Case and Failed Sprouting in Extraction out of Elided VP

Abstract

This paper examines the distribution and licensing of sprouting, a type of ellipsis where a remnant lacks an overt antecedent. We begin by reviewing the analysis of Overfelt (2024), who observed a fundamental asymmetry: sprouting is licensed in clausal ellipses (e.g., sluicing and stripping) but is systematically excluded in predicate ellipses (e.g., VP ellipsis and Pseudogapping). Overfelt’s account attributes this to distinct antecedent recovery mechanisms, positing that clausal ellipses can access discourse-level antecedents via the Question Under Discussion (QUD), whereas predicate ellipses are restricted to syntactic antecedents. We then present a crucial refinement to this generalization based on the findings of Orth & Yoshida (2025). Their work demonstrates that predicate ellipses are not uniform, as sprouting is systematically excluded in Verbal Gapping but is possible with PP remnants in Pseudogapping. However, their account leaves a critical open problem: it cannot explain why DP sprouting remains uniformly ungrammatical in Pseudogapping. To explain this more detailed pattern, we advance a Case-theoretic analysis. Our account proposes that implicit DP arguments cannot sprout because they are Case-licensed inside the VP, preventing them from undergoing the necessary movement for ellipsis licensing. In contrast, implicit PP arguments originate outside the VP in an applicative projection, allowing the VP to serve as a valid ellipsis site and thereby permitting PP sprouting in Pseudogapping. This approach provides a principled explanation for the DP/PP asymmetry in Pseudogapping.