1 Introduction

The literature on resumptive pronouns has argued that they can be of two types: (a) those that appear in base-generation dependencies, and (b) those that terminate movement chains (Scott 2021; Georgi & Amaechi 2023; Hewett 2023; Yip & Ahenkorah 2023; Ershova 2024; Fongang 2025, i.a.,). RPs of the (b)-type, it has also been demonstrated, tend to differ from those of the (a)-type in that they do not always match or fully match moved XPs in phi-features.1

In Swahili (Bantu), for example, copies of moved pronouns do not always match them in person features. The regular first-person singular RP mi, in the parasitic gap construction in (1), is ungrammatical with the moved first-person singular pronoun Mimi ‘me’. Only ye which, as shown in Scott (2021), is unmarked for person features is allowed.

    1. (1)
    1. Mimi
    2. 1sg
    1. ndiye
    2. cop-cl1
    1. amba-ye
    2. amba-cl1
    1. u-li-enda
    2. 2sg-pst-go
    1. na-ye/*-mit
    2. with-cl1/*1sg
    1. kabla
    2. before
    1. ya
    2. of
    1. ku-cheza
    2. cl15-dance
    1. na-yep.
    2. with-cl1
    1. ‘It’s me who you went with __t before dancing with __p.’ (Swahili: Scott 2021: 813)

Georgi & Amaechi (2023) also argue extensively that in Igbo (Niger-Congo, Nigeria), moved pronouns, in the focus construction in (2) for example, can only be resumed by third-person singular yá, regardless of person and number values. They, as a consequence, demonstrate that Igbo movement RPs show a number and person mismatch.

    1. (2)
    1. ḿ
    2. 1sg.acc
    1. /
    2.  
    1. gí̤
    2. 2sg.acc
    1. /
    2.  
    1. yá
    2. 3sg.acc
    1. /
    2.  
    1. ànyí̤
    2. 1pl.acc
    1. /
    2.  
    1. ṳ́nṳ̀
    2. 2pl.acc
    1. /
    2.  
    1. há
    2. 3pl.acc
    1. kà
    2. foc
    1. Ézé
    2. Eze
    1. kwè-rè
    2. believe-rV
    1. [pp
    2.  
    1. nà
    2. in
    1. yá].
    2. 3sg.acc
    1. ‘Eze believes in ME/YOU(sg)/ HIM,HER /US/YOU(pl)/THEM.’
    2. (Igbo: Georgi & Amaechi 2023: 986)

Some of the types of mismatches that have been identified within a single language in the recent literature are (a) person mismatches (e.g., Swahili and Samoan; Scott 2021; Ershova 2024), (b) person and number (e.g., Igbo and Cantonese; Georgi & Amaechi 2023; Yip & Ahenkorah 2023), and (c) number and gender (e.g., Akan; Yip & Ahenkorah 2023).

In this squib, I present novel data from Cameroon Pidgin English (CPE) to show that movement RPs can also show a person-gender-number mismatch.2 I demonstrate that CPE has movement and base-generation RPs. Unlike base-generation RPs, movement RPs show a number-gender mismatch with lexical object XP foci, and a number-gender-person mismatch with pronominals. I relate this to the recent literature and argue that, empirically, number-gender-person mismatches are attested within a single language and, theoretically, the pattern in CPE is predicted by copy-deletion (Van Urk 2018; Scott 2021; Georgi & Amaechi 2023; Yip & Ahenkorah 2023) and impoverishment (Ershova 2024; Fongang 2025) approaches to movement RPs.

The squib is structured as follows: §2 presents the CPE data in detail. §3 demonstrates that CPE has movement as well as base-generation RPs. In §4, I discuss the consequences of the contents of §3 for recent theories of φ-mismatches in resumption, and show how such approaches can derive the CPE data. §5 concludes.

2 The data

In CPE, resumptive pronouns are selected from the paradigm of personal pronouns in Table 1 below (see also Atindogbé & Chibaka 2012 and Ayafor & Green 2017).3

Table 1: Personal pronouns in CPE.

1sg 2sg 3sg.anim 3sg.inan 1pl 2pl 3pl.anim 3pl.inan
NOM a yu i i wi wuna dem dem
ACC mi yu yi am wi wuna dem dem

The examples in (3) and (4) illustrate the use of 3rd person pronouns in cross-sentential anaphora contexts. In (3-a), for example, the inanimate XP moto ‘car’ cannot be replaced by the 3rd-person-singular-animate pronoun yi. Only am is grammatical.4 When the nominal antecedent is animate (c.f., (4-a)), the grammatical pronoun is yi, and not am. Both inanimate (3-b) and animate (4-b) plural nouns need to be substituted by dem, and it shows up in subject and object positions.5

    1. (3)
    1. a.
    1. Pita
    2. Peter
    1. bai
    2. buy.pst
    1. [moto]i.
    2. car.
    1. A
    2. 1sg.nom
    1. si
    2. see.pst
    1. ami/*yii
    2. 3sg.acc.inan/3sg.acc.anim
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. village.
    2. village
    1. ‘Peter bought a car. I saw it in the village.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Pita
    2. Peter
    1. bai
    2. buy.pst
    1. [moto-dem]i.
    2. car-pl.
    1. A
    2. 1sg.nom
    1. si
    2. see.pst
    1. *ami/demi
    2. 3sg.acc.inan/3pl
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. village.
    2. village
    1. ‘Peter bought cars. I saw them in the village.’
    1. (4)
    1. a.
    1. Mary
    2. Mary
    1. bon
    2. born.pst
    1. [man-pikin]i.
    2. man-child.
    1. A
    2. 1sg.nom
    1. si
    2. see.pst
    1. yii/*ami
    2. 3sg.acc.anim/3sg.acc.inan
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. village.
    2. village
    1. ‘Mary gave birth to a boy. I saw him in the village.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Mary
    2. Mary
    1. bon
    2. born.pst
    1. [man-pikin-dem]i.
    2. man-child-pl.
    1. A
    2. 1sg.nom
    1. si
    2. see.pst
    1. demi/*ami
    2. 3pl/3sg.acc.inan
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. village.
    2. village
    1. ‘Mary gave birth to boys. I saw them in the village.’

What is puzzling is that in object XP focus, the only grammatical resumptive pronoun is am.6 This is so with animate-singular (5-a), animate-plural (5-b), inanimate-singular (6-a) and inanimate-plural (6-b) nouns.

    1. (5)
    1. a.
    1. Na
    2. foc
    1. [ma
    2. poss.1sg
    1. pikin]dp
    2. child
    1. (wey)
    2. rel
    1. Pita
    2. Peter
    1. si
    2. see
    1. am/*yi/
    2. 3sg.acc.inan/3sg.acc.anim
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1. ‘It is MY CHILD that Peter saw in Tiko.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Na
    2. foc
    1. [ma
    2. poss.1sg
    1. pikin-dem]dp
    2. child-pl
    1. (wey)
    2. rel
    1. Pita
    2. Peter
    1. si
    2. see
    1. am/*dem
    2. 3sg.acc.inan/3pl
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1. ‘It is MY CHILDREN that Peter saw in Tiko.’
    1. (6)
    1. a.
    1. Na
    2. foc
    1. [ma
    2. poss.1sg
    1. fens]dp
    2. fence
    1. (wey)
    2. rel
    1. moto
    2. car
    1. djam
    2. hit.pst
    1. am/*yi
    2. 3sg.acc.inan/3sg.acc.anim
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1. ‘It is MY FENCE that a car hit in Tiko.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Na
    2. foc
    1. [ma
    2. poss.1sg
    1. fens-dem]dp
    2. fence-pl
    1. (wey)
    2. rel
    1. moto
    2. car
    1. djam
    2. hit.pst
    1. am/*dem
    2. 3sg.acc.inan/3pl
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1. ‘It is MY FENCES that a car hit in Tiko.’

The focus-marked object XPs in (5) and (6) are lexical. Pronoun focus also requires am in the resumption site, irrespective of the person, gender and number values of the focused pronoun (7).7

    1. (7)
    1. Na
    2. foc
    1. [mi
    2. 1sg.acc
    1. /
    2.  
    1. yu
    2. 2sg
    1. /
    2.  
    1. yi
    2. 3sg.acc.anim
    1. /
    2.  
    1. wi
    2. 1pl
    1. /
    2.  
    1. wuna
    2. 2pl
    1. /
    2.  
    1. dem]
    2. 3pl
    1. (wey)
    2. rel
    1. John
    2. John
    1. bi
    2. pst
    1. si
    2. see
    1. am
    2. 3sg.acc.inan
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1. ‘It is ME/YOU(sg)/HIM,HER/US/YOU(pl)/THEM that John saw in Tiko.’

Interestingly, am also shows up in object topicalization, but only if the topic XP is singular-inanimate (8), as one would expect.

    1. (8)
    1. a.
    1. [Ma
    2. poss.1sg
    1. fens]dp,
    2. fence,
    1. moto
    2. car
    1. djam
    2. hit.pst
    1. am/*yi
    2. 3sg.acc.inan/3sg.acc.anim
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1. ‘As for my fence, a car hit it in Tiko.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. [Ma
    2. poss.1sg
    1. fens-dem]dp,
    2. fence-pl,
    1. moto
    2. car
    1. djam
    2. hit.pst
    1. *am/dem
    2. 3sg.acc.inan/3pl
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1. ‘As for my fences, a car hit them in Tiko.’

Topicalization of animate XPs in object position triggers resumption by corresponding, matching, pronouns (9).

    1. (9)
    1. a.
    1. [Ma
    2. poss.1sg
    1. pikin]dp,
    2. child,
    1. Pita
    2. Peter
    1. si
    2. see
    1. *am/yi
    2. 3sg.acc.inan/3sg.acc.anim
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1. ‘As for my child, Peter saw him/her in Tiko.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. [Ma
    2. poss.1sg
    1. pikin-dem]dp,
    2. child-pl,
    1. Pita
    2. Peter
    1. si
    2. see
    1. *am/dem
    2. 3sg.acc.inan/3pl
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1. ‘As for my children, Peter saw them in Tiko.’

