A Syntactic Analysis of Gapping and Multiple Sluicing
Rumi Takaki
Kyushu University
This research presents an account for previously unknown contrast between gapping andmultiple sluicing for the island repair effect, analyzing their syntactic structures. To begin with,island violations in sluicing such as (1a) can be circumvented under ellipsis as in (1b).
(1) a. *Ben will be mad if Abby talks to one of the teachers, but she couldn’t remember which
Ben will be mad if she talks to.
b. Ben will be mad if Abby talks to one of the teachers, but she couldn’t remember which.
(Bošković (2011):1)
The same phenomenon can be seen in multiple sluicing as in (2).
(2) a. *Ben will be mad if Abby talks to one of the teachers about something, but she couldn’t
remember which of the teachers about what Ben will be mad if she talks to.
b. ?Ben will be mad if Abby talks to one of the teachers about something, but she couldn’t
remember which of the teachers about what.
By contrast, in gapping such an island repair does not occur under ellipsis as illustrated in (3).
(3) a. John must be a fool to have married Jane, and Bill must be a fool to have married Martha.
b. *John must be a fool to have married Jane, and Bill, Martha.
Contrasts between gapping and multiple sluicing in terms of the island repair effect can also beobserved in other islands, such as wh and subject islands.
To account for the island repair in sluicing, for example in (4), Merchant (2008) presents ananalysis, in which * feature is assigned to wh remnants when they cross islands and * feature is
carried along the derivation. However, the head C, which has [+wh] and [+Q], checks the *feature of the topmost wh remnant so that it can be deleted. Further, * features of lower copies
are removed when TP is deleted at PF. Therefore, no *s remain in (4a).
(4) a. They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I don’t remember which.
b. [CP which2 C [TP *t2 [TP they [VP *t2 [VP want to hire [NP [NP someone [CP who[+wh, +Q]
speaks t2]]]]]]]]
Following Merchant (2008), we assume that the * feature is assigned to remnants of gapping
when they cross islands and propose the following: (ⅰ) the remnants of gapping and multiple
sluicing move to FocP in the CP domain, and are transferred in the same transfer domain to havepair-list interpretation; (ⅱ) consequently, TP deletion applies under identity with the antecedentclause; (ⅲ) there is no agreement for rightward movement, while there is obligatory agreement
between C head and wh words for leftward movement. Based on (ⅰ),(ⅱ) and (ⅲ), we
demonstrate that our syntactic arguments are derived from the remnant movements; namely, thesecond remnant adjoins rightward to vP, and finally to FocP in gapping, while in multiple sluicing,the second wh phrase moves leftward to vP and finally tucks in under the first wh phrase in CP.
This is supported by the following facts. As is well known, objects of prepositions cannot beHeavy NP Shifted as in (5a). This is true of gapping in (5b).
(5) a. *John looked at t1 in the living room yesterday [the man who lived next door]1.
b. John talked about Bill and Mary *(about) Susan.
This suggests that gapping includes rightward movement of remnants. On the other hand, theevidence against rightward adjunct analysis of multiple sluicing, in which the remnants moverightward in the CP domain followed by TP deletion (cf. Lasnik (2007)), comes from ECM
construction as in (6).
(6) a. *I believe to be dishonest the politician with high profile in international affairs.
b. One of the boys believes behind one of the trees to be the best place to hide, but I don’tknow which of the boys behind which tree.
In the ECM construction, the subjects of the infinitival clause cannot be Heavy NP Shifted. If
the second remnant of multiple sluicing moves rightward, (6b) would be ungrammatical, contrary tothe fact. Therefore, in gapping, when the second remnant moves rightward and crosses the island,* feature is assigned to the remnant. However, the * feature remains unchecked, and thederivation crashes at PF. Whereas, in multiple sluicing, * feature is checked and deleted underagreement, thereby the derivation converges.
Thus, we will demonstrate that the relevant factor for the differences between gapping andmultiple sluicing follows from the directionality of remnant movements and show that our claim
successfully explains the differences of island phenomena in gapping and multiple sluicing.

References
Bošković (2011) “Rescue by PF Deletion, Traces as (Non)interveners, and the That-Trace Effect,”
Linguistic Inquiry 42, 1-44.
Lasnik, Howard (2007) “Multiple Sluicing”, a handout given in LING 819 Spring 2007, Universityof Maryland.
Merchant, Jason (2008) “Variable Island Repair under Ellipsis,” Topics in Ellipsis, ed.by KyleJohnson, 132-153, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.