Ellipsis with Shelley Duvall

[grammar...@gmail.com]

In Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" (1980), after Wendy (Shelley
Duvall) discovers that her son, Danny, has been beaten up,
she accuses her husband, Jack (Jack Nicholson), as follows:

"You did this to him, didn't you? You son of a bitch! You
did this to him, didn't you? How could you? How could you?"
(partial clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cDwSUE05AI)

My Q: What is elided in "How could you?" Is it "do this to him" or
"have done this to him"? That is, is the full question "How could
you [do this to him]?" or "How could you [have done this to him]?"

Thank you. Cheers.

[Jerry Friedman]

Any of those, or "How could you do such a thing?" or "How could
you be such a terrible person?" or just an expression of her
shock and anger.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 4:54:54 PM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 4:32:15 PM UTC-7, grammar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" (1980), after Wendy (Shelley
> > Duvall) discovers that her son, Danny, has been beaten up,
> > she accuses her husband, Jack (Jack Nicholson), as follows:
> >
> > "You did this to him, didn't you? You son of a bitch! You
> > did this to him, didn't you? How could you? How could you?"
> > (partial clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cDwSUE05AI)
> >
> > My Q: What is elided in "How could you?" Is it "do this to him" or
> > "have done this to him"? That is, is the full question "How could
> > you [do this to him]?" or "How could you [have done this to him]?"
> >
> > Thank you. Cheers.
>
> Any

Either

[grammar...@gmail.com]

Thanks, Jerry. I'd be interested to know what you'd say if
you believed in the existence of a connection between the
ellipsis site and its syntactic (not merely contextual or
emotional) antecedent. Antecedent & ellipsis site are in brackets:

You [did this to him].
How could you [. . .]?

[Jerry Friedman]

On 12/7/16 8:42 PM, grammar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 3:54:54 PM UTC-8, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 4:32:15 PM UTC-7, grammar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> In Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" (1980), after Wendy (Shelley
>>> Duvall) discovers that her son, Danny, has been beaten up,
>>> she accuses her husband, Jack (Jack Nicholson), as follows:
>>>
>>> "You did this to him, didn't you? You son of a bitch! You
>>> did this to him, didn't you? How could you? How could you?"
>>> (partial clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cDwSUE05AI)
>>>
>>> My Q: What is elided in "How could you?" Is it "do this to him" or
>>> "have done this to him"? That is, is the full question "How could
>>> you [do this to him]?" or "How could you [have done this to him]?"
>>>
>>> Thank you. Cheers.
>>

>> [Either] of those, or "How could you do such a thing?" or "How could

>> you be such a terrible person?" or just an expression of her
>> shock and anger.
>>
>> --
>> Jerry Friedman
>
> Thanks, Jerry. I'd be interested to know what you'd say if
> you believed in the existence of a connection between the
> ellipsis site and its syntactic (not merely contextual or
> emotional) antecedent. Antecedent & ellipsis site are in brackets:
>
> You [did this to him].
> How could you [. . .]?

Sorry, that's a very hard hypothesis for me. The "How could you...?"
question seems to be related to the "You did..." statement semantically,
not syntactically. At least I don't have a theory of grammar that would
describe such a syntactic relationship.

--
Jerry Friedman

[David Kleinecke]

"Could" would seem to demand some verb ellipted away. I
would suggest "How could you [do that]?" Which makes the
connection anaphoric. I think most people consider anaphors
and the like as semantic matters.

[Don Phillipson]

<grammar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f8b6a41-0f5e-44df...@googlegroups.com...

> Thanks, Jerry. I'd be interested to know what you'd say if
> you believed in the existence of a connection between the
> ellipsis site and its syntactic (not merely contextual or
> emotional) antecedent. Antecedent & ellipsis site are in brackets:
>
> You [did this to him].
> How could you [. . .]?

The OP has misunderstood. "How could you?" (three words
only, with no ellipsis) is the single most widely used phrase in
English to express the combination of shock and surprise. In
most natural occurrences (as in the quoted play script) it requires
no elaborate explanation (and breaks no rule of grammar or
syntax.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[grammar...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 9:03:50 AM UTC-8, Don Phillipson wrote:
> <grammar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8f8b6a41-0f5e-44df...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > Thanks, Jerry. I'd be interested to know what you'd say if
> > you believed in the existence of a connection between the
> > ellipsis site and its syntactic (not merely contextual or
> > emotional) antecedent. Antecedent & ellipsis site are in brackets:
> >
> > You [did this to him].
> > How could you [. . .]?
>
> The OP has misunderstood. "How could you?" (three words
> only, with no ellipsis) is the single most widely used phrase in
> English to express the combination of shock and surprise.

