the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

85
these two facts: since weak quantifiers are not determiners, they cannot undergo determiner
incorporation. Thus, we do not expect them to take scope over the relative
clause. I will now proceed to flesh out this basic idea.
Recall from Chapter 2 that based on data of the sort shown in (3.55) and (3.56),
in which a strong but not a weak determiner can appear in the pre-clausal position
in a relative clause construction, I adopted the familiar notion that only strong
quantifiers are in fact determiners.
(3.55) Asunta
Asunta
[tukuy [Mayta-q plaza-pi planta
all Mayta-gen plaza-loc plant
p’iti-ra-n.
prune-past-3sg
‘Asunta pruned all the plants which Mayta planted in the plaza.’
(3.56) *?Pisi
little
[[Asunta-q aqha
Asunta-gen cornbeer
apa-ra-ni.
bring-past-1sg
‘I brought a little cornbeer that Asunta made.’
aqha-sqa-n]]-ta
make.cornbeer-nm-3sg-acc
planta-sqa-n]]-ta
plant-nm-3sg-acc
In Chapter 2 I argued that pisi-headed relative clauses are not interpreted via
a head-raised structure but rather lend themselves to the E-type anaphora analysis
of relative clauses developed for Japanese in [Hoshi 1995], [Shimoyama 1999, 2001]
and others. The fact that these relative clause heads can nonetheless appear in
clause-external position meant that reconstruction to base position was necessary
at interpretation. Thus, a null proform was posited which played the role of the
head in the matrix clause. A variety of evidence pointing to the presence of this
null pronoun was shown. However, there is a point which needs to be clarified in
light of the structure of head-raised relative clauses discussed here. Namely, what
is the role of head-raising (at least in the case of externally headed relative clauses)
for weakly quantified relatives?