User:Alannaht/sandbox

Introduction
What is a resumptive pronoun: A resumptive pronoun is a pronoun in a [relative clause] which refers to the [antecedent] of the [main clause] ( sometimes referred to as the [matrix clause]).Their primary role is to “block violations of syntactic constraints” (cite:Sharvit p. 610), but that is not their only role. In the past, resumptive pronouns have been seen as “ways of salvaging a sentence that a speaker has started without realizing that it is impossible or at least difficult to finish it grammatically” (cite:Prince p. 483). In order to clarify a syntactically complicated sentence an English speaker will use a resumptive pronoun.

A resumptive pronoun is a specific kind of pronoun (link to pronoun article) that occurs within relative clauses (link to relative clause article) in a number of languages around the world. This pronoun exists as a cross between a trace morpheme (link here to trace morpheme article) and a regular pronoun (cite: Sharvit 1999). Resumptive pronouns occur within a relative clause, and refer back to the previously realized antecedent in the main (or matrix) clause (link to main clause article). Resumptive pronouns become more common the deeper the relative clause is embedded within the sentence because of greater processing constraints, even appearing in deeply embedded relative clauses in languages that do not usually allow relative pronouns. In fact, for many years resumptive pronouns have been seen as “ways of salvaging a sentence that a speaker has started without realizing that it is impossible or at least difficult to finish it grammatically” (Prince p. 483). Speakers will use resumptive pronouns in order to clarify a syntactically complicated sentence by using a resumptive pronoun as a hook back to the antecedent.

When /where do they occur
Resumptive pronouns in English behave differently than in other languages. Their distribution is very limited and appears to be influenced by linear distance, depth, and extractability. In a relative clause, resumptive pronouns improve as they get farther from the head. Thus, (2b) seems preferable to (2a). Some improvement may also result when the resumptive pronoun is embedded, as in (2c).2

(2) a. *This is the camel that he likes Oscar. b. improved over (2a): This is the camel that maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe he likes Oscar. c. improved over (2a): This is the camel that I think he likes Oscar.

Because distance is generally irrelevant to syntactic principles, it is difficult to build a grammatical account of English resumptive pronouns in such terms. (Mckee) The factor that seems to affect the distribution of resumptives in English most is extractability (i.e., whether a trace is acceptable). Resumptive pronouns are therefore generally in complementary distribution with traces. In (3), where the trace is possible, the resumptive pronoun is not; in (4), where the trace is not possible, the resumptive pronoun is.

(3) a. That’s the girl that I like t. b. *That’s the girl that I like her.

(4) a. *That’s the girl that I don’t know what t did. b. That’s the girl that I don’t know what she did.

Extractability clearly follows from syntactic principles. Furthermore, this factor is naturally described within the Minimalist program (cite: Chomsky (1995)), where the possibility of one structure can affect the possibility of another. In pre-Minimalist frameworks where derivations were independent of each other, this type of relation between two structures was unaccounted for; that is, there was no syntactic account of the ungrammaticality of cases like (3b). The independence of (3a) and (3b) implied that (3b) should be as good as (4b), regardless of whether resumptive pronouns are marginal in English. However, in the Minimalist framework, derivations that originate from the same numeration (i.e., set of lexical items) compete with one another so that the least costly derivation blocks the other(s). Therefore, if each resumptive–trace pair in the patterns exemplified in (3) and (4) is analyzed as originating from the same numeration, the complementarity has an account.

To develop this account we must claim that resumptive pronouns and traces are not differentiated in the English lexicon. (If they were, the two versions would derive from different numerations and so would not compete.) McKee

When do they not occur: Sample sentences of grammatical/ ungrammatical: Other languages use: Example of a syntactic tree (should be filled in to one of the other sections when done) Summary/ Theories of distribution ?

When do they appear in English
Grammatical for most native English speakers: I saw the girl that is nice. I saw the thing that is nice.

When do they not appear in English
Ungrammatical for most native English speakers: I saw the girl that she is nice.

Marginally grammatical for most native English speakers: I saw the girl that your friend said that she is nice.

Grammatical for some native English speakers: Who is the girl that your friend said that she is nice?

Resumptive pronouns in English tend to be disallowed in shallow relative clauses, but required in certain more deeply embedded clauses. For example (where * indicates ungrammaticality):


 * That's the girl that I like.
 * &#042;That's the girl that I like her.


 * &#042;That's the girl that I don't know what did.
 * That's the girl that I don't know what she did.

Sometimes in cases of deeper embedding, both possibilities are allowed:


 * This is the boy that, whenever it rains, cries.
 * This is the boy that, whenever it rains, he cries.

Other languages
European languages that have this type of pronoun are Romanian ("Omul pe care l -am văzut ieri a mers acasă"/"The man who I saw him yesterday went home") and the Celtic insular languages.