The OP has not misunderstood. That "How could you?" is used
to express a combination of shock and surprise has been
understood by the OP throughout the OP's lifetime; however, the
OP is skeptical of the bald, unargued-for assertion that "How could
you?" does not contain ellipsis in a context, such as this one,
in which it has an abundantly obvious syntactic antecedent and
is so naturallyexpanded to "How could you [do this to him]?"

If, in contrast, the antecedent had been "You['ve done this to him]!,"
the question "How could you?" would naturally be completed in
this manner: "How could you [have done this to him]?," would it not?
Given that "How could you?" is syntactically deficient as an
interrogative clause, and given that its natural completion using
a phrase from the immediately surrounding linguistic context is
realized in different ways depending on what has come first, the
OP desires justfication of the assertion that no ellipsis in involved.

[Don Phillipson]

<grammar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c87457d-cb53-4fd2...@googlegroups.com...

>> The OP has misunderstood. "How could you?" (three words
>> only, with no ellipsis) is the single most widely used phrase in
>> English to express the combination of shock and surprise.
>
> The OP has not misunderstood. That "How could you?" is used
> to express a combination of shock and surprise has been
> understood by the OP throughout the OP's lifetime; however, the
> OP is skeptical of the bald, unargued-for assertion that "How could
> you?" does not contain ellipsis in a context, such as this one,
> in which it has an abundantly obvious syntactic antecedent and
> is so naturallyexpanded to "How could you [do this to him]?"
>
> If, in contrast, the antecedent had been "You['ve done this to him]!,"
> the question "How could you?" would naturally be completed in
> this manner: "How could you [have done this to him]?," would it not?
> Given that "How could you?" is syntactically deficient as an
> interrogative clause, and given that its natural completion using
> a phrase from the immediately surrounding linguistic context is
> realized in different ways depending on what has come first, the
> OP desires justfication of the assertion that no ellipsis in involved.

This debate concerns speech.
1. We observe agreed uniform rules about ellipses in print, but
no one agrees a priori that these uniform rules apply to speech
as well. The screenplay cited represents (albeit written down)
spontaneous speech as it occurs naturally. So the print rules
may not apply.
2. We observe in spontaneous speech that "How could you?"
is a standard expression, most often used to express emotion
It may invite a reply, or may not. But although this spoken
sentence has the form of a question it is not an interrogation
or a quest for information. So our guidelines for questions
probably do not apply.
3. We also observe that "How could you?" is often spoken
without any "natural completion" or "phrase from the immediately
surrounding linguistic context." We would not be surprised and
we would not misunderstand if a door opened and someone
entered shouting "How could you?" We do not need any more
information to know that the speaker is both shocked and
either angry or sorrowful, perhaps both (and that the speaker
is more probably expressing these emotions than requesting
information.)

No ellipsis is provided and none is needed, so it would be
unwise to associate any ellipsis with "How could you?" in
the way it is commonly used.

[grammar...@gmail.com]

Thank you, Don. Those are all very good, interesting points.
Right now I just have one question for you (and anyone else
who wishes to maintain that there can never be true syntactic
ellipsis in "How could you?"). How do you explain away for the
common, if informal, request for clarification "How could I WHAT?"

[grammar...@gmail.com]

Thanks, David. From the standpoint of this thread's
undisclosed backstory, the fact that you've opted for
"do," as opposed to "have done," as the elided verb
form is the only thing that _really_ matters to me (i.e.,
"could do" with past time reference).

[grammar...@gmail.com]

Thanks, Jerry. I am certainly open to the idea that
I might be wrong. Indeed, it occurred to me today,
after reflecting on the resistance I was encountering,
that I might argue against my own contention that it involves
ellipsis by pointing out the ungrammaticality of sentences
like "*What could he?," "*Who did she?," etc., which
arguably have the same syntax.

Then I thought about it some more and recovered a sense
of strength. The first strong point that occurred to me
is the one I mentioned above in my reply to Don. Why would
we use "How could I what?" to ask for clarification if it
weren't possible for "How could I?" to involve ellipsis?
Then I thought some more, and came up with what I perceive
to be a couple of other good points favoring ellipsis.

First, "How could you?" is not merely a set phrase. We also
have "How could she?," "How could they?," etc. -- but, more
importantly, we have the somewhat rare "_When_ could you/he/etc?"
That is, "what" and "who(m)" don't work, but "how" and "when" do.
Secondly, then, "what" and "who(m)" question direct objects and
indirect objects -- _constituents of_ the elided verb phrase.
"How" and "when" question adjuncts -- _outside_ the elided VP.

