the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

86
Given the discussion thus far the answer is clearly again related to Case. A
weakly quantified relative clause head is no more Case-marked within its clause than
a strongly quantified head. I will return shortly to exactly how the Case-checking
is achieved in this case. However, the head-raising must serve another purpose: it
must provide the identity of the head.
One point not addressed in the discussion thus far of weakly quantified heads
is the unexpected lack of ambiguity of the head. That is, in Cuzco Quechua I
have not found instances of ambiguous head identity. Part of this can be explained
by the different nominalizing morphology in the cases of subject and non-subject
relativization. But even if we limit ourselves to non-subject relativization we have a
rather unexpected situation in which the un-Casemarked DP must be the head. The
pragmatic construal analysis offers no explanation for this lack of ambiguity. On
the other hand we cannot return to a simple head-raising analysis here due to the
binding and scope effects discussed in Chapter 2. A crucial example is given here
in (3.57) (repeated from (2.53)), with the similar (3.58) provided for comparison.
(3.57) Asunta mikhu-ra-n
Asunta eat-past-3sg
ranti-sqa-n]]-ta
buy-nm-3sg-acc
[[sapa(nka)
each/every-(nka)
irqi-q
child-gen
huk
one
t’anta
bread
‘Each child bought one roll and Asunta ate them (one roll per child).’
(3.58) Sapa(nka) irqi-qa [[pro huk t’anta
each-nka child-top pro one bread
‘Each child, he bought one roll and ate it.’
ranti-sqa-n]]-ta
buy-nm-3sg-acc
mikhu-ra-n.
eat-past-3sg
To make the conundrum clear, I list in (3.59) the main arguments in favor of
positing an E-type pronoun within the matrix clause in the case of sentences like
(3.57). I also list the ways in in which this pronoun does not exactly follow the
expected behavior of an E-type pronoun.