the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

25
head. Rather, she assumes with Hoshi [1995] that the IHR is a closed sentence
and its interpretation involves E-type anaphora. The idea is that the head is never
raised out of its clause (or, indeed, its base position) but rather the role it plays in
the matrix clause is understood through the context of utterance, which determines
the interpretation of a null proform that combines the information present in the
predicative part of the head with the information about the head provided by the
rest of the IHR. The IHR as a whole will adjoin to the matrix IP at LF to give the
proper interpretation.
For example, sentence (2.19) illustrates a Japanese IHR with a universally quantified
head.
(2.19) Taro-wa
Taro-top
[[Hanako-ga
Hanako-nom
dono sinbun-mo
every newspaper
katte kita]-no]-o
buy came-nm-acc
tana-ni
shelf-on
narabeta.
placed
‘Hanako bought (and brought) every newspaper and Taro shelved them.’
([Shimoyama 1999 36a])
(2.20) LF of (2.19) ([Shimoyama 1999, 36b]):
IP
❍ ✟ ✟✟✟✟✟
❍
❍
❍ ❍
CP i
IP
✏ ✏✏✏ ✏
✟ ✟✟ ❍
❍ ❍
Hanako bought VP I
every newspaper ✟ ✟ ❍❍ ❍
Taro V’ past
✟ ✟✟ ❍
❍ ❍
DP V
✟ ✟ ❍ ❍
t i D’ shelve
✟ ✟ ❍ ❍
NP D
N
P
nm
Shimoyama postulates an LF structure as in (2.20). The proform P is a free
variable of type which gets its denotation from the context c. Here, the