the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

21
Williamson suggests that an NP marked with the definite determiner also cannot
be the head of an IHR because it represents old information, which is then not compatible
with further restriction. She goes on to predict that all languages allowing
IHRs will also exhibit this definiteness restriction.
2.2.2 Cole 1987
Cole [1987a], like Williamson, suggests that EHRs and IHRs have identical structures
at LF, through raising of the internal head. However, he also argues that an
IHR has an empty external head at S-structure, which is coindexed with the head
noun within the relative clause. This empty head is then replaced at LF by the
lexical head, which leaves a trace within the IHR. Both the empty external head
and the LF-raised lexical head are daughers of the outer NP . Thus, Cole suggests
the following structures of an IHR at S-Structure (2.9) and at LF (2.10).
(2.9) S-Structure ([Cole 1987a, 3]): NP
✟ ✟✟✟ ❍ ❍ ❍
¯S NP
✏ ✏✏✏✏ e
NP i
i
✏ ✏
(lexical)
(2.10) LF ([Cole 1987a, 4]): NP
✟ ✟✟ ❍ ❍
¯S NP i
✏✏
✏ ✏
...t i ... (lexical)
Cole’s work is based largely on data from Imbabura and Ancash Quechua. He
does not address the issue of definiteness in these languages, nor elaborate upon
Williamson’s definiteness restriction (note that his structure creates the same problems
for semantic parsing mechanisms as does the Adjunction analysis of EHRs,
mentioned in footnote 4).