Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The syntax and semantics of gap and resumptive strategies in Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions Sterian, Laura Andreea 2011

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2011_fall_sterian_laura.pdf [ 687.96kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0105127.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0105127-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0105127-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0105127-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0105127-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0105127-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0105127-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0105127-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0105127.ris

Full Text

 THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF GAP AND RESUMPTIVE STRATEGIES IN IRAQI ARABIC D-LINKED CONTENT QUESTIONS by Laura Andreea Sterian  B.A. in Linguistics, Simon Fraser University, 2010 M.A., University of Bucharest, 2004 B.A. in Arabic, University of Bucharest, 2002  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Linguistics)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) July 2011 © Laura Andreea Sterian, 2011  ii Abstract   This thesis examines Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions of the type “Which woman saw Ragheb?”. I develop a syntactic and semantic analysis of both the gap and resumptive strategies of such D-linked content questions. Chapter 1 provides background information on Iraqi Arabic. Chapter 2 develops the syntactic analysis: the gap strategy is treated as an instance of full DP-deletion, with the deletion site being structurally ambiguous between a D-N and a D-ϕ-N structure. I further propose that the resumptive strategy is an instance of remnant DP-deletion with a D-ϕ-N structure, and treat the resumptive pronoun as a stranded ϕ-element. Chapter 3 relates the two syntactic structures — D-N versus D-ϕ-N — to the semantic distinction between the pair-list interpretation versus a natural-function interpretation. A pair-list reading is found when a question such as “Which woman did every man invite?” is answered with a list such as: “John, Sue; Bill, Lucy, …”. A natural function reading would answer the same question with a relational noun: “His sister.” In contexts where both the gap and resumptive strategy are possible, we observe the following: the gap strategy is ambiguous between a pair-list and a natural function reading; the resumptive strategy only allows a natural function reading. I propose that the semantic ambiguity of the gap strategy reflects its structural ambiguity: if the deletion site is D-N, this corresponds to the pair-list reading; if the deletion site is D-ϕ-N, this corresponds to the natural function reading. As for the resumptive strategy, in contexts where the gap strategy is also possible, it is unambiguously interpreted with a natural functional reading; this is consistent with the syntactic remnant DP-deletion, which requires a D-ϕ-N structure. I further show that, in contexts where only the resumptive strategy is possible, economy considerations allow syntactic remnant DP-deletion to be semantically ambiguous between a pair-list and a natural function reading. Chapter 4 examines the syntactic and semantic parallels between D-linked content questions and genitive interrogatives and argues that the latter are inherently D-linked.    iii Table of Contents Abstract.............................................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................... vii List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................. x 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background information about Iraqi Arabic............................................................. 1 1.1.1 Geographical and historical classification of Iraqi Arabic ............................ 1 1.1.2 Word order: deriving SVO versus VSO order............................................... 3 1.1.3 Verbal inflection ............................................................................................ 4 1.1.4 Subject pro-drop............................................................................................. 5 1.1.5 Null copula..................................................................................................... 6 1.1.6 Adjectival agreement: human versus non-human nouns ............................... 7 1.2 Background information about resumptive pronouns............................................... 9 1.2.1 Defining resumption ...................................................................................... 9 1.2.2 A syntactic restriction: the highest subject restriction ................................. 11 1.2.3 A semantic restriction: on optional versus obligatory resumption .............. 13 1.3 Organization of thesis ............................................................................................. 15 2 The syntax of D-linked content questions in Iraqi Arabic ....................................... 16 2.1 Overview of the syntactic problem, analysis and consequences ............................ 17 2.1.1 The syntactic problem: A’-dependencies show a complement non- complement asymmetry........................................................................................ 17 2.1.2 The syntactic analysis: the extraction site can have two distinct structures 18 2.1.3 Consequences of the syntactic analysis ....................................................... 19 2.2 D-linked versus non-D-linked interrogative expressions ....................................... 19 2.3 The inventory of interrogative expressions in Iraqi Arabic content questions ....... 20 2.3.1 D-linked ya: ‘which’ is unrelated to other interrogative expressions.......... 21 2.3.2 D-linked ya: ‘which’ is in complementary distribution with other D- elements ................................................................................................................ 22 2.3.3 D-linked ya: ‘which’ requires an overt lexical noun after it........................ 24  iv 2.3.4 D-linked ya: ‘which’ occurs in a wider range of contexts than bare interrogative expressions ...................................................................................... 26 2.4 Extraction from argument positions, adjunct positions, and islands ...................... 29 2.4.1. Extraction from argument positions: subjects, direct objects, prepositional objects ................................................................................................................... 29 2.4.2 Extraction from adjunct positions: temporal and locative adjuncts............. 33 2.4.3 Extraction from islands: wh-islands and adjuncts islands ........................... 35 2.5 Syntactic analysis of the resumptive strategy ......................................................... 37 2.5.1 Previous analyses of resumption.................................................................. 37 2.5.2 The inventory of pronouns in Iraqi Arabic .................................................. 38 2.5.3 Internal structure of the resumptive pronoun............................................... 39 2.5.4 Resumption as remnant DP-deletion ........................................................... 42 2.6 Syntactic analysis of the gap strategy ..................................................................... 46 2.6.1 Internal structure of the DP.......................................................................... 46 2.6.2 The gap strategy as full DP-deletion............................................................ 47 2.7 Implications of the analysis for extraction.............................................................. 49 2.7.1 Why resumption isn’t possible with subject extraction ............................... 49 2.7.2 Why resumption is possible with prepositional object extraction ............... 53 2.7.3 Why resumption is obligatory with extraction from islands........................ 58 2.8 Implications of the analysis for reconstruction....................................................... 63 2.8.1 Scope reconstruction with a quantificational antecedent............................. 64 2.8.2 Binding reconstruction with a referential antecedent .................................. 66 2.8.3 Reconstruction with resumption .................................................................. 67 2.8.4 Scope Reconstruction of Iraqi D-linked interrogatives ............................... 69 2.8.5 Binding Reconstruction of Iraqi D-linked interrogatives ............................ 72 3 The semantics of D-linked content questions in Iraqi Arabic ................................. 78 3.1 Overview of the syntax-semantics interface problem and a possible solution ....... 78 3.1.1 The syntax-semantics interface problem ..................................................... 78 3.1.2 A possible solution to the syntax-semantics interface problem................... 80 3.2 Semantic correlates of the gap and the resumptive strategy ................................... 82 3.2.1 The distinction between de dicto and de re readings................................... 82  v 3.2.2 The distinction between single-individual and multiple-individual readings ............................................................................................................................... 86 3.2.3 The distinction between individual, natural function and paired-list readings ............................................................................................................................... 88 3.2.4 The gap strategy competes with the resumptive strategy ............................ 91 3.3 What competition reveals about the syntax-semantics interface ............................ 93 3.3.1 The natural function reading subsumes the pair-list reading ....................... 94 3.3.2 The gap strategy is always syntactically and semantically ambiguous ....... 95 3.3.3 The weak resumptive strategy is sometimes syntactically and semantically ambiguous ............................................................................................................. 96 3.3.4 Implications of the analysis: partial copying ............................................... 98 4 Genitive interrogatives as inherently D-linked content questions........................... 99 4.1 The problem, the analysis and consequences ......................................................... 99 4.1.1 The contrast between genitive and bare interrogatives................................ 99 4.1.2 The analysis: genitive interrogatives are inherently D-linked ................... 101 4.1.3 Consequence: D-linking arises whenever there is an overt domain restriction ............................................................................................................................. 101 4.2 Comparing bare, genitive and D-linked interrogatives......................................... 103 4.2.1 The resumptive and gap strategy: local extraction .................................... 103 4.2.1.1 Local extraction with bare interrogatives ............................................... 103 4.2.1.2 Local extraction with genitive interrogatives ......................................... 105 4.2.1.3 Local extraction with D-linked interrogatives ........................................ 107 4.2.1.4 Summary of the local extraction data ..................................................... 109 4.2.2. The resumptive and gap strategy: long-distance extraction...................... 110 4.2.2.1 Long-distance extraction with bare interrogatives.................................. 110 4.2.2.2 Long-distance extraction with genitive interrogatives............................ 112 4.2.2.3 Long-distance extraction with D-linked interrogatives .......................... 114 4.2.2.4 Summary of the long-distance extraction data........................................ 116 4.2.3 Superiority effects...................................................................................... 117 4.3 Why genitive interrogatives are inherently D-linked............................................ 120 4.3.1 D-linking arises if there is an overt domain restriction.............................. 120  vi 4.3.2 Derivation of the genitive interrogative with the gap strategy .................. 121 4.3.3 Derivation of the genitive interrogative with the resumptive strategy ...... 124 5 Conclusions................................................................................................................. 128 5.1 Results................................................................................................................... 128 5.2 Unsolved problems ............................................................................................... 128 References ...................................................................................................................... 130                          vii List of Tables  Table 1. The paradigm of inflected verbs in Iraqi Arabic................................................... 5 Table 2. Distribution of natural function and pair-list readings in Jordanian Arabic content questions (adapted from Malkawi 2009).............................................................. 14 Table 3. Distribution of natural function and pait-list readings in Iraqi Arabic D-linked Content Questions............................................................................................................. 15 Table 4. Complement/ Non-complement Aymmetry with Gap versus Resumptive Strategy ............................................................................................................................. 18 Table 5. Structural Differentiation of Extraction Sites with Iraqi D-linked Content Questions........................................................................................................................... 18 Table 6. The inventory of Iraqi Arabic interrogative expressions .................................... 21 Table 7. The paradigm of the demonstrative pronouns in Iraqi Arabic............................ 22 Table 8. Interrogative strategies in Iraqi Arabic ............................................................... 28 Table 9. Resumption and Gap strategies in Iraqi Arabic mono-clausal and  bi-clausal D- linked content questions.................................................................................................... 29 Table 10. Adjunct extraction with respect to the resumptive strategy and the gap strategy in Iraqi Arabic mono-clausal and bi-clausal content questions ........................................ 35 Table 11. The paradigm of personal pronouns in Iraqi Arabic......................................... 39 Table 12. Scope reconstruction with resumptive pronoun................................................ 72 Table 13. Binding reconstruction with resumptive pronoun ............................................ 76 Table 14. Structural Differentiation of Extraction Sites with Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions ........................................................................................................................... 79 Table 15. Interpretations associated with Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions ......... 80 Table 16. Syntax-semantics mapping for Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions ......... 81 Table 17. de dicto/ de re contrast for Iraqi Arabic bare interrogatives (non D-linked content questions) using gap and resumptive strategies ................................................... 86 Table 18. Single-individual/ multiple-individual contrast in Modern Hebrew................. 87 Table 19.Interpretations associated with Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions .......... 92 Table 20. Economy hierarchy for gap and resumptive pronouns in Iraqi Arabic and Jordanian Arabic (adapted from Malkawi 2009) .............................................................. 93  viii Table 21. Extensional/ Intensional contrast and the gap/ resumptive strategy in Iraqi Arabic (Context 1: optional resumption) .......................................................................... 95 Table 22. Internal structure of Iraqi Arabic bare, genitive and D-linked interrogatives 101                           ix List of Abbreviations  S singular Pl plural M masculine F feminine Acc Accusative                    x Acknowledgments  This thesis could not have been completed without the help of a number of dedicated people. I am deeply grateful to my thesis committee: Rose-Marie Déchaine (chair), Martina Wiltschko, Michael Rochemont. I especially would like to thank Dr. Déchaine for embarking with me on the journey to explore Iraqi Arabic, also for urging me to be thorough in eliciting the data, for her invaluable guidance, insight and encouragement. I would like to thank Dr. Wiltschko for her illuminating suggestions and to Dr. Rochemont for encouraging me to explore various avenues. I would also like to thank my consultant Suha Al-Sudani for her availability and patience. I would like to thank my father for encouraging me to continue my graduate studies and to the rest of my family for their support.  1 1 Introduction   The goal of this thesis is to describe and analyze the syntax and semantics of resumption in content questions in Iraqi Arabic.  In this chapter, I give general information about Iraqi Arabic (§1.1) and I describe the phenomenon of resumption with a preview of the thesis (§1.2.).  1.1 Background information about Iraqi Arabic  After providing information about the geographical and historical situation of Iraqi Arabic (§1.1.1), I present some of the linguistic background that is relevant to the concerns of this thesis, focusing on word order (§1.1.2), verbal inflection (§1.1.3), subject pro-drop (§1.1.4), occurrence of the null copula (§1.1.6) and adjectival agreement (§1.1.6).  1.1.1 Geographical and historical classification of Iraqi Arabic  Iraqi Arabic (يقارع ʕiraqi; formally: ةيقارعلا ةيبرعلا ةغللا al-luɣat al-ʕarabiyya al-ʕiraqiyya), also known as Mesopotamian Arabic [ISO 639-3]) is a variety of Arabic spoken in the Mesopotamian basin of Iraq, from Baghdad south, as well as in Khuzestan Province of Iran and eastern Syria.  The linguistic situation in the Arab countries is largely characterized by diglossia, given by the coexistence of Classical Arabic (or Modern Standard Arabic) and colloquial Arabic. Modern Standard Arabic is the language of the mass-media, universities, conference discussions, lectures and literature across all Arab countries. The unity of the Arab culture across political boundaries is given by the language, hence the privileged role of Modern Standard Arabic. Colloquial Arabic is the language spoken by people in their everyday activities in all social occasions; it is spoken as mother tongue. It displays  2 varieties given by geographical distribution, education, religion. There is a predominant colloquial dialect in each Arab country, given by the variety spoken in the capital. In the case of Iraqi Arabic, the predominant colloquial dialect is the Baghdadi one.  A distinction is recognised between Mesopotamian Qeltu Arabic and Mesopotamian Gelet Arabic, the appellations deriving from the form of the word تلق (qeltu/ gelet, meaning ‘I said’). The Qeltu group includes the Anatolian dialect cluster, also known as North Mesopotamian Arabic or Maslawi (Mosul Arabic), and Jewish and Christian dialects. The Gelet group includes a Tigris dialect cluster, of which the best- known form is Baghdadi Arabic, and a Euphrates dialect cluster, known as Furati (i.e. Euphrates Arabic) which has some affinities to Gulf Arabic. Both the Gelet and the Qeltu varieties of Iraqi Arabic have some speakers in the extreme eastern parts of Syria. Some features of rural Palestinian Arabic, such as the pronunciation of ك kaf as [tʃ], are also shared with Iraqi Arabic. Medieval Iraqi Arabic appears to have been of the Qeltu type; Blau (1965) considers that the gelet features in mainstream Iraqi Arabic today are the result of a process of "re-Bedouinization"; the affinity to Gulf Arabic, and the persistence of qeltu features in the Jewish and Christian dialects, offer some support to this view. In modern day Iraq there are three main varieties of spoken Arabic: the northern (Mosul Arabic), southern (Basra Arabic) and Baghdadi Arabic. The dialect investigated in this thesis is Baghdadi Arabic.  The examples I give in this thesis from Iraqi Arabic are first written in the Arabic alphabet, then they are followed by their phonological realization, by the gloss and finally by their translation into English. I adopt an etymological writing in Arabic, which means a writing that is faithful to Modern Standard Arabic, and in the following I explain why. There are phonological differences between Modern Standard Arabic and the Iraqi dialect: for example, the voiceless velar stop /k/ is pronounced as voiceless affricate /ʧ/ in some contexts (Alkalesi 2006). Since this phonological phenomenon is predictable, when I wrote the Iraqi Arabic sentences with the Arabic alphabet, I chose to maintain the writing of the words with ك /k/ as they would appear in Modern Standard Arabic, in order to ease the reading and the understanding for those who can read Arabic, but are not Iraqis. This also makes it possible for the root to be easily identifiable as it appears across all varieties of Arabic. Also, there are other predictable phonological processes, for  3 example where the enclitic pronoun /hu/ attaches to the verb, the /u/ is pronounced in Modern Standard Arabic, but in most vernaculars the /u/ is deleted in the phonology. I also chose to be faithful to the writing of Modern Standard Arabic, because the phenomenon is predictable and because it is relevant to know that the enclitic pronoun exists there regardless of how vernaculars decide to pronounce it (1).  (1) ENCLITIC PRONOUN a. Iraqi Arabic enclitic pronoun هتسرد darasta=h studied.1S=3MS 'I studied it.'  b. Classical/ Modern Standard Arabic هتسرد darastu=hu studied.1S=3MS 'I studied it.'  The transliteration in Latin script is however faithful to the phonology, since this is the accepted practice in rendering the gloss of languages.  1.1.2 Word order: deriving SVO versus VSO order  The basic word order of Arabic is VSO; however as early as Classical Arabic SVO is also mentioned in the grammars of Arabic. In modern times, spoken Arabic varieties have been reported to show both VSO and SVO. The VSO/SVO alternation in word order in spoken Arabic it itself a lively topic of study, but is not discussed in this thesis. With VSO order, the verb agrees with the subject in gender, but not in number, as shown in (2a). This is sometimes called “weak agreement”, and is associated with the  4 derivation in (2b). In particular, note that the verb ʃa:f ‘saw.3MS’ raises all the way to Infl, while the subject il-asa:tiδa ‘the professors, masculine’ remains in a VP-internal position.  (2) a. Verb-Subject-Object ةبتكملاب باتكلا ةذتاسلأا فاش. ʃa:f             il-asa:tiδa               il-kitab     bi-l-maktaba saw.3MS   the-professors.M    the-book  in-the-library 'The professors saw the book in the library.'        (16 FEB 2011, SA offered freely) b. representation of VSO in Iraqi Arabic [IP [I ʃa:f] [VP [DP il-asa:tiδa] [V ʃa:f] [DP [D il] [N kitab]]] [PP bi-l-maktaba]]]   With SVO order, the verb agrees with the subject in both gender and number, as shown in (3a). This is sometimes called “strong agreement”, and is associated with the derivation in (3b). In particular, note that as before the verb ʃa:fwu ‘saw.3MPl’ raises to Infl, and the subject il-asa:tiδa ‘the professors’ raises to SpecIP.  (3) a. Subject-Verb-Object ةبتكملاب باتكلا اوفاش ةذتاسلأا. il-asa:tiδa               ʃa:fwu           il-kita:b     bi-l-maktaba the-professors.M   saw.3MPl      the-book  in-the-library 'The professors saw the book in the library.'        (16 FEB 2011, SA offered freely)  b. representation of SVO in Iraqi Arabic [IP [DP il-asa:tiδa] [I ʃa:fwu] [VP [DP il-asa:tiδa] [Vʃa:f] [DP il-kita:b]] [PP bi-l-maktaba]]]]  1.1.3 Verbal inflection   5 Arabic words have a three consonantal root which carries the meaning. The vowel melody as well as some affixes carry the inflection. The paradigm of an inflected verb in the perfect aspect is given in Table 1 below.  Person and number The verb بتك kitab "to write" 1S تبتك kitab=it 2MS تبتك kitab=it 2FS تبتك kitab=ti 3MS بتك kitab=Ø 3FS تبتك kitb=at 1Pl انبتك kitab=na 2Pl وتبتك kitab=tu 3Pl اوبتك kitba=w Table 1. The paradigm of inflected verbs in Iraqi Arabic  1.1.4 Subject pro-drop   Iraqi Arabic is a subject pro-drop language. (4a) is an example where the subject is not expressed overtly and (4b) and example where the subject is expressed overtly.  (4) a. subject not expressed overtly شاتف بغار ب ةبتكملاةحرابلا . ʃa:fət           Ragheb   bi= l-maktaba   il-ba:riHa. saw.3FS      Ragheb   in   the-library   yesterday 'She saw Ragheb in the library yesterday.'       (8 MAR 2011, SA offered freely) b. subject expressed overtly  تفاش ناميإبغارةحرابلا ةبتكملاب  .  6 Iman   ʃa:fət           Ragheb   bi= l-maktaba   il-ba:riHa. Iman   saw.3FS      Ragheb   in   the-library   yesterday 'Iman saw Ragheb in the library yesterday.'       (8 MAR 2011, SA offered freely) 1.1.5 Null copula  Arabic is characterized by the absence of the copula when the state described is an unfinished act or state (the Imperfect aspect); this has been rendered by grammarians in the Indo-European languages in the present tense. The Arabic grammarians consider this a nominal sentence, because it starts with a noun. However, the verb to be surfaces when the state described is finished or complete (the Perfect) rendered in Indo-European languages in the past tense. This is illustrated in (5a) for the imperfect state and in (5b) for the perfect state.  (5) a. The copula - Imperfect state ب ةنيدم دادغببئاجع ةياوھ اھ. Baghdad    madiyna  bi=ha   hawa:ya  ʕaʤaɁib. Baghdad   city.F       in=3F   many      marvels 'Baghdad is a city in which there are many marvels.'       (8 MAR 2011, SA offered freely)  b. The copula - Perfect state ةنيدم دادغب بئاجع ةياوھ اھب .  ناكت ʧa:nat          Baghdad    madiyna  bi=ha   hawa:ya ʕaʤaɁib. was.3FS      Baghdad    city.F       in=3F   many     marvels 'Baghdad was a city in which there are many marvels.'       (8 MAR 2011, SA offered freely)   7 1.1.6 Adjectival agreement: human versus non-human nouns  Arabic has two grammatical genders, masculine and feminine, and only human nouns show gender agreement. The verbs agrees with the subject in gender, when the verb precedes the subject, i.e., with VSO order, as shown above in (2a). Predicate adjectives also show agreement with their subjects. This is shown in (6) for masculine agreement. In (6a), ʃa:Tir ‘smart, masculine’ agrees with the noun aT- Ta:lib ‘the student, masculine’. In (6b), ʃa:Tiri:n ‘smart, masculine plural’ agrees with the noun aT-Tulba ‘the students, masculine’. (7) shows the same contrast with feminine agreement. In (7a), ʃa:Tira ‘smart, feminine’ agrees with the noun aT-Ta:liba ‘student, feminine’. In (7b), ʃa:Tira:t ‘smart, feminine plural’ agrees with the noun aT-Taliba:t ‘students, feminine’.  (6) adjective - noun agreement with human noun a. ح يللإ بلاطلاكرطاش هيو تي. aT-Ta:lib             illyi         Haʧi:t         wuya=h       ʃa:Tir the-student.MS   who.Rel  spoke.1Sg  with=3MS   smart.MS 'The student with whom I spoke is smart.'  b. ح يللا ةبلطلاكنيرطاش مھايو تي. aT-Tulba            illyi         Haʧi:t        wuya=huma      ʃa:Tiri:n the-students.M  who.Rel  spoke.1S    with=3MPl       smart.MPl 'The students with whom I spoke are smart.'       (8 MAR 2011, SA offered freely)         8 (7) adjective - noun agreement with human noun a. بلاطلاةيو تيكح يللإ اھارطاش ة. aT-Ta:liba          illyi         Haʧki:t        wuya=ha      ʃa:Tira the-student.FS   who.Rel  spoke.1Sg   with=3FS    smart.FS 'The student with whom I spoke is smart.'      (5 JUL 2011, SA offered freely)  b. طلاابلتاح يللا كرطاش مھايو تيتا. aT-Taliba:t       illyi         Haʧi:t        wuya=huma      ʃa:Tira:t the-students.F  who.Rel  spoke.1S    with=3FPl       smart.FPl 'The students with whom I spoke are smart.'       (5 JUL 2011, SA offered freely)  However, with non-human nouns, gender agreement shows a different pattern. With a singular subject, the predicate adjective shows gender agreement, as in (8a) and (9a). But with a plural subject, the predicate adjective always appears in the in feminine singular, as shown in (8b) and (9b).  (8) adjective - noun agreement with non-human noun a. ريبك ىھس تيب. beyt              Suha    ʧibi:r house.MS     Suha    big.MS 'Suha's house is big.'  b. ةريبك ىھس لھأ تويب. buyu:t          ʔahl               Suha     kabi:ra house.MPl   family.MS    Suha     big.FS 'Suha's family's houses are big.'       (5 JUL 2011, SA offered freely)   9 (9) adjective - noun agreement with non-human noun a. نيفسلا نم ةريغصلا ةريزجلا تفشة. ʃuft        il-ʤazi:ra       iS-Saġi:ra       min   is-safi:na saw.1S  the-island.FS  the-small.FS  from  the-ship ‘I saw the small island from the ship.’   b. نيفسلا نم ةريغصلا رئازجلا تفشة. ʃuft        il-ʤaza:ʔir         iS-Saġi:ra       min   is-safi:na saw.1S  the-islands.FPl   the-small.FS  from  the-ship ‘I saw the small island from the ship.’       (5 JUL 2011, SA offered freely)  1.2 Background information about resumptive pronouns  This section presents the resumptive pronoun strategy. After defining resumption (§1.2.1), I introduce a well-known syntactic restriction on resumption, namely the highest subject restriction (§1.2.2) and then illustrate a restriction on resumption that is sensitive to whether resumption is obligatory or optional (§1.2.3).  1.2.1 Defining resumption   Rouveret (2011) defines a “resumptive pronoun” as follows: The overt pronominal element found in some languages in the variable position of unbounded A’- dependency constructions—the latter include relative clauses, constituent questions, comparative clauses, dislocation and focus constructions. Given this characterization of resumption, for the purposes of this thesis, I adopt the following working definitions:   10 (10) A-position (argument position): a position to which a thematic role is assigned. (11) A’-position (non-Argument position): a position to which a non-thematic role is assigned.  (12) A’-dependency: An A’-dependency is a dependency relation between two syntactic objects, one of which is in an A’-position, and the other is in an A-position.  (13) A pronominal element is: a. a weak pronoun; b. a strong pronoun; c. a weak pronoun doubled by a strong pronoun; or d. an epithet.  (14) variable position: the thematic A-position that corresponds to the extraction site of an A’-dependency.  With these definitions in mind, consider the examples in (15), which illustrate an A’-dependency in Iraqi Arabic in the context of relativization. In (15a), the pronominal element –hu ‘him’ (a weak pronoun) occupies the thematic A-position of the moved constituent illyi ‘whom’, which is in an A’-position. Thus, there is an A’-dependency between the interrogative operator illyi and the weak pronoun –hu ‘him’; in other words, –hu is a resumptive pronoun. In (15b), there is a gap in the thematic A-position: in the context of relativization, the gap strategy is ill-formed in Iraqi Arabic.  (15) a. resumptive strategy  جرلاا ليللإ هتفش بميظع بتاك ىھس تيب . ir-riʤa:l     illyi          ʃuft=hu            bi=beyt    Suha    ka:tib    ʕaδˀyim the-man     whom      saw.1S=3MS    in  house  Suha   writer    great 'The man whom I saw [him] at Suha's house is a great writer.'    11 b. gap strategy * جرلااميظع بتاك ىھس تيبب تفش يللإ ل . *ir-riʤa:l    illyi          ʃuft____          bi=beyt   Suha    ka:tib    ʕaδˀyim   the-man     whom      saw.1S_____   in  house  Suha   writer    great 'The man whom I saw _____ at Suha's house is a great writer.'   Traditionally, the gap strategy is analyzed as the result of movement of a constituent to an A’-position, leaving behind a gap or a trace. The resumptive strategy has often been analyzed as the result of a binding relation between an antecedent in A’- position and a pronoun in an A-position. On this view, while the gap strategy involves movement, the resumptive strategy does not (Sells 1984; McCloskey 1990). Typologically, the resumptive strategy is widely attested in VSO languages. Semitic languages, which are VSO, are no exception to this generalization1.  1.2.2 A syntactic restriction: the highest subject restriction   The previous literature on resumption has established that, in many languages that use the resumptive strategy, there is an additional syntactic restriction that prohibits resumptive pronouns from occurring in the highest subject position (Borer 1984, McClosky 1990, Rouveret 2011, to appear). This is called the highest subject restriction. For Iraqi Arabic, a question that arises regarding the highest subject restriction concerns the syntactic status of subject agreement on the verb. On the one hand, if agreement is treated as a pronominal element, then subject agreement will have the status of a resumptive element, and Iraqi Arabic would be analyzed as not exhibiting the highest subject restriction. But if agreement is not a pronominal element for the purposes of establishing an A’-dependency, then Iraqi Arabic would be analyzed as exhibiting the highest subject restriction. To chose between these two alternatives, one needs to examine island contexts, which obligatorily require resumption. If, in such island  1  The Celtic languages are another language family that makes regular use of the resumptive strategy, and which also has VSO word order.  12 contexts, subject agreement by itself is sufficient to license an A’-dependency, then one can conclude that subject agreement has the status of a pronominal element for the purposes of resumption. But if an additional pronoun is needed in such contexts, then one can conclude that subject agreement is not a pronominal element for the purposes of resumption. The relevant data are given in (16) and (17) for wh-islands and adjunct islands respectively. In (16a) and (17a), where there is subject agreement only, extraction from the island is illicit. And in (16b) and (17b), where an overt subject pronoun is present, extraction from the island is licit. On the basis of such contrasts, I conclude that subject-verb agreement in Iraqi Arabic does not qualify as a pronominal element for the purposes of resumption.  (16) WH-ISLAND a. no overt pronoun ؟ةلفحلاب تجھب تساب شيل بغار لءاستي ونم* *minnu:  ytasa:ʔil          Ragheb        le:ʃ  ___   ba:sit          Behjet   bi-l-Hafla   who      wonder.3MS  Ragheb        why ____ kissed.3FS Behjet   at-the-party '*Who is Ragheb wondering why ___ kissed Behjet at the party ?'  b. overt pronoun شيل بغار لءاستي ونميھ ؟ةلفحلاب تجھب تساب minnu:  ytasa:ʔil          Ragheb        le:ʃ    hyi  ba:sit          Behjet   bi-l-Hafla who      wonder.3MS  Ragheb        why   she  kissed.3FS Behjet   at-the-party 'Who is Ragheb wondering why she kissed Behjet at the party ?'  (17) ADJUNCT ISLAND a. no overt pronoun ؟ دادغبل يشمت حار تقوش بغارل رماس لاق ونم* *minnu:  ga:l             Samer li-Ragheb    ʃw:aget ____ ra:H timʃi:      li-Baghdad  who      said.3MS   Samer  to-Ragheb   when____     will  go.3FS   to-Baghdad 'Who did Samer say to Ragheb when ___ will go to Baghdad ?'   13 b. overt pronoun ؟ دادغبل يشمت حار يھ تقوش بغارل رماس لاق ونم minnu:  ga:l             Samer li-Ragheb    ʃw:aget  hyi   ra:H timʃi:      li-Baghdad who      said.3MS   Samer  to-Ragheb   when     she   will  go.3FS   to-Baghdad 'Who did Samer say to Ragheb when she will go to Baghdad ?'  1.2.3 A semantic restriction: on optional versus obligatory resumption   Previous work on resumption in other varieties of Arabic includes Lebanese (Aoun et al. 2001; Choueiri 2003), Palestinian (Shlonsky 1992), Egyptian (Demirdache 1991) and Jordanian (Guilliot 2006; Malkawi 2009). For Jordanian Arabic, Malkawi (2009) investigates all syntactic contexts where the resumptive strategy is employed — including left dislocation, relativization and content questions — and examines both the syntax and the semantics of resumption, specifically contrasting contexts where resumption is optional versus those where it is obligatory. The interpretive difference that he observes relates to interrogative contexts, where a distinction is made in the semantics literature between the “natural function reading” versus the “pair-list reading” of a question as in (18).  (18) Which woman did every man invite? a. NATURAL FUNCTION READING: His sister b. PAIR-LIST READING: John, Sue; Bill, Lucy…  As summarized in Table 2, in contexts where resumption is optional in Jordanian Arabic, the gap strategy is ambiguous between the natural functional reading and the pair-list reading. But the resumptive strategy (with a weak pronoun) is compatible only with the natural function reading. In addition, Jordanian Arabic has the peculiarity of allowing two distinct resumptive strategies: resumption with a weak pronoun and resumption with a weak pronoun doubled by a strong pronoun. These two strategies come  14 to the fore in contexts where resumption is obligatory: Malkawi observes that, when resumption is obligatory, resumptive with only the weak pronoun is ambiguous between the two readings, while resumptive with a doubled pronoun is only compatible with the natural function reading.    NATURAL FUNCTION READING PAIR -LIST READING GAP √ √ WEAK PRONOUN √ x OPTIONAL RESUMPTION WEAK PRONOUN DOUBLED BY STRONG PRONOUN (n/a) (n/a) GAP (n/a) (n/a) WEAK PRONOUN √ √ OBLIGATORY RESUMPTION WEAK PRONOUN DOUBLED BY STRONG PRONOUN √ x Table 2. Distribution of natural function and pair-list readings in Jordanian Arabic content questions (adapted from Malkawi 2009)   Malkawi’s findings for Jordanian Arabic are relevant to the present thesis, which focuses on D-linked content-questions. As we shall see in Chapter 3, in such contexts, Iraqi Arabic allows both the gap strategy and the resumptive strategy. In other words, in Iraqi Arabic, D-linked content questions are contexts where resumption is optional. And like Jordanian Arabic, the distribution of the natural function reading and the pair-list reading is sensitive to whether resumption is optional and obligatory. However, the two varieties differ in which resumptive strategies are available: while Jordanian Arabic has two resumptive strategies (weak pronoun and weak pronoun doubled by strong pronoun), Iraqi Arabic only has one resumptive strategy (weak pronoun). My findings for Iraqi D- linked content questions are summarized in Table 3.  15   NATURAL FUNCTION READING PAIR-LIST READING GAP √ √ OPTIONAL RESUMPTION WEAK PRONOUN √ x GAP (n/a) (n/a) OBLIGATORY RESUMPTION WEAK PRONOUN √ √ Table 3. Distribution of natural function and pair-list readings in Iraqi Arabic D- linked Content Questions  1.3 Organization of thesis   The thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 presents the morphology and syntax of interrogative expressions in Iraqi Arabic and develops a syntactic analysis of the gap and resumptive strategies for D-linked content questions. In particular, I argue that the gap strategy involves full DP-deletion and is structurally ambiguous between a D-N structure and a D-ϕ-N structure. In contrast, I propose that the resumptive strategy involves remnant DP-deletion and operates only on a D-ϕ-N structure. Chapter 3 extends the syntactic analysis to account for the interpretive differences between the two strategies. I propose that the D-N structure correlates with the pair-list reading, while the D-ϕ-N correlates with the natural function reading. This correctly accounts for the fact that, in contexts where resumption is optional, the gap strategy is compatible with both a natural function reading and a pair-list reading, while the resumptive strategy only supports the natural function reading. And in contexts where resumption is obligatory, both readings are available: I conclude that this indicates that, as a last resort, the stranded ϕ-element that corresponds to the resumptive pronoun, may be ignored for purposes of interpretation. Chapter 4 turns to genitive interrogative constructions in Iraqi Arabic. I argue that they are inherently D-linked; this accounts for why they parallel overtly D-linked content questions. Finally, chapter 5 concludes the thesis and suggests directions for future research.  16 2 The syntax of D-linked content questions in Iraqi Arabic  Content questions are questions that contain an interrogative expression. The interrogative expression may be bare (as in who, what, where), or it may be D-linked (as in which person, which table, which city). Examples of Iraqi Arabic bare interrogative expressions are given in (19); examples of D-linked interrogatives are given in (20).  (19) BARE INTERROGATIVE EXPRESSIONS a. تفش ونمي ؟  minnu: ʃeftyi ?  who      saw.2FS Whom did you see ?  b. تفش ونشي؟ ʃinnu: ʃeftyi what  saw.2FS What did you see ?  (20) D-LINKED INTERROGATIVE EXPRESSIONS a. ؟ تفش ةيرم اي ya:       mraya    ʃeftyi which  woman  saw.2FS Which woman did you see ?  b. ؟ تفش ملف اي ya:        film  ʃeftyi which   film  saw.2FS Which film did you see ?  17  In this chapter I develop a syntactic analysis of the resumptive and gap strategy of Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions. First, I present an overview of the problem, the proposed analysis and the consequences of the analysis (§2.1). Then I turn my attention to the distinction between bare interrogative expressions and D-linked interrogative expressions (§2.2). This is followed by a discussion of the distribution of D-linked interrogative expression in Iraqi Arabic (§2.3). Next, I present an analysis of the resumptive strategy (§2.4) and the gap strategy (§2.5) in terms of the copy theory of movement. Then I discuss the implications of the analysis for extraction from subject position (§2.6), for extraction from adjunct position (§2.7), and for reconstruction (§2.8).  2.1 Overview of the syntactic problem, analysis and consequences   Before going into the details, I present an overview of the syntactic problem that presents itself with Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions, the proposed analysis and the consequences of the analysis.  2.1.1 The syntactic problem: A’-dependencies show a complement non-complement asymmetry  In Iraqi Arabic, D-linked content questions pattern differently according to whether the extraction site is from a complement or a non-complement position. In particular, extraction from a complement position is compatible with both the gap and the resumptive strategy. In contrast, extraction from a non-complement position (subjects and PP adjuncts) allows only the gap strategy. This is summarized in Table 4:      18  EXTRACTION FROM COMPLEMENT POSITION EXTRACTION FROM NON-COMPLEMENT POSITION GAP STRATEGY √ √ RESUMPTIVE STRATEGY  √ x Table 4. Complement/ Non-complement Asymmetry with Gap versus Resumptive Strategy  2.1.2 The syntactic analysis: the extraction site can have two distinct structures  I propose that Iraqi D-linked content questions are associated with two distinct structures. Specifically, the extraction site may be a D-N structure or a D-ϕ-N structure. I argue that the gap strategy is ambiguous between these two structures, permitting either a D-N structure or a D-ϕ-N structure with a covert ϕ. In contrast, the resumptive strategy is not structurally ambiguous: it occurs only with the D-ϕ-N structure and has an overt ϕ. This is summarized in Table 5.  INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF EXTRACTION SITE D-N D-ϕ-N GAP STRATEGY √ √ (with covert ϕ) RESUMPTIVE STRATEGY  x √ (with overt ϕ) Table 5. Structural Differentiation of Extraction Sites with Iraqi D-linked Content Questions   19 2.1.3 Consequences of the syntactic analysis  The proposed syntactic analysis — which claims that the extraction site can be a D-N structure or a D-ϕ-N structure — accounts for the complement/ non-complement asymmetry. In particular, it correctly predicts that only complements will permit overt resumption. This is because the overt pro-ϕ which corresponds to the resumptive pronoun is a clitic and cliticization is only possible from a complement position. With non- complement positions — subjects and PP adjuncts — there isn’t a syntactic host for the pro-ϕ clitic, so the D-ϕ-N structure with an overt pro-ϕ is not permitted. This derives the fact that extraction from a non-complement position is possible only with the gap strategy.  2.2 D-linked versus non-D-linked interrogative expressions   Pesetsky (1987) notes a difference in the behaviour of interrogative expressions such as who, what and the behaviour of interrogative expressions of the which-kind. Given the peculiar behaviour of which-phrases, Pesetsky (1987) refers to them as D- linked (for Discourse-linked); he notes that with which-phrases, the set of felicitous answers is limited to the set of objects which both speaker and hearer have in mind. It is in this sense that wh-phrases are discourse-linked. However, no such requirement is imposed on bare interrogative expressions such as who, what or how many. Pesetsky (1987) notes that which-phrases seem to function pronominally in that they are "familiar" rather than novel. To exemplify this, Pesetsky (1987) gives the examples in (21).   ENGLISH (Pesetsky 1987) (21) a. Some men entered the room. Mary talked to them.         b. Some men entered the room. Which ones did Mary talk to ?         c. Some men entered the room. Whom did Mary talk to ? Pesetsky's interpretation of (21) is as follows: "In (21b) it is natural, almost obligatory, to assume that the question is asking for a choice among the men who entered the room. In  20 (21c) considerations of textual connectedness make this assumption possible, but much less natural".  Pesetsky (2000) also observes that while bare interrogatives show Superiority effects, D-linked interrogative expressions do not. Another notable difference between the behaviour of bare interrogative expressions and the D-linked ones is that Superiority effects appear with bare interrogative expressions and disappear with D-linked ones (Pesetsky 1987, 2000; Aoun et al 2003, Boeckx 2003). Pesetsky (2000) further acknowledges that any attempt to explain the semantic sources of the syntactic properties of D-linking will require more conclusive investigation of this issue.  Much of what has been done on resumption in spoken Arabic relies heavily on examples with D-linked interrogative expressions (Aoun et al 2001, Guilliot & Malkawi 2006, 2009; Malkawi 2009). This has to do with the fact that D-linked interrogative expressions appear in questions and the co-presence of the two are used as a way of testing for the semantic distinction between a natural function reading and a pair-list reading. This will be discussed in Chapter 3.  2.3 The inventory of interrogative expressions in Iraqi Arabic content questions   A first question that arises is how the D-linked pronoun ya: ‘which’ is related to other pronominal and determiner elements in Iraqi Arabic. I show that: (i) ya: is unrelated to other interrogative expressions (§2.3.1); (ii) ya: is in complementary distribution with D-elements (§2.3.2); (iii) ya: requires an overt lexical noun after it (§2.3.3); (iv) ya: ‘which’ occurs in a wider range of contexts that bare interrogative expressions (§2.3.4).    21 2.3.1 D-linked ya: ‘which’ is unrelated to other interrogative expressions   Consider Table 6, which lists the inventory of Iraqi Arabic interrogative expressions. Observe that there are six non-D-linked interrogative forms, three of which contain the initial morpheme ʃ-, namely ʃinu: ‘what’, ʃuwagit ‘when’ and ʃlo:n, ‘how’. The other three non-D-linked forms — namely minnu: ‘who’, we:n ‘where’ and le:ʃ ‘why’ — don’t seem to have internal morpheme structure. As for the D-linked form ya: ‘which’, it doesn’t seem to be transparently related to any of the non-D-linked forms. This establishes that, inasmuch as there is any regular paradigmatic structure with Iraqi Arabic interrogative expressions, the D-linked interrogative form ya: is not part of that paradigm.   ARABIC ORTHOGRAPHY ROMANIZED ORTHOGRAPHY MORPHEME STRUCTURE GLOSS ونم minnu: ??? ‘who’ ونش ʃinu: ʃ-inu: ‘what’ تقوش ʃuwagit ʃ-uwagit ‘when’ نولش ʃlo:n ʃ-lo:n ‘how’ نيو we:n ??? ‘where’ non D-linked forms شيل le:S ??? ‘why’ D-linked form اي ya: ??? ‘which’ Table 6. The inventory of Iraqi Arabic interrogative expressions   Etymologically, the Iraqi Arabic D-linked interrogative pronoun ya: ‘which’ is related to the Classical and Modern Standard Arabic form يأ ʔayy ‘which’. As shown in (22), I speculate that in Iraqi Arabic, the initial glottal stop has been dropped, leaving ayy, which has been resyllabified into CV ya:   22 (22) POSSIBLE SOURCE OF IRAQI ARABIC ya: ‘which’ ʔayy   Classical and Modern Standard Arabic ayy  loss of initial glottal stop ya:   metathesis/resyllabification into CV.  2.3.2 D-linked ya: ‘which’ is in complementary distribution with other D-elements   The D-linked interrogative pronoun does not match with the paradigm of the demonstrative pronouns either. Table 7 shows the paradigm of the demonstrative pronouns in Iraqi Arabic.   Near Distance MS اذھ haδa: this كاذھ haδa:k that FS يذھ haδyi this كيذھ haδa:ʧ that Pl ةلوذھ Haδo:la these كلاوذھ Haδo:lak those Table 7. The paradigm of the demonstrative pronouns in Iraqi Arabic  Like demonstratives, D-linked ya: ‘which’ precedes the noun it combines with, (23a-b). However, D-linked ya: doesn’t co-occur with demonstratives, (23c-d).  (23) a. ؟معطملاب تفاش ينغم اي ىھس Suha   ya:        muɣanyy ʃa:fit____   bi-l-maTʕam Suha   which   singer      saw.3FS     in-the-restaurant 'Which singer did Suha see in the restaurant?’       (12 SEP 2010, SA 1a, elicited)      23 b. معطملاب ينغملا اذھ تفاش ىھس. Suha   ʃa:fit         haδa: il-muɣanyy bi-l-maTʕam Suha   saw.3FS   this    the-singer   in-the-restaurant ‘Suha saw this singer in the restaurant.’        (5 JUL 2011, SA 2b, freely given)  c.* معطملاب ينغملا اي اذھ تفاش ىھس. *Suha   ʃa:fit         haδa: ya        il-muɣanyy bi-l-maTʕam Suha    saw.3FS    this    which  the-singer   in-the-restaurant *’Suha saw this which singer in the restaurant.’        (5 JUL 2011, SA 2c, elicited)  d.* معطملاب ينغملا اذھ اي تفاش ىھس. *Suha   ʃa:fit      ya          haδa:        il-muɣanyy bi-l-maTʕam Suha    saw.3FS  which   this    which  the-singer   in-the-restaurant *’Suha saw this which singer in the restaurant.’        (5 JUL 2011, SA 2d, elicited)  Similarly, D-linked ya: is in complementary distribution with the proclitic definite article لا, il- the (24).  (24) a. معطملاب تفاش ينغم اي ىھس ؟ Suha   ya:        muɣanyy ʃa:fit____   bi-l-maTʕam Suha   which   singer      saw.3FS     in-the-restaurant 'Which singer did Suha see in the restaurant?’       (12 SEP 2010, SA 1a, elicited)      24 b. معطملاب ينغملا تفاش ىھس. Suha    ʃa:fit         il-muɣanyy bi-l-maTʕam Suha    saw.3FS   the-singer   in-the-restaurant ‘Suha saw the singer in the restaurant.’ (5 JUL 2011, SA 3b, freely given)  c.* معطملاب ينغم اي لا تفاش ىھس. *Suha    ʃa:fit         il-ya: - muɣanyy   bi-l-maTʕam Suha     saw.3FS   the-which-singer   in-the-restaurant *’Suha saw the which singer in the restaurant.’ (5 JUL 2011, SA 3c, elicited)  d.* تفاش ىھس معطملاب ينغملا اي. *Suha    ʃa:fit       ya        il-muɣanyy            bi-l-maTʕam Suha     saw.3FS  which  the-which-singer   in-the-restaurant *’Suha saw the which singer in the restaurant.’ (5 JUL 2011, SA 3d, elicited)  I conclude that that non-occurrence of D-linked ya: ‘which’ with demonstratives or the definite article reflects its status as a D-element2.  2.3.3 D-linked ya: ‘which’ requires an overt lexical noun after it   Like other D-elements, ya: ‘which’ requires an overt lexical noun after it. This is  2  In a given context which is known to the speaker and his interlocutor, it is possible to use ya: wahed ‘which one’: Context: the consultant went to a cinema multiplex where she had a choice of watching a movie out of several movies. When she comes out of there, I ask her: ؟ هتفش دحاو اي ya        wa:hed ʃuft=hu which  one       saw.2FS=3MS Which one did you see ? Consultant’s note: This is not really used, even though it is possible to say it.  25 shown in (25) for demonstratives, in (26) for the definite article and in (27) for ya:.  (25) a.  ينغملا كاذھ تفاش ىھس. Suha   ʃa:fit         haδa:k il- muɣanyy ‘Suha   saw.3FS   that     the-singer.’      (5 JUL 2011, SA 4a, freely given)  b.* كاذھ تفاش ىھس. *Suha   ʃa:fit         haδa:k Suha   saw.3FS   that ‘Suha saw that’.      (5 JUL 2011, SA 4a, elicited)  (26) a. ينغملا تفاش ىھس. Suha    ʃa:fit         il-muɣanyy Suha    saw.3FS   the-singer ‘Suha saw the singer’. (5 JUL 2011, SA 5a, freely given) a. لا تفاش ىھس*. *Suha    ʃa:fit         il Suha    saw.3FS   the *’Suha saw the’. (5 JUL 2011, SA 5b, elicited)  (27) a. ؟ تفاش ينغم اي ىھس Suha   ya:        muɣanyy ʃa:fit Suha   which   singer      saw.3FS 'Which singer did Suha see ?’       (12 SEP 2010, SA 1a, elicited)   26 b. .* ؟ تفاش اي ىھس *Suha   ya:        ʃa:fit Suha   which   saw.3FS 'Which did Suha see ?’   (5 JUL 2011, SA 6, elicited)  I conclude that the obligatoriness of an overt lexical noun after D-linked ya: ‘which’ is indicative of its syntactic status as a D-element.  2.3.4 D-linked ya: ‘which’ occurs in a wider range of contexts than bare interrogative expressions   In content questions, the interrogative pronoun is moved to the left periphery, preceded by the subject as left-most topic. Aoun et al (1999) and Malkawi (2009) state that in Arabic there are three strategies to form content questions. Their examples are replicated below for Iraqi Arabic showing in (28a) the gap strategy, in (28b) the resumption strategy and in (28c) the in-situ strategy.  (28) INTERROGATIVE STRATEGIES WITH D-LINKED INTERROGATIVES a. the gap strategy ؟معطملاب تفاش ينغم اي ىھس Suha   ya:        muɣanyy ʃa:fit____   bi-l-maTʕam Suha   which   singer      saw.3FS     in-the-restaurant 'Which singer did Suha see in the restaurant?’       (12 SEP 2010, SA 1a, elicited)       27 b. the resumption strategy  ىھس؟معطملاب هتفاش ينغم اي Suha   ya:        muɣanyy ʃa:fit=hu              bi-l-maTʕam Suha   which   singer      saw.3FS=3MS     in-the-restaurant 'Which singer did Suha see [him] in the restaurant ?'       (12 SEP 2010, SA 1b, elicited)  c. the in-situ strategy ؟معطملاب ينغم اي تفاش ىھس Suha   ʃa:fit             ya:        muɣanyy   bi-l-maTʕam Suha   saw.3FS     which   singer      in-the-restaurant 'Suha saw which singer in the restaurant ?'       (12 SEP 2010, SA 1c, elicited)   However, bare interrogative expressions (i.e. non-D-linked interrogative expressions) only allow the gap strategy. This is shown in (29), where a bare interrogative expression is well-formed with the gap strategy (29a), but ill-formed with the resumptive strategy and the in-situ strategy (29b-c).  (29) INTERROGATIVE STRATEGIES WITH BARE INTERROGATIVES a. the gap strategy ؟ معطملاب تفاش ونم ىھس Suha  minnu: ʃa:fit_____         bi-l-maTʕam Suha  who     saw.3FS_____   in-the-restaurant 'Whom did Suha see in the restaurant ?'        28 b. the resumption strategy ؟ معطملاب هتفاش ونم ىھس* *Suha  minnu: ʃa:fit=hu         bi-l-maTʕam   Suha  who     saw.3FS=3MS   in-the-restaurant 'Whom did Suha see [him] in the restaurant ?'  c. the in-situ strategy ؟ معطملاب ونم تفاش ىھس* *Suha  ʃa:fit         minnu:         bi-l-maTʕam   Suha  saw.3FS   who             in-the-restaurant 'Suha saw whom in the restaurant ?'       (12 SEP 2010, SA 2, elicited)   The patterning of the interrogative strategies described above with respect to the behaviour of the D-linked and non-D-linked interrogative expressions is given below in Table 8.   Strategy  Word Order Non-D-linked WH D-linked WH  Gap  Subject - WH - Verb √ √ Resumptive  Subject - WH - Verb-Resumptive pronoun x √ In-situ  Subject -            Verb - WH x √ Table 8. Interrogative strategies in Iraqi Arabic   29 2.4 Extraction from argument positions, adjunct positions, and islands   I give an overview of extraction contexts with D-linked interrogative expressions, including extraction from argument positions (§2.4.1), extraction from adjunct positions (§2.4.2), and extraction from islands (§2.4.3).  2.4.1. Extraction from argument positions: subjects, direct objects, prepositional objects   Now consider the distribution of D-linked interrogative expressions in contexts that involve argument extraction. The results are summarized in Table 9.  Mono-clausal Bi-clausal Gap Resumption Gap Resumption Subject √ x √ x Direct Object √    √   √ √   Argument Object of Preposition x  √   x √ Table 9. Resumption and Gap strategies in Iraqi Arabic mono-clausal and  bi- clausal D-linked content questions  With D-linked interrogative expressions, subject extraction allows only the gap strategy, as in (30). In contrast, direct objects allow both the gap strategy and the resumptive strategy, as in (31). As for prepositional objects (32), they allow only resumption, as preposition stranding is ungrammatical in Arabic; also, PP-fronting allows only the gap strategy, because Arabic does not have resumptives for entire prepositional phrases.      30 (30) SUBJECT a. extraction with gap  ؟ دادغبب ةقش ترتشا ةقيدص اي ya:        Sadi:ga    iʃtarat_____            ʃigga          bi-Baghdad which   friend.F   bought.3FS_____   apartment  in-Baghdad 'Which friend bought an apartment in Baghdad ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA, offered freely)  b. extraction with resumption ؟ دادغبب ةقش يھ ترتشا ةقيدص اي * *ya:        Sadi:ga    iʃtarat           hi:    ʃigga          bi-Baghdad  which   friend.F   bought.3FS  she  apartment  in-Baghdad 'Which friend [she] bought an apartment in Baghdad ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA, elicited)  (31) DIRECT OBJECT a. extraction with gap  ؟ ةلفحلاب تفاش لاجر اي ناميإ Iman   ya:       riʤa:l ʃa:fit ____         bi-l-Hafla Iman   which  man    saw.3FS____    at-the-party 'Which man did Iman see___ at the party ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 1I, offered freely)  b. extraction with resumption ؟ ةلفحلاب هتفاش لاجر اي ناميإ Iman   ya:       riʤa:l ʃa:fit=hu             bi-l-Hafla Iman   which  man    saw.3FS=3MS    at-the-party 'Which man did Iman see [him] at the party ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 1II, offered freely)   31 (32) PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT a. extraction with gap  ةيلكلاب تقتلا ملعم اي ىھس ةيو؟* *Suha  ya:         muʕallim   iltagat wu:ya: ___      bi-l-kulli:a Suha  which      professor    met.3FS with ___     at-the-faculty 'Which professor did Suha meet with____  at the faculty ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 3I, offered freely)  b. extraction with resumption ؟ ةيلكلاب هايو تقتلا ملعم اي ىھس Suha  ya:         muʕallim   iltagat     wu:ya:=h      bi-l-kulli:a Suha  which    professor   met.3FS   with=3MS  at-the-faculty 'Which professor did Suha meet with [him] at the faculty ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 3II, offered freely)  c. PP-fronting ىھس يوة؟ ةيلكلاب تقتلا ملعم اي Suha  wu:ya:  ya:         muʕallim   iltagat     bi-l-kulli:a Suha  with     which    professor    met.3FS   at-the-faculty 'With which professor did Suha meet at the faculty ?'                (1 DEC 2010, SA 3III, offered freely)   With long-distance extraction - i.e. extraction from a bi-clausal environment - we observe the same contrasts. While subjects allow only the gap strategy (33), direct objects allow both the gap and resumptive strategy, as in (34). Prepositional objects (35) allow only resumption; as stated before, PP-fronting does not employ resumption.       32 (33) SUBJECT a. extraction with gap ؟ دادغبب ةقش ترتشا ونإ يردي ةقيدص اي بغار Ragheb ya:        Sadiga     ydry             ennu: ____ iʃtarat           ʃigga          bi-Baghdad Ragheb which   friend.F   know.3MS   that_____  bought.3FS  apartment   in-Baghdad 'Which friend does Ragheb know that ___ bought an apartment in Baghdad ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA, offered freely)  b. extraction with resumption ؟ دادغبب ةقش ترتشا يھ ونإ يردي ةقيدص اي بغار* *Ragheb ya:        Sadiga     ydry             ennu:  hi    iʃtarat           ʃigga          bi-Baghdad   Ragheb which   friend.F   know.3MS   that    she  bought.3FS  apartment   in-Baghdad 'Which friend does Ragheb know that she bought an apartment in Baghdad ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA, elicited)  (34) DIRECT OBJECT a. extraction with gap ؟ ةلفحلاب تفاش ناميإ ونإ فرعي ةيرم اي تجھب Behjet  ya:        mraya      yaʕarəf          ennu: Iman    ʃa:fit____         bi-l-Hafla Behjet  which   woman    know.3MS     that    Iman   saw.3FS____   at-the-party 'Which woman does Behjet know that Iman saw___ at the party ?'       (1 DEC 2010, SA 5I, offered freely)  b. extraction with resumption ؟ ةلفحلاب اھتفاش ناميإ ونإ فرعي ةيرم اي تجھب Behjet  ya:        mraya      yaʕarəf           ennu: Iman    ʃa:fit=ha            bi-l-Hafla Behjet  which   woman    know.3MS     that    Iman   saw.3FS=3FS    at-the-party 'Which woman does Behjet know that Iman saw [ her] at the party ?'       (1 DEC 2010, SA 5II, offered freely)    33 (35) PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT a. extraction with gap  ءانستقتلا ىھس ونإ دقتعت ملعم اي ةيو؟ ةيلكلاب * *Sena  ya:       muʕallim   taʕatagid     ennu:  Suha iltagat wu:ya: ____    bi-l-kulli:a Sena  which  professor   know.3FS   that     Suha met.3FS with ___  at-the-faculty 'Which professor does Sena know that Suha met with___ at the faculty ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 7I, offered freely)  b. extraction with resumption ؟ ةيلكلاب هايو تقتلا ىھس ونإ دقتعت ملعم اي ءانس Sena  ya:       muʕallim   taʕatagid     ennu:  Suha iltagat       wu:ya:=h    bi-l-kulli:a Sena  which  professor   know.3FS    that     Suha met.3FS   with=3MS  at-the-faculty 'Which professor does Sena know that Suha met with [him] at the faculty ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 7II, offered freely)  c. PP-fronting  ءانسيوةملعم اي ىھس ونإ دقتعت يلكلاب تقتلا ؟ ة Sena  wu:ya:  ya:         muʕallim   taʕatagid   ennu: Suha  iltagat      bi-l-kulli:a Suha  with     which    professor    think.3FS  that   Suha  met.3FS   at-the-faculty 'With which professor does Sena know that Suha met at the faculty ?'                (1 DEC 2010, SA 3III, offered freely)  2.4.2 Extraction from adjunct positions: temporal and locative adjuncts   Standard Arabic does not allow resumption with non-D-linked interrogative adjuncts (i.e. non-arguments). Wahba (1984) notes for Egyptian Arabic and Malkawi (2009) for Jordanian Arabic that resumption is possible only with arguments and not possible with non-arguments; the data they show in supporting this argument is non-D- linked adjuncts. Similarly in Iraqi Arabic, adjunct extraction allows only the gap strategy  34 with non-D-linked interrogative adjuncts, whether the content question is mono-clausal or is bi-clausal. With respect to D-linked interrogative adjuncts, D-linked manner and rationale adjuncts are already beyond the register of spoken Arabic; they belong to the Modern Standard Arabic register. The temporal adjunct of the form ya: wagit ‘which time’ is ill-formed in Iraqi Arabic, hence examples of content questions with D-linked interrogative temporal adjuncts are ungrammatical (36). The D-linked interrogative locative adjunct allows only the resumptive strategy and does not allow the gap strategy, as in (37).  (36) D-LINKED TEMPORAL ADJUNCT a. extraction with gap تقو اي؟ ندرلأل تحار *  ناميإ *Iman   ya:       wagit     ra:Het           li=l-Urdun ____   Iman   which   time      went.3FS    to-the-Jordan ____ 'What time did Iman go to Jordan ?'       (9 SEP 2010, SA 1, offered freely)  b. extraction with resumption تقو ايندرلأل تحار  ذاتقولا ك؟ *  ناميإ *Iman    ya:       wagit     ra:Het          li=l-Urdun       δa:k il-wagit   Iman    which   time     went.3FS    to-the-Jordan   then '*When did Iman go to Jordan then ?'        (9 SEP 2010, SA 1, elicited)  (37) D-LINKED LOCATIVE ADJUNCT a. extraction with gap  ناميإ ةلحم اي ھس تفاشب ى ؟* *Iman   ya:       maHalla    ʃa:fit       Suha bi____   Iman   which  store         saw.3FS  Suha  in____ 'Which store did Iman see Suha in ____   ?'        (9 SEP 2010, SA 3, elicited)  35 b. extraction with resumption ةلحم اي ناميإ  هب ىھس تفاش ؟ Iman   ya:       maHalla    ʃa:fit       Suha bi=h Iman   which  store         saw.3FS  Suha  in=3MS 'Which store did Iman see Suha in [it]  ?'        (9 SEP 2010, SA 3, offered freely)  c. PP-fronting ةلحم ايب ناميإ   ىھس تفاش؟ Iman   bi=ya:       maHalla    ʃa:fit       Suha Iman   in=which  store         saw.3FS  Suha 'In which store did Iman see Suha in  ?'        (10 JUL 2011, SA 3, offered freely)    Table 10 summarizes the distribution of D-linked interrogative expression from adjunct position.    Gap Resumption Temporal x  x Adjunct Locative x √ Table 10. Adjunct extraction with respect to the resumptive strategy and the gap strategy in Iraqi Arabic mono-clausal and bi-clausal content questions  2.4.3 Extraction from islands: wh-islands and adjuncts islands   Let us move to island contexts. By island (Ross 1986) we understand the syntactic domain from where extraction is not possible. The resumptive pronouns have been observed to be oblivious to island phenomena (Rouveret 2011, to appear). Island constraints also play a role in the scope of semantic operators and quantifiers. In the following examples, I use wh-islands (i.e. embedded CPs introduced by wh-constituents)  36 and adjunct islands (i.e. islands formed from an adjunct clause).  Consider first extracting from a wh-island: the gap strategy is ill-formed, but resumption is possible, as in (38). Similarly, with adjunct islands, the gap strategy is ill-formed, but resumption is possible, as in (39).  (38) WH-ISLAND a. gap strategy  ؟ تققش ةيرم لك اذإ لأسي رماس اھنبلا ةروص اي* *ya:        Su:ra.F      li-bni=ha     Samer   ysʔal          iδa kull      mraya    ʃagagat____  which   picture.F   of-son=her   Samer   ask.3MS    if   every   woman   tore.3FS___ '*Which photo of her son did Samer wonder if every woman tore ____ ?'        (13 NOV 2010, SA 14aI, elicited)  b. resumptive strategy  ؟ اھتققش ةيرم لك اذإ لأسي رماس اھنبلا ةروص اي ya:        Su:ra.F      li-bni=ha     Samer   ysʔal         iδa kull      mraya    ʃagagat=ha which   picture.F   of-son=her  Samer   ask.3MS    if   every   woman   tore.3FS=3F 'Which photo of her son did Samer wonder if every woman tore [it] ?'            (13 NOV 2010, SA 14aII, elicited)  (39) ADJUNCT ISLAND a. gap strategy   لعز رماس اھنبلا ةروص اي؟ تققش ةيرم لك ونلأ* *ya:        Su:ra.F      li-bni=ha     Samer  zaʕal          li-ennu:    kull      mraya    ʃagagat___  which   picture.F   of-son=her  Samer   get angry   because    every   woman  tore.3FS___ '*Which photo of her son did Samer get angry because every woman tore___ ?'        (13 NOV 2010, SA 14bI, elicited)      37 b. resumptive strategy  ؟ اھتققش ةيرم لك ونلأ لعز رماس اھنبلا ةروص اي ya:        Su:ra.F      li-bni=ha     Samer  zaʕal          li-ennu:    kull      mraya  ʃagagat=ha which  picture.F   of-son=her  Samer  get angry   because    every   woman  tore.3FS=3FS 'Which photo oh her son did Samer get angry because every woman tore [it] ?'        (13 NOV 2010, SA 14bII, elicited)  2.5 Syntactic analysis of the resumptive strategy   In this section I present an analysis of the resumptive strategy in Iraqi Arabic content questions. I briefly summarize previous approaches to resumption (§2.5.1), and then consider the relation of the resumptive pronoun to the pronoun inventory (§2.5.2), the internal structure of pronouns (§2.5.3), present my analysis of resumption in terms of remnant-DP deletion (§2.5.4).  2.5.1 Previous analyses of resumption   With respect to the syntax of the resumptive strategies, the earliest theories differentiate between the gap strategies which are derived by movement and the resumption strategies which are derived without movement (Sells 1984; McCloskey 1990) or they propose resumption as a last resort to save a derivation where movement is blocked (Shlonsky 1992). Other theories of resumption consider it a special kind of movement (Demirdache 1991). Within the Minimalist Program, the Phasal Agree approach analyzes the links in the resumptive chain as connected by the operation Agree (Chomsky 2000, 2007; Adger & Ramchand 2001, 2005; Rouveret 2002, 2008).  The most recent analyses of resumption approach this phenomenon by considering that (i) resumptive elements are not considered as a uniform class, but their status is differentiated as strong (i.e. strong pronouns and epithets) and as weak (i.e. weak pronouns and weak pronouns doubled by a strong pronoun) (Guilliot 2006; Guilliot &  38 Malkawi 2006; Guilliot 2008; Malkawi 2009); (ii) resumptive strategies give rise to reconstruction effects (Aoun & Li 2003; Boeckx 2003; Guilliot & Malkawi 2006; Malkawi 2009; Rouveret 2011, to appear); (iii) resumptive pronouns may have different internal structures (Elbourne 2002; Déchaine & Wiltschko 2002).  2.5.2 The inventory of pronouns in Iraqi Arabic   The personal pronouns in Arabic are strong and weak. The strong personal pronouns correspond to the forms used with the Nominative case, whereas the weak pronominal forms are the ones used with the Accusative and the Genitive. Arabic allows subject pro-drop and the overt presence of a subject pronoun is highly marked. Moreover, as we have already seen, resumption with subject pronouns is not possible in Iraqi Arabic. I return to this below.  Since the Accusative forms are weak pronouns which cliticize to verbs and to prepositions, the resumptive strategy in which they participate is known as weak resumption (Malkawi 2009). A complete paradigm of the personal pronouns with their strong and weak forms in Iraqi Arabic is given in Table 11; of these, the Accusative forms are used in resumption in Iraqi Arabic content questions.              39 Person and number Nominative (strong pronouns) Accusative (weak pronouns) Genitive (weak pronouns) 1S ينأ any -ين  -ny -ي  -y 2MS تنإ enta -ك  -ək -ك  -ək 2FS تنإ enti -ك  -iʧ -ك  -iʧ 3MS وھ hu:wwa -ه  -hu -ه  -hu 3FS يھ hyia -اھ  -ha -اھ  -ha 1Pl انحإ ʔiHna -ان  -na: -ان  -na: 2Pl وتنا intu: -مت  -tum -مت  -tum 3MPl مھ humma -مھ  -hum -مھ  -hum 3FPl نم henna -نھ  -hunna -نھ  -hunna Table 11. The paradigm of personal pronouns in Iraqi Arabic   The resumptive strategy in Iraqi Arabic content questions is realized via resumptive clitic pronouns (weak pronouns). According to Malkawi's (2009) classification, the resumptive strategy which involves weak resumptive pronouns (clitics or clitics doubled by a strong pronoun) is a case of weak resumption. In the following, the resumptive strategy discussed refers only to resumptive clitic pronouns (i.e. weak resumption).  2.5.3 Internal structure of the resumptive pronoun   Postal (1969) advanced the claim that pronouns are definite articles. Since then, various authors have treated pronouns as DPs (i.e. determiner phrases) and worked on their internal structure (Evans 1980; Reinhart 1983; Cardinaletti & Stark 1999). Elbourne (2002) proposed that pronouns are definite determiners whose NP-complement has undergone deletion in the phonology (i.e. The NP-deletion Theory) as in (40).    40 (40) Elbourne's (2002) internal structure of a pronoun [D pronoun  [NP  noun]   Elbourne's NP-deletion theory is central to Guilliot & Malkawi's (2006) and Malkawi's (2009) analysis of resumptive pronouns in Jordanian Arabic. In essence, we retain for this thesis that pronouns can have an NP-complement.   Déchaine & Wiltschko (2002) propose that pronouns are not primitives and that they are decomposable. They argue that there are at least three pronoun types: pro-DP, pro-φP and pro-NP, each one associated with a distinct syntactic projection as in (41).  (41) DÉCHAINE & WILTSCHKO'S (2002) INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF A PRONOUN     The DP-structure in (41a) functions as an R-expression, and, according to Déchaine & Wiltschko (2002), always contains ϕP and NP as sub-constituents.  The ϕP- structure in (41b) functions as bound variable, while the NP-structure in (41c) has the status of a semantic constant. Relevant to the present analysis is Déchaine & Wiltschko’s claim that the ϕ-element is what allows a pronouns to function as a bound variable. Recall that Rouveret’s (2011) definition of resumptive pronoun (introduced in §1.2.1) equate the resumptive pronoun with an A’-bound variable position. Combining this with the Déchaine & Witlschko analysis predicts that pronominal elements which function as resumptive pronouns should be able to function as bound variables. This is confirmed in Iraqi Arabic: observes that the accusative pronouns that otherwise functions as Condition  41 B pronoun — it is locally free, as shown in (42) — can also be used as a bound variable as in (43).  (42) THE PRONOUN CAN BE BOUND FROM OUTSIDE ITS LOCAL DOMAIN a. condition B violation – local domain ناميإ1اھتفاش 1*. *Iman1 ʃa:fit=ha1   Iman   saw.3FS=3FS ‘Iman1 saw her1.’  b. condition B observed – from outside local domain ناميإ1اھتفش ينإ تلاق 1. Iman1 ga:lit          ʔin=ny   ʃuft=ha1 Iman said.3FS      that=1S saw.1S=3FS ‘Iman1 said that I saw her1.’  (43) THE PRONOUN IS A BOUND VARIABLE هتفاش ناميإ ونإ لوقي دحاو لك. kull waHed1  ygwul       ennu:  Iman  ʃa:fit=hu1 everyone        say.3MS   that    Iman  saw.3FS=3MS ‘Everyone1 says that Iman saw him1.’      (SA, 1, 14 APR 2011 elicited)  Amending Déchaine & Wiltschko’s (2002) analysis, I propose that D-linked interrogative expressions always have a DP-shell, but differ according to whether the intermediate ϕ-layer is present. In terms of the inputs to the numeration, there are two logical possibilities: a [D-N] structure, and a [D-ϕ-N] structure. In terms of how these structure are spelled out, I show that the gap strategy is structurally ambiguous between (44a) and (44b), while the resumptive strategy is always associated with a [D-ϕ-N], as in (45).  42 (44) SYNTAX OF GAP STRATEGY a. [D-N]  b. [D-ϕ-N] (with covert ϕ)  (45) SYNTAX OF RESUMPTIVE STRATEGY  [D-ϕ-N] (with overt ϕ)  2.5.4 Resumption as remnant DP-deletion  In this section I show how the resumptive strategy is derived with remnant- deletion. I use the minimalist derivational analysis which employs bare phrase structure and the operations Select, Merge, Copy and Delete. In the following, whenever I use the term "movement", I understand it not as a primitive operation, but as the combination of Copy + Merge (Hornstein et al 2006).  In content questions with the resumptive strategy and D-linked interrogative expressions, I treat the D-linked interrogative expressions as having a tripartite internal structure with a D- φP - N substructure as shown in (46).  (46) internal structure of D-linked interrogative expressions [D [D-linked interrogative] [φP [φ resumptive pronoun] [N  noun]]]   Let us unpack this with an example of D-linked content question employing the resumptive strategy (47a) whose numeration is given in (47b).         43 (47) D-LINKED CONTENT QUESTION a. the resumptive strategy  ؟ هتفاش لاجر اي ناميإ Iman   ya:       riʤa:l ʃa:fit=hu Iman   which  man    saw.3FS=3MS 'Which man did Iman see [him] ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 1II, offered freely)  b. Numeration: {TOPØ, CØ, IØ, ImanD, Sa:fitV, ya:D, huφ, ridza:lN,}  In (48) I show the derivational analysis of (47a). The derivation develops by phases (i.e. the vP phase, the IP phase, etc), where each maximal projection represents a domain for the application of rules (Chomsky 1995; Wojdak 2005; Hornstein 2008). Thus, within the VP3 phase (48b), the DP is built by: (48bI) merging the pronoun hu ‘him’ with the noun riʤal 'man' and (48bII)  merging that complex syntactic object with the D-linked interrogative ya: ‘which’. Then the verb V ʃa:fit 'she saw' merges with the DP ya: hu riʤa:l 'which he man' (48bIII), and cliticizaton of the pronoun hu ‘him’ immediately takes place via successive application of Copy and Delete (48b IV-V). Thus the cliticization rule of the resumptive pronoun to the verb occurs in the VP phase; the pronoun has to cliticize to the verb and this determines its early movement in the derivation, during the VP phase. The subject DP Iman then merges with the V at SpecVP (48bVI).  At the IP phase (48c), the inflectional head merges with the VP (48cI), then the subject DP Iman is moved to SpecIP via successive application of Copy and Delete (48cII – III). At the CP phase (48d), the remnant of the DP ya: hu riʤa:l is moved to SpecCP via successive application of Copy and Delete (48dI-II). At the TopP phase (48e), the topical head Top merges with the CP (48eI) and the subject DP Iman is moved to SpecTopP via successive application of Copy and Delete (48eII-III).     