Hamida Demirdache & Orin Percus Jerusalem, July 2 2012

University of Nantes, LLING EA 3827

1. Terminology
Coping with differences in the resumptive family.
A Q-linked element behaves like an individual variable bound
Epithets & related species
within the restriction of a quantifier:
 An old question: does resumption involve movement? 4a. [QP every boy who you thought that Layla loves t ]
x. you thought that Layla loves x
1. The view from the 80‘s (McCloskey, Sells)
A‘-dependencies that do not involve movement: a‘ [DP kull walad [CP fakartu ?innu Layla bitħib*(-uh) ] ] ...
RP A‘-bound by a base-generated null-operator (Sells 1984) every boy you.thought that Layla loves-him
2 standard arguments against movement: ‗every boy that you thought that Layla loves him ...
a. RPs occur in unbounded dependencies (not island sensitive) or within the sister of a quantificational phrase:
b. Although RPs trigger SCO, they do not trigger WCO (McCloskey 90)
b. [QP Which boy ] did you think that Layla loves t ?
2a. Demirdache (1991, 1997): Resumptive structures involve movement x. you thought that Layla loves x
Movement serves to establish anaphora: RP is the overt, in-situ, counterpart
of a , raising covertly to an A'-position, leaving a trace. b‘. miin fakkartu ?innu Layla bitħib(-uh)
b. Demirdache & Percus (D&P 2008, 2011): who you.thought that Layla loves-him
‗Who did you think that Layla loves (him)?‘
On the strong assumtion that binders get into the syntax only via movement,
then any binding in resumptive structures results from movement. An R-linked element behaves like an individual variable bound
within a relative clause inside the restriction of a definite determiner:
 There is evidence from Semitic (Hebrew, Egyptian, Jordanian) for
movement from the position occupied by the resumptive. 5a. [DP the boy who you thought that Layla loves t ]
Reconsider here the issue of what moves on the basis of dramatic contrasts x. you thought that Layla loves x
(section 2) in the distribution of 2 species of resumptives —clitics & a‘. [DP el-walad illi fakartu ?innu Layla bitħib*(-uh)]
epithets— in Jordanian Arabic.* the-boy that you.thought that Layla loves-him

