the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

20
clause (specifically, she suggests a position adjoined to the S of the relative clause).
The determiner of the relative clause is external to S, being in Spec of the outer NP,
as shown in (2.5) and (2.6).
(2.5) S-Structure ([Williamson 1987, 24a]): NP i
✟ ✟✟ ❍
❍ ❍
S Det
✏ ✏✏✏
NP i
(2.6) LF ([Williamson 1987, 24b]): NP i
✟ ✟✟ ❍
❍ ❍
S’ Det
✟ ✟✟ ❍ ❍
S NP i
✏ ✏✏
t i
Williamson demonstrates that in Lakhota there is an indefiniteness restriction
on the head of an IHR, whereby in (2.5), NP i cannot be definitely marked (with
a definite determiner or universal quantifier). The external Det, of course, has no
such restriction. These facts are illustrated in (2.7) and (2.8). Example (2.7) is a
permissible IHR, with the indefinite head ‘a quilt’. However, (2.8) is bad due to the
definite determiner on the internal head ‘the quilt’.
(2.7) [Mary
Mary
owiža
quilt
wa
a
kaǧe]
make
ki]
the
‘the quilt that Mary made’ (Williamson 1987 (4a))
(2.8) *[[Mary
Mary
owiža
quilt
ki i
the
kaǧe]]
make
ki
the
(‘The quilt that Mary made’) (Williamson 1987 (5))
Williamson explains this definiteness condition by suggesting that insofar as the
relative clause is providing a restriction on the domain of the head NP, such a restriction
is semantically incompatible with an NP which is definite. Referring to
Heim’s [1982] treatment of definite and indefinite NPs as quantifier-free variables,