ABSTRACT
Two reconstruction “riddles” are examined here. The third riddle considered is the apparent conflict, introduced in Chapter 8, between standard quantifier lowering and lack of “reconstructed” interpretation of a universal quantifier that has raised out of a clause containing clausal negation. Here I present some further data, and further consider the question (though still inconclusively) of the source of the apparent lowered interpretations in quantifier lowering situations. The first two riddles concern binding theoretic reconstruction effects (or their absence). Freidin (1986) and Lebeaux (1988) pointed out an apparent argument vs adjunct Condition C reconstruction contrast, as in (i) vs (ii).