3. Jordanian Arabic (JA) or bound within the sister of a referential expression:

RPs occur in all types of A'-dependencies: dislocation, relatives, questions. b. [DP Xaled ] you thought that Layla loves t
Alternate freely with gaps in certain positions in non-island contexts (e.g.  x. you thought that Layla loves x
DO position (4b‘)). Obligatory in other (possessor/oblique) positions &
certain constructions (RCs ((4a‘), (5a‘)), dislocation ((5b‘), (6a‘)). b‘. [DP Xaled ], fakkartu ?innu Layla bitħib*(-uh)
Xaled you.thought that Layla loves-him
a. From Malkawi 2004
An F-construed element behaves like a bound function variable (<e,e>):
Clitics - uh (him) -ha (her) -hum -hin
(them MASC) (them FEM) 6a. Which woman did every man write to t
Epithets ha-l-NP (DEM+DEF+NP)  f. for every man x, x wrote to f(x)
a‘. ?aya marah kull kul zalamih katbat-la-*(-ha)
*
We are deeply indebted to Nouman Malkawi for generously providing & discussing all the Jordanian which woman every man write-to-her
data. For an alternative analysis of resumption in Jordanian, see Guilliot (2006), Guilliot & Malkawi ‗Which woman did everyman write to her?‘
(2006, 2009, 2011), Malkawi (2004, 2009), Malkawi & Guilliot 2007.
7. Epithets, like clitics, can be R-linked, Q-linked, and F-construed: * Q/WH [CP … epithet … cl … ]
a. R-linked epithet a‟. * miin xabbartu ha-l-ħmar innu raħ yzittu-u bi-lħabs?
[DP el-walad illi fakartu ?innu Layla bitħib ha-l-ħmar] who you.told this-the-donkey that they.will put-him in-prison
the-boy that you.thought that Layla loves this-the donkey # Who did you tell the donkeyi that they will put himi in prison?
‗the boy that you thought that Layla loves the donkey‘
b‘. *[kull walad] [?um ha-l-ħmar] fakkart ?innu raħ yzittu-u bilħabs
b. Q-linked epithet every boy mother this-the-d. thought that they.will put-him in-prison
miin xabbartu-u innu raħ yzittu ha-l-ħmar bi-lħabs? # Every boy, this donkey'si mother thought that they will put himii in prison.
who you.told-him that they.will put this-the-donkey in-prison
„Who did you tell himi that they will put this donkeyi in prison?‟  There is one dramatic exception to this: when the epithet is separated from
c. F-construed epithet the quantifier by an island, the constraints disappear.2
aya marah kull kul zalamih katbat-la- ha-l-ħmara 10. The serenity of islands
which woman every man write-to-her this-the-donkey
In islands, the epithet feels sufficiently secure to stand alone.
‗Which woman did everyman write to her?‘
a.  kull walad ziltu li ?annu Layla Darbat ha-l-ħmar
2. Resumptive clitics vs. epithets: Q-phobia.
every boy I.got angry because Layla hit this-the donkey
There are curious restrictions on Q-linked epithets that we do not find with clitics.1 „Every boy, I got angry because Layla hit the donkey‟
b.  kull walad ziltu li?annu ?um ha-l-ħmar Darbat-uh
8. Q-crisis
every boy I.got angry because mother-this-the-donkey hit-him
In general, epithets can‘t stand being Q-linked alone …
‗Every boy, I got angry because this donkeyi's mother hit himi‘.
* Q/WH [CP … epithet … ]
This pattern of behavior is strictly associated with Q-linked elements:
a. * kull walad (/ miin) fakartu ?innu raħ yzittu ha-l-ħmar bi-lħabs?  Cases where epithets can‘t stand alone are specifically cases where they
every boy / who you.thought that they.will put this-the-donkey in-prison correspond to variables over individuals —compare illicit (8b) with (11)):
‗Every boy (/Who) you thought they will put the donkey in prison (?)‘
b. * ?aya zalamih Karim kaDbat-ςa ha-l-ħmar ? 11. No analogous Q-phobia with F-construed epithets:
which man Karim lied –on that-the-donkey  ?aya zalamih kul marah kaDbat-ςa ha-l-ħmar ?
‗Which man did Karim lie to the idiot?‘ which man every woman lied –on that-the-donkey
‗Which man did every woman lie to the idiot ?‘
9. Q-shielding
… but can avoid a crisis by hiding behind a cobound clitic closer to the Q 3. The argument for movement.
√ Q/WH [CP … cl … epithet … ] In a nutshell, Q-phobia show us that movement is taking place from the position of
a. See (7b) above. OK: Who did you tell himi that they will put this donkeyi in prison?
the resumptive clitic (Demirdache, D&P).

b. kull walad ?umm-oh fakkart ha-l-ħmar bi-l-bajat? 12. D&P’s proposal

every boy his mother thought this-the-donkey at-the-house Binders can only be generated by movement
OK: Every boy, hisi mother think that this donkeyi is at home. When pronouns serve as resumptives, they are simply uninterpreted.

1
For simplicity, we set aside here contexts where clitics are in competition with gaps (e.g. the DO
2
position in (4b‘)). For discussion of competition facts see Malkawi 2009 & the next talk! For discussion of the constraints in (8-10), see Aoun et al., Malkawi 04, Guilliot & Malkawi 11, D&P.
2
 RP raises covertly leaving behind a trace & a binder for the trace ((12b), b. Subextraction of the ‗antecedent‘ (Aoun et al's for ‗fake resumption‘, Boeckx
parentheses indicate that the pronoun goes uninterpreted). 2001 for ‗true resumption, Guilliot & Malkawi‘s for strong resumption)
12a. [ every/which boy] [CP you thought that Layla loves him1 ] ] WH/Dislocation: WH/DP [IP … [DP [WH/DP] RP] ] … IP]
b. [ (him1) 2 you thought that Layla loves t2 ]  ‗OP movement‘ Relatives: [D [ NP [ C° [IP … [ [NP] RP] … IP] ] ] ] ]

