In this reply, we undertake a thorough evaluation of B(hatt) & P(ancheva)'s (2004) central thesis, which holds that two effects they attribute to degree constructions, i.e., obligatory extraposition effects and scope rigidity effects determined by the superficial position of degree phrases/clauses, can be given a unified analysis in terms of an extension of Fox & Nissenbaum's (1999) analysis of extraposition in conjunction with the non-conservativity of (certain) degree words. We show that,

more »

... r full preservation of B&P's theoretical assumptions, their account is open to criticism on at least three counts, namely, (i) of the two phenomena they propose to unify, the one involving scope effects has no reality; (ii) (non-)conservativity is irrelevant to obligatory extraposition effects; and (iii) Trace Conversion, contrary to their position, is at most an optional procedure for DegP chains. We propose an alternative non-semantic treatment of obligatory extraposition effects, which subsumes them under an independently needed adjacency constraint on pre-head modifiers. Furthermore, we note that the facts brought up in B&P's article and in the present reply call into question the quantificational approach to degree constructions.