The University of Chicago Press International Journal of American Linguistics

Headless Relative Clauses in Quechua
Author(s): Peter Cole, Wayne Harbert and Gabriella Hermon

Source: International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Apr., 1982), pp. 113-
124
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1264676
Accessed: 09-11-2017 02:37 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to International Journal of American Linguistics
This content downloaded from 131.179.60.178 on Thu, 09 Nov 2017 02:37:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
HEADLESS RELATIVE CLAUSES IN QUECHUA
PETER COLE, WAYNE HARBERT, AND GABRIELLA HERMON

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
0. Introduction
1. Headless relative clauses in English
2. Imbabura
2. Huanca
4. Ancash
5. Conclusions
0. The purpose of this article is to argue for the existence

relative clauses in three Quechua languages: Imbabura (a
language spoken in northern Ecuador), Ancash, and Hua
Quechua I languages spoken in central Peru).' The existen
relative clauses in Quechua is of interest in its own righ
because it lends support to a recent claim that relative
headless in underlying structure even in languages like Engl
heads invariably occur in surface structure.
We begin by examining briefly the motivation for positing un
headless relative clauses in English. We then turn to Quechu
that there is compelling evidence for the existence of surfa
relative clauses in each of the above-mentioned languages.2
1 The Quechua language family is spoken by six to eight million person
South America. There are two major dialect groups, termed Quechua I and
(1964). For information on the classification of Quechua dialects, see Tore
Parker (1963). The present study is based on informant work carried out in E
and at the University of Illinois (Urbana). An earlier version of this article w
at the Workshop on Andean Linguistics held at the University of Illinois in J
gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation (gr
75-00244, BNS 77-27159, and BNS 79-04784) and the Research Board and th
International Comparative Studies of the University of Illinois. Our transci
on Spanish orthography for Imbabura and is phonemic for Ancash. The ortho
for Huanca follows the official Peruvian orthography employed by Cerr6
(1976).
2 Schachter (1973) cites data from Bird (1968) which strongly suggest t
relative clauses are headless in surface structure. Andrews (1972) also ar
existence of headless relative clauses in several languages. Muysken (1976)
similar to ours for Quechua.
[IJAL, vol. 48, no. 2, April 1982, pp. 113-24]
? 1982 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0020-7071 / 82/4802-0001 $01.00
113
114 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS
existence of headless relative clauses in Quechua provides at least initial

plausibility for the proposal that relative clauses are headless in under-
lying structure cross-linguistically.3
1. Recent studies of relativization in English suggest that English

relative clauses may be headless in underlying structure.4 According to
this hypothesis the underlying structure of (1) would be roughly (2) (in
which there is a dummy head):5
(1) the headway that we made
(2) NP
det NP S
I
the
I A NP VP
I /VP\
we V NP
I I
made headway
A rule of promotion copies the object NP into head position, yielding:

(3) NP
det NP Si
I I I
the headway that NP VP
I
we made
I
The evidence for such a derivation
relative clauses behave syntactically
and constraints) as though they we
clause (Si) rather than the matrix c
they originate in the embedded c
constituency in the matrix clause
constitute an irregularity in the gra
constituents in (both surface and) un
3 There is, however, some typological eviden
4 For example, Schachter (1973) and Bram
5 As a matter of convenience, we adopt Schac
analysis is one in which there is no head at
possibility is that the relativized noun phrase i
See Cole (1979), in which arguments in favor
presented.
6 These arguments are taken from Schachter (1973), but are apparently due ultimately to
Brame.
7 These arguments are weakened by an alternative explanation of the English data

proposed by Jacobson (1977).
HEADLESS RELATIVE CLAUSES IN QUECHUA 115
Let us examine an example of a head behaving as though it were an