13. Q-phobia (a sketch)  Guillot 2006, Malkawi 2009, G&M 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011):
a. The boy that you thought they will put him/ the donkey in prison Condition C reconstruction effects in JA argue for a subextraction analysis
b. Every boy that you thought they will put him /*the donkey in prison in the case of epithets (but not in the case of clitics).

i. Movement required to create a binder at the top of the RC 4. Epithets & Condition C reconstruction: separation anxiety
ii. Movement leaves a variable bound by the binder in the trace position ((11c‘)) Another restriction on epithets that we don‘t find in the case of clitics: epithets
generally give rise to Condition C reconstruction effects ((16)), clitics don‘t ((15)).
c. Every/The boy that you thought they will put him in prison
c‘. 1 [ you thought that they will put him t1 in prison ] 15a. [DP ςalamit Karim1 ]2 [CP gultu ?innu pro1 lazim ?iġayyar-ha2
grade Karim you.said that must change-her/her she
iii. Variable can occur in the position of epithets. ‗Karim1 ‘s grade, you said that he1 should change it.‘
But epithets cannot go uninterpreted, and raise in the environment of a Q.
b. [CP gultu ?innu pro1 lazim ?iġayyar-ha2 [DP ςalamit Karim1 ]2
d. *Every boy that you thought they will put the d./the d.’s mother in prison you.said that must change-her grade Karim
‗You said that he1 should change it, Karim1 ‘s grade.‘
d‘. 1 [ you thought that they will put t1 in prison ]  ungenerable
 Q-crisis !  Assuming resumption with clitics involves movement of the RP itself
Q-shielding (OP movement), the absence of condition C effects is expected.
e. Every boy that you told him that they would put the d. in prison
1 [you told t1 that they would put var1 in prison ] 16. Separation anxiety
 OK: movement to introduce a binder can occur from the position of the clitic … Epithets, in contrast, act as if they remained attached to their ‗antecedent‘

No Q-shielding a. [?akhu Layla1 ]2 [pro*1/3 galat ?innu l-mudirrah Tardat ha-l-habilih2

Every boy that you told the d.‘s mother that they would put him in prison
brother Laya said that the director expelled the idiot
f. 1 [you told t1 that they would put var1 in prison ]
‗Layla1 ‘s brother, she*1/3 said that director expelled the idiot.‘
 ungenerable. Q-crisis
f‘. Every boy that you told the d.’s mother that they would put him in prison  Condition C violation
1 [you told var1 that they would put t1 in prison ] 17. Cyclicity effects
 OUT: covert movement from the position of the clitic triggers WCO a.  [hadiyyt-uh3 la M.1 ]2 [kul zalamih3 bifakir [CP __ ?inn[IP -ha1 ramat ha-l-malunih2
gift-his to Mona every man thought that -she threw this-the damned
 Q-shielding contrasts thus follow as Weak/Strong Crossover effects ‗His3 gift for Mona1 , every man3 thought that she1 threw the damn thing away.‘

14. The strong position that binders only arise via movement leaves open the b. *[hadiyyt-uh3 la Mona1 ]2 [pro1 bifakir [ * ?innu kul zalamih3 sarag ha-l-malunih2
question of what moves. gift-his to Mona thought that every man stole this-the damned
Movement approaches to resumption: ‗His3 gift for Mona1 , she1 thought that every man3 stole the damn thing.‘

a. Pronoun movement (Demirdache 1991, D&P, Rouveret 1994)

