the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

186
of the preposition into the existential BE. In English the problem is solved by the
insertion of the Case-licensing preposition of into the D/P o position accompanied
by the raising of the possessed nominal.
In Quechua, although I am not aware of direct evidence that the [Spec,DP]
position is a Case position as opposed to the [Spec,nP] position, I will accept Kayne’s
notion that an indefinite determiner is not sufficient to assign Case to the possessor.
I suggest that Quechua, like Hungarian, has a higher position within a DP which is
a Case position. This position is probably the same escape hatch in which Co-case
marking of any extracted element is licensed. This analysis is reminiscent of the
proposal in Lefebvre & Muysken [1988] that there is a “COMP-like Case position”
within a DP, where the moved element picks up Case. However, relative clause
data provided by Lefebvre and Muysken intended to show that an element may
appear overtly in this position is ungrammatical for my consultants. These data
were discussed in Chapter 3, Section 4.4. Therefore for my consultants it appears
that this “COMP-like Case position” within the DP is only a position from which
movement out of the DP may occur. I discuss this position further in Chapter 6. 17
An explicit implementation of the notion of a DP-external Case position is as
follows. Suppose that there is a functional head K that selects DP and which is
a probe with nominal φ features. K is optionally present in instances of optional
extraction from DP, but in the case of DPs with indefinite D heads and a possessor,
as in possessive sentences, K must be present in order to check the Case of the
17 There is a further issue that this analysis brings up which I am currently unable
to explain. That is, how does Spellout occur in CQ before the possessor has had
its Case fully checked, since current assumptions suggest that all uninterpretable
features must be deleted before the construction is sent to PF? For the moment I
will simply suggest that this apparent violation may be related to the double Case
marking on the possessor (the combination of genitive Case marking plus the Case
marking associated with clause extraction). Similarly in English, the expression
“books of John’s” also contains two apparent Case-licensors: ’s and of.