Resumption optionality in direct object relative clauses in modern standard Arabic

Abstract

The resumption phenomenon has attracted the attention of linguists within different frameworks and in various languages. However, this phenomenon has received limited attention in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), especially in relation to Direct Object Relative Clauses (DORCs). There have been a few discussions of DORCs and this disregard can be attributed to a fundamental reason which is resumption optionality in this construction in particular. By and large, the interpretation of resumptive pronouns is usually determined by competition with gaps. However, based on the structural facts in MSA (i.e. resumptive pronouns behavior in island constraints) and discussion about optional and obligatory resumptive pronouns, we argue that the resumption strategy is the only method used to generate Direct Object Relative Clauses. Therefore, resumptive pronouns are integral part of the syntactic derivation and could be either phonologically realized or null. A resumptive pronoun, we assume, is a spell-out trace of the moved element. Moreover, a clear description and analysis of DORCs, both definite and indefinite structures (i.e. head DPs with and without the definite article ʔal), will be presented by utilizing the Minimalist Program and the Head Raising Analysis . The mutual influence of the presence and absence of the resumptive pronouns on other elements in the structure (i.e. Head DP and relative marker “ʔallaði”) will be explored as well.

Keywords:

• Resumption
• Optionality
• Object Relatives
• Head Raising Analysis
• Minimalist Program

1. Introduction

The analysis of Direct Object Relative Clauses (henceforth DORCs) in Modern Standard Arabic (henceforth MSA) has always been problematic for any model of generative grammar that tries to account for the properties of such a construction due to its complexity. In this paper, a unified analysis of DORCs, both definite and indefinite, will be suggested in the general architecture of the grammar from a minimalist perspective as well as exploring how the occurrence of the Resumptive Pronoun (RP), Relative Marker (RM), and the definite article ʔal affects the syntax of a sentence.

The paper is organized as follows. First, we set out the main characteristics of direct object relatives in MSA. Second, we outline the theoretical background introducing Kayne’s (1994) Head Raising analysis. Third, we look more closely at some important concepts related to direct object construction such as resumptive pronouns (McCloskey, 2005 and Sichel, 2014), syntactic optionality, economy (Chomsky, 1992 and 1995) , and island constraints. Finally, we discuss the analysis of definite and indefinite DORCs with and without the relative marker ʔallaði.

2. The main characteristics of direct object relatives

2.1. Presence and absence of the relative marker ʔallaði

Like subject relatives with definite DPs, the occurrence of the relative marker ʔallaði is obligatory with RCs modifying both direct and indirect objects. On the other hand, when the relativized head DP is indefinite, the RM is absent: (elements to be highlighted in italic)

(Definite direct object)

As noticed in examples above, when the relativized direct object in (1a) is definite ʔal-katib, the RM ʔallaði must be present. What leads to ungrammaticality in (1b &c) is the absence of the RM ʔallaði and the definite article ʔal respectively.

Furthermore, in the indefinite direct object as in (2a), the absence of the definite article in katib-an entails the absence of the RM, therefore the sentence is grammatical. The occurrence of the RM after an indefinite DP causes the sentence to be ungrammatical as in (2b). More information about the distribution of ʔal and ʔallaði is provided in (Table 1).

Table 1. Presence and absence of the relative marker ʔallaði

Direct object relative	Definite article ʔal	Relative Marker ʔallaði	Result
Definite relativized DP	+	+	Grammatical
	+	‒	Ungrammatical
	‒	+	Ungrammatical
Indefinite relativized DP	‒	‒	Grammatical
	‒	+	Ungrammatical
	+	‒	Ungrammatical

(Inefinite direct object)

2.2. Direct object relatives and resumption

The DORC construction is distinguished from other relative structures by the optionality of resumption. The extraction position of a direct object with a definite head DP could be filled with either an overt RP or, like in subject relatives, left empty. However, the direct object with indefinite DPs requires the obligatory phonological realization of RPs. Resumptive pronouns in MSA have two forms: (i) full pronoun and (ii) clitic. In relative constructions the RPs occur mostly in the second form attached to a host which is frequently a verb raʔyt-u-hu (saw-him). First, the different forms of RPs in MSA are illustrated in (Table 2):

