the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

140
For example, in a context which contains equally prominently candy bought by
both children and adults, sentence (4.78) is felicitous, but the use of the relative
clause in (4.78) as an independent sentence is not.
(4.78) [[wawa-kuna
child-pl
[e] ranti-shka]]-kuna-ka
buy-nm-pl-top
sumak-mi.
good-evid
‘Those (candies) that the children bought are good.’
(IQ)
4.5.4 A proposal for movement of arguments only
In the preceding sections I pointed to evidence for head-raising from islands, quantifiers
and argument vs. adjunct behavior. With regard to the island effects, I showed
that in fact raising was not necessary to explain the impossibility of “extracting”
a head from within an embedded DP given the impossibility of extracting a head
from within an embedded clause coupled with the proposal that external heads can
be licensed by a pragmatic relationship with the clause which is their direct sister.
This leaves the quantifier evidence and the argument/adjunct asymmetry. I find
that the evidence points to the possibility of head-raising of arguments but not of
adjuncts. Therefore, I propose that internal argument heads can be raised at LF to
the Spec of the relative clause CP, whereas adjunct heads cannot. Similarly, external
heads corresponding to internal arguments may have raised from the internal position,
whereas external heads corresponding to internal adjuncts are base-generated
externally. In the next section I discuss the difficult question of whether in IQ
head-raising should be seen as Case-based, and tentatively conclude that it should
not. In the remainder of this section I highlight a consequence of this proposal for
apparently similar pairs of internally and externally headed argument and adjunct
relative clauses and some supporting evidence from Cuzco Quechua.