1932

Abstract

Although the grammatical status of resumptive pronouns varies from one language to the other, these elements occur in spontaneous speech cross-linguistically, giving rise to a long-held intuition that resumption has a processing function, facilitating production and/or comprehension. In this review, I examine the central threads of thought related to resumption and processing and consider the prominent theories and findings that have shaped the discussion on this issue. I review grammatical and grammaticalization-based approaches to resumption and present the evidence suggesting that resumptive pronouns are a production artifact as well as the evidence that speaks in favor of or against the idea that resumptive pronouns aid comprehension. While the theory that resumption aids the producer receives straightforward support, the findings backing the claim that resumption helps the comprehender are much more equivocal, suggesting that in some cases resumption is not helpful and may even be detrimental to comprehension.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031320-012726
2021-01-04
2024-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/7/1/annurev-linguistics-031320-012726.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031320-012726&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ackerman L, Frazier M, Yoshida M 2018. Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguist. Inq. 49:847–59
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adger D, Ramchand G. 2005. Merge and move: wh-dependencies revisited. Linguist. Inq. 36:161–93
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexopoulou T, Keller F. 2007. Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: at the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language 83:110–60
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aoun J, Benmamoun E. 1998. Minimality, reconstruction, and PF movement. Linguist. Inq. 29:569–97
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Aoun J, Choueiri L, Hornstein N 2001. Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguist. Inq. 32:371–403
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ariel M. 1999. Cognitive universals and linguistic conventions: the case of resumptive pronouns. Stud. Lang. 23:217–69
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Asudeh A. 2011. Local grammaticality in syntactic production. Language from a Cognitive Perspective: Grammar, Usage, and Processing EM Bender, JE Arnold 51–80 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Beltrama A, Xiang M. 2016. Unacceptable but comprehensible: the facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns. Glossa 1:129
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Borer H. 1984. Restrictive relatives in modern Hebrew. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 2:219–60
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cann R, Kaplan T, Kempson R 2005. Data at the grammar-pragmatics interface: the case of resumptive pronouns in English. Lingua 115:1551–77
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chacón DA. 2019. Minding the gap? Mechanisms underlying resumption in English. Glossa 4:168
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chomsky N. 1977. On wh-movement. Formal Syntax PW Culicover, T Wasow, A Akmajian 71–132 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chomsky N, Miller GA. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology RD Luce, RR Bush, E Galanter 269–321. New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chung S, Wagers M. 2020. On the universality of intrusive resumption: evidence from Chamorro and Palauan. Work. Pap., Univ. Calif Santa Cruz: https://osf.io/24f6e/
  15. Creswell C. 2002. Resumptive pronouns, wh-island violations, and sentence production. Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammar and Related Frameworks (TAG+ 6) R Frank 40–47 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Doron E. 2011. On the syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces A Rouveret 289–317 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Erteschik-Shir N. 1992. Resumptive pronouns in islands. Island Constraints H Goodluck, M Rochemont 89–108 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fadlon J, Keshev M, Meltzer-Asscher A 2018. A shift in gap manifestation incurs processing cost: evidence from Hebrew Poster presented at the 31st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing Davis, CA: Mar 15–17 https://osf.io/9t3cj/
  19. Fadlon J, Meltzer-Asscher A. 2017. Resumption controls the time-course of dependency formation: evidence from Hebrew Poster presented at 30th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing Cambridge, MA: Mar. 29–Apr. 1. https://osf.io/n6rzx/
  20. Fadlon J, Morgan AM, Meltzer-Asscher A, Ferreira VS 2019. It depends: optionality in the production of filler-gap dependencies. J. Mem. Lang. 106:40–76
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Farby S, Danon G, Walters J, Ben-Shachar M 2010. The acceptability of resumptive pronouns in Hebrew Paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics (IATL 26) Ramat-Gan, Isr: Oct 5–6. http://linguistics.huji.ac.il/IATL/26/Farby_et_al.pdf
  22. Ferreira F, Swets B. 2005. The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause “island” contexts. Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones A Cutler 263–78. Hove, UK: Psychol. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Francis EJ, Lam C, Zheng CC, Hitz J, Matthews S 2015. Resumptive pronouns, structural complexity, and the elusive distinction between grammar and performance: evidence from Cantonese. Lingua 162:56–81
