the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

124
4.4.3 How the analysis explains the CQ/IQ semantic differences
Let us now reconsider the four distinctions between CQ and IQ from 4.4.1 in light
of the above structures.
First, given that the necessity for head-raising distinguishes IQ from CQ, the
fact that the internal head is highly ambiguous in Imbabura Quechua, while unambiguous
in Cuzco Quechua follows immediately. Essentially, in IQ, head identity is
established purely pragmatically through an anaphoric relationship with a nominal
in the embedded clause. In CQ, on the other hand, the head is identified structurally;
it is the un-Casemarked nominal, which must raise, as described in Chapter
3.
Next we turn to the observation that adjuncts can be internal heads in Imbabura
Quechua but not Cuzco Quechua. The reason for this under the current analysis
must be that adjuncts can be selected pragmatically but not structurally. Here I
assume that nominals which are not θ-marked by the subordinate verb must receive
non-structural Case within their clause.
The third difference between the two dialects is that an internal interpretation
of universally quantified heads is possible in IQ but not in CQ. I propose that
the reason for this is again that an IQ subordinate clause can be interpreted as a
sentence. Therefore, all RC-internal quantifiers remain relative clause-internal at
LF and have internal scope. In CQ, head-raising leads to scope of the Determiner
over the subordinate clause via determiner incorporation as discussed in Chapter 3.
Finally, recall that overt Case-marking on a head is possible in IQ but not in
CQ. This can be explained if in IQ, no element need raise, and hence all subordinate
DPs can be Case-marked within the subordinate clause.