3
 Availaible reconstruction site at the edge of embedded IP falling in the scope of
the QP, but outside the scope of the pronoun —in (17a), but not in (17b).
 This behavior suggests that resumption with epithets involves movement of
the ‗antecedent‘.
We modify D&P accordingly by assuming (ii-iii):
i. Resumption with clitics involves ―OP movement‖ ((18a))
ii. Resumption with epithets involves ―antecedent movement‖ ((18b))
iii. Movement leaves a copy visible for Condition C.3
18a. Layla‘s brother she said that the director expelled him
(him2) [ 1 [ she said that the director expelled t1 < him2>] ]
 Extending this proposal to ―antecedent movement‖ automatically explains
why epithet in islands do not trigger condition C violations.
 Condition C reconstruction data suggests that resumption with epithets is
movement of the ‗antecedent‘.
iv. There is no (antecedent-) movement from within islands. 4
Rather the epithet‘s antecedent is generated upstairs where it appears &
movement of a  takes place from the island‟s periphery yielding ((21a))
 No copy of the antecedent downstairs that could incur a Condition C violation
5. Epithets in JA

b. Layla‘s brother she said that the director expelled the idiot 22 Epithets can be used resumptively when they co-occur with
[Layla‘s brother] [1 [she said that the director expelled t1 < Layla‘s brother >] the demonstrative/pronominal morpheme ha (cf. Aoun & al)
a. ha l-ħmar [ this/pro [the donkey]] “the donkey”
4.1 The serenity of islands
Dramatically, separation anxiety ((16)), just like Q-phobia ((20)), disappears  Complex expressions of the form X expressive containing an individual-
when the epithet is separated from its ‗antecedent‖ by an island ((19))! denoting expression & an expressive (e.g. ―the donkey‖).
The sister of the expressive could be a variable, or another unpronounced
19. No separation anxiety individual-denoting expression
[?akhu Layla1 ]2 [pro1 ziςlat li ?annu Abdou Darbat ha-l-ħmar 3
brother Laya got.upset because Abdou kicked-this-the-donkey- 23a. the donkey selects semantically for an individual.
‗Layla1 ‘s brother, she1 got upset because Abdou kicked the donkey.‘ b. [[ the donkey ]]g = xe: the speaker doesn‘t care much for x. x
c. Where defined, [[ [DP X the-donkey] ]] = [[ X ]]
20. No Q-phobia
 kull walad ziltu li ?annu Layla Darbat ha-l-ħmar 24. How does antecedent movement proceed?
every boy I.got angry because Layla hit this-the donkey
„Every boy, I got angry because Layla hit the donkey‟ ((=10a)) a. Layla‘s brother she said that the director expelled the idiot ((=16a))

