Cover not available
Part of
Interfaces in Grammar
Edited by Jianhua Hu and Haihua Pan
[Language Faculty and Beyond 15] 2019
► pp. 49–100

Chapter 4
Computational and semantic aspects of resumption

| Université Paris-Diderot | Laboratoire de Linguistique Formelle, CNRS
Taking the properties of Welsh relativization as a point of departure, this paper argues that the linking of resumptive pronouns to the periphery is a strictly narrow-syntactic process, triggered by the uninterpretable features of resumptive pronouns and c-commanding complementizers and reducing to non-local Agree. Resumptive dependencies also give rise to reconstruction effects, which can also be detected in structures that have a different derivational history – the intrusive dependencies involving a strong island. It appears that, in both types, the internal structure of the pronouns involved is exclusively responsible for the various reconstruction options. In other words, the specific way pronouns are linked to the periphery (via a probe-goal relation or via binding at the interface) plays no role in their reconstruction properties, the fact that they have an internal structure plays no role in their distribution. This state of affairs has interesting implications concerning the “semantic blindness” of syntactic operations (Uriagereka 2002).
Article outline
  • 1.Resumptive pronouns: What they are and where they are found in Welsh
  • 2.Computational aspects of A’-dependencies: Resumption vs. movement
  • 3.A narrow-syntactic approach to Welsh relativization
    • 3.1Feature endowment of Welsh complementizers
      • 3.1.1The relative complementizer
      • 3.1.2The resumptive complementizer
    • 3.2The domain of A’-dependencies
    • 3.3Movement vs. local resumptive dependencies
    • 3.4Long-distance resumptive dependencies
    • 3.5Extension to other Welsh relative types
      • 3.5.1Adjunct relatives
      • 3.5.2Anomalous relatives
  • 4.The subjacency puzzle
  • 5.Semantic aspects of resumption
    • 5.1Internal syntax of personal pronouns
    • 5.2A copy approach to reconstruction effects
    • 5.3Reconstruction in islands
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 April 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.15.04rou
References (86)
References
Adger, David. 2011. Bare resumptives. In Alain Rouveret (ed.), Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces, 343–365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adger, David and Gillian Ramchand. 2001. Phases and interpretabiliy. Proceedings of WCCFL 20, 1–14. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Merge and Move: Wh-dependencies revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 161–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Lina Choueiri and Norbert Hornstein. 2001. Resumption, movement and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 371–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aoun, Joseph and Y.-H. Audrey Li. 2003. Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar: the diversity of wh-constructions. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Awbery, Gwen. 1977. A transformational view of Welsh relative clauses. The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 27, 155–206.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics 10, 43–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh and Sabine Iatridou. 2012. Comments on Alain Rouveret’s paper Computational and Semantic Aspects of Resumption. Presented at the Jerusalem Conference on Resumptive Pronouns, July 2–4, 2012.
Bianchi, Valentina. 2011. Some notes on the “specificity effects” of optional resumptive pronouns. In Alain Rouveret (ed.), Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces, 319–342. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and Chains: Resumption as Stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Restrictive relatives in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2, 219–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borsley, Robert. 2013. On the nature of Welsh unbounded dependencies. Lingua 133, 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borsley, Robert, Maggie Tallerman and David Willis. 2007. The Syntax of Welsh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Zeljko. 2007. Agree, phases and intervention effects. Linguistic Analysis 33, 54–96.Google Scholar
Browning, Maggie. 1989. Null Operator Constructions. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo. 2005. Reconstruction in relative clauses and the copy theory of traces. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5, 5–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries, the framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), The Cartography of Syntactic Structure, Vol 3: Structures and Beyond, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A’-Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2001. Deletion under identity in relative clauses. Proceedings of NELS 31, 131–145. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Cresti, Diana. 1995. Extraction and Reconstruction. Natural Language Semantics 3, 79–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 409–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida. 1991. Resumptive Chains in Restrictive Relatives, Appositives, and Dislocation Structures. Ph.D. diss. MIT.Google Scholar
. 2015. Resumption, epithets and trace conversion. Handout of a paper presented at the 25th Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Bayonne.