Table 2. The forms of third person non-subject resumptive pronouns: Full/Clitic

Person, Number, and Gender	Pronoun
	Full	Clitic
3^rd person Singular masculine	huwa	hu
3^rd person Singular feminine	hiya	haa
3^rd person Dual/Gender unmarked	humaa	humaa
3^rd person Plural masculine	hum	hum
3^rd person Plural feminine	hunna	hunna

Now, let’s consider the following direct object relative sentences and see how these elements behave: (Highlighted elements are in italic)

(Definite direct object)

(Indefinite direct object)

Both sentences in (3 a & b) are grammatical and the RP attached to the verb could be either overt raʔyt-u-hu or covert raʔyt-u-Ø when the head direct object DP is definite ʔal-katib-a. On the contrary, (4a) is ungrammatical as a result of the absence of a phonologically realized RP *katib-an raʔyt-u-Ø. The correlation between definite/indefinte head DP and RPs is depicted in (Table 3).

Table 3. The head DPs and Resumption

DORCs	Definite article ʔal	Resumptive pronoun	Result
Definite relativized DP	+	Overt RP	Grammatical
	+	Null RP	Grammatical
Indefinite relativized DP	‒	Overt RP	Grammatical
	‒	Null RP	Ungrammatical

2.3. Agreement

DORCs show full agreement between the head DP, RM ʔallaði, and the RP. These three major elements of relative constructions, where they occur together, must agree in person, number, and gender. In the case of the direct object with an indefinite DP, full morphological agreement is seen between the head DP and the RP. Regarding the Case feature, ʔallaði takes the case of the antecedent DP, whether it is the same as its Case in the original position or the case it acquires after movement. The agreement between RMs, RPs, and definite/indefinate head DPs is illustrated in (Tables 4 & 5) respectively. The morphological manifestation of the Case in the RM ʔallaði is present only in the Dual form (ʔallaðaani/Nom, and ʔallaðayini/Acc), singular and plural forms do not show any morphological representation of the Case.¹

Table 4. Agreement between the head DP, RMs, and RP (Definite DORCs)

	Head DP (Definite)	Relative marker (ʔallaði-type)	Resumptive pronoun (saw-I+RP)
3^rd per,sing,masc	ʔal-katib-a	ʔallaði	raʔyt-u-hu
3^rd per,sing,fem	ʔal-katibat-a	ʔallati	raʔyt-u-haa
3^rd per, Dual, masc	ʔal-katib-an/Nom	ʔallað-aan/Nom	raʔyt-u-humaa
	ʔal-katib-ayin/Acc	ʔallað-ayin/Acc	raʔyt-u-humaa
3^rd per, Dual, fem	ʔal-katibat-aan/Nom	ʔallataan	raʔyt-u-humaa
	ʔal-katibat-ayin/Acc	ʔallatayin	raʔyt-u-humaa
3^rd per, plural, masc	ʔal-kutab-a	ʔallaðīn, ʔallaʔi	raʔyt-u-hum
3^rd per, plural, fem	ʔal-katiibaat	ʔallātī, ʔallawati, ʔallaʔi	raʔyt-u-hunna

Table 5. Agreement between the head DP and the RP (Indefinite DORCs)AU: Please mention Table V: in the text

	Head DP (Indefinite)	Relative marker (ʔallaði-type)	Resumptive pronoun (saw-I+RP)
3^rd per,sing,masc	katib-an	Ø	raʔyt-u-hu
3^rd per,sing,fem	katibat-an	Ø	raʔyt-u-haa
3^rd per, Dual, masc	katib-an/Nom	Ø	raʔyt-u-humaa
	katib-ayin/Acc	Ø	raʔyt-u-humaa
3^rd per, Dual, fem	katibat-aan/Nom	Ø	raʔyt-u-humaa
	katibat-ayin/Acc	Ø	raʔyt-u-humaa
3^rd per, plural, masc	kutab-an	Ø	raʔyt-u-hum
3^rd per, plural, fem	katiibaat-in	Ø	raʔyt-u-hunna

2.4. Island Sensitivity

The DORCs are not sensitive to island constraints. This fact could be seen in the examples below. The sentence in (5) is grammatical because the RP is not sensitive to the wh-island, whereas (6) is ungrammatical due to the absence of the RP. Thus, we assume that this is proof that the sentence with resumption is the unmarked structure, and the absence of the RP is the marked one.

