Syntax Resumption Analysis
Uploaded by
secondsecondsecondsecond0Syntax Resumption Analysis
Uploaded by
secondsecondsecondsecond0Resumption
James McCloskey
University of California Santa Cruz
mcclosk@ucsc.edu
Version of April ,
For the second edition of the Syntax Companion
Contents
P I
E T
I
P
.
.
.
.
.
O I
.
.
.
.
M R
. ,
C E
.
.
C
P I
The italicized pronouns of the English examples in (), cited from Prince (), where they are
attributed to Tony Kroch) are conventionally known as ‘resumptive’ pronouns.
() a. There are guests who I am curious about what they are going to say.
b. The only one we could see her figure was Number Two.
Compare the pronouns in () with those in ():
() a. Sally said that she would resign.
b. Most people think that they have a right to a decent job.
c. Every kid in my class who has a knows how to program it.
What distinguishes the two cases? The pronouns in () appear in positions where one would, in a
certain sense, have expected to find a gap, since relative clauses and constituent questions in English
often (perhaps normally) contain a gap, as in ():
() a. There are guests that everyone wants to invite – .
b. the only one (who/that) we could see – was Number Two.
Corresponding to the cases in (), on the other hand, there is nothing like (). This contrast is closely
linked with a second. The pronouns in () are obligatorily bound, as gaps would be in the same po-
sitions. The pronouns in (), on the other hand, are not so constrained; they are free to find their
antecedents in the context of use. We can say as a start, then, that a resumptive pronoun is a pronom-
inal element which is obligatorily bound, which appears in a position in which a gap might have
appeared, and which is bound by the element which would have bound the gap in the correspond-
ing filler-gap construction.
Two clarifications are now in order. The first involves the term ‘pronominal element’. I use this
term, rather than the simpler ‘pronoun,’ because the range of elements which can serve in the re-
sumptive function is quite broad. Besides including all categories of pronoun—tonic and clitic, overt
and non-overt—it also includes epithets, which seem to be sufficiently pronominal to be able to
serve in the resumptive function in certain languages and under certain conditions. This is shown,
for example, by the informal English () (from Kroch (); see also Sells (b), Safir (), and
especially Aoun et al. ()):
() There was one prisoner who we couldn’t even figure out why the poor guy was in jail.
Those looking for a more comprehensive overview of many of the issues dealt with here should consult Alain Rou-
veret’s excellent introduction (pp –) to Rouveret (a).
It is perhaps unsurprising that this possibility should exist. Epithets exhibit a number of other ‘pronominal’
properties—they give rise to robust Condition C effects in languages (such as Thai or Vietnamese) in which only pro-
nouns give rise to such effects (Lasnik ()) and, as noted more than once, may be bound by quantifiers.
The second clarification concerns what it means to be a filler-gap dependency. Discussion of re-
sumption has largely centered on cases in which the pronoun appears in the variable position of an
unbounded dependency construction—in relative clauses, constituent questions, clefts, comparative
clauses, infinitival null-operator constructions and the like. In such structures, the ultimate binder of
the pronoun occupies a so-called ̄-position. But the phenomenon is almost certainly not restricted
to such contexts and resumptive pronouns are also found in the gap position of -movement de-
pendencies (the cyclic -movements of earlier discussions). This much is especially clear from the
many discussions of so-called ‘Copy Raising’ constructions (Joseph (), McCloskey & Sells (),
Deprez (), Ura (), Moore (), Potsdam & Runner (), Asudeh (), and especially
Rezac () and Asudeh & Toivonen ()). Be that as it may, the focus here will be on those
cases in which the informal term ‘filler gap dependency’ has its conventional meaning and will be
exclusively concerned with the place of resumption in ̄-dependencies. This decision more or less
guarantees that we will not get at the whole truth, but it also guarantees that our discussion will be
a faithful reflection of current thinking.
Even given this restricted characterization, though, the phenomenon of resumption is widespread
among languages of the world, as illustrated very briefly in ()–().
() an ghirseach ar ghoid na síogaí í
the girl . stole the fairies her
‘the girl who the fairies stole away’ (McCloskey ())
() es un país que hablan tanto de él
is a country they-talk a-lot about it
‘It’s a country that they talk a lot about.’ (Suñer ())
() l-riZZeel jalli seeQadt-o faPiir ktiir
the-man help.-him poor very
‘The man that you helped is very poor.’ Haddad ()
() ha-Ûiš še- raÛ Ûoto
the-man see.. him
‘the man that I saw’ (Borer ())
Within the broad category of unbounded dependency constructions, attention has tended to fo-
cus on the case of relative clauses, but the phenomenon of resumption extends (at least in certain
languages) to the entire range of unbounded dependency constructions. This is illustrated for con-
stituent questions in two languages in () and (), and for clefts in the Irish example in ().
() Céacu fear ar labhair tú leis?
which-of-two man . spoke you with.
‘Which man did you talk to?’
() Ûayya r@ZZeel Xabbartu-u Ûenno . . .
which man tell..-him
‘Which man did you tell that . . . ?’
() Tigh beag caol gur mhaireamar ann.
house little narrow . live.. in-it
‘It was a narrow little house that we lived in.’
McCloskey () provides a much more thorough discussion of the range of constructions in Irish
in which resumptive pronouns may figure.
These observations are enough to allow us to frame the major questions which have shaped work
on resumption. Since resumptive pronouns are pronouns (at least in their apparent form), a series
of questions can be asked about where they fit in the context of the general theory of pronominal
anaphora. To what extent do they share the properties of other classes of pronouns (those in (),
for instance)? But since they simultaneously appear in positions which are canonically associated
with the appearance of gaps, one can also ask a series of questions about how resumptive elements
interact with the processes which create gaps. If gaps in relative clauses and questions are always
created by movement, this second question in turn becomes the following: to what extent does the
relation between a resumptive element and its binder exhibit the properties of movement?
Much recent work engages these questions and in so doing seeks to understand the Janus-like
nature of resumptive elements—one face towards the domain of pronouns and anaphoric elements,
the other towards the domain of movement. Lurking behind all of this is the more fundamental
question, seldom explicitly addressed, of why resumptive elements have the form that they do. The
resumptive pronouns of a language simply (formally) the pronouns of that language. I know
of no report of a language that uses a morphologically or lexically distinct series of pronouns in
the resumptive function. If we take this observation to be revealing, there can be no syntactic fea-
ture which distinguishes resumptive pronouns from ‘ordinary’ pronouns, and any appeal to such a
feature must be construed as, at best, an indication of the limits of understanding.
E T
Work of the ’s (especially in the second half of the decade) addressed these fundamental ques-
tions by assuming that unbounded dependency constructions were frequently derived by way of
a rule which deleted bound pronouns in certain contexts—when bound by the head of a relative
clause construction, for instance (Perlmutter (), Morgan (), McCloskey (), Bresnan &
Grimshaw ()). An example like (a), on this account, would have (b) as its source and would
involve deletion of the pronoun.
() a. the guy that I talked to –
b. the guy that I talked to him
David Adger () argues for an important qualification to this generalization in pointing to the existence in a num-
ber of languages of pronouns which, when locally bound, must not bear person-number features. As he is careful to point
out however, the distinction in question is not actually a distinction between resumptive and non-resumptive pronouns,
but rather between pronouns which are locally bound and pronouns which are anaphoric.
Resumptive pronouns, on this account, emerge when this rule fails to apply—either because the
targeted pronoun occupies an inaccessible position, or else because the rule is optional. The synony-
mous Irish pair in (), for example, would be taken to reflect optional application of the rule of
bound pronoun deletion:
() a. an ghirseach a ghoid na síogaí –
the girl . stole the fairies
‘the girl who the fairies stole away’
b. an ghirseach ar ghoid na síogaí í
the girl . stole the fairies her
‘the girl who the fairies stole away’
The larger framework of assumptions here is something like the following:
(i) Unbounded dependency constructions need to contain a bound variable, to be semantically
well-formed.
(ii) Pronouns are the devices which natural language canonically makes available for the expres-
sion of bound variables.
(iii) The gaps characteristic of unbounded dependency constructions can be produced either by
movement or by deletion of a bound pronoun.
On this view, then, the widely-noted tendency for resumptive elements to appear in inaccessible
positions (inside islands say) reflects the island-sensitivity of the bound pronoun deletion rule.
A core assumption of course, is that movement and deletion are equally available in unbounded
dependency constructions. On this view, for instance, (a) in English would be derived by way of
-movement, while (c) would reflect application of a rule deleting the bound pronoun of (b).
() a. the guy who I talked to –
b. the guy that I talked to him
c. the guy that I talked to –
Since it depended on the postulation of unbounded and island-sensitive deletion rules (as in Ross
()), this framework of understanding was implicated in the debate in the second half of the ’s
about the nature of island-hood and the existence of unbounded transformations. As that debate
moved towards its resolution and the understanding of island-hood made available by the thesis of
successive-cyclic rule-application (Chomsky ()) came to be widely-accepted, assumption (iii)
came to seem untenable. With that assumption went the entire framework of understanding.
In the new context, the relations among the examples of () look rather different. (a) and
(c) are both derived by movement of a relative pronoun and differ only in whether or not the
fronted pronoun is subsequently deleted (or was phonologically null to begin with). Given this, the
fundamental challenge becomes that of understanding how the presence of a pronoun (as in (b))
can serve the same function as, or in some sense stand in for, a gap derived by movement. The
relation between resumption and movement—what they share and how they differ—thus becomes
central.
I
Within that broad context, the following sharper questions emerge:
(i) What mechanisms license the appearance of resumptive pronouns, and what is the place of
those mechanisms in the typology of anaphoric interactions?
(ii) How do those mechanisms relate to, and interact with, the movement mechanism?
(iii) What defines the difference between languages which make productive use of resumptive
elements and those which do not? How can this difference be understood in the larger setting
of a theory of grammatical variation among languages?
(iv) Is the pre-theoretical category ‘resumptive pronoun’ theoretically unitary? Or are there
rather distinct types of elements and devices which are grouped under this rubric?
(v) Are the filler-gap mechanism and the resumption mechanism of equal standing, or is one a
default, the other a ‘last resort’?
A way of broaching these issues is to examine what have been thought to be the core properties of
resumptive structures. That will lead us to a set of answers to questions (i)–(v) above which emerged
in work of the middle and late ’s and which implicitly defined a framework that shaped much
thinking about resumption in the period. Understanding that framework will in turn put us in a
position to examine the various challenges that it has faced in more recent work.
P
.
The single most celebrated property of the binding relations that resumptive pronouns enter into
is that they show no sensitivity to general constraints on movement. (We will consider exceptions
and objections to this very general claim shortly.) This property has been familiar at least since the
work of Ross (), where it was discussed as a sensitivity to the difference between ‘chopping’ rules
(movement and deletion) and ‘copying’ rules (those which leave a pronominal copy in the origin
site). I will illustrate the effect here with (attested) examples from Irish.
() na hamhráin sin nach bhfuil fhios cé a chum iad
the songs - is knowledge who composed them
‘those songs for which it isn’t known who composed them’ -
This property of resumptive pronouns has played an important part in the investigation of weak island phenomena.
Much work on the topic (see especially Cinque (), Chung (), and Postal (), anticipated by Perlmutter ())
argues that under certain conditions the apparent trace of ̄-movement is in fact a silent resumptive pronoun. Given the
amnestying effect of resumption on island violations, one can in this way understand why certain cases of (apparent)
extraction out of islands are relatively well-formed.
() cúpla teach aíochta a bhfuil cáil ar na béilí a ullmhaíonn siad
couple house lodging. be. fame on the meals prepare. they
‘a few inns that are famed for the meals they prepare’
() cathracha nach sibh a chuir suas iad
cities - you put up them
‘cities that it wasn’t you that built them’ -
() tús buairimh go n-imtheóchadh na blianta sara réidhteofaí é
beginning sorrow. go-by. the years before relieve.- it
‘the start of a grief that years would pass before it would be resolved’
() an uaillfeartch nach bhfuarthas cómhartha gur cluineadh í
the howling - get.. sign hear.. it
‘the howling that no sign was received that it had been heard’ -
It is perhaps worth pointing out that even very complex examples involving islands within islands
are fully well-formed when resumption is deployed. In (), for example (an attested example), the
(first) resumptive is contained within an adjunct island which is in turn contained within a relative
clause island, both of which exclude the ultimate binder of the pronoun (the relative clause head):
() chun an ghoirt úd go mbraithim pé díth sláinte a bhíonn orm
to the field I-feel whatever absence health. is on-me
ag dul ann dom ag scaradh liom le linn é a fhágaint dom
-go in-it to-me -separate with-me when it -leave to-me
‘to that field that I feel whatever ill-health is on me as I enter it parting from me as I leave it’
The examples cited in ()–() illustrate a lack of sensitivity to subjacency effects, but it is well known
that resumptive pronouns also amnesty ungrammaticalities classically attributed to the Empty Cat-
egory Principle (), as can be seen in the (informal) English examples in ():
() a. He’s the kind of guy that you never know what he’s thinking.
b. *He’s the kind of guy that you never know what – is thinking.
c. They’re the kind of people that you can never be sure whether or not they’ll be on time.
d. *They’re the kind of people that you can never be sure whether or not – will be on time.
.
The relation between a resumptive pronoun and its binder, then, does not show sensitivity to the
locality conditions thought to be diagnostic of the movement relation. It does, however, exhibit a
number of properties characteristic of ̄-binding. Specifically, the bound element itself behaves like
a variable (understood for present purposes as being an element whose most local binder occupies
an ̄-position). There are at least two senses in which this is true. At the most fundamental level, it is
the resumptive element which is the syntactic correlative of the semantic variable which is found in
every ̄-binding construction. In addition, though, there is a more specific sense in which resumptive
pronouns ‘behave like variables’. Traces left by movement to ̄-positions are subject to the Strong
Crossover effect (Postal (), Wasow ()) defined in () and exemplified in ():
()
The trace of movement to an ̄-position may not be anaphorically linked with a c-commanding
pronoun.
() *Who did she j claim [ – j had arrived earliest]?
In (), the gap in the embedded subject position is c-commanded by, and co-indexed with, the pro-
noun she, resulting in ungrammaticality. Chomsky () proposes to derive this effect from Condi-
tion of the Binding Theory, which requires that a certain class of elements (non-pronominal ’s
in particular) not be bound by an element in an A-position. Whether or not this proposal is right
(see Lasnik () for a proposed refinement and Postal () for an argument that the approach is
misguided), the phenomenon itself provides us with a useful question to ask: do resumptives resem-
ble -traces in giving rise to Strong Crossover effects? The answer so far seems to be that they do.
The Irish example in () (from McCloskey ()) is typical:
() *Sin an fear ar dhúirt an bastard go maródh sé muid.
that the man said the bastard kill. he us
‘That’s the man j that the bastard j said that he j would kill us.’
The experiment was subsequently replicated in a number of Semitic languages—see Shlonsky ()
on Hebrew and Palestinian Arabic, Aoun et al. () on Lebanese Arabic.
.
Although resumptive pronouns share with variables a sensitivity to Strong Crossover, a body of ob-
servation emerged quite early (Sells (a,b), McCloskey (), Shlonsky ()) suggesting that
they show no Weak Crossover effects. Weak Crossover (Wasow () and volumes of later work)
arises when a variable corefers with a pronoun which does not c-command it. The Irish example
in (), however, is fully grammatical in contrast with its English translation, which is degraded to
some degree (Safir (, , )):
() an fear j ar fhág a j bhean é j
the man left his wife him
‘the man j that his j wife left – j ’
.
But if resumptive pronouns behave like variables, they also show what looks like a pronominal prop-
erty. Pronouns are subject to an antilocality requirement—a pronoun and its antecedent cannot oc-
We will discuss apparent exceptions shortly. For extended discussion and an important counter-proposal, see Demir-
dache & Percus ().
cupy the same local domain. In the area of -binding, this requirement is encapsulated in Condition
of the Binding Theory (Chomsky ()), whose effect is seen in English cases like ():
() a. *Charles j is proud of him j .
b. *Each actress j nominated her j .
Resumptive pronouns in a range of languages (Doron (), Borer (), Shlonsky (), Ouhalla
(), Schafer (), Bondaruk (), Krapova (), Harizanov ()) show a restriction which
has been argued to be grounded in a similar allergy to binding that is too local. In these languages,
a resumptive element may not occupy a subject-position immediately subjacent to its binder. This
condition, known as the (McCloskey ()), is illustrated with the
contrasting Irish examples in (a) and (b):
() a. *fear nár fhan sé sa bhaile
man -. remained he in-the home
‘a man that didn’t stay at home’
b. fear nár fhan – sa bhaile
man -. remain in-the home
‘a man that didn’t stay at home’
Many analyses make a link between this phenomenon and the antilocality property typical of pro-
nouns in general (Borer (), McCloskey ()). One way of implementing the general idea is
presented in McCloskey (), drawing on earlier work by Aoun & Li (). There it is proposed
that the disjointness requirement defined by Principle of the Binding Theory should be extended
to the domain of ̄-binding. A formulation like the one below has the required consequences (Aoun
& Li (), Aoun & Li (), McCloskey (), Aoun & Li ()):
() -
A pronoun must be ̄-free in the least complete functional complex containing the pronoun
and a subject distinct from the pronoun.
To see how this will work, consider the schematic structure in ().
()
j ′
[]
pro j ′
[]
pro j
Assume for present purposes that the specifier of in () is the ‘subject position’ in the language
in question. If the element in specifier of binds the occurrence of pro j within ′ (this will by
definition be a non-subject), then the binding is not in violation of (), since the relevant in
this case is , and the pronoun is in fact ̄-free within . When the element in specifier of binds
pro j in the specifier of , on the other hand, the structure stands in violation of () since here the
least containing the pronoun and a subject distinct from the pronoun is the higher (or the
root) and the pronoun is not ̄-free in this domain. There are numerous known difficulties for this
approach, but it is not irrational to hope that those difficulties could be resolved without sacrificing
the essence of the proposal.
