NP2 (denoted as NPy in the tree on the left) be a pronoun for the sentence to be grammatical, despite NP1 (denoted as NPx on the tree) being a pronoun or not. This can be shown through the examples below. a) Lucy greets the customers she serves. b) *She greets the customers Lucy serves. c) *Lucy greets the customers Lucy serves. d) She greets the customers she serves. In this edition of coreference, Lasnik sets some restrictions on the permissible locations of NP1 and NP2, which hint at potential dominance. Stage Two: Dominance This leads to Stage 2 of the concept of c-command in which particular dominance is thoroughly explored. The term c-command was introduced by Tanya Reinhart in her 1976 dissertation and is a shortened form of constituent command. Reinhart thanks Nick Clements for suggesting both the term and its abbreviation. Reinhart (1976) states that... A commands node B iff the branching node ⍺1 most immediately dominating A either dominates B or is immediately dominated by a node ⍺2 which dominates B, and ⍺2 is of the same category type as ⍺1 In other words, “⍺ c-commands β iff every branching node dominating ⍺ dominates β” Chomsky adds a second layer to the previous edition of the c-command rule by introducing the requirement of maximal projections. He states... ⍺ c-commands β iff every maximal projection dominating ⍺ dominates β This became known as "m-command." The tree to the right compares the two definitions in this stage. Reinhart's "c-command" focuses on the branching nodes whereas Chomsky's "m-command" focuses on the maximal projections. The current and widely used definition of c-command that Reinhart had developed was not new to syntax. Similar configurational notions had been circulating for more than a decade. In 1964, Klima defined a configurational relationship between nodes he labeled "in construction with". In addition, Langacker proposed a similar notion of "command" in 1969. Reinhart's definition has also shown close relations to Chomsky's 'superiority relation.' Criticism and Alternatives Over the years, the validity and importance of c-command for the theory of syntax have been widely debated. Linguists such as Benjamin Bruening have provided empirical data to prove that c-command is flawed and fails to predict whether or not pronouns are being used properly. Bruening's take on c-command In most cases, c-command correlates with precedence (linear order); that is, if node A c-commands node B, it is usually the case