Pronominal object XP topics are also resumed by corresponding matching pronouns. I illustrate this in (10-a) with singular pronouns, and in (10-b) with plurals.

    1. (10)
    1. a.
    1. Mi
    2. 1sg.acc
    1. /
    2. /
    1. yu
    2. 2sg
    1. /
    2. /
    1. yi,
    2. 3sg.acc.anim
    1. John
    2. John
    1. bi
    2. pst
    1. si
    2. see
    1. mi
    2. 1sg.acc
    1. /
    2. /
    1. yu
    2. 2sg
    1. /
    2. /
    1. yi
    2. 3sg.acc.anim
    1. /
    2. /
    1. *am
    2. 3sg.acc.inan
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1. ‘As for me/you/him/her, John saw me/you/him/her in Tiko.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. wi
    2. 1pl
    1. /
    2. /
    1. wuna
    2. 2pl
    1. /
    2. /
    1. dem,
    2. 3pl
    1. John
    2. John
    1. bi
    2. pst
    1. si
    2. see
    1. wi
    2. 1pl
    1. /
    2. /
    1. wuna
    2. 2pl
    1. /
    2. /
    1. dem
    2. 3pl
    1. /
    2. /
    1. *am
    2. 3sg.acc.inan
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1. ‘As for us/you/them, John saw us/you/them in Tiko.’

Unlike the other pronouns in Table 1, am can neither be focused (11) nor topicalized (12); a property of weak pronouns (Manzini 2014, i.a.,).

    1. (11)
    1. *Na
    2.   foc
    1. am
    2. 3sg.acc.inan
    1. wey
    2. rel
    1. Pita
    2. Peter
    1. si
    2. see
    1. am/yi/___
    2. 3sg.acc.inan/3sg.acc.anim/gap
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1.   ‘It is HIM/IT that Peter saw in Tiko.’
    1. (12)
    1. *am,
    2.   3sg.acc.inan,
    1. Pita
    2. Peter
    1. si
    2. see
    1. yi/am/___
    2. 3sg.acc.anim/3sg.acc.inan/gap
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1.   ‘As for him/it, Peter saw him in school.’

The topicalization and regular-pronoun-use data suggest that am is a 3sg inanimate object pronoun, albeit possibly weak (c.f., (11) and (12)). The fact that it is the only grammatical RP in object XP focus contexts, irrespective of number and animacy (c.f., (5) and (6)), demonstrates that CPE has a RP that shows a number-gender mismatch. Besides, the language instantiates a person-number-gender mismatch with focused pronouns in object position (c.f., (7)). With this in mind, this squib, empirically, adds to the discussion the fact that resumptive pronouns can show a person-number-gender mismatch in a single language.

The recent literature on resumption has argued that while movement RPs are created by the dependency itself, base-generation RPs result from binding. Scott (2021); Georgi & Amaechi (2023) and Yip & Ahenkorah (2023), building on Van Urk (2018), argue for a copy-deletion approach to movement RPs. In such approaches, the head (the moved XP) and its copies are identical. Economy (Landau 2006) and P-Recoverability interact to force deletion of parts (or all) of the structure of the copies, yielding resumptive pronouns (or gaps). The locus of features and the amount of structure that gets deleted can, as a consequence, create non-matching or partially-matching RPs.

Ershova (2024), building on Baier (2018), proposes an approach to non-matching movement RPs that relies on Impoverishment. Specifically, she shows that non-matching RPs in Samoan resumptives result from impoverishment rules that are triggered by the simultaneous presence of φ and Ā-features on adjacent heads. In the remainder of this squib, I show that the CPE data are predicted by these two approaches. Before laying out the details of each proposal, it is important to demonstrate that object XP focus, which requires the non-matching RP am, involves movement and not base-generation. I do this in the next section.

3 Two types of resumptive pronouns in CPE

This section provides empirical evidence that CPE has two types of RPs: movement and base-generation. I demonstrate that object XP focus, unlike topicalization, involves movement in CPE. For space limitations, I will only present two diagnostics, namely island-sensitivity and idiom chunk reconstruction.8

3.1 Object XP focus is island-sensitive in CPE

Unlike object XP topicalization, object XP focus is island-sensitive in CPE. In other words, while it is perfectly fine to topicalize an object XP out of an island, doing so is ungrammatical for focus. The focus constructions in (13) and (14) feature a relative clause (13) and an adjunct island (14), and object XP focus out of the two islands is ungrammatical.9

