the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

131
of this sort, but occasionally the second gloss was admitted or even suggested. To
the extent that the wide scope reading of (4.46) is possible, as suggested by the
second gloss, we have a very strong argument for head-raising being an option in
IQ.
However, on most occasions my consultants’ intuitions about quantifier scope
matched the surface position of the quantifier. This was true in cases of both weak
and strong quantifiers. Typical examples are given in (4.47) and (4.48), which
show that an internal quantified head can interact with another embedded-clause
quantifier, while an external head of the same sort cannot.
(4.47) [[Wakin
some
miku-rka.
eat-past
wawa-kuna
child-pl
(IQ)
ishkai
two
tanta-ta
bread-acc
ranti-shka]]-ta
buy-nm-acc
Ana-ka
Ana-top
‘Some children bought two rolls [together or each] and Ana ate them.’
(4.48) [[Wakin
some
miku-rka.
eat-past
wawa-kuna
child-pl
(IQ)
ranti-shka]
buy-nm
ishkai
two
tanta]-ta
bread-acc
Ana-ka
Ana-top
‘Ana ate two rolls that some children bought.’ (two rolls total)
The equivalent examples in CQ are judged to be paraphrases of one another, although
the distributive reading with wakin ‘some’ in the subject and no distributive
marker -nka on the direct object is apparently hard to get (so both internal and
external heads are typically associated with the non-distributive reading).
In IQ, externally headed relatives with an overt quantifier on the head were often
met with disfavor. For example, consider the following set of four relative clauses
in which the strong quantifier tukuilla is associated with the head waka ‘cow’ and
appears to the left of the relative clause, on an internal head, internal with an
external head and on an external head. Of these, all were judged as potentially