Resumptive Pronouns in Hebrew: Not Only a Last Resort
Shira Farby, English Department, Bar Ilan University, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
Object relatives
Embedded Subject relatives
Resumptive pronouns are overt pronominal elements with properties of
traces of wh-movement. When they appear in relative clauses, they are often in
complementary distribution with gaps (Keenan and Comrie 1977, Suñer 1998,
Hawkins 2007), however they also show reconstruction effects (Bhatt 2002,
Shlonsky 2004, Sichel 2011). One syntactic approach to the dual characterization
of Resumptive Pronouns (RPs) is to consider their distribution to follow a 'last
resort' strategy. Such a strategy predicts that a pronoun is restricted by an
economy principle to appear only when it is preferable to a gap. The last resort
approach to RPs in Hebrew is based on the contrast between subject relatives (1),
which are grammatical only with a trace, and oblique relatives (2), which are
grammatical only with an RP. The cases which are challenging for the last resort
approach to RPs are object relatives (3) and embedded subjects (5). Syntactic
theories assume that both a trace and an RP are grammatical in these positions
(Borer 1984, Shlonsky 1992, Falk 2002, Sichel 2011). One reason for the
appearance of pronouns is to enforce a specificity of reference, namely, for
interpretive reasons (Doron 1982, Erteschik-Shir 1992, Sharvit 1992, Falk 2002).
Nevertheless, I suggest separate explanations for these two cases of optional RPs.
The optionality of RPs in object relatives (3) can be characterized as rooted
in the grammar. To enforce specificity, the acceptability judgment experiment
presented sentences for evaluation following a short discourse. In the discourse
two entities were characterized by contrastive properties (e.g. costly/cheap,
digital/analog). The following sentences which contained a relative clause with a
pronoun used one of these entities as a relative clause head, so that the RP is
established as referring to a specific discourse entity. The prediction of a last
resort approach is that even in this biased context, where a pronoun is expected
to be advantageous for pragmatic reasons, a trace will be more acceptable to
speakers. A second prediction is that the pronoun will be more acceptable than an
ungrammatical trace (4).
RPs in embedded subjects (5) are different from RPs in high subject
position (1). The latter are ungrammatical because being governed from an Abar position, they violate a condition on Binding (Borer 1984). In contrast,
there is no syntactic constrain ruling out RPs in embedded subject position,
but similarly there is no reason to exclude a trace. One additional difference
between the two positions is the distance between the antecedent and the
pronoun. It has been shown that pronouns facilitate processing of embedded
questions compared to gaps, as reflected in faster reading times (Dickey
1996) and higher acceptability (Alexopoulou and Keller 2007)
My hypothesis is that the apparent optionality of a pronoun in
embedded subject position does not come from an alternative derivation
(Borer 1984, Shlonsky 1992), but rather the pronoun is helpful in processing
an embedded relative, and is not excluded by the grammar..The prediction is
that in this position traces and pronouns are expected to be acceptable to a
similar degree. Thus, RPs are not a last resort, and they are not expected to
be more acceptable than ungrammatical traces (6).
(1) a. * Nir bikes me- ha-safranit et haNir asked from the librarian the
xoveret še hi kolelet perut maslulim.
booklet that it includes detailed tracks
b. Nir bikes me- ha-safranit et haNir asked from the librarian the
xoveret še kolelet perut maslulim.
booklet that includes detailed tracks
(2) a. Nir bikes me- ha-safranit et haNir asked from the librarian the
xoveret še Gila himlica
al- eha
booklet that Gila recommended on-it
b. * Nir bikes me- ha-safranit et haNir asked from the librarian the
xoveret še Gila himlica
al
booklet that Gila recommended on
'Nir asked from the librarian [the booklet 'Nir asked from the librarian [the booklet
that Gila recommended ]’
which includes detailed tracks]‘
Methods
Design: The syntactic factors for consideration are the relativized expression (trace
/RP) and its position (subject/object), in two types of clauses (relative/island). Each
of the 8 conditions was instantiated by 10 items. The sentences were presented in
written format following a short context. Each context was followed by 12 examples
sentences (8 test sentences and 4 fillers).
Participants: 55 undergraduates participated in the study. Data from seven
participants were excluded (not native speakers of Hebrew; total N is 48
participants). However, only 21 participants answered the full questionnaire (both
parts), additional 12 answered only Part 1 and 15 answered only Part 2.
Procedure: Participants were asked to read each context carefully, and evaluate
the following sentences relative to the specific circumstances introduced in the
context. The judgment task was to rate the acceptability of each sentence in the
given context on a 5 point numeric rating scale (5 being acceptable).
Conclusion
The pronouns that appear in object relatives are 'true resumptives', in the
sense that they appear to follow a last resort approach. A pronoun in this position
is superfluous for processing, being close to its antecedent (Ariel 1999, Hawkins
2007); therefore, its acceptability in this context due to its referential interpretation
relative to a specific antecedent in a preceding discourse. In contrast, the pronouns
that appear in embedded subject position are ‘pronounced traces’. A pronoun that
appears in this position facilitates the processing of the clause because unlike the
trace it is an overt element.
