There is a problem in the statement of the system you’re to be considering for Question 2 on HW5. It just doesn’t work as stated, so if you’re having trouble figuring it out, this might be why.

There are two ways that I could fix this, they’d each be equivalent for the purposes of this problem. One would be to suppose that the structure isn’t exactly as it is drawn in (3), but rather has Q (or, perhaps “QP”) adjoined to the wh-phrase. Another is to suppose that my statement of the conditions under which the single-pair and pair-list reading weren’t quite right. I think for the present purposes, I will fix it using the latter approach.

What I’m going to do here is say that it is equivalent to be c-commanded by Q itself or to be c-commanded by QP. So, replace the text above Question 2 with the following:

Now, the correlation between the interpretation that a question can get and the eventual structural position of Q is as follows:

• If both wh-words are c-commanded by either Q or QP, a single-pair reading results.
• If just one wh-word is c-commanded by either Q or QP, a pair-list reading results.

That’s a fairly elaborate system, although some of it is justified on grounds we’re not covering here now (but will get to next week). To review:

• Q must attach to a wh-word.
• Q must move to C (and prefers to ride along with a wh-word to SpecCP).
• Q will attach to the lower wh-word if it can.
• Single pair = both wh-words are c-commanded by Q or QP; pair-list otherwise.

I think that should at least make it possible to get to the conclusion I was thinking of when I wrote the problem up.