original constituent of (Si). Consider relative clauses on the head noun
headway, which in environments other than relative clause constructions
can appear only as the object of make, as is illustrated in:
(4) We made satisfactory headway.
(5) *The headway was satisfactory.
When headway is modified by an appropriate relative clause, how-
ever, the restrictions on its distribution are waived. Compare the un-
grammatical (5) with the grammatical:
(6) The headway [which we made] was satisfactory.
The grammaticality of (6) is not predicted if we assume that (1) derives
from an underlying structure in which the head originates outside the
embedded Si. But if (1) derives from a structure similar to (2), the
grammaticality of (6) is predictable. Headway is grammatical as a head
NP in (1) according to that analysis because it originates as the object of
make. Schachter (1973) provides a variety of arguments of similar form
showing that relative heads with pronouns, picture noun reflexives, and
reciprocals all behave as though they originate within the relative clauses
rather than as heads.
If relative clauses with heads derive universally from headless
structures (i.e., structures with dummy heads), it would seem likely that
there would be languages in which relative clauses are headless in
surface structure. We turn now to evidence that various dialects of
Quechua provide instances of such languages.
2. We first consider relativization in Imbabura.8 Before presenti

the arguments for headless relative clauses in Imbabura, it is help
to review some general facts about relativization in this language.
Imbabura, as in other varieties of the Quechua language family, rela
clauses, and many other types of subordinate clauses, appear
nominalized form. The choice of nominalizer in Imbabura is determined
by the temporal relationship of the relative clause and the matrix clause.
This is illustrated in:
(7) Relative Clause with Present Nominalizer
[0i punuu - u -j] wawai mana cai-pi-chu
sleep-prog-present nom child not this-in-neg
'The child who is sleeping is not here'.
(8) Relative Clause with Past Nominalizer
[i punu - shca] wawai mana cai-pi-chu
sleep-past nom child not this-in-neg
8 Data in this section are based on information provided by informants in Ecuador and
Urbana. Special thanks are due to Carmen Chuquin for her very generous assistance. For
a general survey of Imbabura grammar, see Cole (1982).
'The child who was sleeping is not here'.

(9) Relative Clause with Future Nominalizer
[0ipunu - na] wawai mana cai-pi-chu
sleep-future nom child not this-in-neg
'The child who will sleep is not here'.
In contrast to many other Quechua languages, when a head is present,
the choice of nominalizer does not depend on the grammatical role
(subject, direct object, etc.) of the relativized noun phrase.9 For instance,
-shca may be used in the relativization of transitive subjects and -j
may be used in the relativization of direct objects. This is illustrated by:
(10) Relativization of Transitive Subject with -shca
[0i warmi-ta juya - shea] runai aicha-ta micu-ju-n
woman-acc love-past nom man meat-acc eat-prog-3
'The man who loved the woman is eating meat'.
(11) Relativization of Direct Object with -j
[runa 0i juya - j] warmii aicha-ta micu-ju-n
man love-present nom woman meat-acc eat-prog-3
'The woman whom the man loves is eating meat'.
As would be expected in an OV language, in relative clauses where a
head is clearly present, it appears to the right of the embedded clause.
This is represented schematically:
(12) NP[Si[ ]Si NP[ ]NPNP
It should be noted, furthermore, that word order in relative clauses, in
contrast with matrix clauses, is strictly OV. Compare (13a) and (13b)
with (14a) and (14b):
(13) Word Order in Relative Clauses
a. OV Order
[0i aicha-ta micu - j] warmii
meat-acc eat-present nom woman
'a woman who eats meat'
b. *VO Order
*[0i micu - j aicha-ta] warmij
eat-present nom meat-acc woman
('a woman who eats meat')
(14) Word Order in Matrix Clauses
a. OV Order
warmi - ca aicha-ta micu-n
woman-topic meat-acc eat-3
'The woman eats meat'.
9 In most Quechua languages both grammatical role and tense are involved in t
choice of nominalizers. See Muysken (1976) for a survey of nominalizer choice in a varie
of Quechua languages. Often, the nominalizer cognate to Imbabura -j is used with subjec
and -shca with direct objects.
b. VO Order
warmi - ca micu-n aicha-ta
woman-topic eat-3 meat-acc
'The woman eats meat'.
Case marking inside relative clauses follows the same principles
operate in main clauses. Subjects receive zero case marking, direct obje
are marked with the accusative case marker -ta (or its allomorph
after nasals). Case marking applies within the relative clause on the
of grammatical relations within that clause. In addition, the rel
clause as a whole receives case marking on the basis of its gramm
role in the matrix clause. These processes are illustrated in:
(15) parla-rca - ni [0i runa-ta ricu - shca] warmi-wan
speak-past-lsg man-acc see-past nom woman-with
'I spoke with the woman who saw the man'.
In (15), runa 'man' receives accusative case marking because it is
direct object within the embedded clause. The relative clause as a
is marked with the comitative postposition -wan, the appearanc
which is governed by the matrix verb parla- 'speak'. Case ma
within the relative clause differs from matrix case marking in on
way. The accusative case marker -ta is optional inside relative cl
though it is obligatory in matrix clauses, as shown by:
(16) -ta Suppression in Relative Clauses'l
a. Unsuppressed -ta
[0i wagra-ta michi - j] wawai
cow-acc herd-pres nom child
'child who herds cows'
b. Suppressed -ta
[0i wagra michi - j] wawai
cow herd-pres nom child
'child who herds cows'
(17) Absence of -ta Suppression in Matrix Clauses
~~(wagra-ta
wawa - ca *ar wagr michi-n
*wagra
child-topic cow-acc herd-3
child-topic *w
'The child herds cows'.
We now turn to headless relative clauses. The clearest and most
straightforward examples of headless relative clauses in Imbabura are in
sentences like these:
(18) Headless Relativization of Embedded Direct Objects
a. [wambra wagra-ta randi-shca] ali wagra - mi
10 The suppression of -ta is due to the incorporation of the direct object to the verb. See
Cole (1982) for details.
boy cow-acc buy-past nom good cow-validator

