This chapter reviews all the assumptions deployed in Chapters 2–5 and indicates the specific roles played in the derivation of the requisite grammatical effects discussed therein. Bringing all the assumptions together in one place and showing what specific role they play in the derivations should allow dissenters to pick and choose what parts of the proposal they would like to keep and what to dump and the price of each move.

This chapter discusses A’-chain binding effects, in particular pronominalization, resumption and long-distance anaphora. If the EMH/FPG is correct, these dependencies must be mediated by I-merge. A-chains are not expansive enough to cover such cases, so the chapter proposes that these dependencies live on A’-chains, or, more accurately, improper chains involving at least one A’-link. The virtues of the proposal are discussed. So too is the necessity of some such approach if we adopt a movement theory of reflexivization.

In many introspective and corpus studies, inserting a resumptive pronoun in place of a gap in island-violating wh-dependency structures in English is said to amnesty, ameliorate, or repair the island violation, improving the acceptability of otherwise unacceptable structures. Most experimental studies on the acceptability of such resumptive structures, however, report that native speakers of English do not judge island-violating dependency structures with resumptive pronouns to be more acceptable than the ones with gaps. But studies testing the comprehensibility and processing of resumption report that resumptive pronouns increase the comprehensibility of island-violating structures and facilitate processing of long dependencies. These results taken together suggest that although resumptive pronouns in islands do not have an ameliorating effect on grammaticality, they may confer a processing benefit. A question, however, remains as to whether the reported enhanced comprehensibility and ease in processing actually increase the accuracy in interpreting the resumptive pronouns.

It is common in linguistics to contrast “theoretical” and “experimental” research. Researchers who pursue experimental research are often asked about the theoretical consequences of their work. Such questions generally equate “theoretical” with theories at a specific high level of abstraction, guided by the questions of traditional linguistic theory. These theories focus on the structural representation of sentences in terms of discrete units, without regard to order, time, finer-grained memory encoding, or the neural circuitry that supports linguistic computation. But there is little need for the high-level descriptions to have privileged status. There are interesting theoretical questions at all levels of analysis. A common experience is that we embark on a project guided by its apparent relevance to high-level theoretical debates. And then we discover new theoretical questions at lower levels of analysis that we had not been aware of previously. We illustrate this using examples from many different lines of experimental research.

Formal acceptability experiments are particularly important for languages with smaller communities of linguists, including most Semitic languages. However, experimental studies of sentence acceptability in this language family are still rare, and focus on very few phenomena (notably wh-dependencies) and languages (mostly Arabic and Hebrew). This chapter reviews the extant literature on acceptability studies in Semitic languages. Special attention is given to studies on island constraints, resumptive pronouns – a conspicuous feature of Semitic –and their interaction, revealing a complex pattern of results. The scant literature on agreement and ditransitive structures is also discussed. The review also highlights some unexplored topics in Semitic syntax, which will benefit from future experimental work, including free word order, verbless sentences, and construct states. Finally, the chapter outlines some of the challenges facing researchers conducting experimental work in Semitic, including issues of diglossia, as well as technical challenges relating to script, online databases, and participant recruitment.