So far, I have assumed that French WHl-in-situ questions involve movement of a non- referential operator and I have attributed the intervention effects observed Avith such questions to Relativized Minimality. This account runs into problems if it is assumed that all and only A’-specifiers are responsible for the weak island effects.
The first problem is that not all A’-specifiers are interveners: so-called frequency adverbs like toujours ‘always’ and souvent ‘often’ do not block the licensing of WH phrases in situ in WHl-in-situ constructions:^^
(72) a. Tu fais t o u j o u r s quoi les week-ends? you do always what the week-ends
b. Qui’est-ce que tu fais t o u j o u r s q les week-ends?
what that you do always the weekends ‘What do you always do at week-ends?’
(French)
(73) a. Tu fais SOUVENT quoi les week-ends?
you do often what the weekends
b. Qui’est-ce que tu fais SOUVENT U les week-ends?
what that you do often the weekends ‘What do you often do at weekends?’
(French)
The same kind of problem arises in the case of combien interrogatives (as noticed by de Swart 1992) and partial WH movement:
(74) a. [cp Combieui ont-ils SOUVENT lu [ t, de livres]]?
how many have they often read of books b. [c p Combien de livres]i ont-ils s o u v e n t [v? lus f ] ] ?
how many of books have they often read-AOR
‘How many books have they often read?’
(French)
(75) a. [cpiWaSi sagst du ^ [cP2 wen, Hans h liebt]]?
WH says you often who Hans loves ‘Who do you often say that Hans loves?’
b. [cpiW asi sagst du IMMER Frp? weiii Hans ti liebt]]? WH says you always who Hans loves ‘Who do you always say that Hans loves?’
On the reasonable assumption that souvent and toujours occupy A’-specifier positions, (72a) and (73a) should be ill formed. The same goes for (74a) and (75a). Since (72a) and (73 a), as well as (74a) and (75a), are all grammatical, the notion of A’-specifier as being relevant for Relativized Minimality is thus problematic.
The second problem for the Relativized Minimality account is that quantified phrases such as exactement cinq étudiants ‘exactly five students’ or plus de cinq étudiants ‘more than five students’ create blocking effects for the licensing of French WH phrases in situ in single-WH constructions:
(76) a. *EXACTEMENT CINQ ÉTUDIANTS ont fait quoi? (French)
exactly five students have done what
b. Qui’est-ce qu’ e x a c t e m e n t c in q é t u d ia n t s ont fait h? what that exactly five students have done ‘What have exactly five students done?’
(77) a. *PLUS PE CINQ ÉTUDIANTS ont fait quoi? (French)
more of five students have done what
b. Qui’est-ce que PLUS d e c in q é t u d ia n t s ont fait h? what that more of five students have done ‘What have more than five students done?’
On Rizzi’s (1990) account, quantifiers such as exactement cinq étudiants and plus de cinq étudiants do not occupy A’-specifiers, but are adjoined to IP instead. So, it is difficult to see why, from his perspective, (76a) and (77a) are ungrammatical.
I further observe that universal quantifiers (UQs, henceforth), whether in subject or object position, block an otherwise available reading when the WH phrase in a single- WH construction remains in situ. Whereas in (78b) and (79b) either the WH phrase or UQ can take wide scope, the WH phrase cannot take scope over the UQ in (78a) and (79a);23,24
(78) a. TOUS LES ENFANTS ont fait quoi? (French)
all the children have done what
(i) * Which x ,x a thing, every y , y a child, did x. ’
(ii) 'For which pair <x, y>, every x ,x a child, didy, y a thing. ’
b. Q u i’ est-ce que tous les ENFANTS ont fait fi?
what that all the children have done (i) ^ 'Which X , X a thing, every y, y a child, did x. ’
(ii) 'For which pair <x, y>, every x, x a child, didy, y a thing. ’ ‘What did all the children do?’
(79) a. Tu as donné tous les vêtements à qui? (French)
you have given all the clothes to whom
(i) * 'Which X , X a person, you gave every y, y a piece o f clothing, to x. ’
b. A quii tu as donné t o u s les V Ê IE ^ N T S t;?
to whom you have given all the clothes
(i) ^ ‘Which X, X a person, you gave every y , y a piece o f clothing, to x. '
(ii) ^ ‘For which pair <x, y >, you gave every x, x a piece o f clothing, to y. ’ ‘To whom did you give all the clothes?’
These are cases of scope islands. The prototypical cases of scope islands were originally noticed by de Swart (1992) and involve split-WH constructions of the type discussed by Obenauer (1983, 1984);
(80) a. [Combien de livres]* ont-ils TOUS lus ti? (French)
how many of books have they all read-AOR b. Combien* ont-ils t o u s lu [ ti de livres]?
how many have they all read of books ‘How many books have they all read?’
(80a) is ambiguous whereas (80b) is not. In (80a) the UQ can take wide scope; we ask for all persons how many books they have read. This is the so-called pair-list reading; ‘John read 3, Mary read 5, Peter read 7’. Under the narrow scope interpretation, we ask for a single number, i.e. how many books are such that everyone has read them. This is the so- called individual reading. On the other hand, (80b) has only the reading according to which the UQ takes scope over the WH phrase. The interpretation according to which the WH phrase takes wide scope is not available. In other words, (80b) cannot be answered by; ‘5’. It can be answered only by; ‘John read 3, Mary read 5, Peter read 7.’
The same scope-island effects can be found in German partial-WH-movement questions. Recall that in such structures negation blocks the licensing of the partially moved contentive WH phrase. But, while intervening negation in the partial-WH- movement alternative leads to complete ungrammaticality, intervening UQs lead only to a lack of ambiguity (this was noticed by Beck 1996). (81a) is ambiguous, while (81b) is not. The individual reading is not available in (81b);
JEDER [cp ti’dass Karl ti
everyone that Karl (81) a. [ c p Weiii glaubt
who believes gesehen hat]]?
seen has
b. [c p W asi glaubt JEDER [ c p w eiii Karl ti gesehen hat]]? WH believes everyone whom Karl seen hat ‘Who does everyone believe that Karl saw?’
(Beck 1996:19)
(German)
To summarise the present section, it was shown that the notion of A’-specifier as relevant for Relativized Minimality is problematic. A’-specifiers are neither necessary nor sufficient to block the licensing of French WHl-in-situ questions. In the next section, the antecedent-govemment condition is reduced to a set of independently motivated conditions on scope.