    1. (13)
    1. *Na
    2.   foc
    1. da
    2. that
    1. man
    2. man
    1. wey
    2. rel
    1. Ndifor
    2. Ndifor
    1. si
    2. see.pst
    1. [pipo-dem
    2. people-pl
    1. wey
    2. rel
    1. (dem)
    2. 3pl
    1. bi
    2. pst
    1. kol
    2. call
    1. am/___]rc.
    2. 3sg.acc.inan/gap
    1.   Lit. ‘It is THAT MAN that Ndifor saw the people who called him.’
    1. (14)
    1. *Na
    2.   foc
    1. da
    2. that
    1. pikin
    2. child
    1. wey
    2. rel
    1. Ndifor
    2. Ndifor
    1. glad
    2. glad
    1. [time-wey
    2. when
    1. Sala
    2. Sala
    1. finally
    2. finally
    1. si
    2. see.pst
    1. am/___]adjunct
    2. 3sg.acc.inan/gap
    1.   Lit. ‘It is THAT CHILD that Ndifor was happy when Sala finally saw him.’

Object XP topicalization out of the two islands, however, is perfectly fine ((15) and (16)).

    1. (15)
    1. da
    2. that
    1. man,
    2. man,
    1. Ndifor
    2. Ndifor
    1. si
    2. see.pst
    1. [pipo-dem
    2. people-pl
    1. wey
    2. rel
    1. (dem)
    2. 3pl
    1. bi
    2. pst
    1. kol
    2. call
    1. *(yi)]rc.
    2.   3sg.acc.anim
    1. ‘As for that man, Ndifor saw the people who called him.’
    1. (16)
    1. da
    2. that
    1. pikin,
    2. child,
    1. Ndifor
    2. Ndifor
    1. glad
    2. glad
    1. [time-wey
    2. when
    1. Sala
    2. Sala
    1. finally
    2. finally
    1. si
    2. see.pst
    1. *(yi)]adjunct.
    2.   3sg.acc.anim
    1. ‘As for that child, Ndifor was happy when Sala finally saw him.’

Island-sensitive data, therefore, provide evidence that object XP focus in CPE involves movement, and topicalization: base-generation. This conclusion is strengthened by idiom reconstruction data, as presented in the section that follows.

3.2 Idiom chunk reconstruction as further support for movement

The basic assumption underlying this test is that an idiom keeps its meaning if part of it is extracted, but loses it if what looks to be part of it is base-generated in a different position. Applying this test to focus and topicalization data from CPE shows that the idiomatic meaning is lost if part of the idiom is topicalized. If it is focused, the idiomatic meaning is kept unchanged, strongly suggesting that focus involves movement. Below, I show this with the idiom trowey salute (literally ‘throw a salute’) which, in CPE, means ‘to greet’. The expression salute, in (17), can be focused (18-a) or topicalized (18-b).

    1. (17)
    1. Ndifor
    2. Ndifor
    1. bi
    2. pst
    1. trowey
    2. throw
    1. salute
    2. salute
    1. for
    2. prep
    1. ol
    2. all
    1. wuna
    2. you
    1. Lit. ‘Ndifor threw a salute to you all.’
    2. Idiom. ‘Ndifor greeted you all.’
    1. (18)
    1. a.
    1. Na
    2. foc
    1. salute
    2. salute
    1. wey
    2. rel
    1. Ndifor
    2. Ndifor
    1. bi
    2. pst
    1. trowey
    2. throw
    1. *(am),
    2.   acc.non-hum,
    1. i
    2. 3sg.nom
    1. no
    2. neg
    1. tok
    2. talk
    1. noting
    2. nothing
    1. serious
    2. serious
    1. ✔Lit. ‘It is A SALUTE that Ndifor threw, he said nothing serious.’
    2. ✔Idiom. ‘Ndifor only greeted, he said nothing serious.’
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. Salute,
    2. salute,
    1. Ndifor
    2. Ndifor
    1. bi
    2. pst
    1. trowey
    2. throw
    1. *(am),
    2.   acc.non-hum,
    1. i
    2. 3sg.nom
    1. no
    2. neg
    1. tok
    2. talk
    1. noting
    2. nothing
    1. serious
    2. serious
    1. ✔Lit. ‘As for a salute, Ndifor threw it, he said nothing serious.’
    2. ✗Idiom. ‘As for greeting, Ndifor greeted, he said nothing serious.’

Only focus (18-a) allows for the idiomatic reading to be kept. The literal reading in (18-a) is available to speakers of CPE if salute were something (a ball, for example) one could throw at someone. What we are really interested in is what happens when salute does not appear adjacent to trowey in focus. As (18-a) shows, the idiomatic reading is kept, strongly suggesting that a silent copy of salute is interpreted in the position after trowey. This is only possible under a movement analysis. (18-a) is therefore derived by movement and not base-generation. In (18-b), however, only the literal reading is available to speakers of CPE. The idiomatic reading is completely lost if salute is clause-initial. This provides evidence that (18-b) is derived by base-generation of salute in the position it occupies in the clause. In a nutshell, idion-reconstruction data provide further evidence that topicalization in CPE is achieved by base-generation, whereas focus involves movement. In the remainder of this paper, I show how copy-deletion and impoverishment approaches to resumption can account for the CPE data.

