In this paper, I claim that multiple gaps like P-gaps and ATB-gaps are licensed in overt syntax. First I examine the challenges to the hypothesis of Engdahl(1983) that P-gaps are licensed in overt syntax, concluding that the challenging arguments are not valid or do not have much explanatory power. As for P-gaps, I review Kim&Lyle"s(1996) suggestion of licensing P-gaps by LF reconstruction, Nissenbaum"s(2000) proposal of the outer spec/inner adjunct configuration for licensing P-gaps in LF, and Kim&Lyle"s(1996) and Kim"s(2001) account for licensing P-gaps by the uniformity condition on chains applied in LF. As for ATB-gaps, I suggest that ATB-movement does not take place in LF in Korean, thereby showing that ATB-gaps are not licensed in LF. This is in the same line with Boskovic&Franks(2000), who argue that ATB-movement does not occur in LF in English. Then, I assume, partly supporting Kim(200l) that the uniformity condition on chain composition is a licensing mechanism for multiple gaps, which applies in overt syntax.
1. Introduction<BR>2. Licensing parasitic gaps at LF<BR>3. Licensing across-the-board gaps at LF<BR>4. Licensing Multiple Gaps in Overt Syntax<BR>5. Conclusion<BR>References<BR>
(0)
(0)