By hypothesis, the only way to obtain a binder is by movement.
Since the epithet itself cannot be providing a binder ((13iii))
 There must be another source for the binder.
21. D&P’s account of Q-Phobia: the magic binder
Adapting Iatridou (1991), islands can host in their periphery a  that moves
to give us the binder we need. Its trace then goes uninterpreted, assuming
that more generally variables, and not only pronouns, can go uninterpreted.
a. Every boy, I got angry because Layla hit the d.
b. ( ) 1 [ I got angry [ISLAND (t1) because [ Layla hit var1 ] ]
3
To avoid the issue of the interpretation of copies, we assume here that copies are visible but not
interpreted. See Demirdache 2012 for an alternative analysis of ―antecedent movement‖ with epithets.
 It could be that the sister of the expressive raises:
b. [L‘s brother] [ 1 [ she said that the director expelled t1 < L‘s brother >- exp]]]
 Or that the whole epithet raises (with the expressive pronounced downstairs):
c. [L‘s brother -exp] [1 [she said that the director expelled t1 < L‘s brother-exp>]]]
25. Pursuing the 2nd option can explain why variables generated as a sister to an
expressive cannot go uninterpreted & raise the way clitics do:
* [L‘s brother] [[(var2) -exp] 1 [she said that the director expelled t1 < var2 -exp >]]]
4
D&P conclude that since movement out of an island takes place from its periphery, it might be that
resumption generally respect locality constraints on movement, contrary to initial appearances.
4
 We can‘t raise the variable without raising the expressive also, the result is b. Clitic/ Epithet
uninterpretable (expressive cannot be interpreted on the item that moves). [DP hadiyyt-uh la Layla] kull walad ramat-uh/ ha-l-malunih
26. We can also explain the ban on Q-linked epithets in non-islands: gift-his to Layla, every boy threw-it
‗His gift to Layla, everyman threw it away.‘
a *[every boy-exp] [ 1 [she said that the director expelled t1 < every boy-exp >]]]
30. F-construed resumptives pattern with the others as to Condition C
 Movement of Q° takes the expressive along with it.
reconstruction effects: clitics do not yield Condition C reconstruction effects
Expressives are uninterpretable on Q°s. They want to combine with individuals.
((30a) while F-construed epithets do ((30b)) but not within islands ((30c)).
[No problem arises with an R-linked epithet ((24c)) because the expressive
a. [hadiyyt-uh‘3 la Mona1 ]2 [pro1 bifakir ?innu kul zalamih3 sarag-ha
can be interpreted on the item that moves.]
gift-his to Mona thought that every man stole-her
 And why is the ban suspended when the epithet occurs in an island? ‗His3 gift for Mona1 , she1 thought that every man stole it.‘
Because of the magic operator that the island hosts at its periphery (()) b. * [hadiyyt-uh3 la Mona1 ]2 [pro1 bifakir ?innu kul zalamih3 sarag ha-l-malunih2
gift-his to Mona thought that every man stole this-the damned
6. F-construed resumptives in JA
‗His3 gift for Mona1 , she1 thought that every man stole the damn thing.‘
27a. Which friend of his did every invitee bring t to the party? c. ?aya walad la-Mona1 3 kul zalamih2 bifakir ?in-ha1 ziςlat
f. for every invitee x, x brought f(x) to the party which son to-Mona everyman thought that-she got.upset
―What is the smallest function f mapping individuals to their friends li?an-uh2 Darab-ha-l-gabi3
such that for every invitee x, x brought f(x) to the party?‖ because-he kicked-this-the-idiot
b. The only woman that every man treats t with respect is his mother. [Which son of M1 ‘s] did everyman2 think she1 got upset because he2 kicked the idiot?
 f. for every man x, x treats f(x) with respect
―The only natural woman-valued function f 31. The dislocated expressions here describe functions or quantify over functions.
such that for every man x, x treats f(x) with respect Does this pose a problem for the idea that the expressive is upstairs?
is the function that maps individuals to their mothers.‖ a. His gift for Layla, every boy threw the damn thing away
Recall that both clitics & resumptives can be F-construed in JA: the (biggest) function mapping individuals with a unique gift for
28a. Which gift of his for Mona did every woman talk about it? Layla to that gift
Which gift of his for Mona did every woman talk about the damn thing? b. Which gift of his for Mona‘s did every man talk about the damn thing?
 f. for every man x, x talked about f(x) What is the smallest function mapping individuals with a unique gift
b. Clitic/Epithet for Mona to their gift for Mona such that …
?aya hadiyih min-uh la Mona kul marah sawlafat ςan-uh/ ha-l-malunih?
 which gift of-his to Mona every woman talked about-him/this-the-damned 32. Not obviously: if these expressions really do describe/quantify over functions,
 ‗Which gift of his for Mona did everyman talk about it/the damn thing?‘ then they contain hidden ingredients, and somewhere inside there might be an
 individual for the expressive to attach to.
29a. [DP His gift for Layla], every boy threw it away
[DP His gift for Layla], every boy threw the damn thing away a. (his3) 2 [ the gift of t2 for Layla ]
 f. for every boy x, x threw f(x) away x: x gave a unique gift to Layla. x‘s gift for Layla