Hallelujah, right?

[grammar...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 2:27:17 PM UTC-8, Don Phillipson wrote:

> <grammar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1c87457d-cb53-4fd2...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >> The OP has misunderstood. "How could you?" (three words
> >> only, with no ellipsis) is the single most widely used phrase in
> >> English to express the combination of shock and surprise.
> >
> > The OP has not misunderstood. That "How could you?" is used
> > to express a combination of shock and surprise has been
> > understood by the OP throughout the OP's lifetime; however, the
> > OP is skeptical of the bald, unargued-for assertion that "How could
> > you?" does not contain ellipsis in a context, such as this one,
> > in which it has an abundantly obvious syntactic antecedent and
> > is so naturallyexpanded to "How could you [do this to him]?"
> >
> > If, in contrast, the antecedent had been "You['ve done this to him]!,"
> > the question "How could you?" would naturally be completed in
> > this manner: "How could you [have done this to him]?," would it not?
> > Given that "How could you?" is syntactically deficient as an
> > interrogative clause, and given that its natural completion using
> > a phrase from the immediately surrounding linguistic context is
> > realized in different ways depending on what has come first, the
> > OP desires justfication of the assertion that no ellipsis in involved.
>
> This debate concerns speech.

For me, it concerns the question of whether a certain type
of construction _can_ involve true syntactic ellipsis, in
speech or in print. Now that I read your points here more
carefully, I see that you are not necessarily denying that.
It is Jerry Friedman who takes issue with the very possibility
of syntactic ellipsis in this construction.

> 1. We observe agreed uniform rules about ellipses in print, but
> no one agrees a priori that these uniform rules apply to speech
> as well. The screenplay cited represents (albeit written down)
> spontaneous speech as it occurs naturally. So the print rules
> may not apply.

The "rules" here, just to be clear, are not the sort of rules
one finds in a usage book or prescriptivistic text. They are
rules which concern the ability of native speakers of English
to process certain syntactic constructions as grammatical and
meaningful. Sometimes that requires the presence of true
syntactic ellipsis.

> 2. We observe in spontaneous speech that "How could you?"
> is a standard expression, most often used to express emotion
> It may invite a reply, or may not. But although this spoken
> sentence has the form of a question it is not an interrogation
> or a quest for information. So our guidelines for questions
> probably do not apply.

I agree that "How could you?" is not a request for information,
but is used to express emotion. "Could" tends to be emphasized
in the construction: "How _could_ you?" I think that if it is
possible to use the sentence as a request for information we
would naturally emphasize "how" instead: "_How_ could you?" But
I'm not sure I've ever heard someone use the sentence that way.

> 3. We also observe that "How could you?" is often spoken
> without any "natural completion" or "phrase from the immediately
> surrounding linguistic context." We would not be surprised and
> we would not misunderstand if a door opened and someone
> entered shouting "How could you?" We do not need any more
> information to know that the speaker is both shocked and
> either angry or sorrowful, perhaps both (and that the speaker
> is more probably expressing these emotions than requesting
> information.)

I agree with that as well. Indeed, if Wendy hadn't first said
"You did this to him, didn't you" but had simply walked in and
presented her bruised child to her husband and said "How could
you?," the utterance would have been felt as complete by viewers.
We would still grasp instantly that she was accusing her husband of
giving Danny the bruises, and we could complete the sentence
however we like, or just leave it as is, complete unto itself
as an emotional outburst with an obvious contextual stimulus.

>
> No ellipsis is provided and none is needed, so it would be
> unwise to associate any ellipsis with "How could you?" in
> the way it is commonly used.

The thing is, it does have a linguistic antecedent. Wendy does
say, "You did this to him" just before she says, "How could you?"
Therefore it is possible and natural to understand syntactic
ellipsis to be in play. One does not need to reach far at all
for the obvious completion of the syntactically impoverished
interrogative/exclamatory clause: "How could you [do this to him]?"
The reason I started this thread was that I desired a confirmation
that those were the elided words and that "have done this to him"
was not needed, even though the clause refers to the past. But
I know I'm right. You guys don't need to give me a confirmation.
Now I'm simply interested in proving to anyone who is skeptical
about the possibility of true syntactic ellipsis in this construction
that it is possible.

