Merchant’s (2004) work on fragment answers has been groundbreaking in how clausal ellipsis is discussed today. In the article, Merchant defends the notion that in fragmented utterances, an...Show moreMerchant’s (2004) work on fragment answers has been groundbreaking in how clausal ellipsis is discussed today. In the article, Merchant defends the notion that in fragmented utterances, an interpretable syntactic structure is present but elided on the surface; a view that has been much contended with (see e.g. van Riemsdijk 1978; Hausser and Zaefferer 1978; Ginzburg and Sag 2000; Jackendoff 2002; Barton 1990; Stainton 1995, 1997, 1998; Jackendoff and Culicover 2005). His main argument boils down to the fact that fragments in fragment answers are part of a generated structure, and are proven to undergo movement (p. 664). Ever since, movement has been a crucial element in the discussion on ellipsis. Consequently, Ott and Struckmeier (2017) published an article on why the theory by Merchant is false, using gapping, a type of clausal ellipsis, in German for their prime examples. This thesis aims to further tackle Merchant’s approach using gapping in Dutch and showing that particles in gapping propose significant problems for Merchant’s theory.Show less
