Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2018
Edited by Bert Le Bruyn and Janine Berns
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 35] 2018
► pp. 19–33

The syntax of Dutch gapping

 | Meertens Institute
This article takes as its point of departure Neijt’s (1979) claim that gapping is a rule of syntax with properties also found in wh-movement constructions. I will refine this proposal by concluding that gapping remnants are A′-moved into the clause-initial position (SpecCP) and/or the specifiers of functional projections such as TopP, FocP and NegP found in the middle field of the clause. I will further show that this approach sheds new light on various problems (such as the distribution of modal and polarity particles) not satisfactorily solved in earlier analyses.
Keywords: A′-movement, gapping, ellipsis, particles, negation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Gapping and wh-movement
  • 3.Gapping and A′-movement
  • 4.Verbal-head restriction on gapping
  • 5.Interrogative, topicalized and negative phrases
  • 6.Focus particles
  • 7.Elision of the negative marker niet ‘not’ is impossible
  • 8.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 3 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00002.bro
References (26)
References
Aelbrecht, Lobke. 2007. A movement account of Dutch gapping. (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of the Netherlands, 3 February, Utrecht).
Barbiers, Sjef. 2002. Remnant stranding and the theory of movement. Dimensions of movement. From features to remnants ed. by A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, S. Barbiers and H. -M. Gärtner, 47–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boone, Enrico. 2014. The syntax and licensing of gapping and fragments. PhD thesis, Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Josef Bayer. In prep. Sluicing and gapping: ellipsis or selective spell-out?. Ms. Meertens Institute/Universität Konstanz. [URL]
Broekhuis, Hans & Norbert Corver. 2016. Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and verb phrases, volume 31. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. To appear. Syntax of Dutch. Coordination. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Broekhuis, Hans & Wim Klooster. 2010. Merge and Move as costly operations. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem 81 (special issue on Optimality Theoretic Syntax ed. by G. de Avila Othero & S. de Moura Menuzzi) :155–182. [URL]Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 1990. “The syntax of left branch extractions.” PhD diss., University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
Cremers, Crit. 1993. “On parsing coordination categorially.” PhD diss., University of Leiden.Google Scholar
De Vries, Gertud. 1992. “On coordination and ellipsis.” PhD diss., University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1968. Coordination: its implications for the theory of general linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The syntax of negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij, and Maarten C. van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst, 2nd, revised edition. Groningen: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1971. Constraints on deletion in syntax, Yale University: PhD thesis.Google Scholar
. 1973. Unacceptable ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 41:17–68.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2017. “Gapping”. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edition, ed. by M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, 1745–1783. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kraak, Albert & Wim Klooster. 1972. Syntaxis, 2nd edition. Culemborg: Stam/Robijns.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 271:661–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neijt, Anneke. 1979. “Gapping. A contribution to sentence grammar.” PhD diss., University of Utrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ott, Dennis & Volker Struckmeier. 2018. Particles and deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 491:393–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Bart, Peter, Johan Kerstens & Arie Sturm. 1998. Grammatica van het Nederlands. Een inleiding. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Heijden, Emmeke & Maarten Klein. 1995. Rekenkundige voegwoorden: de ‘logica’ van samentrekkingen. De Nieuwe Taalgids 881:22–38.Google Scholar
Van Oirsouw, Robert S. 1987. The syntax of coordination. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. “Dutch syntax. A minimalist approach” PhD diss., University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Frans. 1978. “Extractie uit prepositionele woordgroepen in het Nederlands” Proeven van Neerlandistiek, aangeboden aan prof. dr. Albert Sassen, ed. by A. van Berkel, W. Blok, G. Brummel and T. Van der Hoek, 303–399. Groningen: Nederlands Instituut Groningen.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Driemel, Imke
2024. Sharing effects of split conjuncts in German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft DOI logo
Reiner, Tabea
2024. A constructionist analysis of gapping against the background of generative analyses. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 43:1 ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Colley, Justin & Itai Bassi
2022. A prosodic theory of possible ellipsis remnants. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 7:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.