5
 b. (his3) 2 [ [ the gift of t2 for Layla ] exp]
x: x gave a unique gift to Layla and the speaker does not care for that
gift. x‘s gift for Layla
c. [ (his3)-2-the-gift-of-t2-for-Layla-exp ]
1 [ … ft1 < the-gift-of-his3-for-Layla-exp > … ]
33. More detail: variable complexes (cf. Chierchia)
a. Which friend of his did every invitee bring t to the party
1 [ every invitee 2 [ t2 bring [ ft1 xpro2 ] to the party ] ]
b. His gift for Layla, every boy threw the damn thing away
[ (his3)-2-the-gift-of-t2-for-Layla-exp ]
1 [ every man 2 [ t2 praised [ft1<the-gift-of- his3-for-Layla-exp> xpro2] ] ]
7 Clitics vs. epithets: island behavior.
34. Importantly, clitics/epithets can be F-construed even within islands:
?aya marah kul zalamih zilit li ?an-ak azamit-ha/ha-l-ħmar
which woman everyman get.angry because-you invited-her/this-the d.
Which woman did everyman get angry because you invited her/the donkey?
 There is an important difference between clitics & epithets in islands:
specifically in the case of epithets, the Q° that binds the function‘s argument can‘t
be in the island too. (Cf. ―Longobardi‘s observation‖ cited by Aguero-Bautista)
35a. ?aya marah1 kul zalamih zilit li ?an-ak azamit ha-l-ħmar1
which woman everyman get.angry because-you invited this-the donkey
a‘. Which woman did every man get angry because you invited the donkey?
 OKf. for every man x, x got angry because you invited f(x)
b. ?aya marah1 zilit la ?inuh kul zalamih ςazam ha-l-ħmar1
which woman you.got angry because everyman invited this-the d.
b‘. Which woman did you get angry because every man invited the donkey?
Not OKf. you got angry because every man x invited f(x)
36. As binding into islands is due to the magic operator, these facts suggest
that movement to the edge of the island is necessary to license the
magic operator. (Note that, since the expressive needs to combine with
an individual, we will have to attach it to the whole variable complex.)
a. * 1 [you got angry because… every man 2 [ t2 invited [ fvar1 xvar2 ]exp ] ]
b. 1 [you got angry because…[ fvar1 xvar2 ]exp 3 every man 2 [t2 invited t3 ]
]
OK but the quantifier can‘t bind the function‘s argument.
c. 1 [you got angry because… him1 3 every man 2 [t2 invited [ ft3 xpro2 ] ] ]
In the absence of the expressive, the clitic can travel alone.
37. 1 [ every man 2 [ t2 got angry because … [ fvar1 xvar2 ]exp 3 you invited t3 ] ]
38. Is there a magic operator? Could the island edge be a way station for
further passage of an uninterpreted variable (which could escape from within
an epithet in just this case…)?
(
var)1 [ every man 2 [ t2 got angry because … [ ft1 xvar2 ]exp 3 you invited t3 ] ]
Movement and binders.
1. Movement leaves a binder, and, in the trace position, a variable together with a
copy of the moved item. At least one* copy of a moved item is visible to
Condition C.
2. Binders may only arise via movement. (D&P)
Clitics and epithets.
3. Clitic pronouns are variables, which may go uninterpreted and move at LF. (D&P)
4. Epithets are DPs of the form X expressive, where X may be a variable of the clitic
kind. The expressive requires its sister to denote an individual. (D&P)
5. Epithets must move as complete units, though the expressive gets pronounced in
its base position.
Islands.
6
 6. Movement of a DP to the edge of an island licenses the presence of a null operator
at the edge. When it moves, the trace of this operator can go uninterpreted. (D&P)
Selected references.
Adger, David and Gillian Ramchand 2005. “Merge and Move: Wh -Dependencies
Revisited”, Linguistic Inquiry 36, 663-675.
Aoun, Joseph and Lina Choueiri. 1997 “Epithets”, Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 18, 1-39.
Aoun, Joseph, Lina Choueiri and Norbert Hornstein. 2001. “Resumption, Movement and
Derivational Economy”, Linguistic Inquiry 32, 371-403.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2001. Mechanisms of Chain Formation. PhD dissertation, University of
