the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

56
Note that for a head-raising analysis to be viable, it requires that both internally
headed relative clauses (IHRs) and their externally headed relative clause (EHR)
counterparts have the same truth conditions. It also requires that the head of the
relative clause have interpretive scope over the remainder of the clause. In Chapter 2,
I showed that the first of these conditions is true in general of Cuzco Quechua relative
clauses by examining the truth conditions of IHRs and EHRs with quantified heads.
However, I argued that only in some cases do Quechua relative clause heads take
interpretive scope over the clause. Relevant examples with universally quantified
heads are given in (3.5) and (3.6).
(3.5) Asunta
Asunta
[[Mayta-q plaza-pi planta-sqa-n] tukuy
Mayta-ge plaza-loc plant-nm-3sg all
p’iti-ra-n.
prune-past-3sg
‘Asunta pruned all the plants that Mayta planted in the plaza.’
(3.6) Asunta
Asunta
planta]-ta
plant-acc
[[Mayta-q plaza-pi tukuy planta
Mayta-ge plaza-loc all plant
p’iti-ra-n.
prune-past-3sg
‘Asunta pruned all the plants that Mayta planted in the plaza.’
planta-sqa-n]]-ta
plant-nm-3sg-acc
In sentences like those in (3.3) and (3.4) in which the head is overtly a bare
nominal, there is no immediate semantic criterion for deciding the scope of the
head. The example sentences in this chapter contain relative clauses with bare noun
phrase heads as well as some with quantified heads. To account for the possibility of
the head taking scope over the whole clause, I adopt a head-raising analysis based on
2 My consultants are often more hesitant to accept subject internal heads than
they are to accept object internal heads. The additional cue of the demonstrative
chay seems to help these consultants recognize that a relative clause is intended. I
do not at present have an explanation for this subject/object asymmetry. Past work
including [Lefebvre & Muysken 1988] suggests that subject IHRs are unproblematic
for many speakers.