2.5. Wh-island

2.6. Complex NP Island

It is clear that when the RP hu (it) attached to the verb kataba (write) the sentence is grammatically correct like in (7), and the absence of the RP leads to the ungrammaticality of the sentence as in (8).

Speaking about RP optionality, we have to shed light on Shelonsky’s last resort account. Shlonsky (1992) conducts a study on the distribution of RPs in relative clauses in Palestinian Arabic and Hebrew. He argued that the use of RPs across languages is conditioned by a Last Resort Principle to maintain successive-cyclic movement operations. His argument is based on the assumption that “resumptive pronouns only occur as a Last Resort, when wh-movement fails to yield a grammatical structure.” (Shlonsky, 1992, p. 443). According to him, the question should not be where RPs are allowed to occur or not, but rather on where wh-movement is blocked. Examples (9a-b) show the use of the RP as a last resort operation to save the violation of the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC);

The sentence in (9b) is ungrammatical because the movement leaves a gap inside the coordinate subject which violates CSC. However, the sentence in (9a) is grammatical due to the presence of the RP and that is an example of last resort operation suggested by Shlonsky. He further argues that the RP is considered as a variable, and it is bound by an operator in an A’- position only at LF. The base-generated RP is licensed as a regular (unbound) pronoun at S-Structure and as a bound pronoun in LF.

Moreover, Shlonsky (1992 & 1997) argues that the selection of gaps or RPs in non-island constructions is related to the type of the complementizer used in a sentence. According to him, there are some types of complementizers that block successive cyclic movement, therefore the use of resumptive pronouns is obligatorily in order to establish the syntactic dependency (i.e., binding relations). Shlonsky (1992) further argues that complementizer ʔilli in Palestinian Arabic is an example of this type of complementizers that block movement and, accordingly, that is why RPs occurrence is obligatory in the relative clauses of Palestinian Arabic (10a).

In Hebrew, Shlonsky claims that pronouns and gaps vary freely in direct object, embedded subject, and all direct object positions, as shown in (11–13), respectively. He applies the last resort analysis² to Hebrew as well, claiming that Hebrew has two morphologically identical complementizers še, one of them behaves the same way as ?illi in Palestinian Arabic (i.e., blocks movement), while the other one does not as in the examples below;

On the other hand, Aoun et al. (2001 & 2010), claim that RP in Lebanese Arabic is a unitary phenomenon. They establish a distinction between “true” resumption and “apparent” resumption. In the former, the antecedent is base-generated in its surface position and is related to RP within the sentence. In the latter, the scenario is different. The antecedent is generated together with the RP and then undergoes movement to its surface position leaving a copy in the original position. They use reconstruction effect as a diagnostic for movement. They claim that movement distinguishes two kinds of RPs.

True resumption and apparent resumption

Table

True resumption	Apparent resumption
Antecedenti…… [Island ……] RPi	Antecedenti … … … … Antecedenti-RP

2.7. (In)definiteness and the relative marker relationship

Earlier, it has been shown that the head DPs with the definite article ʔal require the phonological realization of the RM ʔallaði, while the absence of ʔal entails the absence of the phonological realization of the RM:

Looking at the previous examples, the relation between the head DP and ʔallaði is crystal clear. The [±DEF] feature suggested earlier plays a major role here. I assume that [+DEF] feature entails the presence of ʔallaði while [−DEF] entails the opposite. Let’s examine the following sentence:

The head DP lisan-u lacks the presence of the definite article ʔal, however still has a definite reading that subsequently leads to the occurrence of the RM ʔallaði as seen in (16). Thus, this evidence goes in line with my argument that it is the [+DEF] feature of the head DP that is responsible of the phonological realization of the RM. Another case is when the head DP position is occupied by pronouns that clearly have no definite article but certainly have [+DEF] feature.

Galal (2005), assumes that the DPs with definite article are the triggers of the overt occurrence of ʔallaði. This assumption seems to be not strong enough since ʔallaði can appear in fully grammatical sentences in MSA with DPs that do not have the definite article ʔal as in (17). Hence, it is the [+DEF] feature that is crucial for the occurrence of the RM ʔallaði.

