Resumption-by-movement

[T. Florian Jaeger]

Hi Ash, Seth,

since I had mentioned Boeckx (I mean the 2003 book) to Seth before and you
(Ash), too, brought Boeckx up, and since I just read it =), I thought I say
that I think it doesn't have the two problems that you mentioned were
common to resumption-by-movement accounts. Boeckx derives that a binder of
a resumptive never bears the case features of the resumptive from his idea
of Move under pure Match (without Agree). Resumption is derived as one of
two possible ways to repair a chain that is too strong (i.e. has multiple
strong occurrences, i.e. multiple copies of the same (moved) element that
have to be pronounced). His approach has other problems which I won't go
into here, but it get's the part you were talking about right. Boeckx also
'predicts' (I am hesitating since he basically tailors his assumptions
around the phenomenon he wants to predict) the island facts (i.e. that
resumption often but not always repairs most but not all islands).

Just thought, I mention that,
Florian

>There have been
>attempts to derive resumptives by movement (the most recent is probably
>Boeckx's dissertation), but these always have problems with the island
>facts (and would presumably have problems with the very robust fact that
>filler-gap dependencies show form-identity effects between the filler
>and the gap site, e.g. "whom", whereas the binder of a resumptive
>pronoun never bears the case features of the resumptive; see Merchant
>2001).