the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

147
immediately reconcilable with an analysis in which heads raise for Case purposes.
Therefore, I propose that an internal argument of the verb may Merge directly with
the (nominalized) verb. Under these circumstances it may be Case-checked directly
by the verb instead of by Tr. Subsequent overt scrambling is clearly not possible
from this position, while covert head-raising is possible. I leave the question of why
locative arguments must undergo head-raising from this position open for future
research.
4.6 Conclusion
This chapter provides a comparison between CQ and IQ relative clauses and an attempt
to explain a set of differences between the two dialects based on a structural
distinction that arises from a special Caseless determiner which selects CP only in
CQ relative clauses. Many questions remain open, including that of the historical
process by which such a distinction could have arisen between closely related languages.
Another question which relates to a discussion of CQ in Chapter 3 has
to do with the exact interpretive mechanism associated with the E-type anaphora
approach to IQ as opposed to CQ. It was noted in Chapter 3 that although E-type
anaphora was an important element in the interpretation of CQ relative clauses,
there was also a structural component whereby the identity of the head was established
via syntactic raising. The results of this chapter show that IQ lends itself
to a simpler E-type anaphora analysis, along the lines of the original proposal for
Japanese in [Hoshi 1995] and [Shimoyama 1999, 2001].
To summarize this chapter, I present below schematic versions of the logical
possibilities in CQ and IQ for the position of the head (internal or external) and the
nature of the gap within the RC (in the case of external heads: the gap could be a
trace or a coindexed element).