2.8. Kayne’s head raising analysis (1994)

The head raising analysis is traced to Brame (1968), Schachter (1973), and Vergnaud (1974). More recently, it has been revived by Åfarli (1994), Kayne (1994), Bianchi (1999, 2000a/b, 2002a/b, and 2004), Bhatt (2002), and Aoun and Li (2003) among others. The main properties of this analysis are:

1. An external determiner selects a CP

2. The head NP originates inside the relative clause CP and is A’-moved to an operator position within the relative clause to become adjacent to the external determiner.

Kayne (1994) proposes a raising analysis of relative clauses, in which the “head” originates inside the relative clause.³ In general, Kayne’s Non-wh-relatives is derived via direct raising of the Head NP to Spec CP position which is a complement of the external D as exemplified in (18a&b) and illustrated in (20 a). On the other hand, the wh-relatives that contain a relative pronoun are derived through two steps; first the NP, which is D complement, raises to Spec DP then the whole constituent moves to Spec CP position as in (19 a,b and c) and illustrated in (20 b):

3. Minimalist program and economy

One of the major features that distinguishes Chomsky’s (1995) MP from the earlier approaches is its derivational process which presents principles that help in understanding how an analysis is derived, rather than presenting what is called filtering conditions that restrict the resulting representations (Weinberg, 1999). The Economy Principle, first suggested by Chomsky (1992), is considered as the cornerstone of the Minimalist Program. Weinberg (1999) believes that economy conditions provide a great help for us to utilize the shortest way for analyzing syntactic constructions. Therefore, economy principles serve the core idea of MP which requires the least “costly” derivations thereby reducing computational complexity. Hornstein et al. (2005, p. 8) believe that economy principles play a key role in MP and state that “ … a premium is placed on least effort notions as natural sources for grammatical principles”. Moreover, Radford (2009) explains economy as “a principle which requires that (all other things being equal) syntactic representations should contain as few constituents and syntactic derivations involve as few grammatical opertions as possible” (2009, p. 335).

3.1. Economy and the relative marker

The possibility of having both overt and covert RMs in the C position in MSA relative clauses leads us to believe that MSA is making use of the Economy Principles especially in relativization. Hence, we will argue that the occurrence of a covert RM is mainly due to two economy principles: the Least Effort Principle, and Economy of Lexical Selection. Zipf (1949) refers to the principle of Least Effort as “the primary principle that governs our entire individual and collective behavior of all sorts, including our behavior of our language.”

Least effort principle

MSA relatives also obey this principle since the C position can be occupied by an overt lexical RM when [+DEF] feature is fulfilled and could be covert if lacking this feature.

4. Direct object relatives and optionality

Among other structures in Keenan and Comrie’s (1977) Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy (NPAH),⁴ DORCs in MSA have a unique aspect that the relativized position could be filled with either a gap or an RP. Moreover, the general agreement among Arab linguists is that the optionality is valid only when the head DP has the definite article ʔal attached to it. Hence, we will try to refute this opinion in order to cover a wider scope of structures that allow optionality even if the definite article is not present by suggesting that optionality is applicable in DORCs if the head DP has a [+DEF] feature. The negative specification of this feature, i.e., [−DEF], leads to the obligatory presence of the RP and therefore exclusion of optionality:

It is observed in example (22) that there is an RP -hu as a suffix of the verb ra?ayt-u “saw” which is coindexed with the RM ʔallaði. In (23) there is no RP and the sentence is still grammatical. The head DP in both the sentences are introduced by the definite article ʔal. Proper nouns which are definite despite the absence of ʔal show optionality as well:

Optionality occurs in DORCs, where the overt RP ha (24) or a null RP (25) could occupy the relativized position and the RP is coindexed with the head DP and the RM ʔallati.

On the other hand, optionality is not valid in the case of head DPs of direct object with a [−DEF] feature, where the occurrence of the RP is compulsory:

The absence of the RP hu at the end of the verb raʔayt “saw” in (27) leads to ungrammaticality. The lack of a [+DEF] feature leads to the non-occurrence of the RM ʔallaði. However, the presence of a [+SPEC] feature in the DP could explain the obligatory presence of the RP. The head DP relativized position is marked [+SPEC]. This feature agreement allows movement from the object position.

