  Hackl, Koster-Hale & Varvoutis (2012; Journal of Semantics, 29, 145-206; HKV)
provide data that suggested that in a null context,
antecedent-contained-deletion (ACD) relative clause structures modifying a
quantified object noun phrase are easier to process than those modifying a
definite object NP. HKV argue that this pattern of results supports a
quantifier-raising (QR) analysis of both ACD structures and quantified NPs in
object position: under the account that they advocate, both ACD resolution and
quantified NPs in object position require movement of the object NP to a higher
syntactic position. The processing advantage for quantified object NPs in ACD
is hypothesized to derive from the fact that - at the point where ACD
resolution must take place - the quantified NP has already undergone QR whereas
this is not the case for definite NPs. Here, we report attempted replications
of their self-paced reading Experiments 1 and 2. We do not replicate the
critical interactions in any of the words immediately following the
disambiguating verb in either experiment. Putting these observations together
with the observation that it was only post-hoc analysis decisions that were
responsible for HKV's observed effects in the first place (Gibson et al.,
submitted), we conclude that the experiments reported by HKV should not be
viewed as providing evidence for the ACD quantifier raising processing effect.
