Relative clauses and tensed clauses are standardly assumed to be scope islands. However, naturally occurring counterexamples are abundant and easy to find. Therefore, we should revisit analyses that reject Quantifier Raising on the assumption that QR is clause-bounded. The data show that scope islands are sensitive to the identity of both the scope-taker and the predicate embedding the island. I propose the Scope Island Subset Constraint: given two scope islands, the scope-takers trapped by one will be a subset of the scope-takers trapped by the other. A simple refinement of semantic types allows encoding and enforcing of scope islands.

Some version of the following claim is almost universally assumed: a quantifier must c-command any pronoun that it binds. Yet as I show, the evidence motivating this claim is not particularly strong. In addition, I gather here a wide variety of systematic counterexamples, some well-known, others new. I conclude that c-command is not relevant for quantificational binding in English (nor is any refinement or extension of c-command).