the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

139
(4.76) IP
❍ ❍
✟ ✟✟✟✟✟✟
❍
❍
❍ ❍
CP j
IP
✏
✏ ✏✏✏✏✏✏ ✟ ✟✟ ❍ ❍ ❍
DP VP
The children bought candies ✏ ✏
✏ ✏
pro 5 t j are good
g C : 5 → the candy that children bought
Now we turn to the case of the headless relative clause. Here again as in (4.76),
in order to capture the fact that the relative clause is read as a separate sentence it
is actually scoped out to the spec of the matrix IP. So the predicted interpretation
is: ‘The children bought them and they are good’, with ‘they’ representing the
external pronominal head which is supposed to pick up the first pro from the context.
However, this reading requires this first little pro to be independently licensed by the
context. That is, the reading would require some contextually prominent referent
in order for the identity of the little pro in the relative clause to be recovered by the
addressee. On the other hand, the head-raising analysis does not require a licensing
condition of this sort, but predicts the correct meaning as shown in the second tree
of (4.77).
(4.77) (a) Wrong meaning of (4.78): (b) Right meaning of (4.78):
‘The children bought them and
they are good.’
IP
❍ ✟ ✟✟✟✟✟
❍
❍
❍ ❍
CP j
IP
✏ ✏✏✏✏✏
✟ ✟✟ ❍ ❍
DP VP
The children bought pro
✏✏
✏ ✏
pro t j are good
‘The ones the children bought
are good.’
IP
❍
✟ ✟✟✟✟
❍
❍
❍
❍
DP
VP
✟ ✟ ✟ ❍
❍ ✏ ✏
❍ are good
D CP
✟ ✟✟✟
❍ ❍
❍ ❍
pro i CP
✏
✏ ✏✏✏✏
the children t i bought