4 On deriving the movement RP in CPE

Section 3 has demonstrated that CPE object XP foci move into the focus position. What this means for copy-deletion approaches to pronoun copying and resumption (Van Urk 2018; Scott 2021; Georgi & Amaechi 2023; Yip & Ahenkorah 2023) is that the relevant feature mismatch with am, as described in Section 2, can be thought of as involving a structure-reduction algorithm. The locus of features and the amount of structure that gets deleted can, as a consequence, create the non-matching RP. One major difference between these approaches is what counts as a deletion domain. In Van Urk (2018), deletion targets phases, and nP and KP are phase boundaries (in, at least, Dinka Bor). In Scott (2021) and Georgi & Amaechi (2023), the deletion domain is dynamic, and is conditioned by MaxElide (c.f., Landau 2006) which, in turn, obeys language-specific requirements.

Van Urk (2018), for example, shows that in Dinka Bor, when the XP tó̤o̤ny ké díi ‘how many pots’ in (19) undergoes wh-movement, it leaves full copies in every intermediate movement site. These copies are then subject to a deletion algorithm that produces all the instances of ké in (19).

    1. (19)
    1. Yè
    2. be.3sg
    1. tó̤o̤ny
    2. pots
    1. ké
    2. many
    1. díi [cp
    2. how
    1. yá [vp
    2. be.2sg
    1. ké
    2. 3pl
    1. luêeel [cp
    2. say.nf
    1. è̤
    2. c
    1. cí̤i
    2. prf.ov
    1. Bôl [vp
    2. Bol.gen
    1. kê
    2. 3pl
    1. cuî̤in
    2. food
    1. thàal
    2. cook.nf
    1. ]]]]?
    2.  
    1. ‘How many pots do you say that Bol has cooked food with?’
    2. (Dinka Bor: Van Urk 2018: 943)

What is interesting about Dinka Bor, he demonstrates, is that a second-person plural topic pronoun will also be copied by ké, as illustrated in (20).

    1. (20)
    1. Wêek
    2. 2pl
    1. cí̤i
    2. prf.ov
    1. Àyèn
    2. Ayen.gen
    1. [vp
    2.  
    1. ké
    2. 3pl
    1. tî̤iŋ].
    2. see.nf
    1. ‘You All, Ayen has seen.’ (Dinka Bor: Van Urk 2018: 973)

Example (20) also shows that there is a person mismatch between the topic pronoun and its copy. A second-person topic pronoun is copied by a third-person pronoun. Van Urk (2018) argues that ké is unmarked for person features, and its structure is as illustrated in (21). Person features are located on the n head, and the structure of the second-person-plural pronoun wêek is given in (22).

    1. (21)
    1. Structure of ké
    1. (22)
    1. Structure of wêek

When wêek undergoes topicalization in (20), it leaves a full copy in the movement site. The moved pronoun and its copy have the structural representation in (22). Economy (23) and P-Recoverability (24) then interact to force partial deletion of parts of the structure of the lower copy, i.e., the copy in the movement site.

    1. (23)
    1. Economy:
    2. Delete all chain copies at PF up to P-recoverability. (Landau 2006: 30)
    1. (24)
    1. P-Recoverability:
    2. In a chain <X1, … Xi, … Xn>, where some Xk is associated with phonetic content, Xk must be pronounced. (Landau 2006: 31)

Van Urk (2018) argues that phasehood determines the amount of structure that can be deleted. In Dinka Bor, the relevant phase-defining heads are n and K. In deriving the presence of ké in (20), he proposes that nP gets deleted. Since its head n hosts person features, the resulting structure corresponds to that of ké. As a result, the second person pronoun topic wêek is copied by ké.

There also are approaches to φ-mismatches in resumption that do not rely on copy-deletion. One such is proposed by Ershova (2024). She argues, based on data from Samoan, for an approach to φ-mismatches in movement RPs that relies on Impoverishment. Specifically, building on, among others Baier (2018), she proposes that Ā-features can interact with φ-features and, as a result, trigger impoverishment. The consequence of this is that non-matching or partially matching RPs can be inserted in the resumption site. Both types of approaches assume that the lower copy of a fronted lexical DP is pronounced as a pronoun due to the absence of the nominal root, as schematized in (25) and (26).

    1. (25)
    1. Structure of nouns
    1. (26)
    1. Structure of pronouns

While a structure-deletion approach deletes nP to account for the pronoun copy example in (20), the impoverishment approach would simply remove the person feature on the n head, in the presence of an Ā-feature.

The two approaches that precede, it appears, can be used to account for am-resumption in CPE. As a quick reminder from Section 2, am is the only grammatical RP in object XP focus, irrespective of the person, gender and number values of the focused XP. To show how the algorithms would proceed, I first propose a featural decomposition of the relevant CPE personal pronouns, to the exclusion of quirky am. The list is given in (27) below. (27) is based on Table 1, repeated here as Table 2.