5. Syntactic optionality

Müller (1999) defines syntactic optionality as “a situation in which different ways of saying what seems to be the same thing show a clear correspondence in form”. There are plenty of examples of optionality in the literature. Several languages show optionality in different structures, for example, in English, the presence of the complementizer in declarative object clauses is optional:

Moreover, the occurrence of the preposition to and restructuring the direct and indirect objects in English dative shift is optional as well:

German could be taken as an instance for the syntactic optionality phenomenon as well. Known as one of the languages that display free word order, scrambling the word order is optional:

Insertion of the wh-scope marker is also optional in German:

Another case of optionality is found in French root clauses, in which the wh-movement of argument XPs is clearly optional as illustrated in (32):

According to Müller (1999), optionality was first introduced to the syntactic realm in the sixties transformational grammar via establishing a distinction between two kinds of transformations; optional and obligatory. The situation changed when Government and Binding theory emerged (Chomsky, 1981), and only one transformation was kept under this new approach. Affect α is the transformation that is left and applies optionally under the condition that the derived syntactic object obeys all the constraints of the grammar and violates none of them. In other words, syntactic optionality is applicable as long as the grammatical constraints are fulfilled. Furthermore, the concept of two syntactic constructions competing with each other was not conventional in pre-minimalism. According to McDaniel and Cowart (1999), all syntactic operations were optional in the pre-minimalism era. There was no clear methodical justification to exclude sentences like in (33 b) by taking into account the well-formedness of sentence (33 a):

Optionality is also found in Hindi. Simpson (2000) shows that the wh-phrase in Hindi can occur optionally in its base position or in Spec-CP. The wh-phrase can be checked in any position m-commanded by the +Q Comp in its own immediate tense domain:

6. Derivation of direct object relative clauses

6.1. Derivation of object relatives with definite DP

From the examples above it is noticed that the extraction site of the object relatives can be filled with an overt RP that agrees with the antecedent in person, number and gender or a null RP. In the traditional sense, i.e., the Government and Binding theory (GB), the extraction site cannot be filled with a pro or PRO. Since it is an object position,⁵ pro is excluded.⁶ The extraction site is governed and theta-ruled by the verb, therefore, PRO cannot be the right choice since it does not exist in a governed position. This view has been developed considerably in the Minimalist approach. However, we assume it is a spell-out trace of the moved element.

As it is seen above, the occurrence of an RP in a DORC is optional. However, when the distance between the head DP and the original position is more, an RP is required. Optionality takes place when there is no further structure between the head and the trace, whereas the RP is compulsory when islands are involved. The examples (5 & 6) prove the insensitivity of RP to wh-island condition. The sentence in (5) is grammatical because the RP is not sensitive to the wh-island, whereas (6) is ungrammatical due to the absence of the RP. Thus, we assume that this is another piece of evidence that resumption is the unmarked structure and the absence of the RP is the marked one. Moreover, the complex NP Island is another constraint that is not obeyed by RPs as well as seen in (7 & 8). It is clear that when the RP hu (it) is attached to the verb kataba (write) the sentence is grammatically correct like in (7), and the absence of the RP leads to the ungrammaticality of the sentence as in (8).

Thus, adopting Kayne’s raising analysis, we argue that the object relative clause in MSA could be assigned a structure similar to that of subject relative clauses.

(37)

As noticed in the structure above, the object originates within the relative clause in VP position and then moves to Spec CP. Such a movement activates the [+DEF] feature in Spec CP. The exact reading of the relative sentence is fulfilled only after the movement. The head C position hosts a base-generated RM ʔallaði and is also endowed with a [DEF_REL] feature that is responsible for introducing the head DP to the relative structure. There are several ways of defining a noun in MSA. One is by using ʔal such as ʔal-ʔasad (the lion). Second, using one word like kitab-u ʔn-naahwi ((literal) a book of the-syntax), however the initial noun has actually a definite reading (the book of syntax). Third, using a sentence and this sentence must be introduced by one of the RM in MSA (when DP is definite it is morphologically realized and null when indefinite). Therefore, the C position must have a definite feature of some sort specifically for relative constructions regardless of the presence or the absence of the RM, thus, [DEF_REL] feature is suggested to meet this requirement.