Demirdache, Hamida and Orin Percus. 2011. Resumptives, movement and interpretation. In Alain Rouveret (ed.), Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces, 367–393. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edit. 1982. On the Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns. Texas Linguistic Forum 19, 1–48. Also in Alain Rouveret (ed.), Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces, 289–317. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Elbourne, Paul. 2001. E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Semantics 9, 241–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1985. Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns, and subject extractions. Linguistics 23, 3–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 337–362.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 63–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freidin, Robert and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 2001. Exquisite connections: Some remarks on the evolution of linguistic theory. Lingua 111, 639–666. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grolla, Elaine. 2005. Resumptive pronouns as last resort: Implications for language acquisition. In Sudha Arunachalam, Tatjana Scheffler, Sandhya Sundaresan and Joshua Tauberer (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 71–84. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 11.1. University of Pennsylvania, Penn Graduate Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Guilliot, Nicolas. 2006. La reconstruction à l’interface entre syntaxe et sémantique. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nantes.Google Scholar
Guilliot, Nicolas and Nouman Malkawi. 2006. When Resumption determines Reconstruction. In Baumer, Montero & Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 25, 168–176. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Guilliot, Nicolas and Noumann Malkawi. 2007. Reconstruction without Movement. In Luis Eguren & Olga Fernandez Soriano (eds.), Coreference, Modality and Focus, 113–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harlow, Stephen. 1981. Government and relativization in Celtic. In Frank Heny (ed.), Binding and Filtering, 213–254. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hicks, Glyn. 2009. The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2007. Pronouns in a minimalist setting. In Norbert Corver and Jairo Nunes (eds.), The Copy Theory of Movement, 351–385. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Two grammars for bound pronouns. Hand-out of a talk given at the University of São Paulo in December 2010.Google Scholar
Huang, James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D. diss., MIT.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2011. Pronouns vs. definite descriptions. Unpublished paper. University of Massachusetss at Amherst.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1983. Control from COMP and Comparative Syntax. The Linguistic Review 2, 365–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 187–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Juan Uriagereka. 2005. A Course in Minimalist Syntax. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1992. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. In Susan Rothstein and Margaret Speas (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, 209–239. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried. 1998. Two kinds of Reconstruction. Studia Linguistica 52, 276–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Ann. 2005. Phases and cyclic Agreement. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49. Perspectives on Phases, 147–156.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1979. Transformational Syntax and Model Theoretic Semantics. A Case- Study in Modern Irish. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, Ā-binding and levels of representation in Irish. In Randall Hendrick (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 23: The Syntax of the Modern Celtic Languages, 199–248. San Diego: Academic Press. Also in Alain Rouveret (ed.), Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces, 65–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2001. The morphosyntax of wh-extraction in Irish. Journal of Linguistics 37, 67–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. In Samuel David Epstein and Daniel Seely (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, 184–226. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Resumption. In Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Volume 3, chapter 55, 94–117. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1994. A minimalist account of reconstruction asymmetries. Proceedings of NELS 24, 397–410, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Ouali, Hamid. 2008. On C-to-T φ-feature transfer: The nature of Agreement and Anti-Agreement in Berber. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fisher and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (eds.), Agreement Restrictions, 159–180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Postal. 1966. On so-called “pronouns” in English. In Francis P. Dinneen (ed.), Report of the Seventh Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, 177–206. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 439–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Agreeing to bind. In H. Broekhuis, N. Corver, R. Huybregts, U. Kleinhenz & J. Koster (eds.), Organizing Grammar, 505–513. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2013. Locality. Lingua 130, 169–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouveret, Alain. 1994. Syntaxe du gallois. Principes généraux et typologie. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
. 2002. How are resumptive pronouns linked to the periphery?. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, 123–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. The origin and interpretation of resumptive pronouns. Handout of a talk given at CUNY and Princeton University in March 2005.Google Scholar
. 2008. Phasal Agreement and reconstruction. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, 167–195. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Some issues in the theory of resumption: a perspective on early and recent research. In Alain Rouveret (ed.), Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces, 1–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Aspects of Grammatical Architecture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. Maximality in the Semantics of Wh-Constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Salzmann, Martin. 2009. When movement and base generation compete: on the definition of the reference set, the typology of resumption and ranked economy constraints. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 48, 27–63.Google Scholar
Sternefeld. 2001. Semantic vs. syntactic reconstruction. In H. Kamp, A. Rossdeutscher and Ch. Rohrer (eds.), Linguistic Form and its Computation, 145–182, Stanford, CA.: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The Meaning of Chains. Ph.D. diss., MIT.Google Scholar
. 2000. The content of pronouns: evidence from Focus. In T. Matthews and B. Jackson (eds.), The Proceedings of SALT 10, 167–184. Cornell University, CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The silent content of bound variable pronouns. In Kyle Johnson (ed.), Topics in Ellipsis, 183–209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2005. Minimize restrictors!. In E. Maier, C. Bary and J. Huitink (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9, 385–416.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1984. Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Yael. 1999. Resumptive pronouns in relative clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 587–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 443–468.Google Scholar
Sichel, Ivy. 2014. Resumptive pronouns and competition. Linguistic Inquiry 45, 655–693. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tallerman, Maggie. 1983. Island constraints in Welsh. York Papers in Linguistics 10, 197–204.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Samuel Epstein & Nobert Hornstein (eds.), Working Minimalism, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Derivations. Exploring the Dynamics of Syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French Relative Clauses. Ph.D. diss., MIT.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1977. Discourse and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101–139.Google Scholar
Willis, David. 2011. The limits of resumption in Welsh wh-dependencies. In Alain Rouveret (ed.), Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces, 189–221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar