{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02588235294117647, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009411764705882352, 'mean_word_length': 4.992957746478873, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Factive islands from necessary blocking

Oshima (2007) and Schwarz & Simonenko (2018a) credit the unacceptability of so-called factive islands to necessary infelicity – the violation of some or other felicity condition on (wh-)questions in all accessible contexts. We apply this analysis to new types of factive islands – in wh-questions with if any and in multiple wh-questions – and argue that they pose challenges for an analysis in terms of necessary infelicity. We propose that factive islandhood can be understood as due to necessary blocking: in all accessible contexts where such a question would otherwise be felicitous, the speaker would have had to use a different, more suitable, question instead. We show that the necessary blocking analysis applies correctly to both classic factive islands and to the new types that we have identified.