3  It does not make a difference for my analysis if the verb is a v or a V. To keep matters simple, I label the verb as V.  44 (48) derivational analysis of (47a) a. Numeration: {TOPØ, CØ, IØ, ImanD, Sa:fitV, ya:D, huφ, ridza:lN,}  b. VP phase I. Merge <φ, N> [φ [hu φ] [riʤa:l N ] ]  II. Merge <D, φ> [D [ya:D ] [huφ riʤa:lN ] ]  III. Merge <V, D> [V [ʃa:fit V] [D ya:D huφ riʤa:lN ] ]  IV. Copy huφ & Merge <V, φ> [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D ya:D huφ riʤa:lN ] ]  V. Delete huφ [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D ya:D huφ riʤa:lN ] ]  VI. Merge <D, V> [V [ImanD ] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D ya:D huφ riʤa:lN ] ] ]  c. IP phase I. Merge <I, V> [I [V [ImanD ] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D ya:D huφ riʤa:lN ]]]]  II. Copy ImanD & Merge <D, I> [I [ImanD ] [I [V [ImanD ] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D ya:D huφ riʤa:lN ]]]]]  III. Delete ImanD [I [ImanD ] [I [V [ImanD ] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D ya:D huφ riʤa:lN ]]]]]  45 d. CP phase I. Copy [D ya:D huφ riʤa:lN ] & Merge <C, I> [C [D ya:D huφ riʤa:lN] [I [V [ImanD] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D ya:D huφ riʤa:lN]]]]]  II. Delete [D ya:D huφ riʤa:lN ] [C [D ya:D huφ riʤa:lN] [I [V [ImanD ] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D ya:D huφ riʤa:lN]]]]]  e. TopP phase I. Merge <Top, C>  II. Copy ImanD & Merge <Top, C> [Top ImanD [C [D ya: hu riʤa:l] [I [V [ImanD ] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D ya: hu ridZa:l ]]]]]]  III. Delete ImanD [Top ImanD [C [D ya: hu riʤa:l] [I [V [ImanD] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D ya: hu riʤa:l]]]]]]   To summarize, the resumptive strategy is analyzed as "remnant deletion", because of the deletion of the remnant-DP ya: hu riʤa:l resulted from the cliticization of the φ- pronoun to V.  The brief description of the remnant DP-deletion process is given in (49).  (49) remnant-DP deletion in brief Remnant-DP deletion = cliticization of resumptive pronoun followed by deletion of remnant-DP   Thus, in this analysis the resumptive pronoun is a stranded pro-φP deleted from the lower occurrence of the DP as in (50).  (50) the resumptive strategy as remnant DP-deletion [C [D D] [[φ [φ φ] [NP  N]]... [I [V V  φ] ...[D D] [[φ [φ φ] [NP N]]]]]   46  Observe that the full DP containing all three subcomponents does not surface overtly (i.e. the form ya: hu riʤal is ungrammatical).  I stipulated that the motivation for the resumptive pronoun to remain overt in the syntax is that it cliticizes to the verb4.  2.6 Syntactic analysis of the gap strategy   I propose that the internal structure of the interrogative DP differs with the gap and the resumptive strategy (§2.6.1), and analyze that the gap strategy involve full DP deletion (§2.6.2).  2.6.1 Internal structure of the DP   I show that the gap strategy is derived with full DP-deletion. While the D-linked interrogative in the gap strategy has a D-N structure as in (51a), the D-linked interrogative expression of the resumptive strategy has a D-φ-N structure as in (51b).  (51) SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE D-LINKED INTERROGATIVE EXPRESSION a. the gap structure [D D [N  N]]  b. the resumptive structure [D D [φ φ [N  N]]]    4  Various mechanical solutions have been proposed within the Minimalist framework regarding the phenomenon of resumption, for example Adger and Ramchand (2001, 2005) and Rouveret (2002, 2008) propose that the relation between the resumptive pronoun and its antecedent is established via Agree, while Boeckx (2003) analyzes resumption as subextraction in which resumptive strategies involve Match followed by Move, and not Agree. In future research I intent to pursue these analyses and compare and contrast each one of them with the one proposed in this thesis.  47 2.6.2 The gap strategy as full DP-deletion   In content questions where the gap strategy is employed, the lower occurrence of the DP is deleted in full and merged at SpecCP. Let us unpack this by considering the example in (52a) below which is a D-linked content question in which the gap strategy is employed. The numeration is given in (52b).  (52) D-LINKED CONTENT QUESTION a. the gap strategy  ؟ ةلفحلاب تفاش لاجر اي ناميإ Iman   ya:       riʤa:l ʃa:fit ____         bi-l-Hafla Iman   which  man    saw.3FS____    at-the-party 'Which man did Iman see___ at the party ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 1I, offered freely)  b. Numeration: {TOPØ, CØ, IØ, ImanD, Sa:fitV, ya:D, ridza:lN,}  Notice that the numeration of (52b), which derives the D-linked content question employing the gap strategy, does not contain the φ-element.  The derivation is given in (53). At the VP phase (53b), the DP is built by (53bI) merging the D-linked interrogative ya ‘which’ with the noun riʤal 'man'; then the verb ʃa:fit 'she saw' merges with the DP ya: riʤa:l 'which man' (53bII). The subject DP Iman merges with the V at SpecVP (53bIII).  At the IP phase (53c), the inflectional head merges with the VP (53cI), then the subject DP Iman is moved to SpecIP via successive application of Copy and Delete (53cII-III). At the CP phase (53d), the DP ya: riʤa:l ‘which man’ is moved to SpecCP via successive application of Copy and Delete (53dI- II). At the TopP phase (53e), the topical head Top merges with the CP (53eI) and the subject DP Iman is moved to SpecTopP via successive application of Copy and Delete (53eII-III).    48 (53) derivational analysis of (52a) a. Numeration: {TOPØ, CØ, IØ, ImanD, Sa:fitV, ya:D, riʤa:lN,}  b. VP phase I. Merge <D, N> [D [ya:D ] [riʤa:lN ] ]  II. Merge <V, D> [V [Sa:fit V] [D ya:D riʤa:lN ] ]  III. Merge <D, V> [V [ImanD ] [V [Sa:fit V] [D ya:D riʤa:lN ] ] ]  c. IP phase I. Merge <I, V> [I [V [ImanD ] [V [ʃa:fit V] [D ya:D  riʤa:lN ]]]  II. Copy ImanD & Merge <D, I> [I [ImanD ] [I [V [ImanD ] [V [ʃa:fit V] [D ya:D riʤa:lN ]]]]  III. Delete ImanD [I [ImanD ] [I [V [ImanD ] [V [ʃa:fit V] [D ya:D riʤa:lN ]]]]  d. CP phase I. Copy [D ya:D riʤa:lN] & Merge <C, I> [C [D ya:D riʤa:lN] [I [V [ImanD ] [V [ʃa:fit V] [D ya:D riʤa:lN]]]]  II. Delete [D ya: hu ridZa:l ] [C [D ya:D riʤa:lN] [I [V [ImanD ] [V [Sa:fit  hu] [D ya:D riʤa:lN]]]]    49 e. TopP phase I. Merge <Top, C>  II. Copy ImanD & Merge <Top, C> [Top ImanD [C [C [D ya:D riʤa:lN] [I [V [ImanD ] [V [Sa:fitV] [D ya:D riʤa:lN]]]]]  III. Delete ImanD [Top ImanD [C [C [D ya:D riʤa:lN] [I [V [ImanD ] [V [Sa:fitV] [D ya:D riʤa:lN]]]]]   As can be seen from (53), the verb ʃa:fit 'saw' has a DP-complement ya: riʤa:l 'which man' (53bIII) which is copied and merged at SpecCP (53dI-II); the full-DP is deleted from its lower occurrence and maintained in its upper occurrence.  Thus, while the gap strategy is derived with full DP-deletion, the resumptive strategy is derived with remnant DP-deletion.  2.7 Implications of the analysis for extraction I present the implications of the syntactic analysis outlined in the two previous sections — namely remnant DP-deletion (§2.5) and full DP-deletion (§2.6) — as they apply to extraction of a subject (§2.7.1), of a prepositional object (§2.7.2), and of a PP (§2.7.3).  2.7.1 Why resumption isn’t possible with subject extraction Recall that subjects in Iraqi Arabic can only be strong pronouns which are independent pronouns in that they do not cliticize (see §2.2.2). But, as already observed above, Iraqi Arabic only has weak resumption, in that the pronominal element which serves as a resumptive is drawn from the (Accusative) clitic series. Therefore, subject resumption is not possible because partial DP-deletion cannot occur as the pronoun cannot cliticize to the verb. In the following I present this analysis in more detail. In (54a) I show the  50 derivation of a content question with subject extraction employing the gap strategy; the numeration of (54a) is given in (54b).  (54) SUBJECT EXTRACTION a. extraction with gap  ؟ ةقش ترتشا ةقيدص اي ya:        Sadi:ga    iʃtarat            ʃigga which   friend.F   bought.3FS   apartment 'Which friend bought an apartment ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA, offered freely)  b. the numeration of (54a) Numeration: {TOPØ, CØ, IØ, iʃtaratV, ya:D, Sadi:gaN, ʃiggaN}  (55) shows the derivation, which, as before, develops by phases (i.e. the vP phase, the IP phase, etc), where each maximal projection represents a domain for the application of rules. Within the VP phase (55b), the VP is built by merging the verb V iʃtarat 'she bought’ with the DP ʃigga ‘apartment’ (55bI). Then, the subject is built by merging the D-linked interrogative pronoun ya: ‘which’ with the noun Sadi:ga ‘friend’, as in (55bII). The subject DP ya: Sadi:ga ‘which friend’ then merges with the V at SpecVP (55bIII). During the IP phase (55c), the inflectional head merges with the VP (55cI). Then the subject DP ya: Sadi:ga ‘which friend’ is moved to SpecIP via successive application of Copy and Delete (55cII-III). At the CP phase (55d), the DP ya: Sadi:ga ‘which friend’ is moved to SpecCP via successive application of Copy and Delete (55dI-II).  (55) derivational analysis of (54a) a. Numeration: {TOPØ, CØ, IØ, iʃtaratV, ya:D, Sadi:gaN, ʃiggaN}      51 b. VP phase I. Merge <V, D> [V [iʃtaratV] [D ʃiggaN ] ]  II. Merge <D, N> [D [ya:D ] [Sadi:gaN]]  III. Merge <D, V> [V [D [ya:D ] [Sadi:gaN]] [V [iʃtaratV] [N ʃiggaN ]]]  c. IP phase I. Merge <I, V> [I [V [D [ya:D ] [Sadi:gaN]] [V [iʃtaratV] [N ʃiggaN ]]]]  II. Copy [D ya:D Sadi:gaN] & Merge <D, I> [I [D [ya:D] [Sadi:gaN] [I [V [D [ya:D ] [Sadi:gaN]] [V [iʃtaratV] [N ʃiggaN ]]]]]  III. Delete [D ya:D Sadi:gaN] [I [D [ya:D] [Sadi:gaN] [I [V [D [ya:D ] [Sadi:gaN]] [V [iʃtaratV] [N ʃiggaN ]]]]]  d. CP phase I. Copy [D [ya:D ] [Sadi:gaN]& Merge <C, I> [C [D [ya:D ] [Sadi:gaN] [I [D [ya:D] [Sadi:gaN] [I [V [D [ya:D ] [Sadi:gaN]] [V [iʃtaratV] [N ʃiggaN ]]]]]]  II. Delete [D [ya:D ] [Sadi:gaN] [C [D [ya:D ] [Sadi:gaN] [I [D [ya:D] [Sadi:gaN] [I [V [D [ya:D ] [Sadi:gaN]] [V [iʃtaratV] [N ʃiggaN ]]]]]]  Let us consider now the ungrammatical example in (56a) showing a content question with subject extraction employing the resumptive strategy; the numeration of (56a) is  52 given in (56b). Notice that the numeration in (56b) has a resumptive pronoun and the structure of the D-linked interrogative expressions is D-φ-N.  (56) SUBJECT EXTRACTION a. extraction with resumption ةقيدص اييھ ؟ ةقش ترتشا * *ya:        Sadi:ga     hyia iʃtarat            ʃigga which   friend.F    she  bought.3FS   apartment 'Which friend [she] bought an apartment ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA, offered freely)  b. the numeration of (56a) Numeration: {TOPØ, CØ, IØ, iʃtaratV, ya:D, Sadi:gaN, ʃiggaN, hiyaD}  (57) shows the derivation of (56a). Within the VP phase (57b), the VP is built by merging the verb V iʃtarat 'she bought’ with the DP ʃigga ‘apartment’ (57bI). The subject DP (57bII) is built by: merging the pronoun hiya ‘she’ with the noun Sa:diga ‘friend’ and (57bIII) merging that complex syntactic object with the D-linked interrogative ya: ‘which’. At the next step (57bIV), the derivation crashes, because the subject DP merges with V at SpecV and the pro-φ hiya ‘she’ cannot cliticize to the verb iʃtarat 'she bought’ within the VP-phase. Notice that this account crucially assumes that phonological clitic attachments must be resolved within the same syntactic phase that introduces the clitic.  (57) derivational analysis of (56a) a. Numeration: {CØ, IØ, iʃtaratV, ya:D, Sadi:gaN, ʃiggaN, hiyaφ}  b. VP phase I. Merge <V, D> [V [iʃtaratV] [D ʃiggaN ] ]   53 II. Merge <φ, N> [φ [hiya φ] [Sa:diga N ] ]  III. Merge <D, φ> [D [ya:D ] [hiyaφ SadigaN ] ]  IV. Merge <D, V> *[V [D [ya:D] [hiyaφ SadigaN]] [V [iʃtaratV] [D ʃiggaN ]]]   2.7.2 Why resumption is possible with prepositional object extraction  Recall that with D-linked interrogative expressions, temporal adjunct extraction in Iraqi Arabic does not allow either the gap strategy or the resumptive strategy (see §2.3.3). Locative adjunct extraction allows only the resumptive strategy. Given that the resumptive strategy is derived by remnant-DP deletion with cliticization of the resumptive pronoun. It follows that resumption with a prepositional object is possible because the resumptive clitic can cliticize. I present this in more detail by looking at the derivation of the locative adjunct extraction with the gap strategy and respectively with the resumptive strategy. Consider the example in (58a) of locative adjunct extraction employing the resumptive strategy and its numeration in (58b).  (58) D-LINKED LOCATIVE ADJUNCT a. extraction with resumption ناميإ؟ اھيلإ تحار ةلحم اي Iman   ya:        maHalla  ra:het           ʔli:=ha Iman  which    store        went.3FS     to=3FS 'Which store did Iman go to [it] ?'        (9 SEP 2010, SA 3, elicited)  54 b. numeration of (58a) Numeration: {CØ, IØ, ra:HetV, ya:D, maHallaN, Pʔila, haφ, ImanD}  In (59) I show the derivational analysis of (58a). As I explained above, the derivation develops by phases (i.e. the vP phase, the IP phase, etc), where each maximal projection represents a domain for the application of rules (Chomsky 1995; Wojdak 2005; Hornstein 2008). The DP is built (59bI) by merging the pronoun ha ‘her’ with the noun maHalla ‘store’ and (59bII)  merging that complex syntactic object with the D-linked interrogative ya: ‘which’. Then the preposition P ʔila ‘to’ merges with the DP ya: ha maHalla ‘which her store’ (59bIII) and cliticizaton of the pronoun ha ‘her’ immediately takes place via successive application of Copy and Delete (51bIV-V). Then the verb V ra:Het ‘she went’ merges with the PP ʔila haφ ya:D haφ maHallaN (59VI). The subject DP Iman then merges with the V at SpecVP (59bVII). At the IP phase (59c), the inflectional head merges with the VP (59cI), then the subject DP Iman is moved to SpecIP via successive application of Copy and Delete (51cII–III). At the CP phase (59d), the remnant of the DP ya:  ha maHalla is moved to SpecCP via successive application of Copy and Delete (59dI-II). At the TopP phase (59e), the topical head Top merges with the CP (59eI) and the subject DP Iman is moved to SpecTopP via successive application of Copy and Delete (59eII-III).   (59) derivation of (58a) a. Numeration: {CØ, IØ, ra:HetV, ya:D, maHallaN, Pʔila, haφ, ImanD} b. VP phase I. Merge <φ, N> [φ [haφ] [maHalla N ]]  II. Merge <D, φ> [D [ya:D ] [haφ maHallaN ]]  III. Merge <P, D> [P [Pʔila] [D [ya:D ] [haφ maHallaN ]]   55 IV. Copy haφ & Merge <P, D> [P [Pʔila haφ] [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ]]]  V. Delete haφ [P [Pʔila haφ] [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ]]]  VI. Merge <V, P> [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila haφ] [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ]]]]  VII. Merge ImanD [V [ImanD] [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila haφ] [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ]]]]  c. IP phase I. Merge <I, V> [I [V [ImanD] [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila haφ] [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ]]]]]  II. Copy ImanD & Merge <D, I> [I [ImanD] [I [V [ImanD] [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila haφ] [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ]]]]]  III. Delete ImanD [I [ImanD] [I [V [ImanD] [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila haφ] [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ]]]]] d. CP phase I. Copy [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ] and Merge <C, I> [C [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ] [I [ImanD] [I [V [ImanD] [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila haφ] [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ]]]]]]  II. Delete [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ] [C [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ] [I [ImanD] [I [V [ImanD] [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila haφ] [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ]]]]]]    56 e. TopP phase I. Copy ImanD & Merge <Top, C> [Top [ImanD] [C [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ] [I [ImanD] [I [V [ImanD] [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila haφ] [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ]]]]]]]  II. Delete ImanD [Top [ImanD] [C [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ] [I [ImanD] [I [V [ImanD] [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila haφ] [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ]]]]]]]   The derivation of the content question with D-linked locative adjunct employing the resumptive strategy converges because the resumptive pronoun φ of the D-linked interrogative adjunct can cliticize to the preposition.  Let us now consider the ungrammatical content question with D-linked interrogative adjunct employing the gap strategy in (60a) and at its numeration (60b).  (60) D-LINKED LOCATIVE ADJUNCT a. extraction with gap  كمأةلحم اي تحار  ىلإ؟* *ʔummiʧ             ya: maHalla    ra:hit           ʔila___   mother=your:F  which store    went.3FS     to ____ 'Where did your mother go ____   ?'        (9 SEP 2010, SA 3, offered freely) b. Numeration of (60a) Numeration: {CØ, IØ, ra:HetV, ya:D, maHallaN, Pʔila, ImanD}   (61) shows the derivation of (60a). The DP is built by: (61bI) merging the D- linked interrogative ya: ‘which’ with the noun maHalla ‘store’. Then the preposition P ʔila ‘to’ merges with the DP ya: maHalla ‘which store’ (61bII). Then the verb V ra:Het ‘she went’ merges with the PP ʔila ya:maHallaN (61bIII). The subject DP Iman then merges with the V at SpecVP (61bIV). At the IP phase (61c), the inflectional head merges with the VP (61cI), then the subject DP Iman is moved to SpecIP via successive  57 application of Copy and Delete (61cII – III). At the CP phase (61d), the DP ya:  maHalla is moved to SpecCP via successive application of Copy and Delete (61dI-II). At this point the derivation crashes, because Arabic does not allow preposition stranding.  (61) derivation of (60a) a. Numeration: {CØ, IØ, ra:HetV, ya:D, maHallaN, Pʔila, ImanD}  b. VP phase I. Merge <D, N> [D [ya:D] [maHallaN ]]  II. Merge <P, D> [P [Pʔila] [D [ya:D] [maHallaN ]]  III. Merge <V, P> [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila] [D [ya:D] [maHallaN ]]]  IV. Merge ImanD [V [ImanD] [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila] [D [ya:D] [maHallaN ]]]]  c. IP phase I. Merge <I, V> [I [V [ImanD] [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila] [D [ya:D] [maHallaN ]]]]]  II. Copy ImanD & Merge <D, I> [I [ImanD] [I [V [ImanD] [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila] [D [ya:D] [maHallaN ]]]]]  III. Delete ImanD [I [ImanD] [I [V [ImanD] [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila] [D [ya:D] [maHallaN ]]]]]    58 d. CP phase I. Copy [D [ya:D maHallaN ]] and Merge <C, I> [C [D [ya:D] [maHallaN ] [I [ImanD] [I [V [ImanD] [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila] [D [ya:D] [maHallaN ]]]]]]  *II. Delete [D [ya:D] [haφ maHallaN ] *[C [D [ya:D] [maHallaN ] [I [ImanD] [I [V [ImanD] [V [ra:HetV] [P [Pʔila] [D [ya:D] [maHallaN ]]]]]] CRASH NO PREPOSITION STRANDING  2.7.3 Why resumption is obligatory with extraction from islands  Recall that in wh-islands (i.e. embedded CPs introduced by wh-constituents) and adjunct islands (i.e. islands formed from an adjunct clause), resumption is obligatory (see §2.4.3). Consider the grammatical example in (62a) of a wh-island employing the resumptive strategy and its numeration in (62b).  (62) WH-ISLAND a. resumptive strategy  ؟ اھتققش ةيرم لك اذإ لأسي رماس ةروص اي ya:        Su:ra.F      Samer   ysʔal         iδa kull      mraya    ʃagagat=ha which   picture.F   Samer   ask.3MS    if   every   woman   tore.3FS=3F 'Which photo did Samer wonder if every woman tore [it] ?'            (13 NOV 2010, SA 14aII, elicited) b. Numeration of (62a): {  CØ, IØ, ʃagagatV, ysʔalV, ya:D, Su:raN, kull mrayaD, haφ}  (63) shows the derivation of (62a). During the VP phase, the DP is built (63bI) by merging the pronoun ha ‘her’ with the noun Su:ra ‘picture’ and (63bII) by merging that complex syntactic object with the D-linked interrogative ya: ‘which’. Then the verb V ʃagagatV merges with the complex syntactic object ya: ha Su:ra (63bIII) and cliticizaton of the pronoun ha ‘her’ immediately takes place via successive application of Copy and  59 Delete (63bIV-V). The subject of the embedded clause kull mrayaD ‘every woman’ is merged at SpecV (63VI). During the IP phase, the inflectional head merges with the VP (63cI), then the subject DP kull mrayaD ‘every woman’ is moved to SpecIP via successive application of Copy and Delete (63cII – III). At the CP phase (63d), the DP ya: ha Su:ra is moved to SpecCP via successive application of Copy and Delete (63dI- III). At the VP phase, the verb ysʔalV merges with the embedded clause (63eI), then the subject SamerD is merged as SpecVP (63eII). During the IP phase, the inflectional head merges with the VP (63fI), then the subject DP SamerD is moved to SpecIP via successive application of Copy and Delete (63fII – III). At the CP phase (63g), the DP ya: ha Su:ra is moved to SpecCP via successive application of Copy and Delete (63gI- III).  (63) derivation of (62a) a. Numeration: {  CØ, iδaC , IØ, ʃagagatV, ysʔalV, ya:D, Su:raN, kull mrayaD, haφ} b. VP phase I. Merge <φ, N> [φ [haφ] [Su:ra N ]]  II. Merge <D, φ> [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]  III. Merge <V, D> [V [ʃagagat V] [[D [ya:D] [haφ Su:raN ]]]  IV. Copy haφ & Merge <V, φ> [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]  V. Delete haφ [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]   60 VI. Merge <D, V> [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]  c. IP phase I. Merge <I, V> [I [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]  II. Copy kull mrayaD & Merge <D, I> [I [kull mrayaD] [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]]  III. Delete kull mrayaD [I [kull mrayaD] [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]]  d. CP phase I. Merge <C, I> [C [iδaC] [I [kull mrayaD] [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]]  II. Copy [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] & Merge <D, C> [C [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] [C [iδaC] [I [kull mrayaD] [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]]]  III. Delete [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] [C [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] [C [iδaC] [I [kull mrayaD] [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]]]  e. VP phase I. Merge <V, C> [V [ysʔalV] [C [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] [C [iδaC] [I [kull mrayaD] [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]]]    61 II. Merge SamerD [V [SamerD] [V [ysʔalV] [C [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] [C [iδaC] [I [kull mrayaD] [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]]]  f. IP phase I. Merge <I, V> [I [V [SamerD] [V [ysʔalV] [C [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] [C [iδaC] [I [kull mrayaD] [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]]]]  II. Copy SamerD and merge <D, I> [I [SamerD] [I [V [SamerD] [V [ysʔalV] [C [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] [C [iδaC] [I [kull mrayaD] [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]]]]  III. Delete SamerD [I [SamerD] [I [V [SamerD] [V [ysʔalV] [C [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] [C [iδaC] [I [kull mrayaD] [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]]]]  g. CP phase I. Copy [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] & Merge <C, I> [C [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] [I [SamerD] [I [V [SamerD] [V [ysʔalV] [C [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] [C [iδaC] [I [kull mrayaD] [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]]]]]  II. Delete [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] [C [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] [I [SamerD] [I [V [SamerD] [V [ysʔalV] [C [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]] [C [iδaC] [I [kull mrayaD] [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV haφ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]]]]]   The derivation of the content question with D-linked locative adjunct employing the resumptive strategy converges because the resumptive pronoun φ of the D-linked interrogative adjunct can cliticize to the verb.  62  Consider the ungrammatical example (64a) and its numeration (64b). Notice that the numeration (64b) does not have a resumptive pronoun and the structure of the D- linked interrogative is D-N.  (64) WH-ISLAND a. gap strategy  ؟ تققش ةيرم لك اذإ لأسي رماس ةروص اي* *ya:        Su:ra.F      Samer   ysʔal          iδa kull      mraya    ʃagagat____  which   picture.F    Samer   ask.3MS    if   every   woman   tore.3FS___ '*Which photo did Samer wonder if every woman tore ____ ?'        (13 NOV 2010, SA 14aI, elicited)  b. Numeration: {  CØ, iδaC , IØ, ʃagagatV, ya:D, Su:raN, kull mrayaD}  (65) shows the derivation of (64a). During the VP phase, the DP is built (65bI) by merging the D-linked interrogative ya: ‘which’ with the noun Su:ra ‘picture’. Then the verb V ʃagagatV merges with the direct object ya: Su:ra (65bII). The subject of the embedded clause kull mrayaD ‘every woman’ is merged at SpecV (65bIII). During the IP phase, the inflectional head merges with the VP (65cI), then the subject DP kull mrayaD ‘every woman’ is moved to SpecIP via successive application of Copy and Delete (65cII – III). At the CP phase (65d), the complementizer iδaC ‘whether’ is merged at C (65dI) and then the DP ya: Su:ra is moved to SpecCP via successive application of Copy and Delete (65dII-III). At this point the derivation crashes, because there is no clitic to remain cliticized to the verb.  (65) derivation of (64a) a. Numeration: {  CØ, IØ, ʃagagatV, ya:D, Su:raN, kull mrayaD} b. VP phase I. Merge <D, N> [D [ya:D ] [Su:raN ]]   63 II. Merge <V, D> [V [ʃagagat V] [[D [ya:D] [Su:raN ]]]  III. Merge <D, V> [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV ] [D [ya:D ] [Su:raN ]]]]  c. IP phase I. Merge <I, V> [I [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV ] [D [ya:D ] [Su:raN ]]]]  II. Copy kull mrayaD & Merge <D, I> [I [kull mrayaD] [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]]  III. Delete kull mrayaD [I [kull mrayaD] [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagatV ] [D [ya:D ] [haφ Su:raN ]]]]] - CRASH NO CLITIC TO CLITICIZE TO VERB  2.8 Implications of the analysis for reconstruction   Resumptive strategies give rise to reconstruction effects (Rouveret 2011, to appear).  Let's first define what reconstruction is (66). Given a relation between an XP and its extraction site (66i), "reconstruction" is a term used to describe the interpretation of XP in its in-situ position relative to a c-commanding antecedent YP, as in (66ii), and the interpretation of XP in its in-situ position relative to a c-commanding quantifier YP, as in (66iii) below.      64 (66) DEFINITION OF RECONSTRUCTION (i) [XP]i … [___]i  (ii) [XP]i  ... [YPantecedent]...  [___]i  (iii) [XP]i  [QP]  [___]i   The authors who work on the syntax of resumption in either Semitic or Celtic use reconstruction effects to account for the bound variable readings of the resumptive elements (Lebeaux 1990; Aoun et al 2001; Rouveret 2002, 2008; Guilliot 2006; Guilliot & Malkawi 2006; Malkawi 2009).  There are two kinds of reconstruction: scope reconstruction and binding reconstruction. After illustrating that the copy theory of movement derives these two types of reconstruction (§2.8.1 - §2.8.2), I show how the two kinds of reconstruction play out in Iraqi Arabic (§2.8.3 - §2.8.4).  2.8.1 Scope reconstruction with a quantificational antecedent  Scope reconstruction is illustrated in (67) below with an example adapted from Guilliot & Malkawi (2009).  SCOPE RECONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH (Guilliot & Malkawi 2009) (67) Which patient did every doctor examine ? (i) 'Every doctor examined a different patient'         Ax, Ey [examine (x. y)]  (ii) 'There is one patient that every doctor examined'         Ey, Ax [examine (x, y)]   One of the possible readings of the question in (67) is the one where every doctor  65 examined a different patient: the universal quantifier every has scope over patient. This is possible if patient “reconstructs” to its thematic position as the complement of the verb examine, where it would be in the scope of the quantifier. Reconstruction is automatically available in the copy theory of movement that is assumed in this thesis, as shown in (68).  (68) reconstruction applied to example in (67) a. Which patient did every doctor examine which patient ? b. [CP [C which patient1] [TP [T did] [VP [DP every doctor] [V examine][DP which patient1]]]]  In particular, scope reconstruction automatically follows because the constituent which patient can be interpreted in its thematic position as complement of the verb examine, which is under the scope of the quantifier every. Observe that when scope reconstruction applies, the interpretation assigned to the D-linked wh-phrase which patient is that of an indefinite expression: ‘for every doctor there is a patient that the doctor examines’. How is this possible? Here I follow other scholars (Kayne 1994, Agüerro-Bautista 2001, Guilliot & Malkawi 2009) in assuming that the lower copy in (68) can be interpreted as an indefinite. For concreteness, I adopt the mechanics proposed by Guilliot & Malkawi (2009), for whom the indefinite construal is an instance of a skolemized choice function, defined as follows (69):  (69) a. skolemization: the method for removing existential quantifiers   from a logical form (Kratzer 1999; Agüerro-Bautista 2001) b. choice function: a function which chooses exactly one element   from each set in the domain (Kratzer 1999; Agüerro-Bautista 2001) c. skolemized choice function: a function which takes one individual x   and a set of entities P and returns one individual of that set   relative to x (Guilliot & Malkawi 2009)  As a skolemized choice function, the copy which patient in (68) is bound by the quantifier every doctor, yielding the distributive reading where each doctor is mapped to a different patient. Gulliot & Malkawi (2009) further point out that, according to  66 Agüerro-Bautista (2001), the interpretation of the copy as a skolemized choice function gives rise to the pair-list reading, as follows (69):  (69) deriving the pair-list reading for (68) 1. Which patient did every doctor examine? 2. LF: WHICH(y), patient(y), ∀(x) doctor (x), [examine (x, y) ] 3. Which patient = indefinite  ∃(y), patient(y), ∀(x) doctor (x), [examine (x, y) ] 4. Skolemized choice function  ∀(x) doctor (x), [examine (x, f(y), patient(y) ] 5. Pair-list answer: Dr. Johnson examined Victor, Dr. Smith examined Joyce, etc  We saw that (69) is an example of scope reconstruction.  2.8.2 Binding reconstruction with a referential antecedent  Let us now consider the sentence in (70) which illustrates a case of binding reconstruction.   ENGLISH (Guilliot 2006) (70) Which picture of himself1 does every man1 prefer ? = Ax [x prefer picture of x]  (70) is an example of binding reconstruction: picture of himself is reconstructed to its thematic position as the complement of the verb prefer. This allows the pronoun himself to be bound by the quantifier each, resulting in a bound variable reading, which maps a different picture to each man.  (71) reconstruction applied to example (70) a. Which picture of himself1 does every man1 prefer picture of himself1?.  67 The representation in (71) is an example of binding reconstruction, because picture of himself can be reconstructed in its thematic position as the complement of the verb prefers, such that the pronoun him is bound by each man; the result will be a bound variable reading which maps a different picture for each man. This is illustrated in the abstract representation in (72) below.  (72) representation of (71) - binding reconstruction [CP [DP which picture of himself1][TP does [DP each man] [V prefer] [DP picture of himself1]]]]]  2.8.3 Reconstruction with resumption  So far we have seen how reconstruction effects appear with the gap strategy. In the following I show Guilliot & Malkawi's (2006) account of reconstruction effects with resumptive strategies in Jordanian Arabic.  Both (67) and (70) above are structures with gaps. In reconstruction with gap strategies, we reconstruct a copy of the displaced constituent in its thematic position, as we saw above. Let us now consider the example in (73) which shows a resumptive strategy.   JORDANIAN ARABIC (Guilliot & Malkawi 2006) (73) resumptive strategy [Talib-[ha]1          l-kassul]2  ma    ziʕlat           wala  mʕalmih1 laʔannuh   l-mudiirah student.M=3FS   the-bad     Neg  upset.3FS    no     teacher      because    the-principal  kaHʃat-uh2         mn       l-madrase expelled=3MS   from    the school  'Her1 bad student, no teacher1 was upset because the principal expelled [him] from school'.  68  In the construction with resumptive pronoun in (73), a resumptive pronoun occupies the thematic position which is otherwise occupied by a gap in the gap strategies; apparently, we could not reconstruct a copy of the displaced constituent Talib-ha l-kassul "her bad student" in its thematic position, since that position is occupied by a pronoun. The solution that Guilliot & Malkawi (2006) propose is to consider the pronoun to be a definite description in the spirit of Elbourne (2002). Then the reconstruction the displaced constituent is possible as the pronoun's NP-argument whose copy is elided under identity with its antecedent (Guilliot & Malkawi 2006). The abstract representation of the reconstruction with resumptive strategy in (73) is given in (74) below:  (74) reconstruction of (73) - resumption [DP Talib=[ha]1  l-kassul]2 .... [wala mʕalmih]1 .... [DP -uh  [NP Talib=ha1  l-kassul]]2  Therefore, they amend Lebeaux's (1990) formulation of reconstruction, given in (75a), to (75b).  (75) RECONSTRUCTION  a. Lebeaux 1990: if an XP allows for reconstruction,   then that XP has undergone movement  b. Guilliot & Malkawi 2006: if an XP allows for reconstruction,   then a copy of that XP is present in the derivation.  For Lebeaux, reconstruction is a diagnostic for movement. For Guilliot & Malkawi (2006) reconstruction is a diagnostic for the presence of a copy. These two approaches make different predictions about the interaction of reconstruction with the resumptive strategy. For analyses of resumption that treat it as a binding relation, the Lebeaux movement-account of reconstruction (incorrectly) predicts that reconstruction won’t be possible with resumptive. But for analyses such as the copy theory of movement, where both the gap strategy and the strategy involve the copy-and-delete operation, reconstruction is (correctly) predicted to apply in both contexts.   69 2.8.4 Scope Reconstruction of Iraqi D-linked interrogatives   In Iraqi Arabic reconstruction can be seen in contexts where the resumptive strategy is optional and in contexts where the resumptive strategy is obligatory.  Consider the optional resumption examples in (76), where (76a) employs the gap strategy and (76b) employs the resumptive strategy.  (76) optional resumption a. the gap strategy رم لك اھنبلا ةروص ايي؟ تققش ة ya:        Su:ra.F     li-bni=ha     kull     mraya     ʃagagat____ which   picture.F  of-son=her  every   woman    tore.3FS 'Which photo of her son did every woman tear___ ?'        (13 NOV 2010, SA 10a, elicited)  b. the resumptive strategy  ؟ اھتققش ةيرم لك اھنبلا ةروص اي ya:        Su:ra.F     li-bni=ha     kull     mraya     ʃagagat=ha which   picture.F  of-son=her  every   woman   tore.3FS=3FS 'Which photo of her son did every woman tear [it] ?'        (13 NOV 2010, SA 10b, elicited)   The possessive pronoun -ha 'her' in the interrogated expression ya:  Su:ra li- bni=ha 'which photo of her son' can be interpreted as a variable bound by the quantified expression kull mraya 'every woman'. The availability of this interpretation suggests that the possessive pronoun -ha 'her' can be reconstructed in the scope of the quantified expression kull mraya 'every woman'. The representation of the reconstruction of (76a) is given below in (77a) and its representation in (77b).     70 (77) a. reconstruction applied to example in (76a) ya:        Su:ra.F     li-bni=ha     kull     mraya     ʃagagat     Su:ra li-bni=ha which   picture.F  of-son=her   every   woman   tore.3FS 'Which photo of her son did every woman tear picture of her son ?'  b. representation of (76a)  [DP ya: Sura1 li-bni=[ha]2] .... [kull mraya]2..... [VP   [V ʃagagat]... [NP Sura1 li-bni=[ha]2]]   When we reconstruct in (76a), Su:ra li-bni=ha 'photo of her son' we consider a copy of it in its thematic position as complement of the verb ʃagagat 'she tore', where it is c-commanded (i.e. in the scope of) the universal quantifier kull 'every' in kull mraya 'every woman'. The reconstruction allows for the bound variable reading in which every woman tore a different picture of her son.  Consider now in (78) below how reconstruction applies to a D-linked content question with the resumptive strategy in (76b). We can reconstruct Su:ra li-bni=ha 'photo of her son' in its thematic position as the NP-complement of the resumptive pronoun -ha 'it'.  (78) reconstruction applied to example in (76b) ya:        Su:ra1      li-bni=ha2       kull     mraya2  ʃagagat=[DP ya: [φ ha1 [NP Su:ra1     li-bni=ha2]] which  picture of-son=3FS  every woman  tore=[DP which [φ it1 [NP picture1    of-son=3FS2]] 'Which picture of her son did every woman tear [DP which [φ it1 [NP picture1 of-her2 son]?'   Thus, in the copy theory of movement, reconstruction is correctly predicted to occur with both the gap strategy and the resumptive strategy. We conclude that reconstruction is possible in Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions with a resumptive pronoun in cases where the resumptive strategy is optional.  Let us see how reconstruction is applied to the island contexts in (79) and (80).     71 (79) WH-ISLAND  ؟ اھتققش ةيرم لك اذإ لأسي رماس اھنبلا ةروص اي ya:        Su:ra.F      li-bni=ha     Samer   ysʔal         iδa kull      mraya    ʃagagat=ha which   picture.F   of-son=her  Samer   ask.3MS    if   every   woman   tore.3FS=3F 'Which photo of her son did Samer wonder if every woman tore [it] ?'            (13 NOV 2010, SA 14aII, elicited)  (80) ADJUNCT ISLAND  ؟ اھتققش ةيرم لك ونلأ لعز رماس اھنبلا ةروص اي ya:        Su:ra.F      li-bni=ha     Samer  zaʕal          li-ennu:    kull      mraya  ʃagagat=ha which  picture.F   of-son=her  Samer  get angry   because    every   woman  tore.3FS=3FS 'Which photo oh her son did Samer get angry because every woman tore [it] ?'        (13 NOV 2010, SA 14bII, elicited)   Let us first apply reconstruction to the wh-island example in (79). The representation of the reconstruction applied to (79) is given below in (81).  (81) reconstruction applied to the resumptive strategy in (79) ya:        Su:ra1        li-bni=ha2    Samer   ysʔal          iδa   kull  mraya2 which   picture.F   of-son=3FS  Samer   ask.3MS    if     every   woman  ʃagagat=[DP ya: [φ ha1 [NP Su:ra1  li-bni=ha2]] tore.3FS=[DP which it1 [NP picture1  of-son=3FS2]]  'Which photo of her son did Samer wonder if every woman tore [DP it1 [NP picture1 of-her2 son]]?'   Consider now the representation in (82) where I show how reconstruction is applied to the resumptive strategy in the adjunct island example in (80).    72 (82) reconstruction applied to the resumptive strategy in (80) ya:        Su:ra1      li-bni=ha2    Samer  zaʕal          li-ennu:    kull      mraya2 which  picture.F   of-son=her  Samer  get angry   because    every   woman  ʃagagat=[DP ya: [φ  ha1 [NP Su:ra1     li-bni=ha2]] tore.3FS=[DP which [φ it1 [NP picture1  of-son=3FS2]]  Which photo oh her son did Samer get angry because every woman tore [DP which [φ it1 [NP picture1 of-her2 son]]?   The availability of the bound variable readings with the resumptive strategies in the wh-island example in (79) and in the adjunct island in (80) suggest that we could reconstruct the interrogated constituent in its thematic position in the scope of the quantifier.  I have shown that scope reconstruction is possible with the resumptive strategy employing a resumptive pronoun in both optional resumption contexts and obligatory resumption5 contexts. These findings are given in Table 12 below.   Optional resumption Obligatory resumption (island context) Reconstruction with quantificational antecedent  √  √  Table 12. Scope reconstruction with resumptive pronoun  2.8.5 Binding Reconstruction of Iraqi D-linked interrogatives   Before I proceed with the binding reconstruction examples, I show that Condition A holds for Iraqi Arabic. Condition A of binding theory stipulates that a reflexive  5  Obligatory resumption is tied to extraction from islands.  73 pronoun must be locally bound. Consider the example in (83) below which shows a grammatical sentence where condition A holds as in (83a), an ungrammatical example where the reflexive pronoun has no antecedent (83b), and a grammatical example where the reflexive pronoun is locally bound (83c) an ungrammatical example where the reflexive pronoun is not locally bound (83d).  (83) Condition A in Iraqi Arabic a. هسفن بحي سراف . Faris  yHebb       nafs=hu Faris  love.3MS  soul=his 'Faris loves himself'.      (13 NOV 2010, SA 22e, offered freely)  b. * همأ بحي هسفن. *nafs=hu  yHebb         ʔumm=hu   soul=his  love.3MS   mother=his *Himself loves his mother.     (13 NOV 2010, SA 22a, elicited)  c. اھسفن بحت سراف مأ . ʔumm    Faris  tHebb       nafs=ha mother  Faris  love.3FS   soul=her Faris' mother loves herself.     (13 NOV 2010, SA 22d, offered freely)  d.* هسفن بحت رماس مأ . *ʔumm    Samer tHebb       nafs=hu mother  Samer  love.3FS  soul=his *Samer's mother loves himself.     (13 NOV 2010, SA 22c, elicited)  74  Now consider binding reconstruction with a referential antecedent. Let us first consider the optional resumption context illustrated in (84).  (84) condition A with referential antecedent - optional resumption context a. the gap strategy  هسفنل ةروص ايرماس؟ ققش ya:        Su:ra.F     li-nafs=hu       Samer    ʃaggag____ which   picture.F  of-soul=3MS   Samer    tore.3MS___ 'Which photo of himself did Samer    tear ___ ?'       (13 NOV 2010, SA 20aI, elicited)  b. the resumptive strategy ي هسفنل ةروص ا رماس؟ اھققش ya:        Su:ra.F     li-nafs=hu       Samer    ʃaggag=ha which   picture.F  of-soul=3MS   Samer    tore.3MS=3FS 'Which photo of himself did Samer tear [it] ?'        (13 NOV 2010, SA 20aII, elicited)   Considering that Condition A holds for Iraqi Arabic and therefore reflexive pronouns must be locally bound, it follows that the grammaticality of (84a) and (84b) indicates that the reflexive pronoun nafshu "himself" in (84) is bound by its antecedent Samer. This is possible if the interrogative constituent Su:ra li-nafs=hu "picture of himself" is reconstructed.  Let us look at how reconstruction works with the gap strategy in (84a). The representation of reconstruction is given below in (85).  (85) a. reconstruction applied to example in (84a) ya:        Su:ra1     li-nafs=hu2       Samer2    ʃaggag      Su:ra1     li-nafs=hu2 which   picture.F  of-soul=3MS   Samer    tore.3MS  Su:ra1     li-nafs=hu2 'Which photo of himself did Samer tear photo of himself ?'   75 b. abstract representation of (84a) [DP ya: Sura1 li-nafs=[hu]2] .... Samer2..... [VP   [V ʃagagat] [NP Sura1 li-nafs=[hu]2]]   As seen in (85), Su:ra li-nafs=hu 'photo of himself' reconstructs to its thematic position as complement of the verb ʃagagat 'he tore', where the reflexive pronoun nafshu "himself" is c-commanded by its antecedent Samer. Reconstruction thus allows for the bound variable reading in which Samer tore a different picture of himself (i.e. the photo of his wedding, the photo of himself at the graduation party, etc).  In (86) below, reconstruction applies to (84b) where the resumptive strategy is employed. If we reconstruct Su:ra li-nafs=hu 'photo of himself' in its thematic position, we notice that the position in which there was a gap in (84a) is now occupied by the resumptive pronoun -ha 'it' in (84b). We now reconstruct Su:ra li-nafs=hu 'photo of himself' in its base position as the NP-complement of the resumptive pronoun -ha 'it'.  (86) reconstruction applied to example in (84b) ya:        Su:ra1       li-nafs=hu2      Samer2 ʃaggag=[DP ya: [φ ha1 [NP Su:ra1     li-nafs=hu2]] which   picture.F  of-soul=3MS   Samer  tore.3MS=[DP which [φ it1 [NP picture1  of-himself2]] 'Which photo of himself did Samer tear [DP which [φ it1 [NP picture1 of-himself2]]?'  Let us now move on to see how binding reconstruction with a referential antecedent works in contexts of obligatory resumption. Consider the example in (87) showing a context of obligatory resumption. The example in (87a) where the gap strategy is employed is ungrammatical, while the example in (87b) where the gap strategy is employed is grammatical.  (87) condition A with referential antecedent - obligatory resumption context a. the gap strategy ؟ ققش رماس يللإ هسفنل ةروص اي* *ya:        Su:ra.F     li-nafs=hu    illyi      Samer    ʃaggag_____  which   picture.F  of-soul=his   which  Samer    tore.3MS____ '*Which photo of himself was the one that Samer tore ___ ?'        (13 NOV 2010, SA 20bI, elicited)  76 b. the resumptive strategy ؟ اھققش رماس يللإ هسفنل ةروص اي ya:        Su:ra.F     li-nafs=hu   illyi      Samer    ʃaggag=ha which   picture.F  of-soul=his  which  Samer    tore.3MS=3FS 'Which photo of himself was the one that Samer tore [it] ?'        (13 NOV 2010, SA 20bII, elicited)   Let us see how reconstruction can be applied now to the example in (87b) where the resumptive strategy is employed rendering a grammatical sentence. The representation of reconstruction with (87b) is given in (88).  (88) a.  reconstruction applied to the example in (87b) ya:        Su:ra1     li-nafs=hu2   illyi      Samer2    ʃaggag=[DP ya: [φ ha1 [NP Su:ra1 li-nafs=hu2]] which   picture.F  of-soul=his  which  Samer     tore.3MS=[DP which [φ it1 [NP picture1  of- himself2]] 'Which photo of himself was the one that Samer tore [DP which [φ it1 [NP picture1 of- himself2]]?'   Thus, the binding reconstruction is possible with the resumptive pronoun in contexts of optional resumption as well as in contexts of obligatory resumption. The generalization is that the binding reconstruction is always possible with the resumptive pronoun.  Table 13 below summarizes the findings regarding binding reconstruction.   Optional resumption Obligatory resumption (island context) Binding reconstruction Condition A √ √  Table 13. Binding reconstruction with resumptive pronoun  Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions reveal that the resumptive pronoun allows  77 for binding reconstruction and scope reconstruction in optional contexts as well as obligatory contexts. The reconstructed bound variable reading will allow for different interpretations in the semantics, as it will be detailed in chapter 4.                              78 3 The semantics of D-linked content questions in Iraqi Arabic   This chapter focuses on the fact that D-linked content questions can be interpreted in one of three ways. I begin by introducing the problem that these interpretations pose for our understanding of how the syntax of D-linked content questions is related to their semantics (§3.1). After discussing the semantic correlates of the resumption and the gap strategy (§3.2), I turn to the question of what the two strategies reveal about the syntax- semantics interface (§3.3).  3.1 Overview of the syntax-semantics interface problem and a possible solution   The contrast between the gap and the resumptive strategy has interpretive consequences. I introduce the problem that this raises for the syntax/semantics interface (§3.1.1) and sketch two possible solutions (§3.1.2).  3.1.1 The syntax-semantics interface problem  As discussed by Sharvit (1999), a D-linked content question can be answered in one of three ways. As shown in (89), the answer can consist of an individual-denoting expression (89a), a natural function (89b), or a pair-list (89c). I adopt the convention of referring to these three interpretations as the individual reading, the natural function reading and the pair-list reading.     79 (89) SEMANTIC AMBIGUITY OF D-LINKED CONTENT QUESTION Q: Which woman did every many invite? A: a. Mary.      INDIVIDUAL  b. His mother.     NATURAL FUNCTION  c. John invited Mary; Bill invited Sally,… PAIR-LIST   Recall that, on independent grounds, in the previous chapter, I argued that Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions are associated with two distinct structures: [D-N] and [D-ϕ-N]. These findings are given in Table 14.  INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF EXTRACTION SITE D-N D-ϕ-N GAP STRATEGY √ √ (with covert ϕ) RESUMPTIVE STRATEGY  x √  (with overt ϕ) Table 14. Structural Differentiation of Extraction Sites with Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions  For D-linked content questions, a question that arises regarding the three interpretations—individual, natural function, and pair-list reading—and the two syntactic structures—[D-N] and [D-ϕ-N]— is whether and how they are connected to each other. I call this the syntax-semantics interface problem:  (90) SYNTAX-SEMANTICS INTERFACE PROBLEM  How does the interpretation of D-linked content questions relate to their syntactic structure?      80 3.1.2 A possible solution to the syntax-semantics interface problem  A relevant observation is that, in Iraqi Arabic, while the gap strategy is three- ways ambiguous, the interpretive pattern of the resumptive strategy is more complex. This is summarized in Table 15. In some contexts — I call this context 1 — the resumptive strategy permits only the individual and the natural function reading. But in other contexts — I call this context 2 — the resumptive strategy permits all three readings.  RESUMPTIVE STRATEGY INTERPRETATION GAP STRATEGY CONTEXT 1 CONTEXT 2 INDIVIDUAL √ √ √ NATURAL FUNCTION √ √ √ PAIR-LIST √ x √ Table 15. Interpretations associated with Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions  The two contexts for the resumptive strategy are as follows:  (91) RESUMPTIVE CONTEXTS FOR IRAQI ARABIC D-LINKED CONTENT QUESTIONS a. CONTEXT 1: both the gap and the resumptive strategy are possible; i.e. the resumptive strategy is optional b. CONTEXT 2: only the resumptive strategy is possible; i.e. the resumptive strategy is obligatory   One way of approaching the syntax-semantic interface problem, as it presents itself with D-linked content questions, is to ask which syntactic structures correlate with which semantic interpretations. According to the syntactic analysis developed in Chapter 2, all D-linked content questions have a DP structure, but the internal structure of the DP can differ: it can be [D-N] or [D-ϕ-N]. Table 16 summarizes how the three interpretations map onto the syntax.   