Getting back to the derivation process, the head DP that first merges within VP raises to the Spec CP position leaving either an overt or null RP. We assume that the occurrence of a null RP in the extraction position is due to economy requirement stated in Chomsky (1981) as Avoid Pronoun Principle when the pronoun is adjacent to its coreferential antecedent.⁷

Avoid overt pronoun, whenever possible

The verb moves from V to v and probes down for agreement purpose with the object (the goal). Then it raises to I to get all uninterpretable features, that are inherited from C, valued and therefore eliminated. Rohrbacher (1994) argues that rich agreement is considered as trigger for V-to-I movement. Finally, the RP cliticized to the verb in the extraction position undergoes a post-syntactic movement at PF to get the proper formation. The RP moves to the final position of its host in I and adjoins to it. Gribanova & Harizanov (2016) argue that the post-syntactic head amalgamation at PF is applicable if the moved element does not structurally affect the adjacent head.

6.2. Derivation of object relatives with an indefinite DP

One of the structures in MSA relatives that are not available in English is the occurrence of a relative construction with an indefinite DP. The head DP is indefinite in these relatives due to the lack of a phonologically realized definite article such as ʔal in the D position. In the same line with our analysis, the DP that moves from the argument position is headed by a null D. However, another element takes place which is called Nunnation⁸ and is attached to the end of the noun. The definite DP ʔal-katib-u will be katib-un in the indefinite case. The Nunnation, we believe has a major role in indefinite structures. We will argue against Fassi-Fehri’s (1993 & 1996) assumption that Nunnation is a sign of indefiniteness since it occurs only in the indefinite environment. This assumption is not completely true since Nunnation can occur in definite cases as well such as proper nouns like Ali-un. For me, Nunnation has another role to play and this role is specificity.

From the previous data, we can notice the main characteristics of object relatives with indefinite DPs. First, the absence of the RM ʔallaði. Second, the occurrence of Nunnation an-un-in attached to the end of the noun. The absence of Nunnation from the structure leads to ungrammaticality. Third, the RP must be phonologically realized, in other words, optionality is not found in object relatives with indefinite DPs. Let’s have focus on the derivation of this construction:

(40)

As assumed for object relatives with a definite DP, the higher D in this structure is empty. Following Bianchi (1999) the occurrence of two null Ds is not a problem. Bianchi argues that the occurrence of two functional heads having the same features, null D in our case, can be solved by suggesting an operation called unification. Hence, two functional heads with the same features can be combined into a single functional head.

One of the main characteristics that distinguish object relatives with definite DPs and object relatives with indefinite DPs is the status of the extraction site. While optionality is allowed in the earlier, it is necessarily banned in the latter. Thus, the RP is a main element in correct and grammatical object relative structures with indefinite DPs. For more clarification, let’s have a closer look at the following examples:

From the above examples we notice that RPs are optional in (41&42), the examples representing object relatives with definite DPs. On the contrary, overt RPs only are acceptable in object relatives with indefinite pronouns leading to the grammaticality of (44) and ungrammaticality of (43). The question which arises here is as to why such a contradiction occurs in almost similar structures. Does ECP play a role in accepting one structure and rejecting the other one? It is seen that in (44) and (43) the object trace is governed by the verb qabal (met), however, the former is grammatical and the latter is not. Thus, ECP has nothing to do here since it is not the reason behind the rejection of (43). This could be a result of a feature mismatch between the extraction position and the antecedent DP. Thus, as we have proposed earlier, the occurrence of the RP, overtly or covertly, in MSA is controlled by a principle known as Avoid Pronoun Principle, which simply states that avoid lexical pronouns in favor of an empty category whenever necessary.

7. Conclusion

In this paper, we have presented the main characteristics of the DORCs in MSA. It is noticed that DORCs share the same properties like other relative constructions except for resumption optionality. It is the major feature that distinguishes DORCs from other relative constructions in MSA. We have seen that optionality occurs when the head DP is definite, whereas DORCs with an indefinite head DP require a phonologically realized RP in the extraction site. We have concluded that optimality and economy of representation are strongly related. The optional occurrence of the RP in DORCs is a result of an economy principle namely Avoid Pronoun Principle.