(3) Nir bikeš me- ha-safranit et haNir asked from the librarian the
xoveret še Gil hexin (ota)
booklet that Gil prepared (it)
ba- šana še- avra
in-the-year last
(4) * Nir bikeš me- ha-safranit et haNir asked from the librarian the
xoveret še ha-talmid še hexin (ota)
booklet that the pupil that prepared (it)
ba- šana še-avra zaxa be-pras.
in-the-year
last won a prize
'Nir asked the librarian for [the booklet
that Gil prepared (it) last year]'
'Nir asked the librarian for [the booklet
that the pupil who prepared (it) last year
won a prize]‘
(5) Nir bikeš me- ha-safranit et ha- (6) * Nir bikš me- ha-safranit et haNir asked from the librarian the
Nir asked from the librarian the
xoveret še Gila amra še (hi) kolelet xoveret še ha-talmida še amra še
booklet that Gila said that (it) includes booklet that the pupil.f that said that
perut maslulim.
(hi) kolelet perut maslulim
detailed tracks
(it) includes detailed tracks
katva dox.
'Nir asked from the librarian [the
booklet that Gila said that (it) includes wrote a report
5
'Nir asked from the librarian [the booklet that
the pupil who said that (it) includes detailed
tracks wrote a report]‘
detailed tracks]‘
4
5
3
4
2
3
1
Trace
Resumptive
Pronoun
Object Relatives
Trace
Resumptive
Pronoun
Island with an object
Results and Discussion
A mixed model analysis found a significant main effect for clause type
F(1,72)=342.18, p<0.001; as expected, islands were rated lower (M=2.02) than
non-islands (M=3.97). Furthermore, the choice of referring expression has a
differential effect on the above clause types, and the interaction of factors is
significant F(1,72)=38.08, p<0.001. Sentences with traces were rated significantly
higher than those with pronouns in non-islands t(72)=5.3, p<0.001 (Tukey-Kramer
Adjustment); conversely, inside islands, RPs were rated significantly higher than
traces t(72)=3.43, p<0.001 (Tukey-Kramer Adjustment).
The differential effect of RPs on acceptability supports the analysis of these
RPs as partaking in a last resort strategy. This is predicted by a specific
assumption of an economy principle as suggested in Sichel (2011). Nevertheless,
the optionality of RPs is not predicted by the traditional Last Resort approach to
RPs. In order to apply this specific economy principle, Sichel's proposal has to be
extend to apply in non-movement cases as well.
2
1
Trace
Resumptive
Pronoun
Embedded Subject Relatives
Trace
Resumptive
Pronoun
Island with a subject
Results and Discussion
A mixed model analysis found a significant effect of clause type
F(1,72)=292.39 p<0.001, such that relative clauses with embedded subject
relativized were more acceptable (M=3.84) than islands (M=1.73). Conversely,
no significant difference was found between relatives with traces and ones
with RPs F<1.
The similar acceptability of embedded subject relatives with traces and
RPs supports the hypothesis that neither is excluded by the grammar.
Furthermore, the similar acceptability of traces and RPs in the island domains
suggests that these are intrusive pronouns, and not RPs generated by the
grammar. This finding is consistent with previous findings in which RPs do not
improve the acceptability of islands (Alexopoulou and Keller 2007).
Alexopoulou, T., & Keller, F. (2007). Locality, Cyclicity, and Resumption: At the Interface Between the Grammar and the Human Sentence Processor.
Processor. Language , 83 (1), 110-160. Ariel, M. (1999). Cognitive Universals and Linguistic Conventions:the case of resumptive pronouns. Studies in Language , 23 (2), 217-269. Bhatt, R. (2002). The Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses: evidence from adjectival
modification. Natural Language Semantics , 10
10, 43
43-90.
2, 219-260. Dickey, M. W. (1996). Constraint on the processor and the distribution of presumptive pronouns. University of Massachusetts
Occasional Papers in Linguistics , 19, 157–192. Doron, E. (1982). On the Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive
90. Borer, H. (1984). Restrictive Relatives in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic
uistic Theory , 2
M
Pronouns. Texas Linguistic Forum , 19, 1-48. Erteschik-Shir, N. (1992). Resumptive Pronouns in Islands. In M. H. Goodluck and Rochemont, Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition and Processing (pp. 89-108). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Falk, Y. N. (2002). Resumptive Pronouns in LFG. In M. B. King (Ed.), Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference. National Technical University of Athens : On-line: CSLI Publications.
Hawkins, J. A. (2007). Processing typology and why psychologists need to know about it. New Ideas in Psychology , 25, 87–107. Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry , 8, 63-99. Shlonsky, U. (1992). Resumptive Pronouns as a Last Resort. Linguistic Inquiry , 23 (3), 443-468. Shlonsky, U. (2004). Resumptive pronouns in Hebrew. University of
Siena. Seminar held at CISCL:(http://www.ciscl.unisi.it/eventi_arc.htm?selectedYear=2004). Sichel, I. (2011). Resumptive Pronouns and Competition. (unpublished ms). Suñer, M. (1998). Resumptive restrictive relatives: a crosslinguistic perspective. . Language , 74, 335-364.