the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

219
(6.52) Iskay-ta libru-ta
two-acc book-acc
‘I read two books.’
lii-rqa-ni.
read-past-1sg
For all these reasons I do not find the modifier stranding analysis to be compatible
with the Quechua data. Turning now to the structures sketched in (6.45(b)) and
(6.45(c)), I believe that my analysis is potentially compatible with either of these
syntactic options. I will comment briefly on each.
The LF structure I have proposed is compatible with a structure in which the
modifier and noun are generated as independent constituents and become associated
through some sort of coindexation as in (6.45(c)). This analysis raises a number of
theoretical questions, however. Assuming that accusative Case marking is associated
with a particular structural configuration in association with a Case assigner (Tr), it
seems that the two -ta-marked elements would still have to be in a local configuration
at some earlier syntactic level, as in (6.53). Thus the LF configuration would be
presumably a post-scrambling reconstruction to this basic configuration. Again the
question of how the independent generation of a modifier phrase and a noun phrase
in the scope of the Case assigner comes about remains open.
(6.53)
S
✟ ✟ ❍❍ ❍
TrP
✟ ✟✟ ❍ ❍
Tr VP
✟ ✟✟ ❍
❍ ❍
V
✟ ✟ ❍❍ ❍
Mod-ta DP-ta
The option in (6.45(b)), in which the modifier leaves the noun phrase (possibly
picking up Case marking in an escape hatch as proposed in [Lefebvre & Muysken
1988] and supported by [Sánchez 1996]), could also be adopted in conjunction with