> --
> Don Phillipson
> Carlsbad Springs
> (Ottawa, Canada)

Consider these expressions. All of them seem grammatical to me, and
surely no one would want to maintain that they're all "set phrases."
Native speakers will be able to supply a context for each sentence,
most of which, I should think, will require them to supply omitted
words -- words which are supplied from the linguistic context they
imagine. They are one and all syntactically parallel to "How could you?"

"How could they?"
"How would he?"
"How can she?"

"When could you?"
"When would they?"
"When can I?"

"Where could you?"
"Where would she?"
"Where can we?"

[David Kleinecke]

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 10:09:08 AM UTC-8, grammar...@gmail.com wrote:

> Consider these expressions. All of them seem grammatical to me, and
> surely no one would want to maintain that they're all "set phrases."
> Native speakers will be able to supply a context for each sentence,
> most of which, I should think, will require them to supply omitted
> words -- words which are supplied from the linguistic context they
> imagine. They are one and all syntactically parallel to "How could you?"
>
> "How could they?"
> "How would he?"
> "How can she?"
>
> "When could you?"
> "When would they?"
> "When can I?"
>
> "Where could you?"
> "Where would she?"
> "Where can we?"

I think things are clearer if one thinks in terms of patterns.
There is a pattern:
question-word + modal + pronoun ?
(To some extent the pronoun can be replaced by a nominal but
such utterances always feel forced to me.)

Like all patterns this pattern is idiomatic but semantically,
it seems to me, it feels elliptic. And the ellipted material, it
seems to me, as I have noted before, like a pro-verb (a dummy
verbal pointing back anaphorically at a previous or understood
real verbal.)

[Jerry Friedman]

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 11:09:08 AM UTC-7, grammar...@gmail.com wrote:

[How could I not?]

> For me, it concerns the question of whether a certain type
> of construction _can_ involve true syntactic ellipsis, in
> speech or in print. Now that I read your points here more
> carefully, I see that you are not necessarily denying that.
> It is Jerry Friedman who takes issue with the very possibility
> of syntactic ellipsis in this construction.

...

At least I raised the possibility that there might not be a
syntactic way to tell what was ellipted, and I said I couldn't
do it. More later, maybe.

--
Jerry Friedman

[grammar...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 10:32:48 AM UTC-8, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 10:09:08 AM UTC-8, grammar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Consider these expressions. All of them seem grammatical to me, and
> > surely no one would want to maintain that they're all "set phrases."
> > Native speakers will be able to supply a context for each sentence,
> > most of which, I should think, will require them to supply omitted
> > words -- words which are supplied from the linguistic context they
> > imagine. They are one and all syntactically parallel to "How could you?"
> >
> > "How could they?"
> > "How would he?"
> > "How can she?"
> >
> > "When could you?"
> > "When would they?"
> > "When can I?"
> >
> > "Where could you?"
> > "Where would she?"
> > "Where can we?"
>
> I think things are clearer if one thinks in terms of patterns.
> There is a pattern:
> question-word + modal + pronoun ?
> (To some extent the pronoun can be replaced by a nominal but
> such utterances always feel forced to me.)

Interesting. The pronoun does seem needed.
Coordination in the subject seems bad, too:

How could she?
?* How could Jane?
?* How could he and she?

>
> Like all patterns this pattern is idiomatic but semantically,
> it seems to me, it feels elliptic. And the ellipted material, it
> seems to me, as I have noted before, like a pro-verb (a dummy
> verbal pointing back anaphorically at a previous or understood
> real verbal.)

Yes, I think that holds true for most, if not all, ellipsis
phenomena, at least of the true syntactic variety. There is
the sense that the antecedent of the ellipsis is being pointed
at and summoned forth into the silence.

My inventory of the adverbial wh-words with which this type
of ellipsis works (as I observed above, it doesn't work with
"what" or "who(m)") would not be complete if I did not add some
examples with "why":

Why should she? / Why shouldn't she?
Why would you? / Why wouldn't you?
Why can't I?
Why doesn't he?

Actually, I'm unresolved about the use of "do" in the modal place here.

?? Where did she?
?? When does he?
?? How did they?
?? Why do you?

Do those work for anyone following this thread? How about with negation?

[David Kleinecke]

"Do" isn't a modal in most theories. It's sui generis. But, as
you observed we have at least
Why doesn't he?
With "do" the construction feels much more elliptic to me.
My guess that since "do" itself (in this construction) is almost
a pro-verb it feels redundant. However, just as with active verbs,
we may need "do" to make the ellipted material negative. And it
would make sense if "do" is required to support the subject when
there is no modal.

But still:
I have never been to Alderpoint. : Why haven't you?

It's too late at night for me to feel capable of a complete
discussion.