the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

87
(3.59) • E-type behavior:
– Exact referent not necessarily a constituent of antecedent sentence,
as in (3.57)
– Consistent with narrow scope of weak quantifiers
• Non-E-type behavior:
– Head is not ambiguous
– Head may be raised, and hence structurally not pragmatically
determined
What we need is a mechanism by which the proform gets assigned its denotation.
The mechanism seems to involve the local relationship between the proform and the
head of the relative clause. This local relationship is achieved once the head has
raised to the Spec of the relative CP. What triggers this raising? Note that under
the structural analysis suggested in Chapter 2, which exactly paralleled the analysis
for IHRs in Japanese, incorporation of a determiner is impossible in this case due to
the lack of locality between the CP and the DP projection: there is an intervening
NP. (Recall that under Bianchi’s analysis of determiner-incorporation, the fact that
there was a relationship of immediate C-command between the D which selects CP
and the C head itself was taken to be a licensing condition for incorporation to be
viable.) The problematic tree suggested in Chapter 2 as (2.36) is repeated here in
(3.60).