Furthermore, we have argued that the raising analysis can also account for DORCs in MSA both with a definite or an indefinite DP. Like subject relatives, the head DP initially merged within the relative clause based on the assumption that VSO is the unmarked word order in MSA. Then, the head DP raises to the Spec CP position in order to check [±DEF] and [±SPEC] features based on the definiteness nature of the moved element. The extraction site is occupied by a trace of the moved item in the form of either an overt or a covert RP. Finally, a post-syntactic movement of the RP to I, i.e., the position of the host of the RP, is suggested as well.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. In Classical Arabic, overt Case markers were found in some of the Classical Arabic poetry such as ʔallaði-u/Nom, ʔallaði-a/Acc, and ʔallaði-i/Gen. The reduction or deletion of these elements could be due to phonological reasons, which is beyond our topic and could be an interesting question for future research. Most of traditional Arab grammarians believe that among the Arabic diacritics, ʕalamat ʔt-tarqeem, (i.e, sukun/^O/, Fatha/a/, ḍamah/u/, and kasrah/i/), sukun is the easiest one in processing. We do believe this could be the reason behind the deletion of Case morphological manifestation from the relative marker ʔalladi..

2. Rouveret (2011) critiqued Shlonsky’s last resort analysis. He assumes that establishing a connection between gap and RP dependencies and the type of complementizer is not amicable with the syntactic last resort view of RPs. He argued that if a relative clause along with the complementizer is generated in a way that blocks movement, hence resumptive pronouns are obligatorily selected and they shouldn’t be considered as last resort expressions. Thus, Rouveret (2011) concludes that, “If the gist of the analysis is simply that some complementizers are incompatible with movement; there is no need to resort to last resort” (Rouveret, 2011, p. 12).

3. Kayne’s argument is built on the Antisymmetry hypothesis proposed by him. This hypothesis is mainly concerned with the hierarchical structure and linear order relationship. He suggests the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) to state his argument that the linear order is determined by the hierarchical structure. (1) The Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA):For any two non-terminals X, Y, if X asymmetrically c-commands Y, then all terminals x dominated by X precede all terminals y dominated by Y

4. NPAH is a hierarchy that concerns the relativizability of a noun phrase (NP) with respect to the grammatical relations between the head noun and the RC. (Ozeki & Shirai, 2007, p. 170).

5. Chomsky (1982) suggests pro for the empty subject position of pro-drop languages. He states “We want to establish that in the core cases, pro appears only as the subject of a sentence with AGR in a pro-drop language.” (Chomsky, 1982, p. 85). However, it is important to mention that EPP and ECP principles have been developed in the Minimalist program. For further details about the most recent discussion about EEP and ECP refer to Chomsky (2015), and Rizzi (2015. 2016).

6. It is worth mentioning that Rizzi (1986) claims that pro might occur in object position, even though it is only partially identified. He claims that “the evidence discussed suggests that the arbitrary null object belongs to the type pro. The parameter differentiating English and Italian can therefore be viewed as involving the licensing conditions of pro: an occurrence of this element in verb-governed position is allowed in Italian but not in English. Standard assumptions on the theory of pro do not seem to suffice in this case: if pro were restricted to occur in local construal with ‘strong agreement’ (see Chomsky (1982) for discussion), it should be excluded in object position both in Italian and in English (and in any language lacking object agreement). Therefore, the standard view of the ‘pro module’ must be modified.” (Rizzi 1986:518). Therefore, pro in subject position: recovered through rich agreement on Infl (person, gender, number). On the other hand, pro in object position applies to the direct θ-slot in the θ-grid of V; this slot acquires the content [+human +generic +plural] against which pro is checked.

7. A reviewer suggested utilizing the Recoverability Principle rather than Avoid Pronoun Principle, whereby elements can be phonologically deleted up to recoverability. In definite DORCs, the RM manifests the phi-features of the relativized DP. Interestingly, the author claims that the complementizer is coindexed with the RP (cf. Adger & Ramchand 2005). Then, the phi-features of the relative chain are recoverable from C and they need not be spelled out in the trace position (as a RP). In indefinite DORCs, instead, there is no RM manifesting the phi-features, so if the trace is not spelled out, the features are unrecoverable: the RP is obligatory. RM manifesting the phi-features, so if the trace is not spelled out, the features are unrecoverable: the RP is obligatory.

8. For discussion about Nunnation and its impact on (in)definiteness and specificity in MSA see Jarrah and Zibin (2016), and Alhobaishy (2018).