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Friedmann N. 2008. Traceless relatives: agrammatic comprehension of relative clauses with resumptive pronouns. J. Neurolinguist. 21:138–49
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Friedmann N, Belletti A, Rizzi L 2009. Relativized relatives: types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119:67–88
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Friedmann N, Costa J. 2011. Resumptive pronouns in Hebrew and Palestinian Arabic hearing impairment. Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces A Rouveret 223–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Friedmann N, Novogrodsky R, Szterman R, Preminger O 2008. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort when movement is impaired: relative clauses in hearing impairment. Curr. Issues Gener. Hebr. Linguist. 7:267–90
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Goodall G. 2017. Referentiality and resumption in wh-dependencies. Asking the Right Questions: Essays in Honor of Sandra Chung J Ostrove, R Kramer, J Sabbagh 65–80 Santa Cruz, CA: Univ. Calif. Santa Cruz
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gordon PC, Hendrick R, Johnson M 2004. Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. J. Mem. Lang. 51:97–114
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Haegeman L. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell
  31. Hammerly C. 2020. Intrusive resumption can ameliorate island violations in real-time comprehension Work. Pap., Univ. Mass Amherst: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004846
  32. Han CH, Elouazizi N, Galeano C, Görgülü E, Hedberg N et al. 2012. Processing strategies and resumptive pronouns in English. Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics N Arnett, R Bennett 153–61 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hawkins J. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75:244–85
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Heestand D, Xiang M, Polinsky M 2011. Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguist. Inq. 42:138–52
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hofmeister P, Norcliffe E. 2014. Does resumption facilitate sentence comprehension?. In The Core and the Periphery: Data-Driven Perspectives on Syntax Inspired by Ivan A. Sag P Hofmeister, E Norcliffe 225–46 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hornstein N. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  37. Kayne R. 1981. ECP extensions. Linguist. Inq. 12:93–133
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Keenan EL, Comrie B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguist. Inq. 8:63–99
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Keffala B. 2011. Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates an illusion of ‘saving.’. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 37140–54. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Keshev M, Meltzer-Asscher A. 2017. Active dependency formation in islands: how grammatical resumption affects sentence processing. Language 93:549–68
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Keshev M, Ovadia M, Davidovitch H, Meltzer-Asscher A 2019. Grammaticized resumption in sentence processing: disrupting rather than facilitating Poster presented at the 32nd Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing Boulder, CO: Mar 29–31 https://osf.io/z5d4r/
  42. Kluender R. 1998. On the distinction between strong and weak islands: a processing perspective. The Limits of Syntax P Culicover, L McNally 241–79 Cambridge, MA: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Kroch AS. 1981. On the role of resumptive pronouns in amnestying island constraint violations. Papers from the 17th Chicago Linguistics Society R Hendrick, C Masek, M Miller 125–35 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Labelle M. 1990. Predication, WH-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Lang. Acquis. 1:95–119
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Lewis RL, Vasishth S, Van Dyke JA 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10:447–54
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Loss SS, Wicklund M. 2020. Is English resumption different in appositive relative clauses. Can. J. Linguist. 65:25–51
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Love T, Swinney D. 1996. Coreference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions: demonstration of antecedent reactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 25:5–24
    [Google Scholar]
  48. McCloskey J. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, Ā-binding, and levels of representation in Irish. The Syntax of the Modern Celtic Languages R Hendrick 199–248 Cambridge, MA: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  49. McCloskey J. 2017a. New thoughts on old questions: resumption in Irish. Asking the Right Questions: Essays in Honor of Sandra Chung J Ostrove, R Kramer, J Sabbagh 81–102 Santa Cruz, CA: Univ. Calif. Santa Cruz
    [Google Scholar]
  50. McCloskey J. 2017b. Resumption. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax M Everaert, HC van Riemsdijk 1–30. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2nd. ed.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. McDaniel D, Cowart W. 1999. Experimental evidence for a minimalist account of English resumptive pronouns. Cognition 70:B15–24
    [Google Scholar]
  52. McElree B. 2006. Accessing recent events. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 46:155–200