In sum, then, in many languages resumptive elements show the following array of properties:
(i) their relation with their binders is island-insensitive
(ii) they share with variables the property of triggering Strong Crossover effects
(iii) the binding relation they enter into does not show Weak Crossover effects
(iv) the binding relation they enter into is constrained by an antilocality requirement reminiscent
of Principle of the binding theory.
For some difficulties internal to Irish, see (McCloskey, :footnote ). Most revolve around an equivocation in ()
concerning the term ‘subject’—which is not well-defined. An additional concern is that languages which have the Highest
Subject Restriction in some form seem to differ in how they treat embedded subjects. In Irish, subjects of embedded clauses
may freely serve the resumptive function (McCloskey, :pp , )). But in Lebanese Arabic (Aoun et al. ()) they
cannot. Certain languages (literary Welsh, Russian, Zurich German) ban both subject and object resumptives from the
highest clause (Harlow (), Sells (b), Deprez & Hale (), Pesetsky (), Broihier (), Riemsdijk ()).
Finally, not all languages which exhibit resumptive pronouns exhibit the effect. We will consider a suggestion about
one such group of languages shortly, but that suggestion will leave a number of cases untouched (see Suñer (), for
instance, on (informal) Spanish, and Prince () on Yiddish). Perhaps in such cases, there is no ̄-binder at all and the
pronoun trivially satisfies the ̄-Disjointness Requirement. For alternative approaches to the effect, see Deprez & Hale
(), Shlonsky (), Pesetsky ().
.
If such generalizations survive scrutiny, a consistent overall understanding emerges:
○ The consensus view, since Lasnik (), had been that pronouns must be base-generated rather
than created by transformation.
○ Resumptive pronouns look just like ordinary pronouns. Therefore the null hypothesis is that
resumptive pronouns should also be taken to be base-generated.
○ Since the relation between the resumptive and its binder is therefore not created by movement,
no sensitivity to constraints on movement is expected.
○ But it has been independently argued by Safir () that the notion of ‘variable’ should be
defined contextually (a variable is an element whose most local binder occupies an ̄-position).
○ That being so, resumptive pronouns must be variables and should be subject to Condition .
We therefore expect Strong Crossover effects.
○ But resumptive pronouns are also pronouns. Therefore it is natural that they should exhibit the
antilocality requirement characteristic of pronouns in general. This is the source of the Highest
Subject Restriction.
○ The absence of Weak Crossover effects is also consistent with the overall conception. Safir (,
, ) argues that Weak Crossover is to be understood as a violation of a general paral-
lelism constraint which requires that all the variables bound by a single operator be of the same
type—all pronominal or all non-pronominal. This requirement is respected in the Irish exam-
ple in () (since both variables are pronouns) but violated in its English translation.
Standing back from the specifics, the intuition here is that unbounded dependency constructions are
characterized by the presence of a bound variable, and that natural language provides two distinct
ways to realize variable binding relationships—by way of a bound pronoun or by way of movement
from the bound to the binding position.
O I
It would be a large overstatement to call the understanding just sketched a ‘consensus’. But some-
thing like this framework of ideas guided much work on resumption in the middle and late ’s
and into the ’s, and an interesting research-agenda emerged from it—one that grappled with
the important issues which it left unresolved. We will first survey some of those issues (many of
them remain important) and then consider the ways in which the intellectual landscape shifted and
became more complex, especially in work of the new millennium.
See Hornstein (), Kayne () for an argument that the consensus should be re-considered.
.
One of those issues concerns the level of representation at which resumptive pronouns are defined
as variables, the two candidates most often considered being -structure and . Chomsky ()
argued that resumptive pronouns in English were identified as such (by being bound) only at the
level of Logical Form. McCloskey () presents an argument from Irish that resumptive pronouns
in that language must be distinguishable from other pronouns at the level of -structure. Shlonsky
() counters the argument and suggests a return to the position of Chomsky (). One of the
principal empirical issues at stake here is the question of whether or not resumptive pronouns license
the appearance of parasitic gaps (an indicator of -structure ̄-binding). Sells (b) argued that,
at least in Hebrew, resumptive pronouns do license the appearance of parasitic gaps and concluded
that they must represent -structure variables. Shlonsky () challenges both the empirical claim
and the conclusion derived from it.
.
A second issue is whether or not the use of resumptive pronouns represents a last resort mechanism.
The conception of resumption just outlined provides no reason to expect that it might in any sense
represent a reach for the last resort. Resumption simply represents (on this view) one of the ways in
which an ̄-binding relation can be established. But many theoreticians have had the intuition that
resumption is in fact a last resort mechanism, and have striven to design theories in which it would
follow that resumption would be available only if movement (the unmarked way, on this view, to
establish an operator-variable binding) were unavailable.
Conventional wisdom for English holds that resumptive pronouns appear, if not exclusively then
at least in the general case, in positions from which movement would be impossible (see () above,
for instance). But for many languages in which the resumptive strategy is more productively used,
the situation seems different. And even for English, corpus studies (Prince (, ), Cann et al.
()) tend to suggest that the conventional wisdom is not in fact correct for English either. The
apparent fact for Irish and similar languages is that resumptive pronouns and gaps are in free varia-
tion in all positions except those from which movement is impossible (in which resumption is the
only option) and those affected by the Highest Subject Restriction (see () and ()), in which only
a gap is possible. Similar facts appear to hold in Hebrew.
McDaniel et al. () also report experimental data suggesting that children learning English (unlike adults) accept
resumptive pronouns in positions in which traces are also possible.
The qualifying ‘appear’ is important here, because many of those who have argued for the last resort character of the
resumption mechanism (Shlonsky (), Pesetsky ()) have argued for the existence of hidden factors which block
movement (and hence force the appearance of resumptive pronouns) in all the cases in which resumptive pronouns appear.
I know of no suggestion about what these hidden factors might be in the case of Irish. This issue is closely connected with
the issue of how to understand the Highest Subject Restriction. If movement is freely available from subject-position,
and if resumption is possible only when movement is impossible, then it will follow that resumptive pronouns will never
appear in subject position. See Shlonsky () in particular for a development of this line of thought.
.
The issues considered so far have been the focus of a great deal of discussion. In this section I want
to highlight an issue which is, in view, of central importance, but which has been less discussed.
There is strong evidence (as we have seen) that resumptive pronouns function as ‘variables’ in
the technical sense. Given the theoretical context in which we are working, this means that they
must have a binder (a coindexed element in a c-commanding ̄-position). There has also seemed to
be strong evidence that the local binder of the resumptive element cannot be the overt element with
which it is ultimately linked—the head of a relative clause, the interrogative phrase of a question,
the focused phrase of a cleft and so on (McCloskey (), Safir ()). The evidence seems rather
to suggest that that ultimate binding is mediated by a more local binding—between the resumptive
pronoun and an element in . The Irish evidence, as we will see below, seems to be particularly
clear on this point.
But what then should the binder of the resumptive pronoun be taken to be? The answer that
has usually been given is that the binding element must be a null operator base-generated in the
specifier-position of . The null operator is linked in turn with the ultimate binder by way of the
relation called ‘R-Binding’ by Safir (). For the case of an interrogative structure, then, we will
have the schematic structure in (a) and for a relative clause, the schematic structure in (b):
() a. [ [CP j [TP . . . pro j . . . ]]]
[]
b. [ [CP j [TP . . . pro j . . . ]]]
There is a worry here, though—a worry that one might label ‘the problem of eternal silence’. I mean
by this that there are no cases, as far as I have been able to determine, in which the postulated
operator is other than null. No language, I believe, has an element foo such that one finds relative
clauses analogous to ():
() [DP the guy [CP foo that [TP I spoke to him ]]]
What one finds over and over again is some equivalent of (), with no audible element occupying
the specifier-position of :
() [DP the guy [CP that [TP I spoke to him ]]]
The conception of resumption as we have outlined it so far has no explanation for the apparent
absolute absence of (), an absence which is hardly accidental. If invariant binding operators exist,
it is not obvious what principle would force such operators to be phonologically null in every case.
The only set of proposals in this general family, as far as I know, which is not subject to this con-
cern is that developed by Hamida Demirdache (, building in part on Browning (), extended
and developed in important ways in Demirdache & Percus ()), who argues that the specifier po-
sition of is empty until . In the derivation of representations, the resumptive pronoun itself
is taken to move into the specifier of . As long as movement between -structure and is not
subject to the same locality requirements as overt movement (Huang () and much subsequent
work), this analysis is tenable and attractive.
.
