Arnold M. Zwicky
zwicky at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
Thu Sep 22 21:47:05 UTC 2005
Begin forwarded message:
> From: ana carrera <gappingucl at yahoo.co.uk>
> Date: September 22, 2005 2:41:28 PM PDT
> To: "Arnold M. Zwicky" <zwicky at csli.stanford.edu>
> Subject: Re: coordination
> Dear all,
> A few days ago prof. Zwicky sent a query on my behalf. From the
> responses which I have received it is possible that the query was
> ambiguous and therefore I would like to repost my query and I hope
> I have expressed myself more clearly this time.
> I am dealing with forward gapping in SOV, VSO and SOV languages as
> part of my dissertation. By forward gapping I understand the
> deletion of the verb in the second conjunct:
> (1) I study gapping and you VP-ellipsis.
> My research so far predicts that forward gapping is only possible
> in those languages which use one and the same coordinator for all
> the categories they conjoin, independently of whether they have the
> unmarked order SVO, SOV or VSO. For instance, in English (SVO) the
> coordinator "and" is used to conjoin NPs, Clauses, PPs, etc and
> forward gapping is possible. In Basque (SOV) the coordinator is
> "eta" both for NPs and clauses and therefore forward gapping is
> also possible.
> On the contrary, Yoruba (SVO) has a different coordinator for NPs
> (àti) and for clauses (sì) and therefore forward gapping is
> disallowed. The same is true in Japanese or Korean (SOV) which also
> show different coordinators for NPs and clauses and thus disallow
> forward gapping.
> My hypothesis is that coordinators which select for what they
> conjoin block the possibility of forward gapping.
> I would be very grateful if you could provide me with more data
> which confirm or disconfirm my results so far.
More information about the Lingtyp