Proceedings of the LFG 02 Conference National Technical - CSLI ...

ungrammatical. The problem is that the grammatical (38a) has the same f-structure.
The difference between the grammatical sentence with the resumptive pronoun and the
ungrammatical sentence without is that in the grammatical sentence the SUBJ is partially
represented in c-structure in im’s clause, whereas in the ungrammatical sentence it is completely
outside of im’s clause. (Note that this only goes through under an analysis in which there is no
c-structure trace in the position of the extracted subject. This is consistent with either a
completely traceless analysis, as in Kaplan and Zaenen 1989 and Dalrymple, Kaplan, and King
2001, or a mixed analysis in which there is a trace for everything except subject extraction, as
in Falk 2000, 2001.) If we consider c-structure, then, there is a way in which the (semi-)independence
of the im clause’s SUBJ is still the issue. The mistake in Falk (2000) was doing it entirely
at f-structure.
Semi-formally, we want to replace (39) with something like the following:
(42) If n is represented in c-structure (i.e. if ù 1 (n) exists) 10 , one of the nodes in ù 1 (n) must
immediately dominate one of the nodes in ù 1 (n SUBJ)
More formally, we can define an f-structure-aware notion of immediate dominance, similar to
such concepts as f-precedence. We will call this the f-ID relation. 11
(43) For any f-structures f 1 and f 2 , f 1 f-IDs f 2 (f 1 o f f 2 ) iff there exists a node n 1 in ù 1 (f 1 ) and
a node n 2 in ù 1 (f 2 ) such that n 1 immediately dominates n 2 .
We can now restate the lexical constraint on that-trace complementizers:
(44) ù 1 (n) Ÿ n o f (n SUBJ)
We now have an account of the that-trace effect which retains the original insight of Falk (2000)
and also explains the use of resumptive pronouns to circumvent the effect.
Appendix B. Pronoun Fronting in Hebrew
Although it is only marginally related to the question of resumptive pronouns, no
discussion of Hebrew relativization would be complete without mentioning pronoun fronting.
In addition to (45a), (45b,c,d) are also grammatical.
(45) a. ha- sefer še ani xošev še karata oto
the- book that I think that you.read it
b. hasefer še ani xošev še oto karata
c. hasefer še oto ani xošev še karata
d. hasefer oto ani xošev še karata
‘the book that I think you read’
That is to say, the pronoun can be fronted, either partially or completely, and if it is fronted
completely the complementizer can be omitted.
The description in the previous sentence has often been taken to be an accurate
10 This natural condition prevents the effect from applying in the case of “empty operator” LDD constructions,
such as that relatives in English.
11 Thank you to Ron Kaplan (p.c.) for help with the formalization.
170