Finally, a remaining (and important) open issue concerns how language-particular differences in this
domain are to be characterized. For some languages (Hebrew, Lebanese Arabic, Irish) resumption
is a fully-integrated aspect of the grammatical system. For others (English, for instance), it is typi-
cally regarded as an auxiliary phenomenon, not part of the grammar proper, but rather a device that
speakers resort to under certain performance conditions (increased processing load in particular—
Erteschik-Shir (), Dickey ()). Chao & Sells () and Sells (b) present evidence from
English that the distinction between the two language-types is necessary, delineate some of the dis-
tinctive characteristics of the two types, and introduce the term ‘intrusive resumption’ for the En-
glish type. They point out in particular that resumption in English relative clauses is degraded if the
ultimate antecedent is quantificational:
() *I’d like to meet every linguist that Mary wondered if she should invite him to the party.
We will return to these issues shortly in a slightly different context, but if the distinction between
intrusive and grammatical resumption is well supported, as is widely assumed, then the theory of
parameterization must provide a way to distinguish the two language-types. One proposal which
has seemed plausible is that the relevant property is a property of the functional head . If resump-
tive pronouns are bound by null operators in the specifier of , then it is natural that the heads
which host such binding operators in their specifiers should bear a distinctive morphosyntactic fea-
ture. In this light, it is significant that in Irish (and also in Bulgarian—see Rudin (), Krapova
(), Harizanov ()) there is a distinctive finite complementizer which appears in the context
of resumption. The morphosyntactic feature which sets that complementizer apart from others can
then be taken to reflect the relevant parametric property. The crucial facts are illustrated for Irish in
the two examples of ():
() a. an ghirseach a ghoid na síogaí –
the girl stole the fairies
‘the girl who the fairies stole’
b. an ghirseach ar ghoid na síogaí í
the girl stole the fairies her
‘the girl who the fairies stole’
Here there are distinct complementizers (a versus ar in this context) depending on whether we have
binding of a gap or binding of a pronoun (see McCloskey (, , ) for detailed discussion).
If this line of analysis stands, then this instance of parameterization is in harmony with the conjecture
(called the ‘Borer Chomsky Conjecture’ by Mark Baker ()) that parametric differences reflect
featural properties of functional lexical items.
M R
The issues just surveyed are substantial; some seem soluble, some seem deeper. Overall, though,
the conception is internally coherent and could make some claim to cross-linguistic generality. We
must now look, though, at some issues which pose more fundamental problems and force substantial
revisions. All have to do with the interplay between resumption and movement.
. ,
Engdahl () provides one of the earliest comprehensive studies of resumption in a given language—
Swedish in this case. A typical example is given in ():
() Vilket ord visste ingen hur det stavas?
which word knew nobody how it is-spelled
‘Which word did nobody know how it is spelled?’
Engdahl establishes that resumptive pronouns in Swedish have the following array of properties:
○ they license parasitic gaps; see (),
○ they give rise to weak crossover effects,
○ they satisfy the requirement on extraction from coordinate structures; see (),
○ they worsen, rather than improve, subjacency violations; see (), and
○ they ‘are used systematically only in the subject position of tensed clauses’—in fact, to void
what would otherwise be ‘-trace’ violations (p. ).
() Vilken fånge var det läkarna inte kunde avgöra om han verkligen var sjuk utan
which prisoner was it the-doctors not could decide if he really was ill without
att tala med – personligen?
to talk with in-person
‘Which prisoner was it that the doctors couldn’t decide if he really was ill without talking
to in person?’
() Det finns vissa ord som jag ofta träffar på – men inte minns hur de
are certain words that I often come-across but not remember how they
stavas.
are-spelled
‘There are certain words that I often come across but never remember how they are spelled.’
() ?*Vilken bil åt du lunch med någon som körde den?
which car ate you lunch with someone that drove it
‘Which car did you have lunch with someone that drove (it)?’
Engdahl concludes from these observations that resumptive pronouns in Swedish ‘behave just like
-traces’ and are ‘phonetically realized traces’.
At about the same time, and independently, Hilda Koopman (see also (Koopman, :sec-
tions ... and ..)) made a very similar set of observations and drew similar conclusions about
the behavior of resumptive pronouns in two Kru languages of North Africa—Vata and Gbadi.
In a similar vein, Tallerman () reported for Welsh that the binding of clitic resumptive pro-
nouns is island-sensitive in that language while the binding of augmented or independent resump-
tives is not, suggesting perhaps that clitic resumptives in that language are movement-derived while
independent, or augmented, pronouns are not.
Faced with these observations, it becomes difficult to maintain the most straightforward view of
the relation between resumptive pronouns and ̄-bound gaps. Inspection of the string will never be
enough to establish if a given instance of ̄-binding is established by way of movement or by way of
binding (and see Cinque (: Chap.) and Postal (: Chap. ) for evidence that silence in the
gap position does not always imply the full suite of movement properties either).
But if it is possible to make sense of the idea that a pronoun can be the phonological exponent of
a moved phrase, the larger conceptual architecture is not severely threatened. And with the advent
of the Minimalist Program for syntax (Chomsky (, , , )) the idea of ‘spelling out
a trace’ became less mysterious than it was when first proposed. If movement involves the creation
of multiple occurrences of a single phrase, then it must be asked in which position or in which
positions the ‘moved’ phrase is realized. And there are languages, it seems, in which almost all of
the occurrences of a single phrase may be realized phonologically, as seen for instance in Alber’s
careful () study of Tyrolean German:
() a. Prum glapsch du prum dass dr Hons net kemmen isch?
why think you why not come is
‘Why do you think Hans did not come’ (Alber, :(a))
b. die Fraindin mit der wos sie glap mit der wos die Maria spieln tat.
the friend with who she thinks with who play would
‘the friend with whom she thinks that Maria should play.’ (Alber, :(b))
From this, it is a relatively small step to the idea that a which has undergone ̄-movement might be
realized phonologically; and it is a smaller step still to imagine that the lowest of those occurrences
might be only partially realized—say as a head . And if pronouns are determiner heads with no
(audible) complement (Postal (), Abney (), Koopman (), Déchaine & Wiltschko (),
Sauerland (, ), Elbourne () among many others), we will have, with little extra theoret-
ical machinery, movement chains which respect the usual locality conditions but which terminate in
pronouns. The type of resumptive element documented by Engdahl and Koopman (showing a full
array of movement-related properties but pronounced as ) seems to virtually demand a treatment
along these lines. If this interpretation is correct, the pretheoretical category ‘resumption’ does not
represent a theoretically uniform phenomenon (issue (iv) of section above); rather, apparently sim-
ilar surface forms across and within languages hide very different derivational histories. It should
Recent treatments of clitic doubling invoke very similar mechanisms for A-Chains, except that in that case it is the
head rather than the tail of the chain which is realized as a clitic pronoun. See Anagnostopoulou (), Harizanov ().
hardly be surprising that this turns out to be the case.
Obviously a great deal remains to be resolved here. For our purposes though, what is important
is that there is an important sense in which these results do not challenge in any very deep way
what I have called here (optimistically) the consensus view. The two sets of properties—those of
movement-derived constructions and those of non movement-derived constructions—still line up
in neat opposition. In Swedish, Vata and Gbadi, ̄-binding relations which terminate in a pronoun
show a constellation of properties characteristic of ̄-movement. In Irish and similar languages, re-
sumptive pronoun constructions show none of those properties. Beginning in the early years of the
second millennium, however, a series of important studies posed more fundamental challenges for
this overall view.
C E
Since , two principal strands of research have enlivened debate about the status of resumption,
although, interestingly, they have made little contact with one another. The first such strand proposes
to extend the role of syntactic movement in understanding resumption and develops a new way of un-
derstanding what kind of movement might be involved. The second strand uses new methodologies,
focusing on (i) large-scale acceptability studies and (ii) psycholinguistic studies of the production
and processing of resumptive structures. This second strand of investigation has opened important
new perspectives on the relation between grammars and production systems. We begin, though,
with the first strand.
.
Two studies published at the beginning of the second millennium were of central importance in
extending the role of movement in analyses of resumption—Aoun et al. () and Boeckx ().
Central to the concerns of Aoun et al. () were questions about reconstruction and its interaction
with resumption, and in this it is typical of much of the new work. The issues had been raised before
It also seems to follow that subject effects must be, in some important sense, phonological. On the view we are
currently exploring, the difference between Swedish () and its ungrammatical counterpart without the subject resump-
tive is detectable only after spell-out routines have done their work. See McDaniel & Cowart () for relevant discussion
of the English counterparts. This conclusion in turn makes contact with the strand of more recent work which suggests
that many traditional island and effects may find their explanation in the space between the syntax proper and the
linearized prosodic and phonological string—a move driven in part by study of cases in which ellipsis ameliorates what
would otherwise have been island violations (Ross (), Merchant (), Lasnik (), Fox & Lasnik (, ),
Boeckx ()). See also De Chene () for relevant observations.
This is not true of Boeckx (), however, whose discussion of reconstruction effects under resumption (pp. –
) is notably brief and tentative. For Boeckx, the principal argument for analyzing resumptive elements via movement
derives from the Condition C effects discussed above in section ., which are taken to be ‘‘suggestive of movement’’ (p.
