the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

83
the subject of a subject-headed relative clause would be directly related to the fact
that this head is not Case-marked within the embedded clause but rather within
the matrix clause. (Similar facts in Turkish externally headed relative clauses are
given an analysis along these same lines in [Kornfilt 2002].) I propose that the T
which selects the -q head does not have the Case and Agreement features which the
standard T head is presumed to have. (This is compatible with the fact that -q is
not inflected for person, nor does it indicate tense.) Therefore, this T is not a probe,
and the Subject is free to move to CP before or after Spellout to become the head
of the relative clause. Note that a derivation in which an internal argument jumps
over the Subject to the [Spec,CP] position would, in the presence of -q, leave the
Subject with unchecked Case and the derivation would crash.
As an example, I show the LF structure of (3.52) in (3.54). The internally headed
version of (3.52), (3.53), would have essentially the same structure.
(3.52) [[Juan
Juan
riku-q]
see-nm(subj)
runa]
person
‘the person who saw/sees/will see Juan’
(3.53) [(Chay)
dem
[runa
person
Juan
Juan
riku-q]]
see-nm(subj)
‘the person who saw/sees/will see Juan’