the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

135
Following these analyses, I will assume that Quechua allows a null pronominal
pro in both subject and object position. I will assume further that pro is limited to
argument positions. One piece of evidence for the absence of null adjuncts is seen
in (4.63), which contrasts with (4.62):
(4.63) Na
not
∅
killka-rka-ni-chu.
write-past-1sg-neg
‘I didn’t write (it).’ (IQ)
*‘I didn’t write with it.’
Similarly in the CQ question-answer pair in (4.64), the adjunct ‘this pen’ must
be overtly present in order to be specifically negated in the answer.
(4.64) Kay
this
lapicero-wan-chu
pen-instr-q
qilqa-ra-nki?
write-past-2sg
... Mana
not
qilqa-ra-ni. (Huq-wan qilqa-ra-ni.)
write-past-1sg. (other-instr write-past-1sg
kay
this
lapicero-wan-chu
pen-instr-neg
‘Did you write with this pen?’ ... ‘No I didn’t write with this pen. (I wrote
with another one.)’
Omitting the adjunct and placing negation on the verb yields sentential negation,
as seen in (4.65).
(4.65) ... Mana
not
qilqa-ra-ni-chu.
write-past-1sg-neg
(#Huq-wan
other-instr
‘I didn’t write. (#I wrote with another one.)’
qilqa-ra-ni.)
write-past-1sg
In the following section I will discuss the absence of pro in adjunct position
further.
4.5.3.1.1 Arguments (not adjuncts) may be the understood head of a
headless RC In (4.66) to (4.68), the subordinate clause is interpreted as a (restrictive)
relative. However, there is no overt reflex of the head. The head is understood
to be the subject, the direct object and the locative argument respectively.