). Boeckx’ account goes a step further than Aoun et al. () in arguing for a uniform analysis of resumptive elements
in which they are always derived by movement from structures like (), even when they occur inside islands and the
resultant movement must therefore be island-violating. This is possible within the framework developed in the book
because it is assumed there that the core movement operation may be de-coupled from Chomsky’s (; ) ,
(twenty years earlier) in Zaenen et al. (), which demonstrated systematic reconstruction effects
under resumption for Swedish. But since the movement analysis of resumption is well supported
for that language (see section . above), this positive finding is expected. Twenty-eight years later,
Iliana Krapova () demonstrated that, in Bulgarian, reconstruction effects are entirely absent
under resumption. If Swedish and Bulgarian were the only extant language-types with respect to
this interaction, then theoretical interpretation would be straightforward. In fact however, what has
emerged from the extensive program of research that was re-initiated by the appearance of Aoun
et al. () is that there is remarkable and complex variation across languages with respect to how
resumption and reconstruction interact.
The central observation made about Lebanese Arabic by Aoun et al. () is that resumptive
elements behave differently with respect to certain binding patterns, depending on whether or not
they appear inside islands. The kind of case they are concerned with is (), (b) from their paper:
() t@lmiiz-a l-k@sleen ma abbarna walla mPallme @nno huwwe zaPbar
student-her the-bad told-. no teacher that he cheated...
b-l-faès
in-the-exam
‘Her bad student, we didn’t tell any teacher that he cheated on the exam.’
In (), the pronoun within the fronted phrase can be bound by the negative quantifier walla mPallme
(‘no teacher’). If such binding is possible only when the quantifier c-commands the pronoun, then
the phrase t@lmiiz-a l-k@sleen (‘her bad student’) must at some level of syntactic representation be in
the domain of the negative quantifier. Aoun et al. () argue that this implies a movement origin
for the resumptive. As for the kind of movement involved, the paper (along with Boeckx ())
proposes that antecedent and resumptive begin life as a single, large, -constituent, out of which
the antecedent raises, stranding the resumptive element. (a) indicates schematically the structure
assumed for clitic resumptives; (b) is what is assumed for resumptive epithets.
which is the real locus of the locality constraints which lie behind island phenomena. Movement does, however, depend on
the establishment of feature-matching between the targeted phrase and the probe which attracts it; this relation ()
is remarkably free of locality constraints, so as to allow cases like the Irish () above. See Adger & Ramchand () for
related discussion concerning as the real locus of the locality constraints found in ̄-binding structures.
Aoun et al. () builds on an important series of earlier papers: Aoun & Choueiri (), Aoun & Benmamoun
(), Aoun & Choueiri (). See also Boeckx & Hornstein ().
Haddad () points out a difficulty for this proposal: the structure in ()a is not in fact independently attested in
Lebanese Arabic. It is is not clear why this should be so.
() a. b.
This overall interpretation of the facts is supported by the important observation that when the
resumptive element is inside an island which excludes the binder, the bound interpretation of the
pronoun becomes unavailable. Aoun et al. conclude that in Lebanese Arabic resumptive pronouns
outside islands are formed by movement, while those inside islands are not.
The set of investigations launched by Aoun et al. () has resulted in a great deal of new knowl-
edge (see Rouveret (b: pp –) for an excellent overview), but it remains very unclear what
theoretical interpretation is warranted by this new knowledge. The empirical situation is summed
up accurately by Rouveret (b: p. )) when he concludes that resumptive structures ‘show some
of the reconstruction effects displayed by ̄-dependencies involving a gap, but not all of them’. In
particular, variable binding under reconstruction (as in the Lebanese Arabic example in ()) has
been shown to be possible in many languages, and very often across island boundaries (see Malkawi
() on Jordanian Arabic, Guilliot () on French, Salzmann () on Zurich German). But
very few, if any, other reconstruction effects have been well established.
This is important, because of all the interpretive effects for which a claim can be made that syn-
tactic reconstruction is required, variable binding is probably the one for which the empirical basis
is least well established. Barker () provides an extensive overview of the available evidence and
concludes that there is strong evidence against any syntactic requirement of command on the quan-
tifier variable relation, once the effects of scope are factored out. Typical of the kind of evidence he
cites is () (due ultimately to Lauri Karttunen):
() The grade that each student receives is recorded in his file.
Rouveret (, ) argues for reconstruction for Condition A in Welsh resumptive structures. The reflexive pro-
nouns in question, however, (formed by adding the element hun to an ordinary pronoun) have strong logophoric/exempt
interpretations, as in the attested example in (i), which I owe to David Willis:
(i) byddai ef yn sicrhau na byddai ond angen rhyw ddau actor arall ac yntau ei
be.. he ensure. . be.. but need some two actor other and he he
hun ...
.
‘he would ensure that there was only need for some two other actors and himself . . . ’
It is therefore very difficult to know whether the relevant interpretation is to be attributed to logophoricity or to (syntactic)
reconstruction. Salzmann () also documents reconstruction for reflexive binding in Zurich German.
In () the pronoun his is bound by the quantifier each student but it is very hard to imagine a be-
lievable syntactic representation in which that quantifier c-commands the pronoun it binds. But if
there is no syntactic requirement of command between quantifier and variable, it is hard to know
what to conclude about movement from observations like (). There are, in addition, well-known
and well-understood alternative mechanisms available which would guarantee the appropriate bind-
ing relations in such examples—by way of ‘semantic reconstruction’ for instance (Halvorsen (),
Cresti (), Rullmann (), Lechner () among many others), depending on what semantic
type is assumed for the resumptive element, or by appealing to the role of implicit content within
the resumptive pronoun itself (as in Guilliot (), Guilliot & Malkawi (), Malkawi & Guilliot
(), Malkawi (), building on Sauerland (, ), Elbourne ()).
An equally plausible, and equally optimistic, assessment at present is that resumption will pro-
vide us with a good diagnostic for which ‘reconstruction effects’ are best attributed to semantic
reconstruction (binding of a variable of the semantic type of a generalized quantifier) and which are
better understood in terms of syntactic reconstruction (postulating lower occurrences in syntactic
representations). What does seem clear is that, as (Rouveret, b: p. ) puts it, following a very
careful assessment of the available evidence, ‘the link between reconstruction and movement has
to be loosened’ (see also (Salzmann, : p. –)). This, it seems to me, is one of the important
results to have emerged from the study of resumption. For a particularly important discussion of
these issues, see Sichel ().
.
Since the late ’s, experimentalists and psycholinguists have been drawn to the investigation of
resumption, and a rich body of experimental work now exists which has added enormously both
to the range of observation we have to work with and to the theoretical interpretation of those ob-
servations. In some ways, these studies have refined the kinds of understandings that have emerged
from descriptive and theoretical work; in other ways they have turned conventional wisdom on its
head. The flow of such studies is increasing steadily and it seems clear that in coming years such
methodologies will play a decisive role in driving and in enriching theoretical understanding.
The studies currently available for review are of two major types:
(i) a large number of studies of the acceptability of resumptive elements, on a scale and at a
level of accuracy which are hard to achieve by way of introspection alone or through one-
on-one work with consultants: Dickey (), McDaniel et al. (), McDaniel & Cowart
(), Alexopoulou & Keller (), Heestand et al. (), Keffala (), Harizanov (),
Keffala & Goodall (), Han et al. (), Polinsky et al. (), Ackerman et al. ().
(ii) a much smaller number of production and comprehension studies: Ferreira & Swets (),
Morgan & Wagers ().
It is relevant in considering this choice that Rouveret (, ) has shown for Welsh and Malkawi () has
shown for Jordanian Arabic that in those languages one finds reconstruction for variable binding, but not for Condition
C. On syntactic accounts, such effects should coincide rather than come apart.
Before considering what should be taken from these studies, a very important preliminary is in
order. One of the major themes running through the descriptive and theoretical literature is that a
distinction must be drawn between languages in which the device of resumption is fully integrated
into the grammar (Irish, Welsh, Bulgarian, Hebrew, varieties of modern Arabic, for instance) and
languages in which it is not (English, German, Greek). These last are the languages for which Chao
& Sells () and Sells (b) coined the term ‘intrusive resumption’. Experimental work has to
date focused only on languages with intrusive resumption and, with just one exception that I know
of (Harizanov ()), has not dealt at all with ‘true resumption’. The results described below, then,
have been established only for ‘intrusive’ resumption.
That said, a remarkably consistent overall picture has emerged, and one which is rich in its im-
plications. Without exception, the acceptability studies have revealed that speakers do not in fact
judge examples containing resumptive pronouns to be well-formed—despite the fact that they are
used quite commonly in unguarded speech, as shown by the English corpus studies already alluded
to (Prince (, ), Cann et al. ()) and by production studies (Ferreira & Swets (), Mor-
gan & Wagers ()). Alexopoulou & Keller (), for instance, sum up their principal finding
in the following terms (p. ): ‘we found that a resumptive pronoun is at most as acceptable as a
gap in the same construction, but never more acceptable.’ Subsequent studies have systematically
replicated this result, with some refinements and clarifications. Polinsky et al. (), for instance,
summarize their findings in very similar terms (p. ): ‘although there are abundant production
examples in the literature where speakers produce s within a syntactic island, in three compre-
hension studies we found no evidence that s make island violations more acceptable to listeners.’
