the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

130
of (4.38) and (4.39). On the other hand, if the E-type anaphora analysis is available,
why can’t it apply in examples such as (4.39).
I propose that the externally headed examples are bad in IQ (but not Japanese)
because the mere presence of pro in an IQ relative clause is not sufficient to establish
the relationship between the head and the relative clause. In fact, an external head
must have a pragmatically reconstructable relationship to the clause which is its
direct sister, and not to a clause which is further embedded. On the other hand,
it appears that only the C which is selected by D can have the +wh/head feature
which is associated with head-raising. In this respect IQ and CQ are apparently
identical.
4.5.2 Evidence from quantifiers
The quantifier evidence that needs to be considered in IQ is truly vast and I am unable
to do it justice here. I would like to comment on just a few aspects of quantifier
behavior that are particularly relevant to the current question of movement.
First, as has already been noted, strong quantifiers can take internal scope in
relative clauses, as in (4.27), repeated here as (4.46).
(4.46) Ana-ka
Ana-top
[[Jose
Jose
tukuilla
all
yaku-ta
water-acc
‘Jose brought all the water and Ana drank it.’
? ‘Jose brought all the water that Ana drank.’
apa-mu-shka]]-ta
take-cis-nm-acc
upya-rka.
drink-past
(IQ)
I should note here that I proposed (4.46) to my consultants initially with the
expectation that IQ was likely to follow the pattern I was familiar with from earlier
work on CQ: the quantifier takes wide scope over the clause. Instead, the consultant
invented a context to go with this expression in which there was some quantity of
water in the kitchen, and Jose had brought all of this quantity to Ana, who had then
drunk it. Generally, consultants did not recognize any second reading of expressions