“Antecedent-Contained” Sluicing

1 Introduction

Sluicing (e.g., (1a)) is generally analyzed as ellipsis of an IP under identity with a preceding IP (e.g., Chung, Ladusaw, and McCloskey 1995, Lasnik 2001, Lobeck 1995, Merchant 2001, Ross 1969) as in (1b).

1. 1.

   1. a. John loves someone, but he does not know who [_ip Δ].

   2. b. , but he does not know [_cp who [_ip he loves t_who]]

However, there seem to be cases where the antecedent for the elided IP in sluicing is smaller than an IP. Something similar has been observed by Merchant (2001, 2002). In this squib, I argue that the sluicing in adjunct (SIA) construction exemplified by (2) and (3) is one such case.

1. 2.

   1. a. John does not love anyone without knowing who [_ip Δ].

   2. b. [_ip John does not [_vp [_pp without [_cp[_ip PRO [_vp knowing [_cp who [_ipΔ]]]]]]]]

1. 3.

   1. a. John must love someone without knowing who [_ip Δ].

   2. b. [_ip John must [_vp[_vp love someone][_pp without [_cp[_ip PRO [_vp knowing [_cp who [_ip Δ]]]]]]]]

I show that the SIA construction raises two puzzles if the matrix IP serves as the antecedent for the elided IP. First, negation and modal operators in the matrix IP are not interpreted in the elided clause. Second, if the matrix IP were the antecedent of the elided IP, an infinite regress would result because the PP containing the sluiced structure is generated in a VP-adjoined position as shown in (4) and the elided IP must be contained in the antecedent IP.¹

1. 4.

The infinite regress problem for antecedent-contained deletion is usually resolved through such transformations as quantifier raising (QR; May 1985, among many others). However, none of these transformations are plausible in these cases. I argue instead that the elided IP following the wh-phrase is recovered not by the matrix IP but by the matrix VP, adopting Merchant’s (2001 Merchant’s (2002) semantic identity hypothesis on sluicing and swiping; that is, the antecedent containment is only apparent.

2 Puzzle 1: Negation and Modals

The first puzzle with respect to the SIA construction concerns the interpretation of negation and modals in the elided site. In both (5a) and (6a), functional categories above VP, such as negation and modals, are not interpreted in the elided IP. Thus, only the interpretations presented in (5b) and (6b) are available for these examples. Those available for (7a–c), which show that negation and modals can appear in the PP headed by without in the nonellipsis counterparts of (5a) and (6a), are not available for (5a) and (6a); that is, (7a–c) cannot be the underlying structure of SIA sentences.

1. 5.

   1. a. John isn’t inviting anyone/someone without saying who.

   2. b. = . . . without saying who he is inviting.

1. 6.

   1. a. You must select a color without knowing which one.

   2. b. = . . . without knowing which one you select.²

1. 7.

   1. a. ?John isn’t inviting anyone without saying who he isn’t inviting.³

   2. b. John isn’t inviting someone without saying who he isn’t inviting.

   3. c. John must select a color without knowing which one he must select.

With respect to negation and modals, the SIA construction contrasts sharply with the standard sluicing constructions cited in (8) and (9). In the standard sluicing construction, negation and modals are normally interpreted in the ellipsis sites, and thus (8a) and (9a) are the only available interpretations.⁴

1. 8. John isn’t inviting someone, but I don’t know who [_ip Δ].

   1. a. John isn’t inviting someone, but I don’t know who he isn’t inviting t.

   2. b. John isn’t inviting someone, but I don’t know who he is inviting t.

1. 9. You must select a color, but I can’t tell you which one [_ip Δ].

   1. a. You must select a color, but I can’t tell you which one you must select t.

   2. b. You must select a color, but I can’t tell you which one you select.

3 Puzzle 2: An Infinite Regress Problem

The second puzzle with respect to the SIA construction comes from its apparent antecedent containment. Various...