Connecticut.
Demirdache, Hamida. 1991. Resumptive Chains in Restrictive Relatives, Appositives and
Dislocation Structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Demirdache, Hamida. 1997. “Dislocation, Resumption and Weakest Crossover”. In Elena
Anagnostopoulou, Hank van Riemsdijk and Frans Zwarts (eds.), Materials on Left-
Dislocation. Linguistics Today Series, Vol. 14: 193-231. John Benjamins.
Demirdache, H. 2012 “Crossover & reconstruction resumptive puzzles. Wholesale VERY
late merge.”,University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Demirdache, Hamida and Orin Percus 2008. “When is a pronoun not a pronoun ? The case
of resumptives”. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Linguistic
Society (NELS '07). Vol. 1. Anisa Schardl, Martin Walkow & Muhammad
Abdurrahman (eds.).
Demirdache, Hamida and Orin Percus 2011. “Resumptives, movement and interpretation.”
In Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces. Alain Rouveret (ed.), Series: Language
Faculty and Beyond 5. John Benjamin.
Guilliot, Nicolas. 2006. La reconstruction: à l'interface syntaxe - sémantique. PhD
dissertation, University of Nantes.
Guilliot, Nicolas and Nouman Malkawi. 2006. “When resumption determines
reconstruction”. In Proceedings of WCCFL 25. Cascadilla Press.
Guilliot, Nicolas and Nouman Malkawi. 2007. “Reconstruction and islandhood in
Jordanian Arabic”. In Mustafa Mughazy (ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics 20.
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Guilliot, Nicolas and Nouman Malkawi. 2007. “Reconstruction without movement.” In:
Coreference, Modality and Focus. John Benjamins .
Guilliot, Nicolas and Nouman Malkawi. 2009. “When Movement fails to Reconstruct. In:
Merging Features. Oxford University Press.
Guilliot, Nicolas and Nouman Malkawi. 2011. “Weak vs. Strong Resumption: covarying
differently.” In Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces. Alain Rouveret (ed.), Series:
Language Faculty and Beyond 5. John Benjamin.
Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden:
Blackwell.
McCloskey, James. 1990. “Resumptive pronouns, A'-binding and levels of representation
in Irish”. In Randall Hendrick (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 23. New York/San Diego:
Academic Press.
Malkawi, Nouman and Guilliot Nicholas. 2009. Reconstruction and Islandhood in Relative
Constructions. Proceedings of The North American Conference on Afroasiatic
Linguistics, NACAL 35. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Malkawi, Nouman. 2010. Sur la syntaxe de quelques expressions anaphoriques: pronoms
résomptifs et épithètes. PhD dissertation, University of Nantes.
Percus, Orin and Uli Sauerland. 2003. “Pronoun movement in dream reports.” In Makoto
Kadowaki and Shigeto Kawahara (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 33, Amherst: GLSA
(Umass-Amherst).
Percus, Orin. 2007. “Interpretable but not interpreted.” In M. Aloni, P. Dekker and F.
Roelofsen (eds), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium,Amsterdam:
ILLC/ Université d‟Amsterdam.
Potts, Christopher. 2006. “The expressive dimension.” To appear in Theoretical
Linguistics.
Rouveret, Alain. 1994. Syntaxe du Gallois. CNRS editions.
Rouveret, Alain. 2002. “How are resumptive linked to the periphery?‟ Linguistic Variation
Yearbook 2: 123–184.
Rouveret, Alain “Introduction. “Resumptives, movement and interpretation. ” In
Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces. Alain Rouveret (ed.), Series: Language Faculty
and Beyond 5. Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamin
Sechel Ivy. 2012. Resumptive Pronouns and Competition. ms. The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem
Sells, Peter. 1984. Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns, PhD dissertation,
University of Massachusetts at Amherst.