Table 2: Personal pronouns in CPE.

1sg 2sg 3sg.anim 3sg.inan 1pl 2pl 3pl.anim 3pl.inan
NOM a yu i i wi wuna dem dem
ACC mi yu yi am wi wuna dem dem
    1. (27)
    1. List CPE personal pronouns and the features they realize.
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. /a/ ↔ [1, sg, nom]
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. /mi/ ↔ [1, sg, acc]
    1.  
    1. c.
    1. /yu/ ↔ [2, sg]
    1.  
    1. d.
    1. /i/ ↔ [3, sg, nom]
    1.  
    1. e.
    1. /yi/ ↔ [3, sg, acc, animate]
    1.  
    1. f.
    1. /wi/ ↔ [1, pl]
    1.  
    1. g.
    1. /wuna/ ↔ [2, pl]
    1.  
    1. h.
    1. /dem/ ↔ [3, pl]

Underspecification and the Subset Principle (28) derive the syncretic exponents in the paradigm of CPE pronouns. Second person yu, for example, is syncretic in the nominative and accusative because it is underspecified for case features. Third person nominative i can resume animate as well as inanimate singular subjects because it is underspecified for gender. To account for the fact that am is the only possible RP in object XP focus (as shown again in (29) and (30)), it seems empirically logical to propose that is is only specified for case (31). The relevant case feature is accusative, because am never resumes subject XPs (c.f., Section 2).

    1. (28)
    1. Subset Principle
    2. A vocabulary item V is inserted into a functional morpheme M iff (a) and (b) hold:
    1.  
    1. a.
    1. The morpho-syntactic features of V are a subset of the morphosyntactic features of M.
    1.  
    1. b.
    1. V is the most specific vocabulary item that satisfies (a). (Müller 2004: 9)
    1. (29)
    1. Na
    2. foc
    1. [ma
    2. poss.1sg
    1. pikin-dem]dp
    2. child-pl
    1. (wey)
    2. rel
    1. Pita
    2. Peter
    1. si
    2. see
    1. am/*dem
    2. 3sg.acc.inan/3pl
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1. ‘It is MY CHILDREN that Peter saw in Tiko.’
    1. (30)
    1. Na
    2. foc
    1. mi
    2. 1sg.acc
    1. (wey)
    2. rel
    1. John
    2. John
    1. bi
    2. pst
    1. si
    2. see
    1. am/*me
    2. acc/1sg.acc
    1. fo
    2. p
    1. Tiko.
    2. Tiko
    1. ‘It is ME that John saw in Tiko.’
    1. (31)
    1. /am/ ↔ [acc]

Under both copy-deletion and impoverishment approaches, the focused pronoun mi ‘me’ (30), for example, leaves an identical copy in the movement site. The structural representation of mi is given in (32) and that of am in (33).

    1. (32)
    1. Structure of CPE mi
    1. (33)
    1. Structure of am

In line with the copy-deletion approach, NumP in (32) will be deleted, to ensure that the corresponding structure is that of am.10 For the impoverishment-based account, one simply has to assume that the impoverishment rule in (34) deletes person and number features in the presence of the focus feature, and in object contexts.

    1. (34)
    1. [pers, num] → ø/ [•foc•]obj

Overall, the pattern in CPE is predicted by both approaches to φ-mismatches in resumption.

5 Conclusion

This squib investigated the quirks of resumption in CPE and showed that the language instantiates a person-number-gender mismatch. It also demonstrated that CPE is similar to, for example, Akan, Cantonese, Igbo, Samoan and Swahili in that it has both movement and base-generation RPs. Only movement RPs, the paper argued, allow feature mismatches between the moved item and the RP. Overall, the squib shows that both impoverishment and structural deletion predict that we should find a language that reduces/deletes all φ-features in a particular context. CPE instantiates this pattern. While this does not help distinguish between the two theories, it contributes to the empirical landscape in an important way.

Abbreviations

The following glosses are used in this paper: 1/2/3 = 1st/2nd/3rd person, acc = accusative, anim = animate, asp = Aspect, cl1/2/15 = Bantu noun classes, c = complementizer, cop = copula, foc = focus marker, gen = genitive, inan = inanimate, nf = non-finite, nom = nominative, ov = object voice, p = preposition, pl = plural, poss = possessive pronoun, prf = perfect, pst = past, rel = relative clause marker, sg = singular, v (of rV) = vowel.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to my CPE consultants for sharing their knowledge of the language with me. I am also grateful to Gereon Müller, Philipp Weisser and Cyrine Nyomy for helpful discussions. Moreover, gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and the Glossa editor for valuable comments, questions and suggestions. All errors are mine.

Competing interests

The author has no competing interests to declare.

