The third type is syntactically inactive resumptives. McCloskey (2006) points out that syntactically inactive resumptives show the contrasting distribution to syntactically active resumptives as observed in Irish. Koopman (1982) documents for Vata, and Engdahl (1985) for Swedish, that resumptive pronouns are found only in subject positions. The following wh- questions in Vata illustrate that resumptive pronouns are available in subject positions, both in a main clause and an embedded clause as in (14), but not in object positions in (15).
(14) a. àlˊɔ ˋɔ / *__ lē sˈaká lˈa who he eat rice WH
‘Who is eating rice?’
b. àl´ɔ `n gūgū nā ɔ` / *__ yì lˈa who you think that he arrive WH
‘Who do you think arrived?’ (Koopman 1982: 128) (15) a. yī kòfi lˈe __ / *mí lˈa
what Kofi eat it WH
‘What is Kofi eating?’
b. àl´ɔ `n gūgū nā wˈa yˈɛˋ __ / *mˋɔ yé lˈa who you think that they see him PRTWH
‘Who do you think they saw?’ (Koopman 1982: 128)
Asudeh (2004: 115-121) points out that the Highest Subject Restriction holds in languages that typically make use of syntactically active resumptives such as in Irish, Hebrew and varieties of Arabic; however, it does not hold in Vata. The distribution of syntactically inactive resumptives also does not respect Keenan and Comrie’s Accessibility Hierarchy mentioned in 2.2.6. The syntactically inactive resumptives only occur in subject position which is the least oblique argument.
In contrast to Irish, Vata resumptive pronouns, in fact, show movement properties with respect to islands and weak crossover (Asudeh 2011). Despite the presence of the overt resumptive pronouns, they cannot occur in wh-islands (Koopman and Sportiche 1986):
90 (16) a. * álÓ `n nˈI [zĒ mĒmˈEˋ gbˈU Ò dˈIˋ -ƃˈO t mÉ] yì lˈa
who you NEG.AUX reason it-it for he cut REL it know WH
‘Who don’t you know why he cut it? (Koopman & Sportiche 1986: 369) b. * álÓ `n nylˈa nylˈi nā Ò dˈI mÉ lˈa
who you wonder that he cut it WH
‘Who do you wonder whether he cut it? (Koopman & Sportiche 1986: 370)
Similary, Vata resumptives give rise to weak crossover effects (Koopman and Sportiche 1982), as in (17).
(17) a. * àl´ɔ ˈɔ nˊɔ gùgù nā ɔ` mlì lˈa whoi hisi mother think that hei left WH
‘Who did his mother think left?’ (Koopman & Sportiche 1982) b. * àl´ɔ `n yrˈa ˈɔ nˊɔ nā ɔ` mlì lˈa
whoi you tell hisi mother that hei left WH
‘Who did you tell his mother left?’ (Koopman & Sportiche 1982)
Resumptive pronouns in Swedish display similar properties (McCloskey 2006). Engdahl (1985) observes that Swedish resumptives do not improve island violations, as illustrated in (18).
(18) ?* 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?’ (Engdahl 1985: 10)
Furthermore, Zaenen et al. (1981) and Engdahl (1985) demonstrate that Swedish resumptive pronouns display movement properties in terms of licensing reconstruction, across-the-board (ATB) extraction, and parasitic gap. We will briefly look at these properties one by one. Zaenen et al. (1981) show that Swedish resumptive pronouns allow what is now commonly known as reconstruction (Barss 1986; Lebeaux 1988). Reconstruction effects are observed when binding rules apply in the base position of a moved phrase, rather than its landing site. Zaenen et al. first demonstrate that reflexive possessors in Swedish must be
91 bound and they need a local antecedent within the sentence. However, the following example is grammatical, even though a wh-phrase containing the reflexive is fronted.
(19) [Vilken av sinai flickvänner]j tror du att Kallei inte längre träffar __j?
which of his girlfriends think you that Kalle no longer sees ‘Which of his girlfriends do you think that Kalle no longer sees?’
(Zaenen et al. 1981: 680)
Under Condition B of the binding theory, sina ‘his’ cannot corefer with Kalle because sina is not c-commanded by Kalle. It is argued that the wh-phrase vilken av sina flickvänner is reconstructed in its original position where sina is c-commanded by Kalle, which rescues the grammaticality of (19). A strong (but not universal) consensus on recent work is that reconstruction effects result from syntactic movement (McCloskey 2006: 112). If a resumptive pronoun is active in syntax, reconstruction should be blocked by the presence of a resumptive pronoun. Nevertheless, the following sentence with the pronoun henne ‘her’ is grammatical:
(20) [Vilken av sinai flickvänner]j undrade du om det att Kallei inte längre fick träffa hennej
which of his girlfriends wonder you if it that Kalle no longer sees her kunde ligga bakom hans dåliga humör?
could lie behind his bad mood
‘Which of his girlfriends do you think the fact that Kalle no longer gets to see (her) could be behind his bad mood?’ (Zaenen et al. 1981: 681)
A resumptive pronoun in Swedish also satisfies across-the-board extraction from a coordinate structure. ATB is a requirement that if an extraction rule applies in one conjunct of a coordinate structure, it also needs to apply in the other conjuncts (Ross 1967; Williams 1978). The following example is ungrammatical in both Swedish and English, since the extraction rule only applies in the first conjunct:
92 (21) * Där borta går en mani som jag ofta träffar __i men inte minns
there goes a man that I often meet but don’t remember om Marie känner Kallei.
if Marie knows Kalle
‘There goes a man that I often meet but don’t remember if Marie knows Kalle.’ (Zaenen et al. 1981: 681)
However, Zaenen et al. show that extraction out of a single conjunct is allowed if the other conjunct contains a resumptive pronoun.
(22) Där borta går en mani som jag ofta träffar __i men inte minns vad hani heter.
there goes a man that I often meet but don’t remember what he is called ‘There goes a man that I often meet but don’t remember what he is called.’
(Zaenen et al. 1981: 681)
Based on the reconstruction and ATB extraction phenomena, Zaenen et al. (1981: 679) conclude that the relation between a resumptive pronoun and its binder is of the same nature as the relation between a trace and its binder in Swedish.
The final phenomenon is parasitic gaps. A parasitic gap is a null element whose presence is licensed by another gap in the sentence (Taraldsen 1981; Engdahl 1983). An English example is given in (23):
(23) These are the papersi that I filed __i without reading _ i.
It is generally assumed that parasitic gaps are traces of movement because they are sensitive to island constraints (Chomsky 1986). Engdahl (1985) shows that Swedish resumptives license parasitic gaps.
93 (24) Det var den fångeni som läkarna inte kunde avgöra om hani verkligen var sjuk
it was that prisoner that the-doctor not could decide if he really was ill utan att tala med _ i personligen.
without to talk with in-person
‘This is the prisoner that the doctors couldn’t determine if he really was ill without talking to in person.’39 (Engdahl 1985: 7)
All the data above suggest that a resumptive pronoun in Swedish is sensitive to movement constraints.
Based on the observation that resumptives in these languages show properties of movement, Koopman (1982) and Engdahl (1985) draw a similar conclusion on the behaviour resumption in Vata and Swedish respectively. Resumptive pronouns behave like a trace of
wh-movement and they are, in fact, phonetically realised traces. McCloskey (2006) also
suggests that, in contrast to Irish, the binder-resumptive dependencies in Vata and Swedish involves movement.