earticle

영어

This paper examines VP Ellipsis and Gapping in English and argues that the deletion analysis of Gapping is descriptively and explanatorily superior to the movement-based analysis. Also, this study shows that VP Ellipsis and Gapping construction can be explained unitedly by Multiple Spell-out. Johnson(1994) analyzes Gapping as resulting from Across-the-Board verb movement from conjoined VPs. He argues against a deletion analysis for Gapping, based on (i) the fact that Gapping and VP Ellipsis differ empirically, and (ii) a fear that a deletion analysis would falsely give a distributive interpretation of sentence-level negation. This movement-based analysis makes several correct predictions that a verb deletion analysis cannot. It correctly predicts that Gapping constructions require non-correferential subjects and prohibits adjunction of an S-adverb to the second conjunct, which is actually a V rather than CP. Furthermore, the accusative form in the second “subject” can be explained under the movement analysis because the case pattern follows from the fact that the second “subject” is not in [Spec, IP] on the surface. However, several problems against the deletion analysis can be refuted by appealing to a wider range of ellipsis data in light of recent ellipsis research and by being premised on the assumption that elided materials are not V but VP. Besides, the evident proof that Gapping constructions are a PF-deletion is to be confirmed by the Parallelism Requirement attendant upon the contrast focus and the strong feature-checking. However, the leftward and rightward analysis in the deletion approach of Gapping are different from each other when they analyze non-constituents and redundant materials of Gapping constructions. Therefore, Multiple Spell-out by Extended Projection Principle features is presented as a proper alternative to explain VP Ellipsis and Gapping unitedly. This coincides with the economy principle of Minimalism.