Follow-up studies suggest one important refinement: Ackerman et al. () suggest that a differ-
ence in acceptability is detectable, but only when fully grammatical examples are excluded from the
comparison set and subjects are thus forced to choose between unacceptable islands with gaps and
unacceptable islands with pronouns. In this narrower circumstance, they find, a detectable prefer-
ence for resumptive pronouns over gaps inside islands emerges.
There is an important link between these results and those of McDaniel & Cowart () and
Keffala (), both of whom report that resumptives ameliorate island-violations in English in
exactly one circumstance, that in ():
() a. This is a donkey that I don’t know where it lives.
b. *This is a donkey that I don’t know where – lives.
In (b), we have, in classical terms, both a subjacency violation and an violation and it is in
exactly this circumstance that Swedish, Vata and Gbadi mandate use of a resumptive (see section
. above). It is also in this circumstance that English-speaking subjects judge the resumptive to be
significantly more acceptable than the gap in the studies of McDaniel & Cowart () and Keffala
(). What all of this suggests is that the judgment of acceptability or unacceptability involves a
fine-grained calculus which assigns different weights to subjacency violations, violations, and
violations of whatever principle it is that bans resumption in most kinds of English. All of this is very
much in harmony with much theoretical work of the ’s and ’s.
It also suggests an understanding of the term ‘intrusive resumption’—a term that, even on the
phenomenological level, has been profoundly unclear. Intrusive resumption languages, we can now
say, are languages whose grammars render resumptive structures ill-formed to one degree or another.
But this leaves open the possibility that speakers of such languages will deploy such flawed structures
when available alternatives (with gaps rather than pronouns) are no less flawed.
Things become more interesting still when we integrate this perspective with the results that
emerge from two production studies—Ferreira & Swets () and Morgan & Wagers (). One
of the persistent intuitions that emerges from discussions of resumption in the descriptive and theo-
retical literature is that, in languages like English, resumptive pronouns are devices of last resort (in
a sense distinct from the theoretical notion of last resort found, say, in Shlonsky ()). The idea is
that speakers reach for this ancillary and extra-grammatical way of completing ̄-dependencies only
when under time-pressure or under the pressure of a demanding processing load (such as might be
entailed by an island structure). The importance of Ferreira & Swets () is that it shows that this
natural assumption is entirely wrong. Their study aimed to elicit utterances like (a) by providing an
experimental context in which such utterances would be produced naturally. Importantly, however,
the task was conducted under two conditions. In one, subjects were under severe time-pressure to
produce an appropriate utterance; in the other they were given as much time as they felt they needed
and they were encouraged to make sure that their utterances were ‘good’. Strikingly, subjects pro-
duced significantly resumption structures when under time pressure than they did when they
had as much time to plan their utterances as they felt like taking. Alternatives, avoiding the pattern
in (a), were produced much more frequently under time pressure than when time pressure was
absent. The authors’ conclusion is worth quoting: ‘We conclude that the island+resumptive struc-
ture is not a mistake; it is a structure which the production system intends to produce. Moreover, its
generation clearly requires significant processing resources. Under time pressure, the grammatical
encoder opts not to create this form, perhaps because it is a hard structure.’
This result is very much in harmony with those reported in Morgan & Wagers (). This study
reports two linked experiments—one an acceptability study designed to rank various island struc-
tures with gaps in terms of degrees of (un)acceptability, the other a production study designed to
elicit either island-violating gap structures (like (b)) or structures in which resumptive pronouns
appear within the islands (like (a)). Their core finding is that the best predictor of the frequency of
resumptive pronoun production is the relative (un)acceptability of the corresponding gap structure.
That is, subjects were likely to produce resumptive structures to a degree that correlated closely with
the degree of unacceptability assigned to the corresponding example with a gap.
All of this seems to suggest that in planning their utterances in real time, speakers make use of
grammatical knowledge about islands, about the relevant severity of different island violations, and
about the ungrammaticality of resumption in the language; they are furthermore willing to deploy
structures deemed ill-formed (to some degree) by their internal grammars, if such structures count
as the least offensive way of expressing their communicative intent in syntactic form.
At the time of writing (late ) it remains unclear what will emerge when these methods are
extended to languages in which resumption is thought to be fully integrated into the grammatical
system—languages with ‘true’ resumption. The one acceptability study that we do have for such a
language, however, (Harizanov ()) suggests that the results will not be very different from those
which have been reported for English, German, and Greek. No matter what results emerge from
studies currently in the planning stages, we will fimd ourselves in a very interesting place theoreti-
cally.
C
It is hard to predict how of all of this settle, but the area is ripe for further work, and there is a rich
base of observation, analysis, and speculation upon which to build. The theoretical implications are
also large—surprisingly so, given how marginal the phenomenon seemed to be when the work began
some fifty years ago.
O R C
See also:
Rose-Marie Déchaine and Martina Wiltschko: ‘Bound Variable Pronouns’
Elena Anagnostopoulou: ‘Clitic Doubling’
David Pesetsky: ‘Complementizer-Trace Effects’
Howard Lasnik and Kenshi Funakoshi: ‘Condition C Violations and Strong Crossover’
Luigi Rizzzi: ‘Left Periphery of the Clause’
Jon Nissenbaum: ‘Parasitic Gaps’
Dominique Sportiche: ‘Reconstruction, Binding, and Scope’
Terje Lohndal and Anna Szabolcsi: ‘Strong vs. Weak Islands’
Cecilia Poletto and Jean-Yves Pollock: ‘Subject Clitics and Complex Inversion’
Ken Safir: ‘Weak Crossover’
R
Abney, Steven. . The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, .
Ackerman, Lauren, Michael Frazier & Masaya Yoshida. . Resumptive pronouns salvage island
violations in forced-choice tasks. Presented to : Conference on Human Sentence
Processing, March – , The Ohio State University. Poster available at http://gradstudents.
wcas.northwestern.edu/~lma/research.html.
As Harizanov () is careful to note, however, there is a potential confound. The materials in the study were pre-
sented to subjects in written form. But resumption (and the associated complementizer deto) is almost entirely absent
from written Bulgarian. It could be, then, that prescriptive pressures and perceptions influenced outcomes.
Adger, David. . Bare resumptives. In Rouveret (a), –.
Adger, David & Gillian Ramchand. . Merge and move: Wh-dependencies revisited. Linguistic
Inquiry . –.
Alber, Birgit. . Tyrolean -bar movement: Doubling and resumptive pronoun structures. In
Sjef Barbiers, Olaf Koeneman, Marika Lekakou & Margreet van der Ham (eds.), Microvariation
in syntactic doubling, vol. Syntax and Semantics, –. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Alexopoulou, Theodora & Frank Keller. . Locality, cyclicity, and resumption. Language . –
.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. . The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Aoun, Joseph & Elabbas Benmamoun. . Minimality, reconstruction and movement. Linguis-
tic Inquiry . –.
Aoun, Joseph & Lina Choueiri. . Resumption and last resort. Unpublished manuscript, Univer-
sity of Southern California.
Aoun, Joseph & Lina Choueiri. . Epithets. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory . –.
Aoun, Joseph, Lina Choueiri & Norbert Hornstein. . Resumption, movement and derivational
economy. Linguistic Inquiry . –.
Aoun, Joseph & Y.-H. Audrey Li. . Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry . –.
Aoun, Joseph & Y.-H. Audrey Li. . Minimal disjointness. Linguistics . –.
Aoun, Joseph & Y.-H. Audrey Li. . Syntax of scope. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Press.
Asudeh, Ash. . Richard . In Mary Andronis, Erin Debenport, Anne Pycha & Keiko Yoshimura
(eds.), CLS : Papers from the th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, –.
Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Asudeh, Ash & Ida Toivonen. . Copy raising and perception. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory . –.
Baker, Mark. . The syntax of agreement and concord, vol. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Barker, Chris. . Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry .
–.
Boeckx, Cedric. . Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding Amsterdam. John Benjamins.
Boeckx, Cedric & Norbert Hornstein. . Superiority, reconstruction and islands. In Robert
Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizaretta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory:
Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, –. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Press.
Bondaruk, Anna. . Resumptive pronouns in English and Polish. In Edmund Gussman (ed.),
Licensing in syntax and phonology, –. Lublin, Poland: Folium.
Borer, Hagit. . Restrictive relatives in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
. –.
Bresnan, Joan & Jane Grimshaw. . The syntax of free relatives in English. Linguistic Inquiry .
–.
