Glagolsko izbijanje u srpskom jeziku

This paper explores the syntactic structure of verbal gapping in Serbian in the framework of the generative theoretical approach and the ways in which this type of ellipsis differs in Serbian and English. I test analyses proposed in the literature, and explore three basic questions: 1) Is verbal gapping based on the operation of movement or deletion?; 2) Can sentences in which the verb is gapped in both conjuncts, but is recoverable based on the previous sentence (discourse antecedent), be considered examples of gapping? and3) Where is the coordination of the two conjuncts in the syntactic tree?Reasons why examples with a discourse antecedent should be considered examples of gapping include obligatory syntactic parallelism, recoverability of the verb and their existence in many unrelated languages. Analyses explored in the paper ( Johnson 2009, Coppock 2001), which assume that gapping involves a low coordination of vPs fail to generate these sentences or explain interpretations of gapping examples in which coordination scopes over negations of the conjuncts. Data points to the conclusion that Serbian gapping is not a coordination of vPs, but TPs, and that deletionis a necessary part of the derivation process. I demonstrate that Gengel’s(2007) approach, based on contrastive focus and deletion, can be applied to Serbian and explain the relevant facts.