Resumption and Extraction in an Implemented HPSG of Hausa

In this paper, we describe the treatment of extraction in HaG, an emerging computational grammar of Hausa, concentrating on the intricate patterns of interaction between resumptive and gap strategies. We shall argue with Tuller (1986) that Hausa resumption (both overt and covert) opens up the possibility for relativisation only to escape well-attested extraction islands in the language. As suggested by the mutual compatibility of gaps and resumptives in ATB extraction, however, we shall conclude that both strategies must be regarded as unbounded dependencies (UDCs) to be modelled via the feature in HPSG. We shall discuss how the treatment of UDCs has been generalised, in HaG, to permit more than one simultaneous dependency, and focus in particular on how the distinction between true gaps and resumptive elements can be exploited to address efficiency issues. 1 Resumptives and gaps in Hausa extraction Like many other languages, Hausa makes use of extraction in a variety of constructions, including relative clause formation, matrix and embedded wh-questions, and focus fronting. Alongside gap strategies, familiar from English, Hausa also employs resumption, marking the extraction site with a pronominal. (1) wā̀ who ka 2. . àuri marry ’ya daughter. *(-r -of. -3. . -sà) ? ‘Whose daughter did you marry?’ (Jaggar, 2001) (2) sàndā stick sukà 3 . dṑkē beat shì 3 . dà with *(ita) 3 . ‘It was a stick they beat him with.’ (Jaggar, 2001) The distribution of gaps and resumptives partly overlap: while in some contexts only a resumptive strategy is possible, e.g. with possessors of nouns (1), or with complements of non-locative prepositions (2), extraction of core arguments (direct/indirect objects) in general permits both strategies, with a clear preference for zero expression in the case of direct objects (Newman, 2000; Jaggar, 2001) for short extraction. (3) mutā̀nên men dà sukà 3. . ƙi refuse sayar sell musù to.them / / wà ∅ to dà with àbinci food sukà 3. . fìta left ‘the men they refused to sell food to left.’ (Jaggar,