the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

103
simply stating that the Case of the external head must be the Case of the head within
the external clause. This is nicely explained within a Determiner-incorporation
analysis in which the head’s D is assigned Case by C, by positing that the Case
assigned to each of the two determiners must be identical. (Even though for these
speakers, the Case assigners themselves are different—C for the head, and a matrix
clause Case assigner for the outer D.) However, there remains the problem that for
L&M’s consultants, it is possible to violate this generalization if the relative clause
and the noun it modifies are in topic position. This is illustrated in (3.99).
(3.99) Xwancha-q
Juan-gen
rima-sqa-n
speak-nm-3sg
warma-wan-(qa),
girl-with-top
(pay-ta-puni)
he-acc-emph
‘He saw the girl with whom Juan spoke.’ (L&M p.194 (75))
riku-ra-n.
see-past-3sg
Examples like (3.99) give no indication of the role of the topic within the matrix
clause. They are bad for my consultants. For the speakers consulted by L&M,
however, we can simply say that clashes between the Case assigned by C (presumably
matching the internal Case) and the Case of the head within the matrix clause are
not tolerated. This is resolved when the entire clause is in topic position (a non-Case
position).
3.5 Conclusion
In this chapter I have analyzed the syntactic structure of Cuzco Quechua relative
clauses. I have argued for the presence of functional heads within Main and nominalized
clauses which are responsible for Case checking of arguments of the verb. I
have furthermore posited a n head which appears in nominalized clauses and possessor
phrases, and parallels v within Main clauses. I have claimed that the lack of
Case-marking on an internal head is due to the fact that the Case of this head is
checked in the matrix clause, via a proceess of determiner incorporation. Thus, the