An increasingly popular analysis of object gap sentences in many languages derives them in two steps: (a) V-raising out of VP, and (b) VP-ellipsis of the remnant, stranding the verb (V-stranding VP-ellipsis, VSVPE). For Hebrew, Hindi, Russian, and Portuguese, I show this analysis to be inadequate. First, it undergenerates elliptical objects in various environments, and second, it overgenerates nonexisting adjunct-including readings. For all the problematic data, simple argument ellipsis provides a unified explanation. The absence of VSVPE in languages that do allow V-raising and Aux-stranding VP-ellipsis raises an intriguing problem for theories addressing the interaction of head movement and ellipsis.

中文翻译：

---

关于动词链VP省略的不存在

对多种语言中的对象间隙句的越来越流行的分析将其分为两个步骤：（a）从VP中升起V，（b）残余动词的VP-省略号，将动词搁浅（V-链VP-省略号，VSVPE ）。对于希伯来语，北印度语，俄语和葡萄牙语，我证明这种分析是不够的。首先，它在各种环境中生成椭圆对象不足，其次，它生成了不存在的附加内容（包括读数）。对于所有有问题的数据，简单的参数省略号提供了统一的解释。确实没有允许V升起和Aux链VP省略的语言中存在VSVPE提出了一个有趣的问题，涉及解决头部运动和省略号的相互作用的理论。