun phrases can corefer. Binding theory's three principles (for anaphors, pronouns, and R-expressions) are all stated in terms of c-command, so you can't apply the principles without it.
For a semantics and pragmatics course, this matters because it links structure to interpretation. Understanding c-command lets you predict and explain why himself must point back to a local subject, why some pronoun readings are blocked, and how ambiguity gets resolved. It's a clean example of syntax doing semantic work.
Keep studying Intro to Semantics and Pragmatics Unit 11
Visual cheatsheet
view galleryBinding Theory (Unit 11)
Every binding principle is defined using c-command, so c-command is the tool that decides when an anaphor or pronoun is bound. Learn one and the other immediately makes more sense.
Dominance (Unit 11)
C-command is defined partly by what a node does NOT dominate. Knowing dominance (a node containing another) lets you state the c-command condition precisely.
Coreference (Unit 11)
C-command is what licenses or blocks coreference between two NPs. Two phrases can name the same entity only when the structural relation allows it.
Syntactic hierarchy (Unit 11)
C-command only makes sense inside a hierarchical tree, since it depends on which node sits above which. The whole notion comes from how sentences are layered structurally.
Expect to draw or read a tree and decide whether one node c-commands another, then use that to predict whether a reflexive or pronoun reading is grammatical. Problem sets often give sentences like John saw himself versus a version where binding fails, and ask you to justify the difference using c-command. On quizzes and short-answer questions you may need to state the c-command definition and apply a binding principle to a specific NP. In essay or analysis tasks, you'll use c-command to explain why certain coreference interpretations are blocked or required.
Dominance is a vertical relation: node A dominates B if A is above B and contains it on the same path. C-command is more sideways: A c-commands its sister and everything inside the sister, and crucially A does NOT dominate what it c-commands. Many binding errors come from mixing these two up.
A node c-commands its sister node and everything contained inside that sister.
C-command requires that neither node dominates the other, which is what separates it from dominance.
Binding theory's principles for anaphors, pronouns, and R-expressions are all stated in terms of c-command.
In John saw himself, John c-commands himself, which is why the reflexive can be bound and the sentence is grammatical.
C-command is a syntactic relation that has direct consequences for meaning by constraining coreference.
C-command is a structural relation in a syntax tree where one node c-commands its sister node and everything inside that sister. It matters in semantics because binding theory uses it to decide when a pronoun or reflexive can refer to the same entity as another noun phrase.
No. Dominance is vertical: a node dominates another node it contains directly above it. C-command is defined so that a node does NOT dominate what it c-commands; instead it reaches its sister and the sister's contents.
Reflexives are anaphors that must be bound by a c-commanding antecedent in their local domain. In John saw himself, John c-commands himself, so binding succeeds; without that c-command relation, the reflexive would be ungrammatical.
Find the first branching node above the node you're testing. If the other node is inside that branch (and neither node dominates the other), the first node c-commands it.
Not by itself. C-command sets the structural condition, but binding theory's principles plus the type of NP (anaphor, pronoun, or R-expression) together determine whether coreference is allowed.