The goal of this paper is double-folded. First, it is argued that the hybrid approach to multiple sluicing (Chang and Kim (2013)) makes better predictions than the leftward movement approach (Takahashi (1994), Richards (1997, 2001), Merchant (2001), Park and Kang (2007), Park (2014)); and the paper attempts to provide a possible solution to some of the empirical data, which Richards (2001) and Park and Kang (2007) report are challenging to the gapping approach (Nishigauchi (1998), Lasnik (2007, 2011)), the precursor of the hybrid approach. In doing so, this paper suggests updating Chang and Kim’s hybrid approach by extending Weir’s (2014) analysis of embedded sluicing (and fragment answers) in English. According to Weir, embedded sluicing is possible only when there are two CPs selected by bridging verbs and a limited set of non-bridging verbs, and this paper argues that multiple sluicing is an additional case that supports the existence of two CPs in embedded sluicing. Secondly, it is demonstrated that multiple sluicing in English is an empirical case that is not correctly predicted by Barros’s (2014) Unconstrained Pseudosluicing Hypothesis—namely that the sluicing of a cleft or a copular clause whose antecedent is not a cleft or a copular clause is another case of sluicing.

This paper investigates Multiple Sluicing in English. Nishigauchi (1998) and Lasnik (2013) analyze Multiple Sluicing as a construction in which the first wh-phrase escapes from the deletion site by leftward wh-movement, whereas the second remnant undergoes rightward movement, and then TP deletion follows. Lasnik specifically argues that the rightward movement of the second remnant is extraposition. However, these analyses cannot explain why the second remnant is typically [+wh]. To solve this problem, this paper shows that the second remnant undergoes a two-step rightward movement; it first moves to a vP adjunction position via extraposition, and then it undergoes focus movement to Foc(us)P. To explain the upward boundedness of the second remnant in Multiple Sluicing, we propose that the rightward movement can be iterative insofar as it satisfies the Order Preservation (Fox and Pesetsky 2003, 2005; Sabbagh 2007). We suggest that when the second remnant in Multiple Sluicing undergoes focus movement, it does not make an order contradiction; therefore, the two-step movement of the second remnant in Multiple Sluicing constructions is allowed.