Broihier, Kevin. . Optimality theoretic rankings with tied constraints: Slavic relatives, resump-
tive pronouns and learnability. http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/-/roa--broihier-.rtf.
Browning, Marguerite. . Null operator constructions. Doctoral dissertation, .
Cann, Ronald, Tami Kaplan & Ruth Kempson. . Data at the grammar-pragmatics interface: the
case of resumptive pronouns in English. Lingua . –.
Chao, Wynn & Peter Sells. . On the interpretation of resumptive pronouns. In Peter Sells &
Charles Jones (eds.), Proceedings of the th Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistics
Society, –. Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst: .
Chomsky, Noam. . Conditions on transformations. In Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky
(eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Chomsky, Noam. . Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. . Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Press.
Chomsky, Noam. . A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay
Keyser (eds.), The view from Building —essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Press.
Chomsky, Noam. . The minimalist program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Press.
Chomsky, Noam. . Minimalist inquiries, the framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels
& Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik,
–. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Press.
Chomsky, Noam. . Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in lan-
guage, –. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Press.
Chung, Sandra. . Wh-agreement and ‘‘referentiality’’ in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry . –.
Cinque, Guglielmo. . Types of ̄-Dependencies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Press.
Cresti, Diana. . Extraction and reconstruction. Natural Language Semantics . –.
De Chene, Brent. . Complementizer-trace effects and the . GenGenP (). –.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie & Martina Wiltschko. . Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry .
–.
Demirdache, Hamida. . Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives and dislocation
structures. Doctoral dissertation, .
Demirdache, Hamida & Orin Percus. . Resumptives, movement, and interpretation. In Rouveret
(a), –.
Deprez, Viviane. . Raising constructions in Haitian creole. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory . –.
Deprez, Viviane & Ken Hale. . Resumptive pronouns in Irish. In Proceedings of the Har-
vard Celtic Colloquium, –. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Celtic Studies Department, Harvard
University.
Dickey, M. W. . Constraints on the sentence processor and the distribution of resumptive pro-
nouns. In M. W. Dickey & S. Tunstall (eds.), Linguistics in the laboratory, –. Department
of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.
Doron, Edit. . On the syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Texas Linguistic Forum .
–. Republished in Rouveret (a), –.
Elbourne, Paul. . -type anaphora as -deletion. Natural Language Semantics . –.
Engdahl, Elisabet. . Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns, and subject extractions. Linguistics .
–.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. . Resumptive pronouns in islands. In Helen Goodluck & Michael
Rochemont (eds.), Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing, –. Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ferreira, Fernanda & Benjamin Swets. . The production and comprehension of resumptive pro-
nouns in relative clause "island" contexts. In Anne Cutler (ed.), Twenty-first century psycholin-
guistics: Four cornerstones, –. Mahwah, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Fox, Danny & Howard Lasnik. . Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: The difference
between sluicing and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry . –.
Fox, Danny & Howard Lasnik. . The and the Subject Condition under sluicing. Linguistic
Inquiry . –.
Guilliot, Nicolas. . La réconstruction à l’interface entre syntaxe et sémantique. Doctoral disser-
tation, Université de Nantes.
Guilliot, Nicolas & Nouman Malkawi. . Reconstruction without movement. In Luis Eguren
& Olga Fernandez Soriano (eds.), Coreference, modality, and focus, –. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Haddad, Youseff A. . Resumption in Lebanese Arabic: Movement minus stranding. http://ling.
auf.net/lingbuzz/.
Halvorsen, Per-Kristian. . The syntax and semantics of cleft constructions. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Texas at Austin.
Han, C., N. Elouazizi, C. Galeano, E. Görgülü, N. Hedberg, J. Hinnell, M. Jeffrey, K. Kim & S. Kirby.
. Processing strategies and resumptive pronouns in English. In Nathan Arnett, & Ryan
Bennett (eds.), : Proceedings of the th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics,
–. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Harizanov, Boris. . The acceptability of true resumption – An acceptability rating study in Bulgar-
ian. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Available at http://stanford.edu/~bharizan/
publications.html.
Harizanov, Boris. . Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphology interface: -movement and mor-
phological merger in Bulgarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory . –.
Harlow, Steve. . Government and relativization in Celtic. In Frank Heny (ed.), Binding and
filtering, Cambridge: Massachusetts: Press.
Heestand, Dustin, Ming Xiang & Maria Polinsky. . Resumption still does not rescue islands.
Linguistic Inquiry . –.
Hornstein, Norbert. . Move! a minimalist theory of construal, vol. Generative Syntax. Oxford,
: Blackwell Publishers.
Huang, James. . Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation,
.
Joseph, Brian. . Raising in Modern Greek: A copying process. In Jorge Hankamer & Judith
Aissen (eds.), Harvard studies in syntax and semantics volume , *, –. Department of
Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Kayne, Richard. . Pronouns and their antecedents. In Samuel Epstein & Daniel Seeley (eds.),
Derivation and explanation, –. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Keffala, Bethany. . Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates
an illusion of ‘saving’. In Chundra Cathcart, I-Hsuan Chen, Greg Finley, Shinae Kang, Clare S.
Sandy & Elise Stickles (eds.), : Proceedings of the th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Lin-
guistics Society, –. Berkeley, California: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Keffala, Bethany & Grant Goodall. . Do resumptive pronouns ever rescue illicit gaps in English?
Presented to : Conference on Human Sentence Processing, March – , Stan-
ford University. Poster available at http://idiom.ucsd.edu/~goodall/research.
Koopman, Hilda. . Control from and comparative syntax. The Linguistic Review . –
.
Koopman, Hilda. . The syntax of verbs: From verb-movement rules in the Kru languages to Uni-
versal Grammar. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris Publications.
Koopman, Hilda. . The internal and external distribution of pronominal ’s. In Kyle Johnson &
Ian Roberts (eds.), Beyond Principles and Parameters: Essays in honor of Osvaldo Jaeggli, –.
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Krapova, Iliana. . Bulgarian relative and factive clauses with an invariant complementizer. Lin-
gua . –.
Kroch, Anthony. . On the role of resumptive pronouns in amnestying island violations. In :
Papers from the th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, –. Chicago, Illinois:
Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lasnik, Howard. . Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis . –. Reprinted in Howard
Lasnik, Essays on Anaphora, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, –.
Lasnik, Howard. . On the necessity of binding conditions. In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles
and parameters in comparative grammar, –. Cambridge: Massachusetts: Press. Reprinted
in Howard Lasnik, Essays on Anaphora, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, –.
Lasnik, Howard. . When can you save a structure by destroying it? In Min-Joo Kim & Uri
Strauss (eds.), : Papers from the st annual meeting of the Northeastern Linguistics Society,
–. Amherst: University of Massachusetts: .
Lechner, Winfried. . Two kinds of reconstruction. Studia Linguistica . –.
Malkawi, Nouman. . Sur l’expression de quelques expressions anaphoriques: épithèthes et
pronoms résomptifs. Doctoral dissertation, Université de Nantes.
Malkawi, Nouman & Nicolas Guilliot. . Reconstruction and islandhood in Jordanian Arabic.
In Mustafa Mughazy (ed.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics , –. Amsterdam: John Ben-
jamins.
McCloskey, James. . Transformational syntax and model theoretic semantics: A case-study in
Modern Irish. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
McCloskey, James. . Resumptive pronouns, ̄-binding and levels of representation in Irish. In
Randall Hendrick (ed.), Syntax of the modern Celtic languages, vol. Syntax and Semantics,
–. New York and San Diego: Academic Press. Republished in Rouveret (a), –.
McCloskey, James. . The morphosyntax of Wh-extraction in Irish. Journal of Linguistics .
–.
McCloskey, James. . Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. In Samuel
Epstein & Daniel Seeley (eds.), Derivation and explanation, –. Oxford: Blackwell Publish-
ers.
McCloskey, James & Peter Sells. . Control and -chains in Modern Irish. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory . –.
McDaniel, Dana, Judy Bernstein & Cecile McKee. . Minimalist perspectives on resumptive pro-
nouns in children’s and adults’ relatives. Paper presented to the nd Annual Boston University
Conference on Language Development, November th .
McDaniel, Dana & Wayne Cowart. . Experimental evidence for a Minimalist account of English
resumptive pronouns. Cognition . –.
Merchant, Jason. . The syntax of silence. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Moore, John. . Turkish copy-raising and -chain locality. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory . –.
Morgan, Adam Milton & Matthew Wagers. . Gap acceptability predicts resumption rate in
English. Presented at AMLaP (Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing,
September – , Marseille, France). Slides available at http://people.ucsc.edu/~mwagers.
Morgan, Jerry L. . Some aspects of relative clauses in English and Albanian. In Paul M. Peranteau,
Judith N. Levi & Gloria C. Phares (eds.), The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative
Clause Festival, –. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Ouhalla, Jamal. . Subject extraction, negation and the anti-agreement effect. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory . –.
