Gapping, Pseudogapping and Sideward Movement

Abstract

English Pseudogapping constructions share some surface similarities with both Gapping and Verb Phrase Ellipsis (VPE). Levin (1978Levin ( , 1979 concludes, however, that Pseudogapping is transformationally unrelated to both Gapping and VPE. We argue that this conclusion is only partially correct. Gapping and Pseudogapping are transformationally related in that they both involve the application of verb movement, in particular sideward movement of the main verb. We take Johnson's (1994) ATB Movement analysis of Gapping as an important precedent in this regard, and we draw from proposals of Nunes (2001) and Nunes and Uriagereka (2000) for the possibility of sideward movement out of coordinate structures and adjunct clauses. After pursuing the sideward movement approach to Pseudogapping (and ultimately Gapping as well), we outline some important empirical differences between Pseudogapping and VPE that we think raise substantial problems for any analysis that treats Pseudogapping and VPE on a par (e.g., Jayaseelan 1990, Lasnik 1995, 1999a, 1999b. We present evidence for a fundamental syntactic difference between Pseudogapping and VPE, and conclude that the VPE analysis of Pseudogapping cannot be maintained.

Voice Mismatch and Syntactic Identity

“…2 Agbayani and Zoerner (2004) disagree on this analysis. The account they propose is that pseudogapping is derived through across-the-board movement of the verb head.…”

Now I’m a Phase, Now I’m Not a Phase: On the Variability of Phases with Extraction and Ellipsis

“…Regarding the general theory of phases, the analysis presented in this section provides additional evidence for the contextual approach to phasehood argued for above, where the highest projection in the 63 The conclusions reached in this discussion are somewhat tentative owing to the ill-understood nature of pseudogapping, which is subject to several constraints that are not operative with VP-ellipsis (see Levin 1986). One is that pseudogapping is not possible in multiple modal/auxiliary constructions (see, e.g., Levin 1986, Agbayani and Zoerner 2004, Gengel 2007, which prevents us from using the current system to investigate the exact position of the pseudogapping remnant. Note also that, as Aelbrecht (2010) shows, both simple VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping allow Ā -extraction out of the elided site, which is not surprising given that they both involve ellipsis of a phase head complement.…”

An Asymmetry in Voice Mismatches in VP-Ellipsis and Pseudogapping

“…The majority of analyses of pseudogapping (see, e.g., Kuno 1981, Jayaseelan 1990, Lasnik 1995, 1999, Johnson 2001, Baltin 2002, 2003 argue that it involves ellipsis of some verbal projection supplemented by prior movement of some subconstituent of the VP-prototypically an argument DP or PP-to a position external to the target of the ellipsis; they vary mostly in the landing site they posit, the type of movement, and how to account for the cooccurrence restriction with ellipsis (see Takahashi 2004 for a review, and Levin 1978, 1986, Miller 1991, Hardt 1993, Agbayani and Zoerner 2004, and Culicover and Jackendoff 2005. for dissents).…”