the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

222
in adjunct positions at all, and are often judged as degraded or ungrammatical in
subject position. If indeed the correct generalization is that only the -ta position
allows the DP-extraction operation it seems that this would be due to the probe Tr
(but not other Case-assigning heads) having a [+K] feature.
To summarize, the question of whether movement has occured–that is, whether
there is a trace within the DP–is addressed in my analysis with the idea that there is
no semantic gap within the DP (no position to which reconstruction takes place), but
there still may be a syntactic gap. Further, this apparent paradox can be resolved if
we assume that weak quantifiers and adjectives can be generated in [Spec,KP], the
position of co-Casemarking and ultimately of LF reconstruction.
6.5 Why sapa ‘each’ won’t behave
In this section I discuss a strong quantifier which does not seem to fit into the
pattern established in the previous sections, and offer an explanation.
6.5.1 The problem with sapa ‘each’
The basic problem is that sapa ‘each’ cannot be co-Case-marked like other universal
quantifiers. This is illustrated in the contrast between (6.56(a)) in which sapa
appears in a continuous noun phrase and (6.56(b)) in which it is disallowed as part
of a discontinuous noun phrase.
(6.56) (a) [Sapa/llapan [Inka-kuna-manta
each/every Inka-pl-abl
qu-wa-ra-nku.
give-1sg-past-3pl
rima-q
talk-nm
libru]]-ta
book-acc
‘They gave me each/every book (that talked) about the Inkas.’