Perlmutter, David. . Evidence for shadow pronouns in French relativization. In Paul M. Peran-
teau, Judith N. Levi & Gloria C. Phares (eds.), The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative
Clause Festival, –. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Pesetsky, David. . Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Pilar Barbosa,
Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis & David Pesetsky (eds.), Is the best good enough?
Optimality and competition in syntax, –. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Press.
Polinsky, Maria, Lauren Eby Clemens, Adam Milton Morgan, Ming Xiang & Dustin Heestand. .
Resumption in English. In Jon Sprouse & Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Experimental syntax and
island effects, –. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Postal, Paul. . On so-called pronouns in English. In Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds.),
Readings in English transformational grammar, –. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and Company.
Postal, Paul. . Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Postal, Paul. . Strong crossover violations and binding principles. Presented to ESCOL , Yale
University, November .
Postal, Paul. . Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Press.
Potsdam, Eric & Jeffrey Runner. . Richard returns: Copy Raising and its implications. In Mary
Andronis, Chris Ball, Heidi Elston & Sylvan Neuvel (eds.), : Papers from the th Regional
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, –. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Prince, Ellen. . Syntax and discourse: A look at resumptive pronouns. In : Proceedings
of the th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on
the legacy of Grice, –. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.
Prince, Ellen. . On kind-sentences, resumptive pronouns, and relative clauses. In Gregory R.
Guy, John G. Baugh, Deborah Schiffren & Crawford Feagin (eds.), Towards a social science of
language: Papers in honor of William Labov, –. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Rezac, Milan. . Building and interpreting nonthematic -positions. In Rouveret (a), –
.
Riemsdijk, Henk van. . Swiss relatives. In Sentential complementation and the lexicon: Studies
in honor of Wim de Geest, vol. Linguistic Models, –. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris
Publications.
Ross, John R. . Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, , Published as
Infinite Syntax! Norwood: N.J.: Ablex ().
Ross, John R. . Guess who? In Robert Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia Green & Jerry Morgan
(eds.), : Papers from the th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, –.
Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Rouveret, Alain. . How are resumptive pronouns linked to the periphery? Linguistic Variation
Yearbook . –.
Rouveret, Alain. . Phasal agreement and reconstruction. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero &
Maria Luisa Zubizaretta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-
Roger Vergnaud, –. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Press.
Rouveret, Alain (ed.). a. Resumptive pronouns at the interfaces, vol. Language Faculty and
Beyond: Internal and External Variation in Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rouveret, Alain. b. Some issues in the theory of resumption: A perspective on early and recent
research. In Resumptive pronouns at the interfaces, vol. Language Faculty and Beyond: Inter-
nal and External Variation in Linguistics, –. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Rudin, Catherine. . Aspects of Bulgarian syntax: Complementizers and constructions. Colum-
bus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, Inc.
Rullmann, Hotze. . Maximality in the interpretation of Wh-constructions. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Safir, Ken. . Multiple variable binding. Linguistic Inquiry . –.
Safir, Ken. . Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry . –.
Safir, Ken. . Derivation, representation and resumption: the domain of weak crossover. Linguis-
tic Inquiry . –.
Salzmann, Martin. . Silent resumptives in Zurich German possessor relativization. In Melani
Wratil & Peter Gallman (eds.), Null pronouns, vol. Studies in Generative Grammar, –.
Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Sauerland, Uli. . The content of pronouns: evidence from Focus. In Brendan Jackson & Tanya
Matthews (eds.), : Proceedings of the th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference,
–. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York: Publications.
Sauerland, Uli. . The silent content of bound variable pronouns. In Kyle Johnson (ed.), Topics
in ellipsis, –. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Schafer, Robin. . Negation and verb second in Breton. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
. –.
Sells, Peter. a. Resumptive pronouns and weak crossover. In : Proceedings of the rd West
Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, –. Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
Linguistics Association.
Sells, Peter. b. Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Shlonsky, Ur. . Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry –.
Sichel, Ivy. . Resumptive pronouns and competition. Linguistic Inquiry . –.
Suñer, Margarita. . Resumptive restrictive relative clauses: A crosslinguistic perspective. Lan-
guage . –.
Tallerman, Maggie. . Island constraints in Welsh. York Papers in Linguistics . –.
Ura, Hirouki. . Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. Doctoral
dissertation, .
Wasow, Thomas. . Anaphoric relations in English. Doctoral dissertation, . Published as
Anaphora in Generative Grammar, Gent: E. Story-Scientia ().
Zaenen, Annie, Elisabet Engdahl & Joan Maling. . Resumptive pronouns can be syntactically
bound. Linguistic Inquiry . –.
You might also like
- Resumptive Pronouns in Islands, Erteschik-Shir 1992. A Processing Account of Wh-Gaps and Resumptive Pronouns.No ratings yetResumptive Pronouns in Islands, Erteschik-Shir 1992. A Processing Account of Wh-Gaps and Resumptive Pronouns.20 pages
- Some Uses of The Resumptive Pronoun in LNo ratings yetSome Uses of The Resumptive Pronoun in L11 pages
- 1535440009lings P16 M13-Anaphora CoreferenceNo ratings yet1535440009lings P16 M13-Anaphora Coreference10 pages
- An Introduction To Reconstruction Effects in Relative ClausesNo ratings yetAn Introduction To Reconstruction Effects in Relative Clauses34 pages
- A Reconsideration of English Relative Constructions: Peter W. CulicoverNo ratings yetA Reconsideration of English Relative Constructions: Peter W. Culicover14 pages
- Essays On The Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar100% (1)Essays On The Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar299 pages
- An Algorithm For Anaphora Resolution in Spanish Texts: Manuel Palomar Antonio Ferr AndezNo ratings yetAn Algorithm For Anaphora Resolution in Spanish Texts: Manuel Palomar Antonio Ferr Andez24 pages
- Elective Course: Control in English & Romanian: The Infinitive/Subjunctive DivideNo ratings yetElective Course: Control in English & Romanian: The Infinitive/Subjunctive Divide6 pages
- Argument Structure Constructions Versus Lexical Rules or Derivational Verb TemplatesNo ratings yetArgument Structure Constructions Versus Lexical Rules or Derivational Verb Templates31 pages
- Lesson 2-6@DIS (Notes in Types of Pronouns)No ratings yetLesson 2-6@DIS (Notes in Types of Pronouns)7 pages
- Segments 13 (April 2024) Pronouns - Rconlangs v1.0No ratings yetSegments 13 (April 2024) Pronouns - Rconlangs v1.049 pages
- Pronominalization-Coreference ConnectionsNo ratings yetPronominalization-Coreference Connections9 pages
- Relative Reconstructions: Caroline Heycock Can We Arrive at A Unified Picture?No ratings yetRelative Reconstructions: Caroline Heycock Can We Arrive at A Unified Picture?26 pages
- Pronoun: Group 2: Rama Mustika Ranti Maulida Wati Ratih Aulia FitriNo ratings yetPronoun: Group 2: Rama Mustika Ranti Maulida Wati Ratih Aulia Fitri29 pages
- An Empirical Study of Resumptive Pronouns in Arabs Acquisition of English Restrictive Relative ClausesNo ratings yetAn Empirical Study of Resumptive Pronouns in Arabs Acquisition of English Restrictive Relative Clauses24 pages
- Intellectual History After The Linguistic Turn: The Autonomy of Meaning and The Irreducibility of ExperienceNo ratings yetIntellectual History After The Linguistic Turn: The Autonomy of Meaning and The Irreducibility of Experience30 pages
- Thank You For Reaching Out - Valerie CreelmanNo ratings yetThank You For Reaching Out - Valerie Creelman10 pages
- Mark Durie, Malcolm Ross The Comparative Method Reviewed - Regularity and Irregularity in Language ChangeNo ratings yetMark Durie, Malcolm Ross The Comparative Method Reviewed - Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change330 pages
- Advantages and Disadvantages of Authentic Materials Use in EFL Classrooms100% (1)Advantages and Disadvantages of Authentic Materials Use in EFL Classrooms4 pages
- Giao Trinh Noi Bo Reading Level 3 - Cap NhatNo ratings yetGiao Trinh Noi Bo Reading Level 3 - Cap Nhat81 pages
- Translation - Horowitz - New Dictionary of The History of IdeasNo ratings yetTranslation - Horowitz - New Dictionary of The History of Ideas6 pages
- B1 Chinese Grammar - - How to use 被: Howtouse被No ratings yetB1 Chinese Grammar - - How to use 被: Howtouse被3 pages
- Speech Synthesis Toward A Voice For All H. Timothy BunnellNo ratings yetSpeech Synthesis Toward A Voice For All H. Timothy Bunnell9 pages
- The Causative Variables in Second Language AcquisitionNo ratings yetThe Causative Variables in Second Language Acquisition22 pages
- Unit 2 Once Upon A Time - 1st Year EnglishNo ratings yetUnit 2 Once Upon A Time - 1st Year English6 pages
- Pagtuon Sa Ambahanon: The Language of Ilonggo Folk SongsNo ratings yetPagtuon Sa Ambahanon: The Language of Ilonggo Folk Songs21 pages