{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032939714108141706, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.709219858156028, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
GAPPING AND VP-DELETION IN MOROCCAN

This chapter examines the status of VP-ellipsis in Moroccan Arabic (henceforth, MA). The main issue addressed concerns the MA auxiliary kan and its English equivalent be which impose some untreated restrictions on VP-deletion. In MA, VP-deletion is always allowed when no auxiliaries are used, no matter what the tense of the sentence is. The question is what happens when auxiliaries are used. The puzzle is why VP-deletion is disallowed when VP-arguments or adjuncts are left behind. I propose that both MA and English resort to deletion of Aspect Phrase (AspP) when the presence of the aspectual marker ka-I-ing disallows VP-deletion. Evidence supplied by the distribution of place, manner, and reason adverbs, direct and indirect objects argues that what deletes after the auxiliary kan is an aspectual projection rather than VP. VP-deletion in this case is made impossible by morphological constraints imposed by kan's complement particle ka- (ta, in some MA dialects, -ing in English). The analysis I propose here derives the restrictions on deletion with kan from independently justified morphological properties of this auxiliary. Furthermore, it explains the behavior of the similar pattern of deletion with English be ... -ing. The chapter also examines other auxiliaries, in particular, the future element yadi ( and its contracted form ya), which differs from kan in that its complement cannot be deleted. I argue that this is so because the complement of yadi is an argument, albeit a propositional one, that carries a S-role. Similar results hold for modals.