Wh-questions with the modal verb can admit both mention-some (MS) and mention-all (MA) answers. This paper argues that we should treat MS as a grammatical phenomenon, primarily determined by the grammar of the wh-interrogative. I assume that MS and MA answers can be modeled using the same definition of answerhood (Fox in Mention-some interpretations, MIT seminar, 2013) and attribute the MS/MA ambiguity to structural variations within the question nucleus. The variations are: (i) the scope ambiguity of the higher-order wh-trace and (ii) the absence/presence of an anti-exhaustification operator. However, treating MS answers as complete answers in this way contradicts the widely adopted analysis of uniqueness effects in questions of Dayal (Locality in wh quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi, 1996), according to which the uniqueness effects of singular which-phrases arise from an exhaustivity presupposition, namely that a question must have a unique exhaustive true answer. To solve this dilemma, I propose that question interpretations presuppose Relativized Exhaustivity: roughly, the exhaustivity in questions is evaluated relative to the accessible worlds as opposed to the anchor/utterance world. Relativized Exhaustivity preserves the merits of Dayal’s exhaustivity presupposition while permitting MS; moreover, it explains the local-uniqueness effects in modalized singular wh-questions.

带有情态动词的Wh问题可以接受提及部分 (MS) 和提及全部 (MA) 答案。本文认为，我们应该将MS视为一种语法现象，主要由wh疑问句的语法决定。我假设 MS 和 MA 答案可以使用相同的答案定义进行建模（Fox 中提及的某些解释，麻省理工学院研讨会，2013 年），并将 MS/MA 的模糊性归因于问题核心内的结构变化。这些变化是：(i) 高阶wh跟踪的范围模糊性和 (ii) 反耗尽运算符的不存在/存在。然而，以这种方式将 MS 答案视为完整答案与 Dayal 问题中广泛采用的独特性效应分析相矛盾（ wh量化中的局部性：印地语中的问题和相关子句，1996），根据该分析，单数which-短语的独特性效应源于穷举性预设，即问题必须有唯一的穷举性真实答案。为了解决这个困境，我建议问题解释以相对穷举性为前提：粗略地说，问题中的穷举性是相对于可访问的世界而不是锚/话语世界来评估的。相对穷举性保留了 Dayal 穷举性前提的优点，同时允许 MS；此外，它解释了情态单数wh问题中的局部唯一性效应。