81 RESUMPTIVE STRATEGY SYNTAX  INTERPRETATION GAP STRATEGY CONTEXT 1 CONTEXT 2 [D…] INDIVIDUAL √ √ √ [D-ϕ-N] NATURAL FUNCTION √ √ √ [D-N] PAIR-LIST √ x √ Table 16. Syntax-semantics mapping for Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions  The individual reading is sensitive to the external DP-syntax only and so is available in all contexts, with either the gap or the resumptive strategy. The natural-function reading requires a [D-ϕ-N] structure (with ϕ covert or overt), and so is available with the gap strategy (covert ϕ) or with the resumptive strategy (overt ϕ). The pair-list reading shows a blocking effect. In contexts where the resumptive strategy is optional, the pair-list reading is blocked; this is Context 1. In contexts where the resumptive strategy is obligatory, the pair-list reading is available; this is Context 2.  I take Context 1 to indicate that the pair-list reading is available only with a [D-N] structure, which is automatically derived by the gap strategy. However, in contexts where the gap strategy isn’t possible (Context 2), then the resumptive strategy can be used for the pair-list reading. I speculate that, in context 2, some additional mechanism makes the resumptive strategy behave as if it were a [D-N] structure. In other words, in contexts where resumption is obligatory, the resumptive strategy is semantically ambiguous. I speculate that this reflects whether or not the ϕ-element is interpreted at LF:  if the ϕ- element is interpreted this gives a natural function reading; if the ϕ-element is not interpreted, this gives a pair-list reading. From the point of view of the syntactic derivation, the resumptive strategy is potentially structurally (and therefore, semantically) ambiguous when the resumptive pronoun cliticizes, but before the DP is copied, (92a). Normally, the copy operation copies the entire labeled [D-ϕ-N] structure, (92b-i). But nothing prevents the copy operation from copying only the phonological string, which is a [D-N] structure, (92b-ii). Notice that this is only possible if there is early lexical insertion of the PF-formatives. I call this the copy solution to the syntax-semantics interface problem. I assume that  82 copying PF-formatives is a last resort option, and is only allowed in contexts where the resumptive strategy is obligatory.  (92) COPY SOLUTION TO THE SYNTAX-SEMANTICS INTERFACE PROBLEM a. CLITICIZATION OF ϕ:   [ϕ] [D ϕ N] b-i. COPY SYNTACTIC FORMATIVES: [D ϕ N] [ϕ] [D ϕ N] b-ii. COPY PF-FORMATIVES:  [D N]  [ϕ] [D ϕ N]   3.2 Semantic correlates of the gap and the resumptive strategy  The semantics of questions is generally assumed to be revealed by the appropriate answers that they elicit (Hamblin 1973; Kartunnen 1977; Pesetsky 1987; Hornstein 2006). We have seen that a D-linked content question can be answered in one of three ways: the answer can be a single-individual, a natural function, or a paired-list. Here I discuss how these three interpretations are related to earlier observations about the semantic correlates of the gap and the resumptive strategy. I first introduce the distinction made between de re and de dicto readings in the context of relative clauses (§3.2.1). I then show how the de re/de dicto contrast is also found with D-linked content questions: here the relevant distinction is between a single-individual answer and a multiple- individual answer (§3.2.2). I then discuss how the de re/de dicto and the single- individual/multiple-individual contrasts are related to the three interpretations associated with D-linked content questions (§3.2.3).  3.2.1 The distinction between de dicto and de re readings  De dicto (from Latin "of the word") and de re (from Latin "of the thing") are readings used to mark distinctions in the possible interpretation of statements. Consider the example in (93) which can have both a de dicto and a de re reading.  83 (93) Peter believes that someone is out to get him. a. de dicto reading: someone is unspecific, Peter suffers a general paranoia; he truly believes that a person is out to get him, but he doesn't have any beliefs about who this person may be. b. de re reading: someone is specific, picking out a particular person. There is some person Peter has in mind and he believes this person is out to get him.   One of the earliest semantic analyses of resumptive pronouns is Doron's (1982) de dicto and de re interpretation for Hebrew, a Semitic language.  Hebrew is a language where the resumptive strategy freely alternates with the gap strategy. Doron (1982) shows that the gap strategy has only the de dicto meaning and resumption has the de re meaning. Consider the example in (94). The Hebrew statement in (94a) uses the gap strategy and the reading is de dicto, while the statement in (94b) which contains a resumptive pronoun has a de re reading.   HEBREW (Doron 1982) (94) DE DICTO AND DE RE READINGS IN HEBREW a. the gap strategy: de dicto reading Dani ymca  et haiSa1            Se       hu  mexapes _____1 Dani    will find          the woman.Acc          that     he   seeks _______ 'Dani will find the woman whom he seeks.' de dicto reading: Dani is seeking and will find a woman, whoever she may be; the woman is unspecific and Dani does not necessarily have any beliefs about who she may be.         84 b. the resumptive strategy: de re reading Dani ymca  et haiSa1  Se       hu  mexapes  ota1 Dani    will find          the woman.Acc           that     he   seeks  her 'Dani will find the woman whom he seeks [her].' de re reading: Dani has a specific woman in mind. Dani seeks a particular woman and she will find her. The meaning of (94b) can only be "There is a woman that Dani is seeking and he will find this woman".   As seen from (94a), the gap strategy gives rise to a de dicto reading corresponding to a non-specific interpretation in which the gap acts as a bound variable. In (94b), the resumptive strategy gives rise to a de re reading, corresponding to a specific reading in this case, the resumptive pronoun is a definite description. In Iraqi Arabic, resumption is obligatory with relativization, as shown in (95), so the de dicto/de re contrast cannot be observed in that context. However, with bare interrogatives, with extraction from an embedded clauses, de dicto/de re can be observed, as shown in (95).  (95) IRAQI ARABIC RELATIVE CLAUSE a.  حار بغاراھيلع رودي يللا ةيرملا ىقلي. Ragheb ra:H  yilga:           il-mraya  illyi         yidu:r           ʕale:y=ha Ragheb will   meet.3MS   the-girl    who.Rel   seek.3MS    for=3FS Ragheb will find the girl whom he seeks [her].        (10 JUL 2011, SA 4a, offered freely)  b.* يلع رودي يللا ةيرملا ىقلي حار بغار. *Ragheb ra:H  yilga:           il-mraya  illyi         yidu:r         ʕalæ____ Ragheb will   meet.3MS   the-girl    who.Rel   seek.3MS    for____ Ragheb will find the girl whom he seeks.                    (10 JUL 2011, SA 4a, elicited)   85  In Iraqi Arabic content questions in contexts where both the gap strategy and the resumptive strategy freely alternate, the same de dicto and de re contrast can be observed (96).  (96) a. the gap strategy - de dicto reading         اھس ؟ دمحأ مزعي حار دقتعت ونم Suha minnu:  taʕatqid         ra:H   yaʕzim______    Ahmad ? Suha who      think.3FS      will   invite.3MS _____ Ahmad Whom  does Suha think    Ahmad will invite _____ ? de dicto reading: Ahmad will invite people to the wedding, whoever they may be. The question being non-specific, it is implied that anybody can be invited  b. the resumptive strategy - de re reading          اھس ؟ دمحأ همزعي حار دقتعت ونم Suha minnu:  taʕatqid         ra:H   yaʕzim=hu             Ahmad ? Suha who      think.3FS      will   invite.3MS=3MS    Ahmad Whom  does Suha think    Ahmad will invite [him]? de re reading: The person asking the question  has somebody specific in mind.  Recall that, in contexts where both strategies are possible, the gap strategy is structurally ambiguous — it permits either [D-N] or [D-ϕ-N] (with covert ϕ), — while the resumptive strategy only permits a [D-ϕ-N] structure (with overt ϕ). I propose that the de dicto/de re contrast found with the gap and the resumptive strategy respectively is the semantic counterpart to this structural distinction. Thus, while the de dicto gap strategy has a [D-N] substructure, the de re resumptive strategy has a [D-ϕ-N] substructure. This is summarized in Table 17.      86 STRATEGY: GAP RESUMPTIVE SYNTAX: [D-N∅] [D-ϕ-N∅] INTERPRETATION” de dicto: unspecific de re: specific Table 17. de dicto/ de re contrast for Iraqi Arabic bare interrogatives (non D-linked content questions) using gap and resumptive strategies   With bare interrogatives, the nominal constant is null (this is notated as N∅ in Table 17).  As we shall see when we look at D-linked content questions, a similar interpretive contrast arises when N has overt content.  3.2.2 The distinction between single-individual and multiple-individual readings   There is also an interpretive contrast between the gap and the resumptive strategy in sentences with quantified expressions (Sharvit 1999). Consider the examples in (97), where the gap/resumptive element in the relative clause is c-commanded by the quantified expression kol gever ‘every man’. The gap strategy in (97a) is ambiguous between a single-individual reading (where the same woman is invited by every man) and a multiple-individual reading (where every man invites a different woman). In contrast, the resumptive strategy in (97b) is only compatible with the single-individual reading.   HEBREW (Sharvit 1999) (97) SINGLE AND MULTIPLE INDIVIDUAL READINGS IN HEBREW a. the gap strategy ha-iʃa            ʃe      kol     gever   hizmin ___         hodeta    lo the-woman   that   every  man     invited____       thanked  him 'The woman every man invited thanked him'. (i) single-individual reading: The woman every man invited thanked him (ii) multiple-individual reading: For every man x the woman that x invited thanked x  87 b. the resumptive strategy ha-iSa          Se      kol     gever   hizmin   ota     hodeta    lo the-woman   that   every  man     invited   her    thanked  him 'The woman every man invited [her] thanked him.' (i) single-individual reading: The woman every man invited thanked him  For Sharvit (1999), the contrast in (97) reflects a pragmatic difference between the gap and resumptive strategies. The interpretive pattern in (97) is consistent with the syntactic analysis developed in Chapter 2: the gap strategy, which is structurally ambiguous between [D-N] and [D- ϕ∅-N], is also semantically ambiguous. And the resumptive strategy, which has only the [D-ϕ-N] structure, shows no semantic ambiguity. This is summarized in Table 18.  STRATEGY: GAP RESUMPTIVE SYNTAX: [D-N] [D-ϕ∅-N] [D-ϕ-N] INTERPRETATION multiple-individual single-individual single-individual Table 18. Single-individual/ multiple-individual contrast in Modern Hebrew   In Iraqi Arabic, resumption is obligatory with relativization, as shown in (98), so the distinction single-individual versus multiple-individual reading cannot be observed in this context; (98a) is the grammatical example employing the resumptive strategy and (98b) is the ungrammatical example employing the gap strategy.  (98) SINGLE AND MULTIPLE INDIVIDUAL READINGS IN IRAQI ARABIC a. هتركش اھمزع لاجر لك يللا ةيرملا. il-mraya        illyi         kull      riʤa:l ʕazam=ha               ʃakarat=hu the-woman   who.Rel  every   man     invited.3MS=3FS  thanked.3FS=3MS ‘The woman whom every man invited [her] thanked him.’        (10 JUL 2011, SA 5a, offered freely)    88 b.* هتركش  مزع لاجر لك يللا ةيرملا. *il-mraya        illyi         kull      riʤa:l ʕazam____               ʃakarat=hu  the-woman    who.Rel  every   man     invited.3MS____     thanked.3FS=3MS ‘The woman whom every man invited thanked him.’        (10 JUL 2011, SA 5b, offered freely)  3.2.3 The distinction between individual, natural function and paired- list readings  Sharvit (1999) observes that another way in which the gap and the resumptive strategy differ from one another concerns the possible answers that can be given to a D- linked content question. This can be seen with content questions that also contain a quantificational expression, as in (99). D-linked questions with quantifiers can have three possible answers: an expression denoting an individual as in (99a); an expression denoting a natural function (where the “natural function” names a salient function), as in (99b), or a list of pairs, as in (99c).   ENGLISH (Sharvit 1999) (99) Q: Which woman did every man invite ?         A:  a. individual denoting expression: Mary               b. natural function: His mother.               c. pair-list answer: John invited Mary; Bill invited Sally.   Sharvit (1999) shows that, in Modern Hebrew, if D-linked questions use the gap strategy, as in (100), then all three answers are possible: the individual reading (100a), the natural functional reading (100b) and the pair-list reading (100c). However, with the resumptive strategy, only the individual and natural function readings are possible (101- ab); the pair-list reading isn’t possible (101c).   89  HEBREW (Sharvit 1999) (100) POSSIBLE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITH QUANTIFIERS - GAP STRATEGY ezyo     iʃa          kol     gever hizmin_____ which  woman   every  man   invited____ 'Which woman did every man invite___ ?'  a. individual denoting expression: et     Gilla                                                         Acc Gilla             'Gilla' b. natural function: et     im-o                                  Acc  mother-his            'his mother' c. pair-list answer: Yosi  et       Gilla; Rami   et     Rina.                                   Yosi  Acc   Gilla  Rami  Acc  Rina             'Yosi, Gilla; Rami, Rina'.  (101) POSSIBLE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITH QUANTIFIERS - RESUMPTIVE STRATEGY ezyo     iʃa          kol      gever  hizmin    ota which   woman   every  man   invited    her 'Which woman did every man invite [her] ?'  a. individual denoting expression: et     Gilla                                                         Acc Gilla             'Gilla' b. natural function: et     im-o                                Acc  mother-his          'his mother' *c. pair-list answer: Yosi  et       Gilla; Rami   et     Rina.                                  Yosi  Acc   Gilla  Rami  Acc  Rina           'Yosi, Gilla; Rami, Rina'.  90 In contexts where both the gap and the resumptive strategy are possible, the same interpretive contrast is found in Iraqi Arabic. Thus, as shown in (102), with the gap strategy all three readings are possible: individual (102a), natural function (102b), and pair-list (102c). But with the resumptive strategy, as shown in (103), only the individual and natural function readings are possible, (103a-b); the pair-list reading isn’t available (103c).  (102) POSSIBLE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITH QUANTIFIERS - THE GAP STRATEGY ؟ مزع لاجر لك ةيرم اي ya:        mraya     kull     riʤa:l      ʕazam____ which   woman   every   man         invited.3MS 'Which woman did every man invite ___ ?' a. Individual denoting expression: Suha b. Natural function answer: his sister c. Pair-list answer: Samer, Suha; Ahmad, Najwa; etc  (103) POSSIBLE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITH QUANTIFIERS - THE RESUMPTIVE STRATEGY مزع لاجر لك ةيرم اياھ؟ ya:        mraya     kull     riʤa:l      ʕazam=ha which   woman   every   man         invited.3MS=3FS 'Which woman did every man invite [her] ?' a. Individual denoting expression: Suha b. Natural function answer: his sister *c. Pair-list answer: Samer, Suha; Ahmad, Najwa; etc  A question that arises is whether resumption is always incompatible with the pair- list reading. The answer is no. This can be seen by looking at contexts where resumption is obligatory. For example, extraction from an island is only possible if there is resumption: thus the gap strategy is ungrammatical (104) and the resumptive strategy is  91 obligatory (105). Observe that in contexts of obligatory resumption, the resumptive strategy is compatible with all three readings: the individual reading (105a), the natural function readings (105b) and the pair-list reading (105c).  (104) THE GAP STRATEGY *  ايةيرمإ لأسي رماس  لك اذلاجر لع ملسى ؟ *ya:    mraya    Samer   ysʔal         iδa kull    riʤa:l  sallæm           ʕalæ____ which woman  Samer   ask.3MS   if   every  man     greeted.3MS for____ ‘Which woman did Samer wonder if every man greeted ____?’             (10 JUL 2011, SA 6a, elicited)  (105) THE RESUMPTIVE STRATEGY  ايةيرمإ لأسي رماس  لك اذلاجر  اھيلع ملس؟ ya:       mraya      Samer   ysʔal         iδa kull    riʤa:l  sallæm           ʕalæ=ha which  woman    Samer   ask.3MS   if   every  man     greeted.3MS  for=3FS ‘Which woman did Samer wonder if every man greeted [her] ?’’        (10 JUL 2011, SA 6a, offered freely) a. Individual reading: Faten b. Natural function answer: his sister c. Pair-list answer: Behjet, Suha; Ahmad, Iman, etc.  3.2.4 The gap strategy competes with the resumptive strategy  Table 19 summarizes the findings for Iraqi Arabic regarding the patterning of D-linked content questions:       92 RESUMPTIVE STRATEGY INTERPRETATION GAP STRATEGY CONTEXT 1 OPTIONAL RESUMPTION CONTEXT 2 OBLIGATORY RESUMPTION INDIVIDUAL √ √ √ NATURAL FUNCTION √ √ √ PAIR-LIST √ x √ Table 19.Interpretations associated with Iraqi Arabic D-linked content questions  The range of interpretations associated with Iraqi D-linked content questions indicate that, in contexts where resumption is optional (context 1), the pair-list reading is blocked with the resumptive strategy. This indicates that the two strategies compete with one another. That this is the effect of competition is confirmed by the fact that, when resumption is obligatory (context 2), all three readings are possible. This competition effect is also observed by Malkawi (2009) for Jordanian Arabic, who proposes the economy hierarchy in Table 20. The hierarchy ranks zero variables higher than pronominal variables. Moreover, in Malkawi’s analysis, pronominal variables are of two types: simple versus complex. This reflects that fact that Jordanian has two distinct resumptive strategies: resumption with a weak (clitic) pronoun versus resumptive with a strong pronoun. If we combine Malkawi’s economy hierarchy with the syntactic structures argued for in Chapter 2, we see that the zero variable is structurally ambiguous: it can be [D-N] or [D-ϕ∅-N]. In contrast, the pronominal variables are not structurally ambiguous: they are always [D-ϕ-N].         93  FORMAL STATUS STRATEGY SYNTAX ATTESTED IN IRAQI ARABIC ATTESTED IN JORDANIAN ARABIC zero variable gap [D-N] [D-ϕ∅-N]  √ √ MOST ECONOMICAL simple pronominal variable weak resumptive [D-ϕ-N] √ √ LEAST ECONOMICAL complex pronominal variable weak resumptive pronoun doubled by strong pronoun [D-ϕ-N] x √ Table 20. Economy hierarchy for gap and resumptive pronouns in Iraqi Arabic and Jordanian Arabic (adapted from Malkawi 2009)  3.3 What competition reveals about the syntax-semantics interface  We have seen that, in contexts where both the gap and the resumptive strategy are possible (context 1), there is a blocking effect. In context 1, the gap strategy is compatible with both the natural function and pair-list readings, but the resumptive strategy is only compatible with the natural function reading. But in contexts where resumption is obligatory (context 2), it is compatible with both readings. In light of these findings, I assess Chierchia’s (1993) proposal that the pair-list reading is a special case of the natural function reading (§3.3.1) and show how this approach accounts for the ambiguity of both the gap and the resumptive strategy in Iraqi Arabic (§3.3.2 - §3.3.3). A consequence of  94 this analysis is that, in certain marked contexts, partial copying is possible (§3.3.4).  3.3.1 The natural function reading subsumes the pair-list reading  Chierchia (1993) defines the distinction between natural reading and pair-list reading as follows: “understanding a “natural function” like [λx [mother of(x)]] means understanding its intension, not its extension. Lists viewed as functions are just the opposite. They cannot be characterized but in terms of the set of their inputs and outputs. They can only be grasped by scanning their graph. They are, as it were, pure extension.” Thus Chierchia (1993) rejects the hypothesis that a question of the form “Whom does every Italian like ?” has three independent interpretations as in (106).   (Chierchia 1993) (106) SEMANTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF “WHOM DOES EVERY ITALIAN LIKE?” (i) [p: p is true and for some x, p = every Italian likes x] ‘individual reading’ (ii) [p: p is true and form some f, p = every Italiany likes f(y) ] ‘natural function reading’ (iii) for every Italian y: who does y like? ‘pair list reading’  According to Chierchia (1993), the common structure of natural function and pair-list readings is the one given in (107), where f  is a variable ranging over functions.  (107) Qx [x loves f(x)]  Chierchia (1993) concludes that: “The natural function reading subsumes as a special case the so called pair list reading, given that lists are just functions of a certain kind. Why only universal NPs support lists follows from general semantic and pragmatic considerations (namely to draw a list one needs a domain, which is naturally supplied only by universals)”. In Chierchia’s analysis, the natural function reading is intentional, while the pair- list reading is extensional. I suggest that the intentional/ extensional distinction has a  95 structural counterpart: the [D-N] structure is interpreted extensionally as a pair-list, while the [D-ϕ-N] structure is interpreted intentionally (as a natural function). This captures the fact that the gap strategy — which is structurally ambiguous between [D-N] and [D-ϕ∅- N] — is compatible with both the extensional pair-list reading, and the intentional natural function readings. It also accounts for the fact that, in contexts where resumption is optional (Context 1), only the intentional natural function reading is possible with the resumptive strategy. This is summarized in Table 21.  STRATEGY GAP RESUMPTIVE SYNTAX [D-N] [D-ϕ∅-N] [D-ϕ-N] SEMANTICS EXTENSIONAL INTENTIONAL INTERPRETATION PAIR-LIST NATURAL FUNCTION Table 21. Extensional/ Intentional contrast and the gap/ resumptive strategy in Iraqi Arabic (Context 1: optional resumption)   But recall that in contexts where resumption is obligatory (Context 2), the resumptive strategy is compatible with both the pair-list and the natural function reading. I now show in greater detail exactly how the interpretive difference between Context 1 (optional resumption) and Context 2 (obligatory resumption) is accounted for.  3.3.2 The gap strategy is always syntactically and semantically ambiguous  Assume that the pair-list reading has a [D-N] structure and that the natural function reading has a [D-ϕ-N] structure. Given that the gap strategy is structurally ambiguous between a [D-N] and a [D-ϕ∅-N] structure, this correctly predicts that the gap strategy will also be semantically ambiguous between a pair-list reading and a natural function reading. To see this, consider the partial derivations in (108a) and (108b-c):   96 (108) a. OPTIONAL RESUMPTION CONTEXT – THE GAP STRATEGY رم لك اھنبلا ةروص ايي؟ تققش ة ya:        Su:ra.F     li-bni=ha     kull     mraya     ʃagagat____ which   picture.F  of-son=her  every   woman    tore.3FS 'Which photo of her son did every woman tear___ ?'6 (i)  Natural function answer: the photo of his last passport (ii) Pair-list answer: Iman tore the picture of her son Faris, Awatif the picture of her son Adel, etc  b. D-N structure – pair-list reading [C [D ya:D Su:raN li-bni=ha] [I [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagtV] [D ya:D Su:raN li-bni=ha N]]]  c. D-φ-N reconstruction with covert φ – natural function reading [C [D ya:D ϕ∅ Su:raN li-bni=ha] [I [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagtV ϕ∅] [D ya:D ϕ∅ Su:raN li- bni=ha  N]]]   3.3.3 The weak resumptive strategy is sometimes syntactically and semantically ambiguous  If the natural function reading has a [D-ϕ-N] structure, then this correctly predicts that when there is an overt resumptive pronoun, only the natural function reading will be possible. This corresponds to (109-a) and the partial derivation given in (109-b).       6  There is a possible reading where the pronoun "her" refers to a particular woman, let's say Mary as in "Which photo of [Mary's] son did every woman tear?". In this thesis we are not interested in this reading, but it must be mentioned that it exists.  97 (109) a. CONTEXT 1: OPTIONAL RESUMPTION ؟ اھتققش ةيرم لك اھنبلا ةروص اي ya:        Su:ra.F     li-bni=ha     kull     mraya     ʃagagat=ha which   picture.F  of-son=her  every   woman   tore.3FS=3FS 'Which photo of her son did every woman tear [it] ?'        (13 NOV 2010, SA 10, elicited) (i) Natural function answer: the photo of his last passport (ii) *Pair-list answer: Iman tore the picture of her son Faris, Awatif the picture of her son Adel, etc  b. D-φ-N reconstruction with overt φ – natural function reading [C [D ya:D haφ Su:raN li-bni=ha] [I [V [kull mrayaD ] [V [ʃagagtV haφ] [D ya:D haφ Su:raN li- bni=ha  N]]]  Now consider (110a), which is a context where the resumptive strategy is obligatory. Here we observe that both the natural function and pair-list readings are possible. By hypothesis, the natural function reading arises with the [D-ϕ-N] structure, (110-b). But what accounts for the availability of the pair-list reading? According to the proposed analysis, the pair-list reading arises with the [D-N] structure. I suggest that when resumption is obligatory, the pair-list reading can be forced by copying only the phonological substring that remains after cliticization has applied; this means that only [D-N] is copied, as in (110-c).           