Someone using the moniker "Tarlach" tried to post a number of comments last night. This one, related to Chris Potts' post "Probably they shouldn't", was typical:
Actual speaks of language have no problems with antecedents. They are completly un-noteworthy, and I don't understand why people make posts about these un-noteworthy language events on here. If Obama's slogan was "Yes, Fred can!" with no common perception of who the hell Fred is, that would be noteworthy.
For those who are interested in why linguists have found verb phrase ellipsis interesting, I can recommend some earlier LL posts, in addition to the one that Chris helpfully linked to in the post that set Tarlach off: "VPE on the edge", 12/28/2006; "News from the further reaches of Ellipsilandia", 5/23/2007; "More fun with VPE", 10/20/2007; "Dual VPE", 12/10/2007.
If it still puzzles you why people should spend time trying to explain the structure and function of phrases that pass unnoticed in "actual speaks of language", I invite you think about the broader role of "completely un-noteworthy" things in scientific investigation: light, heat, day, night, breathing, …
I didn't approve Tarlach's comments, but comments are open on this post, if (s)he'd like to try again.