the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

114
of possessor-noun agreement. The lack of subject-verb agreement in CQ subjectheaded
relatives was explained in Chapter 3 as a result of the defective nature of
the inflectional head that selects the nominalizer -q (n) in that dialect. However, in
IQ I assume that the nominative Case-marking on subjects of nominalized clauses
is associated with non-overt agreement between the subject and the verb. Genitivemarked
subjects I associate to the more nominal nature of CQ relative clauses.
In particular, to a requirement that elements merging to [Spec,n] and triggering
nominal agreement must be genitive-marked. The last three properties of IQ (overtly
Case-marked heads, adjunct internal heads, and disassociation of nominalizer from
head identity) I associate to the more sentence-like nature of relative clauses in that
language and in particular to the possibility of identifying the head pragmatically
and not structurally.
Table 4.1: Summary of CQ/IQ morphosyntactic differences
Property CQ IQ
RC subject-verb agreement? Yes (obj. head) No
No (subj. head)
DP possessor/noun agreement? Yes No
Genitive-marked subjects? Yes No
Can internal heads be overtly Case-marked? No Yes
Adjunct can be an internal head? No Yes
Nominalizer reflects head identity? Yes No