Notes

  1. Phi-features stand for gender, person and number (c.f., Adger & Harbour 2008 for details). [^]
  2. CPE is an English-lexifier expanded pidgin spoken in Cameroon. It is otherwise known as Kamtok (Ayafor 1996). It has been studied from a number of different perspectives (grammatical descriptions: Menang 2008; Ayafor & Green 2017; Fongang 2019, orthography: Ayafor 1996; Sala 2009 and socio-pragmatics: Alobwede 1998; Ngefac & Sala 2006, to cite only these few). [^]
  3. The data that I present and analyse in this paper come from four fluent speakers of CPE. They were collected during two fieldtrips to Cameroon. The speakers I consulted were 28, 32, 38 and 42 years old respectively, and lived in Yaounde. Although there are no accepted standards for the language, it has stable grammatical rules that one can refer to for judging acceptability (c.f., Ayafor 2008; Ayafor & Green 2017, among others). Ngefac (2016) uses this as evidence that the language has reached the status of a creole, and argues that it has native speakers. [^]
  4. See also Atindogbé & Chibaka (2012) for evidence that CPE makes gender distinctions in the 3rd person singular. They write that “[…] Thus, the difference between the object pronouns of the 3rd person, yi vs. am […] The first replaces an object with the feature [+animate] while the second substitutes a noun which is [-animate]” (Atindogbé & Chibaka 2012: 224). [^]
  5. I gloss dem as ‘3pl’ to capture this. I take the fact that it can also appear in subject position and replace animate and inanimate XPs to mean that it is underspecified for case and gender. [^]
  6. Ayafor & Green (2017) make the claim that am can alternate with a gap in examples similar to (5)–(7). As far as I can tell, my CPE consultants found gapped examples marginal. There might, after further investigations, be some dialectal variation in this area, assuming that the relevant data are widespread. What matters for our purposes, however, is that am is the only grammatical RP in (5)–(7). As far as the possibility to have an agreeing pronoun in (5)–(7) is concerned, all my consultants rejected the agreeing RPs, and favoured am. [^]
  7. I do not discuss subject and indirect object XP focus because they do not, as far as I can tell, have quirky resumption properties that involve feature mismatches. For the sake of completeness, when Subject XPs are focused, a gap is generally preferred, as the example in (i) shows. For speakers who allow a RP in the resumption site, the only grammatical RP in (i) is matching dem.
      1. (i)
      1. na
      2. foc
      1. ma
      2. poss.1sg
      1. pikin-dem
      2. child-pl
      1. (wey)
      2. rel
      1. ___/?dem
      2. gap/3pl
      1. bi
      2. pst
      1. kam
      2. come
      1. fo
      2. p
      1. Tiko.
      2. Tiko
      1. ‘It is MY CHILDREN that came to Tiko.’
    When a subject XP is topicalized, it must be resumed by a ‘regular’ agreeing pronoun (ii).
      1. (ii)
      1. ma
      2. poss.1sg
      1. pikin-dem,
      2. child-pl,
      1. dem/*___/*am
      2. 3pl/gap/3sg.acc.inan
      1. bi
      2. pst
      1. kam
      2. come
      1. fo
      2. p
      1. Tiko.
      2. Tiko
      1. ‘As for my children, they came to Tiko.’
    Indirect object XP focus also leaves behind a trace, if introduced by a preposition. Both (iii-a) and (iii-b), for example, are possible benefactive constructions in CPE. For the benefactive reading to be maintained in focus contexts, the presence of the preposition fo ‘to’ is compulsory (iv).
      1. (iii)
      1. a.
      1. Pita
      2. Peter
      1. bi
      2. pst
      1. gi
      2. give
      1. pikin-dem
      2. child-pl
      1. chop.
      2. food
      1. ‘Peter gave children food.’
      1.  
      1. b.
      1. Pita
      2. Peter
      1. bi
      2. pst
      1. gi
      2. give
      1. chop
      2. food
      1. fo
      2. p
      1. pikin-dem.
      2. child-pl
      1. ‘Peter gave food to children.’
      1. (iv)
      1. Na
      2. foc
      1. fo
      2. p
      1. pikin-dem
      2. child-pl
      1. (wey)
      2. rel
      1. Pita
      2. Peter
      1. bi
      2. pst
      1. gi
      2. give
      1. ___/*am
      2. gap/3sg.acc.inan
      1. chop.
      2. food
      1. ‘It is TO CHILDREN that Peter gave food.’
    Only the benefactive in (iii-a) can be topicalized. In such cases, it must be resumed by a regular 3rd person pronoun (v).
      1. (v)
      1. Ma
      2. poss.1sg
      1. pikin-dem,
      2. child-pl,
      1. Pita
      2. Peter
      1. bi
      2. pst
      1. gi
      2. give
      1. dem/*___/*am
      2. 3pl/gap/3sg.acc.inan
      1. chop.
      2. food
      1. ‘As for my children, Peter gave them food.’
    Focus of non-nominal XPs tends to leave a trace. (vi) shows this for an adverb. In (vi), yestede ‘yesterday’ is focused, and the presence of an RP in the movement site is ungrammatical.
      1. (vi)
      1. Na
      2. foc
      1. yestede
      2. yesterday
      1. wey
      2. rel
      1. Pita
      2. Peter
      1. kam
      2. come
      1. ___/*am
      2. gap/3sg.acc.inan
      1. fo
      2. p
      1. Tiko.
      2. Tiko
      1. ‘It is YESTERDAY that Peter came to Tiko.’
    Overall, non-matching am only resumes object XP foci. Other arguments of the verb tend to have a regular behaviour in terms of feature (mis)-match. For this reason, I do not discuss them further in this paper. The relative clause marker can be omitted in sentences similar to (5) and (6), without affecting grammaticality. [^]
  8. Other diagnostics for movement vs base-generation include (a) cross-over effects and (b) parallelism with gaps under ATB-extraction. [^]
  9. The pronoun dem that resumes the subject of the relative clause in examples such as (13) is optional. [^]
  10. The approach that I pursue here seems to favour a dynamic-deletion-domain-based approach (Scott 2021; Georgi & Amaechi 2023) over a phase-based (Van Urk 2018) account because Van Urk (2018) assumes that phase boundaries are n and K, and deletion would target either one of them. To derive the CPE facts, one needs to assume that deletion targets NumP (Num). Either Num is also a phase boundary, or the deletion domain can be dynamic, as proposed by (Scott 2021) and (Georgi & Amaechi 2023). [^]

