the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

125
4.5 Do IQ heads ever raise?
In the preceding sections I have argued that IQ heads, unlike CQ heads, do not have
to raise to clause-external position at any point in the derivation. I have shown that
the analysis of internally headed relative clauses posited for Japanese by [Shimoyama
1999, 2001] explains a variety of semantic effects in IQ and I have suggested that
there is a correlation between the less nominal nature of IQ morphology and the
lack of a D-feature on the complementizer C which is associated with raising of the
head in CQ at some point in the derivation. (In Chapter 3 I have proposed that the
[+D] complementizer has a [uwh] probe which Agrees with the probe).
However, the simple fact that externally headed relatives do exist in IQ leads us
to ask whether these heads must all now be supposed to originate clause-externally
or whether in fact any of them have raised from a clause-internal position. If the
latter explanation is correct, then we may wonder whether it is ever possible for
even an internal head to raise. Since IQ internal heads have been posited to raise
in past work such as [Cole 1985, 1987a], it is important to consider the arguments
for raising in light of the previous discussion.
In this section I address this variety of facts. I present evidence that some IQ
external heads are derived via movement, while other IQ external heads are basegenerated
externally. I will argue that in fact IQ is more similar to CQ than it
appears at first glance in that argument heads are the ones which may raise, while
adjunct heads may not.
4.5.1 Evidence from Islands
Whether a head can be extracted from an island is often used to argue for or against
the mechanism of raising in deriving a relative clause head. In this section I show
that in general IQ does show island effects in relative clauses.