the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

3 The Syntax of Head-Raising in Cuzco Quechua 54
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2 Morphosyntactic facts of Cuzco Quechua relatives . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.2.1 Agreement and Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.2.2 What can be a head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.2.3 Nominalizing morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.3 Syntax of Cuzco Quechua Relative Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.3.1 Basic framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.3.2 Explaining the Case-marking pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.3.3 Which DP may raise? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.4 Extending the analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.4.1 Subject-headed RCs, and explaining the nominalizing morphology
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.4.2 Revisiting weakly quantified heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.4.3 Island constraints on relativization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.4.4 Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4 Comparison of Imbabura and Cuzco Quechua Relative Clauses 105
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.2 Morphosyntactic comparison between the dialects . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.2.1 Review of similarities between the dialects . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.2.2 Four morphosyntactic differences between the dialects . . . . . 109
4.2.3 Summary of CQ/IQ differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.3 Syntax of IQ subordinate clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.3.1 Explaining the morphological differences . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.3.2 Structure of IQ subordinate clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.4 Semantics of IQ vs. CQ internal heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.4.1 Four differences between CQ and IQ internal heads . . . . . . 119
4.4.2 Structural implementation of the intuition . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.4.3 How the analysis explains the CQ/IQ semantic differences . . 124
4.5 Do IQ heads ever raise? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.5.1 Evidence from Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.5.2 Evidence from quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.5.3 Evidence from arguments vs. adjuncts in headless relatives . . 132
4.5.4 A proposal for movement of arguments only . . . . . . . . . . 140
4.5.5 Does the head raise for Case reasons? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
xii