98 (110) a. Context 2: OBLIGATORY RESUMPTION ؟ اھتققش ةيرم لك اذإ لأسي رماس اھنبلا ةروص اي ya:        Su:ra.F      li-bni=ha     Samer   ysʔal         iδa kull      mraya    ʃagagat=ha which   picture.F   of-son=her  Samer   ask.3MS    if   every   woman   tore.3FS=3F Which photo of her son did Samer wonder if every woman tore [it] ?             (13 NOV 2010, SA 14a, elicited) (i)   Natural function answer: the picture of her son's wedding (ii) Pair-list answer: Iman, the picture of her son's wedding; Awatif, the picture of her son with his girlfriend.  b. Copy [D-ϕ-N]: natural function reading [C [D ya:D haϕ Su:raN li-bni-ha] [I [V Samer ysʔal iδa kull mraya [V ʃagagat-haϕ [D ya:D haφ Su:raN li-bni-haN ] ] ]  c. Copy [D-N]: pair-list reading [C [D ya:D Su:raN li-bni-ha] [I [V Samer ysʔal iδa kull mraya [V ʃagagat-haϕ [D ya:D haϕ Su:raN li-bni-haN ] ] ]   3.3.4 Implications of the analysis: partial copying  A consequence of this proposal is that, in contexts where resumption is obligatory, it is possible to only copy the phonological sub-string that contains [D-N]. It is this partial copy that permits the pair-list reading with the resumptive strategy. In Iraqi Arabic, such partial copying is only possible in contexts where the gap strategy is ruled out.     99 4 Genitive interrogatives as inherently D- linked content questions   In this chapter, I document a parallel between genitive interrogatives and D-linked content questions, which to my knowledge has not been investigated before. In particular, I argue that genitive interrogatives are inherently D-linked and I explore the nature of this D-linking property. I first introduce the problem, the proposed analysis, and its consequences (§4.1). I then consider in greater detail how, on the one hand, genitive interrogatives differ from bare interrogatives, and on the other hand, how they parallel D- linked content questions (§4.2). I argue that the property that ties together genitive and D- linked interrogatives is the fact that they both have an overt domain restriction (§4.3).  4.1 The problem, the analysis and consequences   I introduce the contrast between genitive and bare interrogatives (§4.1.1), I sketch an analysis that account for this contrast (§4.1.2) and I present the consequence of this analysis (§3.1.2).  4.1.1 The contrast between genitive and bare interrogatives   I start with the observation that, given the context in (111), in Iraqi Arabic a content question with a bare interrogative pronoun is not felicitous (111a). In contrast, a content question with a construct state genitive is felicitous (111b), as is a D-linked content question (111c).     100 111. Context: a class of students is defending their theses; they all have different supervisors. The secretary of the board has to talk to each student's supervisor.  a. content question with bare interrogative pronoun ؟ ةريتيركسلا تكاح ونم ايو wu:ya: minnu:  Haʧit          is-sikriti:ra with     who      spoke.3FS   the-secretary.F #'Whom did the secretary talk to ?'       (26 JAN 2011, SA 1, elicited)  b. content question with genitive interrogative construction يركسلا ةريت؟ تكاح ونم ذاتسأ ايو   is-sikriti:ra         wu:ya:  ʔusta:δ      minnu:  Ha:ʧit   the-secretary.F   with     professor   who      spoke.3FS   'With whose professor did the secretary talk ?'       (26 JAN 2011, SA 1, offered freely)  c. content question with D-linked interrogative ةريتيركسلا  ةيو؟ تكاح ذاتسأ اي is-sikri:ti:ra    wu:ya    ya:        ʔusta:δ      Ha:ʧit the-secretary  with       which   professor   talk.3FS ‘With which professor did the secretary talk ?’       (6 JUL 2011, SA 3, offered freely)   (111) establishes that in certain contexts, a content question with a bare interrogative is not felicitous, while the same question becomes felicitous once a genitive interrogative or a D-linked interrogative is used.  This is a first indication that bare and genitive interrogatives don't pattern in the same way; it also indicates that there is a parallel between genitive and D-linked interrogatives. The question that I address is the following:   101 (112) What accounts for the contrast between bare interrogatives and genitive  interrogatives on the one hand, and the parallel between genitive  interrogatives and D-linked interrogatives on the other hand?  4.1.2 The analysis: genitive interrogatives are inherently D-linked  I propose that genitive interrogatives are inherently D-linked. Specifically, I argue that what defines D-linking is the presence of an overt domain restriction in the form of an overt noun. Consider Table 22. Bare interrogatives such as minnu: 'who' lack an overt domain restriction. In contrast, both genitive interrogatives and D-linked content questions have an overt domain restriction. With genitive interrogatives such as ʔustaδ minnu: 'whose professor', the domain restriction is supplied by a head noun. With D- linked interrogatives such as ya ʔustaδ 'which professor', the overt domain restriction is supplied by the noun that follows the interrogative operator.   SYNTAX EXAMPLE BARE INTERROGATIVE [D WH [N ∅ ] ] minnu: ‘who’ GENITIVE INTERROGATIVE [D [N N  [D WH ] ] ] ʔustaδ  minnu: ‘whose professor D-LINKED INTERROGATIVE [D WH [N N  ] ] ya: ʔustaδ ‘which professor’ Table 22. Internal structure of Iraqi Arabic bare, genitive and D-linked interrogatives  4.1.3 Consequence: D-linking arises whenever there is an overt domain restriction   I take the syntactic parallel between genitive and D-linked interrogatives to  102 indicate that D-linking arises whenever there is an overt domain restriction. This has consequences for our understanding of how D-linking interacts with the resumptive strategy. On the one hand, domain restriction is purely semantic and arises when a quantifier has an overt restriction on its domain of application. Quantifiers with no overt restriction — such as each, who and what in (113) — are generally taken to have a contextually defined domain restriction.  (113) a. They each attended the lecture.  b. Who attended the lecture?  c. What did they attend?  Of course, it’s always possible to introduce an overt restriction: these are the underlined nouns in (114). Semantically, it’s the presence of an overt domain restriction that distinguishes D-linked interrogatives (e.g. which student, which lecture) from bare interrogatives (e.g. who, what).  (114) a. Each student attended the lecture. b. Which student attended the lecture? c. Which lecture did they attend?  As we shall see in more detail below, the Iraqi Arabic data from genitive interrogatives indicates that the head noun of a genitive also counts as a domain restriction: these are the underlined nouns in (115). Moreover, the presence of an overt domain restriction has syntactic consequences in Iraqi Arabic. These will be discussed in more detail at the end of this chapter.  (115) a. Everyone’s student attended the lecture. b. Whose student attended the lecture? c. Whose lecture did they attend?   103 4.2 Comparing bare, genitive and D-linked interrogatives  In this section, I compare the distribution of bare, genitive, and D-linked interrogatives with respect to three diagnostics: local extraction (§4.2.1); long-distance extraction (§4.2.2); superiority effects (§4.2.3). This comparison reveals that genitive interrogatives consistently differ from bare interrogatives, and they consistently parallel D-linked interrogatives.  4.2.1 The resumptive and gap strategy: local extraction   I show how the resumptive and the gap strategy pattern with local extraction (extraction from a single-clause), as concerns bare interrogatives (§4.2.1.1), genitive interrogatives (§4.2.1.2) and D-linked interrogatives (§4.2.1.3). The section closes with a summary of the findings (§4.2.1.4).  4.2.1.1 Local extraction with bare interrogatives   First consider local extraction. Here bare interrogatives allow only the gap strategy with extracted subjects and objects, as in (116) and (117). As for extracted prepositional objects (118), they permit neither the gap strategy nor the resumptive strategy: this reflects the general prohibition against P-stranding in Arabic. PP-fronting allows only the gap strategy, because Arabic does not have resumptives for entire prepositional phrases (119).        104 (116) SUBJECT EXTRACTION OF BARE INTERROGATIVE a. Subject extraction with gap ؟ ةحرابلا ةديرجلا ىرتشا ونم minnu: iʃtara:            il- ʤarida     il-ba:riha ? who bought. 3MS  the-newspaper      yesterday 'Who bought the newspaper yesterday ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 1, offered freely)  b. Subject extraction with resumption * ونموھ ؟ ةحرابلا ةديرجلا ىرتشا *minnu:  hwu    iʃtara:          il- ʤarida           il-ba:riha ?   who      he       bought. 3MS    the-newspaper     yesterday '*Who [he] bought the newspaper yesterday ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 1, elicited)  (117) DIRECT OBJECT EXTRACTION OF BARE INTERROGATIVE a. Direct object extraction with gap ؟ فطاوع تيبب تفاش ونم ناميإ Iman  minnu:  ʃa:fat______ bi-beyt      Awatif Iman  who      saw.3SF        in-house    Awatif 'Whom did Iman see at Awatif's house ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 3a, offered freely)  b. Direct object extraction with resumption تفاش ونم ناميإه؟ فطاوع تيبب * *Iman  minnu:  ʃa:fat=hu           bi-beyt       Awatif   Iman  who      saw.3SF=3MS    in-house    Awatif '*Whom did Iman see [him] at Awatif's house ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 3a, elicited)   105 (118) PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT EXTRACTION OF BARE INTERROGATIVE a. Object of preposition extraction with gap  ىقتلا ونم بغار ةبتكملاب ايو ؟* *Ragheb   minnu:   iltaga        bi-l-maktaba    wu:ya: ____ Ragheb   who         met.3MS  at-the-library    with____ 'Whom did Ragheb meet at the library with___ ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 12, offered freely)  b. Object of preposition extraction with resumption  هايو ىقتلا ونم بغارةبتكملاب ؟* *Ragheb   minnu:    iltaga          wuya:=h           bi-l-maktaba   Ragheb    who       met.3MS     with=him         at-the-library '*Whom did Ragheb meet with [him] at the library ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 12, elicited)  (119) PP-FRONTING WITH BARE INTERROGATIVE  بغار ايو ىقتلا ونم ةبتكملاب ؟ Ragheb   wu:ya: minnu:   iltaga        bi-l-maktaba Ragheb   with     who      met.3MS   at-the-library 'With whom did Ragheb meet at the library ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 12, offered freely)  4.2.1.2 Local extraction with genitive interrogatives  The overall pattern with genitive interrogatives differs from that of bare interrogatives. As before, with extraction from subject position, the gap strategy but not resumption is possible, as in (120). In this respect, a genitive interrogative is like a bare interrogative. But local extraction from the direct object position, as in (121), allows both the gap strategy and the resumptive strategy. (Bare interrogatives allow only the gap strategy in this context.) As for extraction from a prepositional object position, the gap  106 strategy is predictably prohibited because of the impossibility of P-stranding, as in (122). Finally, with PP-fronting, the gap strategy but not resumption is possible, (123).  (120) EXTRACTION FROM  SUBJECT POSITION WITH GENITIVE a. the gap strategy ؟ةلفحلاب ىوجن فاش ونم لاجر riʤa:l       minnu: ʃa:f           Najwa bi-l-Hafla husband   who     saw.3MS  Najwa at-the-party ‘Whose husband saw Najwa at the party ?’  b. the resumptive strategy ؟ةلفحلاب ىوجن فاش وھونم لاجر* *[riʤa:l       minnu:]1  hwu1  ʃa:f           Najwa bi-l-Hafla   husband     who       he          saw.3MS  Najwa at-the-party ‘Whose husband1 [he1] saw Najwa at the party ?’  (121) OBJECT EXTRACTION OF GENITIVE INTERROGATIVE a. the gap strategy  تفاش ونم لجرةبتكملاب؟  ىوجن Najwa    riʤal minnu:   ʃa:fat       bi-l-maktaba Najwa    man   who       saw:3SF  in-the-library 'Whose husband did Najwa see at the library ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 8a, offered freely)  b. the resumptive strategy تفاش ونم لجره ةبتكملاب؟  ناميإ Iman    riʤal minnu:   ʃa:fat=hu          bi-l-maktaba Iman    man   who       saw:3SF.3MS   at-the-library 'Whose husband did Najwa see [him] at the library ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 8b, offered freely)  107 (122) PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT EXTRACTION OF GENITIVE INTERROGATIVE a. the gap strategy ؟ةلفحلاب ةيو تقتلا ونم قيدص ىوجن * *Najwa  Sadig   minnu: iltagat     wu:ya: _____ bi-l-Hafla   Najwa  friend   who    met.3FS   with_______ at-the-party ‘Whose friend did Najwa meet with __  at the party ?’  b. the resumptive strategy  ؟ةلفحلاب هايو تقتلا ونم قيدص ىوجن Najwa  Sadig   minnu: iltagat     wu:ya:=h     bi-l-Hafla Najwa  friend   who    met.3FS   with=3MS  at-the-party ‘Whose friend did Najwa meet with [him] at the party ?’  (123) PP-FRONTING WITH GENITIVE INTERROGATIVE ؟ةلفحلاب تقتلا ونم قيدص ةيو ىوجن Najwa   wu:ya:  Sadi:g   minnu: iltagat      bi-l-Hafla Najwa   with      friend   who     met.3FS    at-the-party ‘With whose friend did Najwa meet at the party ?’  4.2.1.3 Local extraction with D-linked interrogatives  Now consider local extraction with D-linked interrogatives. (Similar data was already presented in Chapter 2, but for ease of exposition, I repeat it here.) With a D- linked interrogative, subject extraction is possible only with gap (124); direct object extraction permits gap and resumption (125), prepositional object extraction permits only resumption (126) and PP-fronting permits only the gap strategy (127).      108 (124) SUBJECT EXTRACTION OF D-LINKED INTERROGATIVE a. extraction with gap  ؟ دادغبب ةقش ترتشا ةقيدص اي ya:        Sadi:ga    iʃtarat_____            ʃigga          bi-Baghdad which   friend.F   bought.3FS_____   apartment  in-Baghdad 'Which friend bought an apartment in Baghdad ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA, offered freely)  b. extraction with resumption ؟ دادغبب ةقش يھ ترتشا ةقيدص اي * *ya:        Sadi:ga    iʃtarat           hi:    ʃigga          bi-Baghdad  which   friend.F   bought.3FS  she  apartment  in-Baghdad 'Which friend [she] bought an apartment in Baghdad ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA, elicited)  (125) DIRECT OBJECT EXTRACTION OF D-LINKED INTERROGATIVE a. extraction with gap  ؟ ةلفحلاب تفاش لاجر اي ناميإ Iman   ya:       riʤa:l ʃa:fit ____         bi-l-hafla Iman   which  man    saw.3FS____    at-the-party 'Which man did Iman see___ at the party ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 1I, offered freely)  b. extraction with resumption ؟ ةلفحلاب هتفاش لاجر اي ناميإ Iman   ya:       riʤa:l ʃa:fit=hu             bi-l-hafla Iman   which  man    saw.3FS=3MS    at-the-party 'Which man did Iman see [him] at the party ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 1II, offered freely)   109 (126) PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT EXTRACTION OF D-LINKED INTERROGATIVE a. extraction with gap ؟ ةيو ةيلكلاب تقتلا ملعم اي ىھس* *Suha  ya:         muʕallim   iltagat wu:ya: ___      bi-l-kulli:a Suha  which     professor   met.3FS with ___   at-the-faculty 'Which professor did Suha meet with____ at the faculty ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 3I, offered freely)  b. extraction with resumption ؟ ةيلكلاب هايو تقتلا ملعم اي ىھس Suha  ya:         muʕallim   iltagat     wu:ya:=h      bi-l-kulli:a Suha  which    professor   met.3FS   with=3MS  at-the-faculty 'Which professor did Suha meet with [him] at the faculty ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 3II, offered freely)  (127) PP-FRONTING WITH D-LINKED INTERROGATIVE  ؟ةيلكلاب تقتلا ذاتسأ اي ةيو ىھس Suha  wu:ya: ya        ʔusta:δ         iltagat      bi-l-kullyia Suha  with    which   professor     met.3FS   at-the-faculty ‘With which professor did Suha meet at the faculty?’  4.2.1.4 Summary of the local extraction data  Table 23 summarizes the patterning of the gap and resumptive strategy in the context of local extraction with bare, genitive interrogatives and D-linked interrogatives:      110  GAP STRATEGY RESUMPTIVE STRATEGY INTERROGATIVE TYPE BARE  GENITIVE D-LINKED BARE  GENITIVE D-LINKED SUBJECT  √ √ √ x x x OBJECT OF V √ √ √ x √ √ OBJECT OF P x x x x √ √ PP-FRONTING √ √ √ x x x Table 23. Comparison of bare, genitive and D-linked interrogatives with respect to local extraction (extraction from a single clause)   Table 23 indicates the following. The resumptive strategy is always prohibited with bare interrogatives. But with genitive and D-linked interrogatives, it is permitted with direct objects and prepositional objects. More generally, we observe that, with respect to local extraction, genitive and D-linked interrogatives pattern in the same way.  4.2.2. The resumptive and gap strategy: long-distance extraction   I now examine how the resumptive and the gap strategy pattern with long- distance extraction (extraction from an embedded clauses), as concerns bare interrogatives (§4.2.2.1), genitive interrogatives (§4.2.2.2), and D-linked interrogatives (§4.2.2.3). The section closes with a summary of the findings (§4.2.2.4).  4.2.2.1 Long-distance extraction with bare interrogatives  With bare interrogatives, long-distance extraction from subject position only allows the gap strategy, as in (128). Long-distance extraction from the object position permits both gap and resumption, as in (129). And long-distance extraction of the prepositional object is ruled out: neither gap nor resumption are possible, as in (130).  PP- fronting is also possible with long-distance extraction (131).  111 (128) SUBJECT EXTRACTION OF BARE INTERROGATIVE a. Subject extraction with gap  فاش دقتعت ونم ناميإ ؟ ةلفحلاب دمحأ Iman minnu: taʕataqid____   ʃa:f            Ahmad    bi-l-hafla Iman who     think:2S____    saw:3MS   Ahmad    at-the-party 'Who does Iman think ____ saw Ahmad at the party ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 9a, offered freely)  b. Subject extraction with resumption دقتعت ونم ناميإوھ  ؟ ةلفحلاب دمحأ فاش * *Iman minnu: taʕataqid  huwwa  ʃa:f            Ahmad    bi-l-hafla   Iman who     think:2S   he          saw:3MS   Ahmad    at-the-party 'Who does Iman think [he] saw Ahmad at the party ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 9b, elicited)  (129) OBJECT EXTRACTION OF BARE INTERROGATIVE a. Direct object extraction with gap ؟ دمحأ مزعي حار دقتعت ونم ىھس Suha minnu: taʕatagid    ra:H yaʕzim____          Ahmad ? Suha who     think.3FS   will   invite.3MS____   Ahmad 'Whom does Suha think that Ahmad will invite____ ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 10a, offered freely)  b. Direct object extraction with resumption ؟ دمحأ همزعي حار دقتعت ونم ىھس Suha minnu: taʕatagid    ra:H yaʕzim=hu               Ahmad ? Suha who     think.3FS   will   invite.3MS=3MS    Ahmad 'Whom does Suha think that Ahmad will invite [him] ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 10b, offered freely)   112 (130) PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT EXTRACTION OF BARE INTERROGATIVE a. Prepositional Object extraction with gap  ناميإنإ فرعت نمةلاسرلا بتك تجھب هىلإ ؟ * *Iman   man    taʕarif         ennu:  Bahjat    kitab            ir-risala   ʔila___  Iman   who   know:3FS   that    Bahjat      wrote.3MS  the-letter  to___ 'Whom does Iman know that Bahjat wrote the letter to ?'       (8 JUL 2010, SA 12a, offered freely)  b. Prepositional Object extraction with resumption ؟ هل ةلاسرلا بتك تجھب هنإ فرعت نم ناميإ* *Iman   man    taʕarif         ennu:  Bahjat    kitab            ir-risala la=hu   Iman   who    know:3FS   that    Bahjat    wrote.3MS  the-letter to=3MS 'Whom does Iman know that Bahjat wrote the letter to [him] ?'       (8 JUL 2010, SA 12b, elicited)  (131) PP-FRONTING  ناميإلإ؟ ةلاسرلا بتك تجھب هنإ فرعت نم Iman   il-man       taʕarif         ennu:  Bahjat    kitab            ir-risala Iman   to-who     know:3FS   that     Bahjat     wrote.3MS  the-letter 'To whom does Iman know that Bahjat wrote the letter ?'       (8 JUL 2010, SA 12c, offered freely)  4.2.2.2 Long-distance extraction with genitive interrogatives   Now consider long-distance extraction with genitive interrogatives. As before, with subject extraction, only the gap strategy is possible (132). With object extraction, both gap and resumption are allowed (133). The same holds of long-distance extraction of a prepositional object: both gap and resumption are allowed (134). And with PP- fronting, only the gap strategy is possible (135).   113 (132) SUBJECT EXTRACTION OF GENITIVE INTERROGATIVE a. the gap strategy ؟ةلفحلاب ىوجن فاش ونإ دقتعت ونم لاجر ىھس Suha  riʤa:l       minnu:  taʕatagid ennu:   ʃa:f           Najwa bi-l-Hafla Suha  husband   who     think.3FS  that     saw.3MS  Najwa at-the-party ‘Whose husband does Suha think that saw Najwa at the party ?’  b. the resumptive strategy ونإ دقتعت ونم لاجر ىھسوھ لفحلاب ىوجن فاش ؟ة* *Suha  riʤa:l       minnu:  taʕatagid ennu:    hu:  ʃa:f           Najwa  bi-l-Hafla   Suha  husband    who      think.3FS  that    he   saw.3MS   Najwa  at-the-party ‘Whose husband does Suha think that [he] saw Najwa at the party ?’  (133) OBJECT EXTRACTION OF GENITIVE INTERROGATIVE a. the gap strategy  تفاشةبتكملاب؟   ىھسونم لجرونإ دقتعت  ىوجن Suha  riʤal        minnu:  taʕatagid ennu:  Najwa       ʃa:fat       bi-l-maktaba Suha  husband   who      think        that     Najwa      saw:3SF  at-the-library 'Whose husband does Suha think that Najwa saw at the library ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 8a, offered freely)  b. the resumptive strategy تفاشه ةبتكملاب؟   ىھسجراونم لونإ دقتعت  ىوجن Suha  riʤa:l        minnu: taʕatagid ennu:  Najwa       ʃa:fat=hu          bi-l-maktaba Suha  husband   who     think        that     Najwa      saw:3SF=3MS   at-the-library 'Whose husband does Suha think that Najwa saw [him] at the library ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 8b, offered freely)     114 (134) PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT EXTRACTION OF GENITIVE INTERROGATIVE a. the gap strategy  ونإ دقتعت ونم قيدص ىھسىوجن؟ةلفحلاب ةيو تقتلا  * *Suha Sadig   minnu: taʕatagid ennu:  Najwa    iltagat     wu:ya: _____ bi-l-Hafla   Suha friend   who    met.3FS   with_______ at-the-party ‘Whose friend did Najwa meet with __  at the party ?’  b. the resumptive strategy  ؟ةلفحلاب هايو تقتلا ونم قيدص ىوجن Najwa  Sadig   minnu: iltagat     wu:ya:=h     bi-l-Hafla Najwa  friend   who    met.3FS   with=3MS  at-the-party ‘Whose friend did Najwa meet with [him] at the party ?’  (135) PP-FRONTING WITH GENITIVE INTERROGATIVE  ونإ دقتعت ونم قيدص ةيو ىھس ىوجن؟ةلفحلاب تقتلا Suha wu:ya:  Sadi:g   minnu: taʕatagid ennu: Najwa    iltagat      bi-l-Hafla Suha with      friend   who     think.3FS that   Najwa    met.3FS   at-the-party ‘With whose friend does Suha think that Najwa meet at the party ?’  4.2.2.3 Long-distance extraction with D-linked interrogatives   Long-distance extraction of D-linked interrogatives was already discussed in Chapter 2. Again for ease of exposition, I repeat the relevant data here. With subject extraction, only gapping is possible (136). With object extraction, both gapping and resumption are possible (137). With long-distance extraction of a prepositional object, only resumption is possible (138). And with PP-fronting, only the gap strategy is possible (139).     115 (136) SUBJECT EXTRACTION OF D-LINKED INTERROGATIVE  ؟ دادغبب ةقش ترتشا ونإ دقتعي ةقيدص اي بغار Ragheb  ya:        Sadi:ga   yaʕatagid   ennu:  iʃtarat_____            ʃigga          bi-Baghdad Ragheb  which   friend.F  think.MFS  that     bought.3FS_____   apartment  in-Baghdad 'Which friend does Ragheb think that bought an apartment in Baghdad ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA, offered freely)  b. extraction with resumption ؟ دادغبب ةقش ترتشا يھ ونإ دقتعي ةقيدص اي بغار * *Ragheb  ya:      Sadi:ga   yaʕatagid   ennu:  hyi   iʃtarat_____        ʃigga          bi-Baghdad  Ragheb   which  friend.F  think.MFS  that    she  bought.3FS____ apartment  in-Baghdad 'Which friend does Ragheb think that [she] bought an apartment in Baghdad ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA, elicited)  (137) OBJECT EXTRACTION OF D-LINKED INTERROGATIVE a. extraction with gap ونإ دقتعت لاجر اي بغار  ؟ ةلفحلاب تفاش ناميإ Ragheb ya:       riʤa:l yaʕatagid ennu: Iman ʃa:fit ____         bi-l-Hafla Ragheb which  man    think.3MS that  Iman saw.3FS____    at-the-party 'Which man does Ragheb think that Iman saw___ at the party ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 1I, offered freely)  b. extraction with resumption ونإ دقتعت لاجر اي بغار  ؟ ةلفحلاب هتفاش ناميإ Ragheb ya:       riʤa:l yaʕatagid ennu: Iman ʃa:fit=hu        bi-l-Hafla Ragheb which  man    think.3MS that  Iman saw.3FS=3MS    at-the-party 'Which man does Ragheb think that Iman saw [him] at the party ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 1II, offered freely)    116 (138) PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT EXTRACTION OF D-LINKED INTERROGATIVE a. extraction with gap  بغارملعم اي ونإ دقتعت ىھستقتلا  يو ة؟ ةيلكلاب * *Ragheb ya:       muʕallim   taʕatagid ennu:  Suha iltagat wu:ya: ___      bi-l-kulli:a Ragheb  which   professor   met.3FS with ___   at-the-faculty 'Which professor does Ragheb think that Suha met with____ at the faculty ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 3I, offered freely)  b. extraction with resumption  بغارملعم اي ونإ دقتعت ىھستقتلا  يوها؟ ةيلكلاب *Ragheb ya:       muʕallim   taʕatagid ennu:  Suha iltagat wu:ya:=hu     bi-l-kulli:a Ragheb  which   professor   met.3FS with ___   at-the-faculty 'Which professor does Ragheb think that Suha met with____ at the faculty ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 3II, offered freely)  (139) PP FRONTING WITH D-LINKED INTERROGATIVE غار بيو ةملعم اي ونإ دقتعي ىھستقتلا  ؟ ةيلكلاب Ragheb wu:ya ya:       muʕallim  yaʕatagid  ennu:  Suha iltagat  wu:ya:=hu  bi-l-kulli:a Ragheb with   which  professor  think.3MS that   Suha met.3FS with=3MS  at-the-faculty 'Which professor does Ragheb think that Suha met with____ at the faculty ?'        (1 DEC 2010, SA 3II, offered freely)  4.2.2.4 Summary of the long-distance extraction data  Table 24 summarizes the patterning of the gap and resumptive strategy in the context of long-distance extraction with bare, genitive interrogatives and D-linked interrogatives.    117  GAP STRATEGY RESUMPTIVE STRATEGY INTERROGATIVE TYPE BARE  GENITIVE D-LINKED BARE  GENITIVE D-LINKED SUBJECT  √ √ √ x x x OBJECT OF V √ √ √ √ √ √ OBJECT OF P x x x x √ √ PP-FRONTING √ √ √ x x x Table 24. Comparison of bare, genitive and D-linked interrogatives with respect to long-distance extraction (extraction from an embedded clause)  As with local extraction, with long-distance extraction we observe that genitive and D-linked interrogatives pattern in the same way with respect to whether they use the gap or the resumptive strategy. And as before, bare interrogatives are distinct form genitive/D-linked interrogatives.  4.2.3 Superiority effects  Superiority effects arise in contexts where two interrogative expressions are contained in the same clause. As we shall see, in Iraqi Arabic bare interrogatives show superiority effects, while genitive and D-linked interrogatives don’t. The superiority condition (Chomsky 1973), as stated in (140) is an attempt to account for the contrast between the well-formed (141) and ill-formed (142).  (140) Superiority Condition No rule can involve X and Y in the structure …X… […Z… Y…]… where the rule could also apply to X and Z , and Z is superior to Y (Z is superior to Y if Z c- commands Y) (141) a. Who saw what ?  b. I wonder who saw what.   118 (142) a. *What did who see?  b. *I wonder what who saw  The superiority condition derives the fact that, in sentences where both the subject and object are interrogative expressions, only the subject (Z) can undergo movement; i.e. the movement rule involves X and Z. It correctly prohibits movement of the object over the subject, as this would be an instance of a rule involving X (the object position) and Y (the A’ landing site), with Z (the subject) superior to Y (the object). As shown in (143), Iraqi Arabic bare interrogatives obey the superiority condition:  143. superiority effects with bare interrogative pronouns   a. superiority effect observed  ش ونم ون ؟رماسل لاق     minnu: ʃenu: ga:l  li-Samer     who     what said.3MS  to=Samer     Who said what to Samer ?        (10 JUL 2010, SA 1a, offered freely)  b. superiority effect violated ش ون؟رماسل ونم لاق *  * ʃenu: ga:l                    minnu:       li-Samer    what=said.3MS  who            to=Samer   '*What did who say to Samer ?'        (10 JUL 2010, SA 1b, elicited)   With genitive interrogative constructions, the superiority effect disappears. This is illustrated by the grammaticality of both multiple questions in (144), where (144a) shows SVO word order and (144b) shows OVS word order.    119 (144) Superiority effects disappear with genitive interrogative expressions a. SVO word order ؟ ونم دلو فاش ونم لجر riʤa:l minnu: ʃa:f           walad minnu: man    who     saw.3MS  boy     who 'Whose husband saw whose son ?'       (13 JAN 2011, SA 8a, offered freely)  b. OVS word order ؟ونم لجر هفاش ونم دلو walad minnu: ʃa:f=hu                 riʤa:l      minnu: boy     who     saw.3MS=3MS   husband   who 'Whose son did whose husband see ?'       (13 JAN 2011, SA 9a, offered freely)   With D-linked interrogatives superiority effects also disappear. This is illustrated in the grammaticality of the D-linked questions in (145), where (145a) shows SVO word order and (145b) shows OVS word order.  (145) Superiority effects disappear with D-linked interrogative expressions a. SVO word order ؟ باتك اي ترتشا ةبلاط اي ya:      Ta:liba       iʃtarat           ya:       kita:b which student.F   bought.3FS  which  book 'Which student bought which book ?'      (13 JAN 2011, SA 3a, offered freely)       120 b. OVS word order ؟ةبلاط اي ترتشا باتك اي ya:       kita:b   iʃtarat            ya:      Ta:liba which  book    bought.3FS   which student.F 'Which book did which student buy ?'       (13 JAN 2011, SA 4a, offered freely)  4.3 Why genitive interrogatives are inherently D-linked   I propose that it is the syntactic structure which causes genitive and D-linked interrogatives to pattern in the same way with respect to local extraction, long-distance extraction, and superiority. In particular, I suggest that the structural parallel between genitive and D-linked interrogatives lies in the fact that they both contain an overt domain restriction (§4.3.1). I then show how the derivation of the gap and the resumptive strategy proceeds with genitive interrogatives (§4.3.1 - 4.3.2).  4.3.1 D-linking arises if there is an overt domain restriction   A comparison of the syntax of bare interrogatives, D-linked interrogatives and genitive interrogatives is given in (146).  (146) a. syntax of bare interrogatives [D wh [NØ] ]   the gap strategy [D wh [φ hu [NØ]] ]  the resumptive strategy (only long-distance)  b. syntax of D-linked interrogatives [D  wh [N N ]]   the gap strategy [D  wh [φ hu [N N ]]  resumption (local & long-distance)   121 c. syntax of genitive interrogatives [D  [N N [D wh]]]  the gap strategy [D  [N N [D wh] [φ hu [N   ]]] resumption (local & long-distance)   There are two observations to note here. First, the structure of the genitive in Arabic and Hebrew is known as the construct state, where the head noun is left-adjacent to a noun phrase or interrogative pronoun (Borer 1999; Fehri 1988; Ritter 1988; Shlonksy 2004). Second, with both genitive and D-linked interrogatives there is an overt noun which specifies a domain restriction. It seems that the D-linked interrogative expressions and the genitive interrogative expressions are domain restricted because of the overt noun, whereas the bare interrogative expressions do not have this restriction since they do not have an overt noun. I speculate that the domain restriction is supplied by the overt noun that allows the resumption strategy to be used in a wider range of contexts that is possible with bare interrogatives. This suggests that there is a close connection between domain restriction and the presence of a resumptive pronoun, because resumption selects an element from a domain. The bare interrogative expressions do not have any such domain restriction and therefore resumption is allowed only for syntactic reasons, i.e. with long-distance extraction but not with local extraction. The claim made here is that genitive interrogatives are inherently D-linked. Therefore, they should have a D-N structure in content questions which employ the gap strategy and a D-φ-N structure in content questions which employ the resumptive strategy. With this in mind I now look at the derivation of content questions with genitive constructions in more detail.  4.3.2 Derivation of the genitive interrogative with the gap strategy  Consider (147a) which is a genitive interrogative employing the gap strategy. The numeration is given in (147b).    122 (147) GENITIVE INTERROGATIVE CONSTRUCTION a. Genitive interrogative with gap ؟ تفاش ونم لجر ىوجن Najwa    riʤal minnu:   ʃa:fit Najwa    man   who       saw:3SF 'Whose husband did Najwa see ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 8a, offered freely) b. Numeration: {TOPØ, CØ, IØ, NajwaD, Sa:fitV, minnu:D, ridza:lN,}  (148) gives the derivation of (147a). At the VP phase (148b), the DP is built by (148bI) merging the interrogative pronoun minnu: ‘who’ with the noun riʤal ‘husband/ man’; in accordance with Ritter’s (1991) N-to-D raising in construct states, N raises to SpecD via a successive application of Copy and Delete  (148bII-III). Then the verb ʃa:fit 'she saw' merges with the DP riʤa:l minnu: ‘whose husband’ (148bIV). The subject DP Najwa merges with the V at SpecVP (148bV).  At the IP phase (148c), the inflectional head merges with the VP (148cI), then the subject DP Najwa is moved to SpecIP via successive application of Copy and Delete (148cII-III). At the CP phase (148d), the DP riʤa:l minnu: ‘whose husband’ is moved to SpecCP via successive application of Copy and Delete (148dI-II). At the TopP phase (148e), the topical head Top merges with the CP (148eI) and the subject DP Najwa is moved to SpecTopP via successive application of Copy and Delete (148eII-III).  (148) derivational analysis of (147a) a. Numeration: {TOPØ, CØ, IØ, NajwaD, Sa:fitV, minnu:D, ridza:lN,}  b. VP phase I. Merge <D, N> [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ] ]  II. Copy riʤa:lN  and Merge <N, D> [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]]  123 III. Delete riʤa:lN [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]]  IV. Merge <V, D> [V [Sa:fit V] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]]]  V. Merge <D, V> [V [NajwaD ] [V [Sa:fit V] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]]]  c. IP phase I. Merge <I, V> [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [Sa:fit V] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]]]]  II. Copy NajwaD & Merge <D, I> [I [NajwaD ] [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [Sa:fit V] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]]]]]  III. Delete NajwaD [I [NajwaD ] [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [Sa:fit V] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]]]]]  d. CP phase I. Copy [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]] & Merge <C, I> [C [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]] [I [NajwaD ] [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [Sa:fit V] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]]]]]  II. Delete [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]] [C [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]] [I [NajwaD ] [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [Sa:fit V] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]]]]]      124 e. TopP phase I. Merge <Top, C> [Top [C [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]] [I [NajwaD ] [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [Sa:fit V] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]]]]]  II. Copy NajwaD & Merge <Top, C> [Top NajwaD [C [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]] [I [NajwaD ] [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [Sa:fit  V] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]]]]]  III. Delete NajwaD [Top NajwaD [C [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]] [I [NajwaD ] [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [Sa:fit  V] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnu:D ] [riʤa:lN ]]]]]  4.3.3 Derivation of the genitive interrogative with the resumptive strategy   Let us now look at the derivation of a genitive interrogative employing the resumptive strategy (149a). The numeration is given in (149b); notice that it contains the φ-element hu ‘him’.  (149) GENITIVE INTERROGATIVE CONSTRUCTION a. Genitive interrogative with resumption تفاش ونم لجره ةبتكملاب؟  ناميإ Iman    riʤa:l minnu:   ʃa:fat=hu          bi-l-maktaba Iman    man   who       saw:3SF.3MS   at-the-library 'Whose husband did Najwa see [him] at the library ?'        (8 JUL 2010, SA 8b, offered freely)  b. Numeration: {TOPØ, CØ, IØ, NajwaD, Sa:fitV, minnu:D, ridza:lN, huφ}   125 (150) gives the derivation of (149a). At the VP phase (150b), the DP is built by: (150bI) merging the pronoun hu ‘him’ with the noun riʤal 'husband/ man' and (1509bII) merging that complex syntactic object with the interrogative pronoun minnu: ‘who’. In keeping with the N-to-D raising of the construct state, N raises to SpecD via a successive application of Copy and Delete (150bIII-IV). Then the verb ʃa:fit 'she saw' merges with the DP riʤa:l hu minnu: ‘whose him husband’ (150bV) and cliticizaton of the pronoun hu ‘him’ immediately takes place via successive application of Copy and Delete (150bVI-VII). The subject DP Najwa merges with the V at SpecVP (150bVIII).  At the IP phase (150c), the inflectional head merges with the VP (150cI), then the subject DP Najwa is moved to SpecIP via successive application of Copy and Delete (150cII-III). At the CP phase (150d), the DP riʤa:l him minnu: ‘whose husband’ is moved to SpecCP via successive application of Copy and Delete (150dI-II). At the TopP phase (150e), the topical head Top merges with the CP (150eI) and the subject DP Najwa is moved to SpecTopP via successive application of Copy and Delete (150eII-III).  (150) derivational analysis of (149a) a. Numeration: {TOPØ, CØ, IØ, NajwaD, Sa:fitV, minnu:D, ridza:lN, huφ}  b. VP phase I. Merge <φ, N> [φ [hu φ] [riʤa:l N ]]  II. Merge <D, φ> [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]  III. Copy riʤa:lN  and Merge <N, D> [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]  IV. Delete riʤa:lN [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]   126 V. Merge <V, D> [V [Sa:fit V] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]  VI. Copy huφ & Merge <V, φ> [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]]  VII. Delete huφ & Merge <V, φ> [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]]  VIII. Merge <D, V> [V [NajwaD ] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]]  c. IP phase I. Merge <I, V> [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]]]  II. Copy NajwaD & Merge <D, I> [I [NajwaD ] [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]]]]  III. Delete NajwaD [I [NajwaD ] [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]]]]  d. CP phase I. Copy [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]] & Merge <C, I> [C [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]] [I [NajwaD ] [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]]]]]  II. Delete [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]] & Merge <C, I> [C [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]] [I [NajwaD ] [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]]]]]   127 e. TopP phase I. Merge <Top, C> [Top [C [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]] [I [NajwaD ] [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]]]]]]  II. Copy NajwaD & Merge <Top, C> [Top NajwaD [C [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]] [I [NajwaD ] [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [ʃa:fit  V huφ] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]]]]]]  III. Delete NajwaD [Top NajwaD [C [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]] [I [NajwaD ] [I [V [NajwaD ] [V [ʃa:fit V huφ] [D [riʤa:lN ] [D [minnuD ] [huφ riʤa:lN ]]]]]]]                    128 5 Conclusions 5.1 Results   In this thesis I described the resumptive strategy and the gap strategy in Iraqi Arabic content questions and I showed that the choice of either the gap or the resumptive pronoun in the syntax gives rise to different interpretations in the semantics. The theoretical devices used in this thesis are not new; rather, I argued that various proposals applied to the resumptive strategies in other Arabic dialects apply to Iraqi Arabic, as well.  In chapters 1 I gave some background on the morphology and syntax of Iraqi Arabic; I presented the morphology and syntax of interrogative expressions in Iraqi Arabic and I described the resumptive strategy in Iraqi Arabic content questions. In chapter 2, I presented a syntactic analysis of resumption in Iraqi Arabic content questions and I argued that the gap strategy is derived with full-DP deletion and the resumptive strategy with remnant-DP deletion. In chapter 3, I explored the interpretive differences associated with the gap and the resumptive strategy, and argued that the structural difference between [D-N] and [D-φ-N] correspond to the semantic difference between the (extensional) pair-list reading and the (intentional) natural function reading respectively. In chapter 4, I showed that genitive interrogatives in Iraqi Arabic are inherently D-linked in the sense of Pesetsky (1987).  5.2 Unsolved problems   In the course of the thesis I touched on several questions that deserve further investigation. In chapter 3 I showed that in contexts where resumption is obligatory, it is semantically ambiguous between the natural function reading and the pair-list reading. A topic for further research is to give a more precise analysis of these two interpretations. In chapter 4 I showed that bare interrogatives are more restricted in their use of the resumptive strategy. Remains to be seen if the syntactic analysis proposed in this thesis can be extended to non-D-linked interrogative expressions.  129  It would also be interesting to investigate other environments where Iraqi Arabic uses resumptive strategies, such as relative clauses and dislocation structures. In addition, in this thesis, I have focused on weak resumptive pronouns; remaining to be investigated are other types of resumptive elements, such as strong pronouns and epithets. For example, in chapter 4 I showed that resumptive strategies in content questions in Iraqi Arabic do not use strong pronouns. It would be interesting to investigate whether this is a uniform phenomenon in Iraqi Arabic across all clause type environments (i.e. content questions, relative clauses, dislocation structures).                       130 References  Adger, David, and Gillian Ramchand.  2001.  Phases and interpretability. In Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. K Magerdoomian and L.A. Bar-El, 20:1-14. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.  Alkalesi, Yasin M. 2006. Modern Iraqi Arabic with MP3 files. Washingtom, DC:  Georgetown University Press  Adger, David and Gillian Ramchand.  2005. Merge and Move: Wh-dependencies  revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 36:161-193.  Aoun, Joseph, and Lina Choueiri. 1999. Modes of interrogation. Unpublished  manuscript. University of Southern Carolina, Los Angeles.  Aoun, Joseph, Lina Choueiri and Norbert Hornstein. 2001. Resumption, movement  and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry. 32:371-403.  Aoun, Joseph, and Audrey Li. 2003. Essays on the representational and derivational  nature of grammar: the diversity of wh-constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press  Aüguero-Bautista, Calixto. 2001. Cyclicity and the scope of wh-phrases. Doctoral  Dissertation, MIT  Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and Chains: Resumption as Stranding. Amsterdam: John  Benjamins.  Borer, Hagit. 1999. Deconstructing the construct. In Beyond Principles and Parameters,  ed. Johnson, K. and I. Roberts. Dordrecht: Kluwer publications.   131 Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1999. The Typology of Structural Deficiency. In  Clitics in the Languages of Europe, ed. H. van Riemsdijk, 145-233. Berlin:   Mouton de Gruyter. Chierchia, Genaro. 1993. Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics  1:181- 234. The Netherlands: Kluwer  Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle,  ed. S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky, 232-286. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston  Chomsky, Noam. 1995.  The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press  Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Bare phrase structure. In Evolution and revolution in linguistic  Theory, ed. Hector Campos and Paula Kempchinsky. Washington DC:             Georgetown University Press.  Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries, the framework. In Step by step, Essays on  Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed.  Roger Martin, David  Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89-156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  Chomsky, Noam.  2007.  Approaching UG from below.  In Interfaces + Recursion   =Language?, ed. Uli Saurerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner, 1-29. Berlin:  Mouton de Gruyter.  Choueiri, Lina. 2003. Issues in the Syntax of Resumption: Restrictive Relatives in  Lebanese Arabic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California  Déchaine, Rose-Marie and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic  Inquiry 33:409-442  Demirdache, Hamida. 1991. Resumptive Chains in Restrictive Relatives, Appositives and    Dislocation  Structures. Doctoral dissertation, MIT  132  Doron, Edit. 1982. On the Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns. Texas  Linguistics Forum 19:1-48 Elbourne, Paul. 2002. E-Type anaphora as NP-deletion. The Netherlands: Kluwer  Academic Publishers.  Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns.  Linguistic Inquiry 11: 337-362  Fassi, Fehri A. 1988. Case inflection, VS order and X'-Theory. In Proceedings of the 1st  International Conference of the Linguistic Society of Morocco, ed. A. Fassi Fehri  Guilliot, Nicolas. 2006. La reconstruction á l'interface entre syntaxe et sémantique.  Doctoral Dissertation, Université de Nantes  Guillot, Nicolas and Nouman Malkawi. 2006. When Resumption determines Reconstruction. In Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Baumer, Montero and Michael Scanlon, 25: 168-176. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.  Guilliot, Nicolas. 2008. To Reconstruct or Not to Reconstruct: That is the question. In  Proceedings of the Workshop on What Syntax Feeds Semantics, published by  FoLLI for ESSLLI  Guilliot, Nicolas and Nouman Malkawi. 2009. When movement fails to reconstruct. In  Merging Features, ed. by J. Brucart, A. Gavarro and J. Sola, 159-174. Oxford  University Press  Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes and Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2006. Understanding   Minimalism. Cambridge University Press  Hornstein, Norbert and Jairo Nunes. 2008. Adjunction, labelling and bare phrase  133 structure. In Biolinguistics, 2.1: 57-86  Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language  10:41-53  Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy  1:3-44.  Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press  Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or pseudo-scope ?Are there wide scope indefinites ? In  Events in Grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 163-196  Lebeaux, David. 1990. Relative clauses, licensing and derivation. In Proceedings of  NELS 20: 318-332  Malkawi, Nouman. 2009. Sur la Syntaxe de Quelques Expressions Anaphoriques:  Epithétes et Pronoms Résomptifs. Doctoral Dissertation, Université de Nantes.  McCloskey, James. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, Ā-binding and levels of representation  in Irish. In The Syntax of the Modern Celtic Languages ed. Randall Hendrick,  volume 23 of Syntax and Semantics, 199-248. San Diego: Academic Press.  Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and Unselective Binding. In The Representation of (In)definiteness, ed. Eric J. Reuland and Alice G. B. ter Meulen, 98-129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press  Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press  Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called "pronouns" in English. In Modern Studies in English:  Readings in Transformational Grammar. Ed. David A. Reibel &and Sanford A.  134  Schaine, 201-224. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.  Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Coreference and bound anaphora: a restatement of the anaphora  questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 6:47-88.  Ritter, Elizabeth Ann. 1988. A case study in the Syntax of Agreement: Hebrew Noun  Phrases and Benoni Verb Phrase. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT  Ross, John Robert. 1986. Infinite Syntax ! Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation  Rouveret, Alain. 2002. How are Resumptive Pronouns Linked to the Periphery? In  Linguistic Variation Yearbook, ed. Pierre Pica, 2:123-184.  Rouveret, Alain. 2008. Phasal Agreement and Reconstruction. In Foundational Issues in  Linguistic Theory, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa  Zubizarreta, 167-195. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.  Rouveret, Alain. 2011. Resumptive pronouns at the interfaces. Amsterdam: John  Benjamins  Sells, Peter. 1984. Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns. Doctoral dissertation,  University of Massachusetts at Amherst  Sharvit, Yael. 1999. Resumptive Pronouns in Relative Clauses. Natural Language and                                    Linguistic Theory 17:587-612  Shlonksy, Ur. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry. 23:443-468  Shlonsky, Ur. 2004. Enclisis and proclisis. In The structure of CP and IP, ed. Luigi Rizzi,  329-353. New York: Oxford University Press.   135 Wahba, Wafaa. 1984. Wh-constructions is Egyptian Arabic. Doctoral Dissertation,  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  Wojdak, Rachel. 2005. The linearization of affixes: evidence from Nuu-chah-nulth.  Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0105127/manifest

Comment

Related Items