    [Google Scholar]
  53. McKee C, McDaniel D. 2001. Resumptive pronouns in English relative clauses. Lang. Acquis. 9:113–56
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Meltzer-Asscher A. 2020. Acceptability studies in Semitic languages. The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax G Goodall Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press In press
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Meltzer-Asscher A, Fadlon J, Goldstein K, Holan A 2015. Direct object resumption in Hebrew: how modality of presentation and relative clause position affect acceptability. Lingua 166:65–79
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Morgan AM, von der Malsburg T, Ferreira VS, Wittenberg E 2020. Shared syntax between comprehension and production: multi-paradigm evidence that resumptive pronouns hinder comprehension Work. Pap., NYU New York: https://osf.io/9whn6/
  57. Morgan AM, Wagers MW. 2018. English resumptive pronouns are more common where gaps are less acceptable. Linguist. Inq. 49:861–76
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Ness T, Meltzer-Asscher A. 2019. When is the verb a potential gap site? The influence of filler maintenance on the active search for a gap. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 34:936–48
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Omaki A, Nakao C. 2010. Does English resumption really help to repair island violations. Snippets 21:11–12
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Pérez-Leroux AT. 1995. Resumptives in the acquisition of relative clauses. Lang. Acquis. 4:105–38
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Phillips C. 2006. The real-time status of island phenomena. Language 82:795–823
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Phillips C, Wagers M. 2007. Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics MG Gaskell 739–56. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Phillips C, Wagers MW, Lau EF 2011. Grammatical illusions and selective fallibility in real-time language comprehension. Experiments at the Interfaces JT Runner 147–80 Leiden, Neth: Brill
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Polinsky M, Clemens LE, Morgan AM, Xiang M, Heestand D 2013. Resumption in English. Experimental Syntax and Island Effects J Sprouse, N Hornstein 341–59. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Prince EF. 1990. Syntax and discourse: a look at resumptive pronouns. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 16482–97. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Rizzi L. 1990. Relativized Minimality Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  67. Ross JR. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax PhD Diss., MIT Cambridge, MA:
  68. Safir K. 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguist. Inq. 17:663–89
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Sells P. 1984. Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. PhD Diss., Univ. Mass Amherst:
  70. Sharvit Y. 1999. Resumptive pronouns in relative clauses. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 17:587–612
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Shlonsky U. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguist. Inq. 23:443–68
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Sichel I. 2014. Resumptive pronouns and competition. Linguist. Inq. 45:655–93
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Stowe L. 1986. Parsing WH-constructions: evidence for on-line gap location. Lang. Cogn. Process. 1:227–45
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Sussman R, Sedivy J. 2003. The time course of processing syntactic dependencies: evidence from eye movements during spoken narratives. Lang. Cogn. Process. 18:143–63
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Traxler M, Pickering M. 1996. Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: an eye-tracking study. J. Mem. Lang. 35:454–75
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Tucker MA, Idrissi A, Sprouse J, Almeida D 2019. Resumption ameliorates different islands differentially: acceptability data from Modern Standard Arabic. Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXX: Papers from the Annual Symposia on Arabic Linguistics, Stony Brook, New York, 2016 and Norman, Oklahoma, 2017 A Khalfaoui, MA Tucker 159–93 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Van Dyke JA, Johns CL 2012. Memory interference as a determinant of language comprehension. Lang. Linguist. Compass 6:193–211
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Van Dyke JA, McElree B 2006. Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 55:157–66
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Varlokosta S, Armon-Lotem S. 1998. Resumptives and wh-movement in the acquisition of relative clauses in Modern Greek and Hebrew. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development A Greenhill, M Hughes, H Littlefield, H Walsh 737–46 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Wagers MW, Lau EF, Phillips C 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: representations and processes. J. Mem. Lang. 61:206–37
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Wagers MW, Phillips C. 2014. Going the distance: memory and control processes in active dependency construction. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 67:1274–304
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031320-012726
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031320-012726
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error