Run-of-the-mill fragments, like (1B), have propositional meaning, containing a predicate that is identical to the one in the fragment’s antecedent. This correspondence is one of the crucial reasons why structural theories of ellipsis (like PF deletion or LF copying accounts) assume that the fragment should be related to its fully pronounced version in (1B′).
This squib presents novel data where the same correspondence is not observed. In the novel data, the original predicate cannot form part of the fragment in its ordinary meaning, posing a puzzle for the representation of the ellipsis site. The relevant data are described in sections 1 and 2. Section 3 then shows that the puzzle cannot be solved with reference to a nonisomorphic underlier in the ellipsis site. Section 4 offers a solution in two steps. First, an account based on accommodation of the lexical content of the ellipsis site...