Parasitic gap

[1] Japanese linguistic scholar Fumikazu Niinuma has attempted to differentiate between parasitic gaps and coordination in his research, as he believes the two are often confused.

[2] An aspect of parasitic gaps that makes them particularly mysterious is the fact they usually appear inside islands to extraction.

Although the study of parasitic gaps began in the late 1970s, no consensus has yet been reached about the best analysis.

[5] The analysis of parasitic gaps was central to the development of the GPSG framework (Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar) in the mid 1980s, and this analysis was later refined in the HPSG framework (Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar) of Carl Pollard and Ivan Sag.

In the 1990s, a debate centered around the best theoretical analysis of parasitic gaps, namely extraction versus percolation.

This debate culminated in a collection of essays edited by Peter Culicover and Paul Postal in 2001.

[6] The theoretical analysis of parasitic gaps is not a settled matter by any means, since accounts of the phenomenon vary drastically.

The controversy regarding the licensing of parasitic gaps has also been widely debated as the phenomenon has continued to be researched.

In 1994, Postal wrote a paper examining how the leftward extraction of clauses may be a general licensor for parasitic gaps while examining two theoretical approaches: On the basis of evidence from topicalization and object raising, Postal's 1994 paper concludes that true parasitic gaps are not licensed by rightward DP movement, but rather by leftward extraction of a clause.

They are in non-complementary distribution with a pronoun, meaning that the speaker has the choice whether to employ the gap or not.

Whatever the analysis of parasitic gaps ends up being in the long run, it will have to accommodate the facts involving missing objects illustrated here.