the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

3
clause heads can violate an indefiniteness restriction on the head of an internally
headed relative first noted for Lakhota by Williamson [1987] and supported in crosslinguistic
studies by Culy [1990] and Basilico [1996]. The analysis of quantifier data
of this sort is motivated by recent work on Japanese internally headed relative clauses
by Hoshi [1995] and Shimoyama [1999, 2001] who study why in that language headraising
is not compatible with the meaning of certain internally headed relatives. In
light of this past work on internally headed relatives, and other recent work regarding
the typology of relative clauses (e.g. [Grosu & Landman, 1999]), I find that the
Quechua data illustrate a surprising clause type: internally headed relatives with
externally interpreted strongly quantified heads. On the syntactic side, I propose in
Chapter 3 that head-raising is associated with the Case-marking of the head by an
element within the matrix clause. I support this theory by providing evidence that
an internal head in Quechua cannot be Case-marked within the relative clause. This
fact also points to a head-raising analysis of internally headed relatives in Quechua,
and I argue that both the syntactic and semantic facts can be jointly explained via
a determiner-incorporation process along the lines proposed for English in [Bianchi
2000, 2002].
The next set of results, presented in Chapter 4, involve a close comparison between
relative clauses in Cuzco and Imbabura Quechua. I show that by assuming
a parametric difference in the feature settings on functional heads in the extended
relative clause construction, it is possible to explain a series of differences in the
morphology, syntax and semantics of relatives in the two languages. These results
provide support for an understanding of linguistic diversity based on the lexicon: