the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

137
argument and adjunct relativization. This pro will be in the position marked by the
empty category [e] in the examples.
Now, simply positing the presence of pro does not immediately decide the issue
of whether raising takes place or not. Therefore the next question to be considered
is whether this pro gets raised out of the relative clause or interpreted within the
relative clause. I claim that the null pro head must raise out of the relative clause
by the level of interpretation.
A first piece of evidence for this is the position of the plural marker -kuna on
the verb in examples (4.66) and (4.67) which we just looked at. Since nominalized
verbs in Imbabura Quechua do not show subject agreement, it is the plurality of the
head which is being encoded here. Notice that the plural marker appears externally,
attached to the verb. This provides a first indication that the null pronominal has
an external presence as well as an internal presence in its base argument position.
However, we must consider the possibility that the external -kuna is in fact reflecting
the plurality of the external DP. That is, could the plurality marker be associated
with plurality of the outer DP (DP 1 in (4.71)), not the head itself?
(4.71) DP 1
❍
✟ ✟✟✟✟
❍
❍
❍ ❍
D
✏ CP
✏ ✏✏✏✏✏✏ wawa-kuna pro ranti-shka-kuna
child-pl pro buy-nm-pl
If the plural marker is associated to DP 1 , we might expect the same structure
to be possible with an overt internal head. However, this is not possible, whether
the head is singular or plural, as seen in (4.72):
(4.72) *wawa-kuna
child-pl
mishki(-kuna)
candy-pl
ranti-shka-kuna
buy-nm-pl
‘The candies that the children bought’
(IQ)