the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

151
sessive sentences such as (5.2) can be viewed as a special case of existential sentences
such as (5.1).
(5.1) Llama-kuna urqu-pi ka-n.
llama-pl mountain-loc be-3sg
‘There are llamas in the mountain.’
(5.2) Maria-q llama-n-kuna
Maria-gen llama-3sg-pl
‘Maria has llamas.’
ka-n.
be-3sg
A question that arises in (5.1) (and indeed in the existential constructions of
many languages) is what element, if any, occupies the subject position of this sentence.
I propose that a null expletive appears in this position.
A potential problem with an analysis in which the two sentences above have
parallel structures is the fact that in many languages the presence of a pre-nominal
possessor is an indication of specificity of the noun phrase. For instance in English,
‘Maria’s llamas’ is specific whereas ‘llamas of Maria’s’ has a non-specific reading.
If this is the case in Quechua too then (5.2) presents the problematic structure of
a specific DP in a position normally subject to the definiteness effect of existential
constructions. In this chapter I argue for a resolution of this problem involving
possessor extraction as a covert movement operation.
The organization of this chapter is as follows. In the next section I present the
basic data of CQ existential constructions. Section 5.3 proposes a structural analysis
of CQ existential sentences. Section 5.4 does the same for CQ possessive sentences.
Section 5.5 is the conclusion.