<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C90-2059">
  <Title>Gapping and Frame A fresh look from a cognitive Semantics: perspective</Title>
  <Section position="5" start_page="345" end_page="345" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
4 Conclusion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The discussion so far leaves a number of important problems. The syntactic constraints on gapping are obviously more complex than the simple rule proposed here, and similarly for the non-syntacticphenomena (semantic constraints, focus) I appealed to.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> New questions arise in the framework proposed here, regarding the precise nature of interactions between the processing of the various clues available. It would certainly be nice if some kind of simple ordering or hierarchy between the various factors could be established, although this may not be possible. The fact that gapping seems to be a phenomenon involving so many processes and influences also implies that the interactions between them may be inherently complex and not compactly describable.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Another open question is to what extent other types of 'deletion transformations' (backward 6The same humoristic effect is more pronounced in sentences such as &amp;quot;First the president cut the salami, then the budget&amp;quot;.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>