Even though a lot of researchers have tried to illuminate the exact nature of English VP ellipsis (henceforth VPE), there is no consensus on how sentences with VPE are generated. It seems that the most widely accepted approaches involve the PF deletion approach (Merchant 2001, 2008, 2013; Lasnik 2001, inter alia) and the LF copying approach (Chung et al. 1995; Saito 2007, inter alia). However, in this paper, I point out that these two analyses cannot account for the VPE puzzle presented by Tancredi (1992), which shows that the ellipsis site of VPE cannot contain an in-situ wh-phrase. That is, a wh-element staying in VP cannot be elided alongside VPE. In order to explain this puzzle, I adopt the proposal by Park (2017a, 2017b) that ellipsis is a narrow syntactic operation that occurs during the derivation, rather than a post-syntactic operation occurring at PF, and that what is elided as a result of ellipsis is phonological feature matrices of lexical items inside the ellipsis site. On the basis of this derivational approach to ellipsis, I propose a prosodic requirement that all questions have to obey. This requirement is based on Richards’ (2016) Contiguity, which states that syntax can make reference to particular types of phonological information, and that syntax generates a prosodic representation during the derivation (i.e. as the derivation proceeds) alongside the syntactic representation. I argue that this prosodic constraint can also explain puzzling properties of Dutch Modal Complement Ellipsis, and British English do construction, where the complement of do located in v is elided. (Seoul National University)