the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

115
4.3 Syntax of IQ subordinate clauses
4.3.1 Explaining the morphological differences
In the previous section I have discussed several differences between CQ and IQ
morphological paradigms. Taken together, these differences suggest that IQ relative
clause functional heads are more similar to those in main clauses than is the case in
CQ. Since subordinate clause Case assignment is apparently potentially identical to
main clause Case assignment in IQ, 6 it is reasonable to assume that the IQ relative
clause determiner can select a complementizer which is identical to the main clause
C. This C head selects a nominative-assigning T head, which in turn dominates
a -n which can select a TrP, etc. Similarly, IQ Complement clauses also contain
functional heads Tr and T which are the same as those in main clauses. However,
the complementizer head of a complement clause must also have a Case feature to
reflect its Case marking within the main clause. The only other difference between
main clauses and complement clauses is n vs. v. It is not entirely clear to me
that this distinction is strictly necessary but here I adopt the convention that the
presence of n corresponds to the eventual Case-marking of the extended nP clause
(DP or CP) within the matrix clause.
4.3.2 Structure of IQ subordinate clauses
This view of IQ gives the structure (4.18) for the IQ complement clause in (4.17).
(4.17) ya-ni
think-1sg
[Marya
Maria
mishu
mestizo
shimi-ta
language-acc
parla-j]-ta
speak-nm-acc
‘I think that Maria speaks Spanish.’ (Cole 109b) (IQ)
6 I return to the possibility of null marking on subordinate clause objects and
relative clause heads in Section 4.5