Single-pair versus Multiple- Pair Answers: Wh-in-situ

Multiple interrogatives like (1a) readily admit paired answers like (1b). That answers to (2a) and (3a) also pair values for two wh-expressions instead of one has therefore been taken as evidence that two whs have matrix scope. In the case of (2a) the wh-in-situ thought to have wide scope is inside a wh-complement; in the case of (3a) it is inside an adjunct. Wh-in-situ, it would appear, can take scope across clause boundaries, in violation of Subjacency. The ability of wh-in-situ to take wide scope has been explained in a number of ways: by taking Subjacency to be inapplicable at LF (Huang 1982), by unselective binding of D-linked wh-expressions (Pesetsky 1987), and by existential closure involving a choice function interpretation for wh-in-situ (Reinhart 1998). A point that has escaped theoretical attention is that paired answers to multiple questions are not always of the same form. While (1a) and (2a) support multiplepair answers, (3a) admits only a single-pair answer. (4) is considered an awkward, if not unacceptable, response to (3a).