the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

119
4.4 Semantics of IQ vs. CQ internal heads
The results of the previous section suggest that the complementizer in CQ is more
nominal in nature than that in IQ, as reflected in morphological differences between
the two dialects’ relative clauses. In this section I would like to take this idea one
step further by proposing that in fact in a relative clause the complementizer in IQ
may not even probe for the head at all. That is, that IQ relative clauses do not
(necessarily) involve head-raising. This is a significant departure from my proposal
for CQ in the previous chapter. The basic idea is summarized in (4.21).
(4.21) CQ: Head-raising mandatory at some level, for Case-based reasons.
IQ: Relative clause is more sentence-like. No head-raising is necessary.
The idea that IQ internally headed relative clauses are more sentence-like and
can be interpreted without head-raising, though I have initially motivated it in
connection with morphosyntactic facts, makes specific predictions regarding the
meaning of IHRs in IQ, which I will consider carefully in the next section.
In order to implement the basic intuition expressed in (4.21), I will proceed as
follows. In the next section I point out four differences between internal heads and
external heads in CQ and IQ. I will argue that all four differences can be explained by
the dichotomy suggested in (4.21). In the following section I will suggest a structural
implementation of (4.21) which will effectively show that IQ is a Japanese-like dialect
of Quechua with respect to relative clause interpretation.
4.4.1 Four differences between CQ and IQ internal heads
In this section I will show that CQ and IQ IHRs differ semantically with respect to
ambiguity of the head, adjunct internal heads, universally quantified internal heads