References

Adger, David & Harbour, Daniel. 2008. Why phi. In David, Adger & Daniel, Harbour & Susana, Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, 1–34. Oxford University Press. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0001

Alobwede, d’Epie. 1998. Banning Pidgin English in Cameroon. English Today 14(1). 54–60. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400000742

Atindogbé, Gratien & Chibaka, Evelyn. 2012. Pronouns in Cameroon Pidgin English. In Anchimbe, Eric (ed.), Language contact in a postcolonial setting: The linguistic and social context of English and Pidgin in Cameroon (Language Contact and Bilingualism [LCB]), 215–44. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511199.215

Ayafor, Miriam. 1996. An orthography for Kamtok. English Today 12(4). 53–57. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400009317

Ayafor, Miriam. 2008. Cameroon Pidgin English (Kamtok): Morphology and Syntax. Varieties of English 4. 428–450. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197181-126

Ayafor, Miriam & Green, Melanie. 2017. Cameroon Pidgin English: A comprehensive grammar, vol. 20. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Baier, Nico. 2018. Anti-agreement. University of California dissertation.

Ershova, Ksenia. 2024. φ-feature mismatches in Samoan resumptives as postsyntactic impoverishment. In Kutay, Serova & Madeline, Snigaroff (eds.), Proceedings of The Chicago Linguistics Society 59 (2023), 87–102. https://kershova.github.io/Ershova_CLS59_proceedings.pdf.

Fongang, Tadjo Leonel. 2019. The morphosyntax of the exhaustive focus particle na in Cameroon Pidgin English (CPE). Nordic Journal of African Studies 28(3). 29. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.53228/njas.v28i3.457

Fongang, Tadjo Leonel. 2025. Topic resumption in Bamiléké Ngemba: Animate/inanimate asymmetries and strictly local Impoverishment. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 10(1). DOI:  http://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.15465

Georgi, Doreen & Amaechi, Mary. 2023. Resumption in Igbo: Two types of resumptives, complex phi-mismatches, and dynamic deletion domains. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 41. 961–1028. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09558-x

Hewett, Matthew. 2023. Types of resumptive Ā-dependencies. The University of Chicago dissertation.

Landau, Idan. 2006. Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P)-fronting. Syntax 9(1). 32–66. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00084.x

Manzini, M. Rita. 2014. Grammatical categories: Strong and weak pronouns in romance. Lingua 150. 171–201. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.001

Menang, Thaddeus. 2008. Cameroon Pidgin English (Kamtok): Phonology. Varieties of English 4. 133–149. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197181-057

Müller, Gereon. 2004. A distributed morphology approach to syncretism in russian noun inflection. In Proceedings of FASL, vol. 12, 353–373. https://home.uni-leipzig.de/muellerg/mu52.pdf.

Ngefac, Aloysius. 2016. Sociolinguistic and Structural Aspects of Cameroon Creole English. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Ngefac, Aloysius & Sala, Bonaventure. 2006. Cameroon Pidgin and Cameroon English at a confluence: A real-time investigation. English World-wide 27(2). 217–227. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1075/eww.27.2.06nge

Sala, Bonaventure. 2009. Writing in Cameroon Pidgin English: Begging the question. English Today 25(2). 11–17. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078409000133

Scott, Tessa. 2021. Two types of resumptive pronouns in Swahili. Linguistic Inquiry 52(4). 812–833. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00397

Van Urk, Coppe. 2018. Pronoun copying in Dinka Bor and the copy theory of movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36(3). 937–990. DOI:  http://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9384-x

Yip, Ka-Fai & Ahenkorah, Comfort. 2023. Non-agreeing resumptive pronouns and partial copy deletion. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 29. https://repository.upenn.edu/handle/20.500.14332/58734.