'The cow which the boy bought is a good cow'.
b. [runa alcu-ta jatu - shca] ali alcu - mi
man dog-acc sell-past nom good dog-validator
'The dog which the man sold is a good dog'.
There are two clear-cut arguments that these relative clauses are in
fact headless. Both arguments are based on a fundamental structura
difference between relative clauses with heads and those without heads.
Cross-linguistically, in those relative clauses with heads, the head is, in
derived structure at least, a constituent of the matrix rather than the
embedded clause. It appears either immediately to the left or im-
mediately to the right of the embedded clause, the position typically
correlating with basic word order of the language in question (to the left
of the embedded clause in VO languages and to the right in OV
languages). In contrast, in headless relative clauses, unless rules chang-
ing its position apply, the relativized NP appears in its normalposition
within the relative clause. It is treated by case marking and other rules
coding grammatical role as a constituent of the embedded rather than
matrix clause.
The first argument that the relative clause constructions in (18) are
headless has to do with word order. The boldface NPs in (18) appear in
the middle of the embedded clause rather than to the left or right, as
would be expected if they were heads. Compare (18) with (19):
(19) Relativization of Embedded Direct Object (with Head)
a. [wambra Oi randi-shca] wagrai ali wagra - mi
boy buy-past nom cow good cow-validator
'The cow the boy bought is a good cow'.
b. [runa 0i jatu - shca] alcui ali alcu - mi
man sell-past nom dog good dog-validator
'The dog the man sold is a good dog'.
In (18), the relativized NP appears in the normal position for a direct
object within a relative clause, that is to say, between the subject and
verb. In contrast, in (19), the boldface NP appears to the right of the
embedded verb. The differences in order between (18) and (19) are
unexceptional if the sentences of (18) involve relative clauses without
heads and those of (19) with heads.
The second argument is based on case marking. In (18), the boldface
NP receives accusative case marking. This would be expected on the
basis of the case-marking process described previously if that noun
phrase is a constituent of the embedded clause, but would be unexpected
if it were a head, which is a main clause constituent.
Thus, we conclude that the sentences of (18) illustrate headless relative
clauses.
Having established the existence of headless relative clauses in Im-

babura, we would now like to examine briefly the distribution of the
construction. In the preceding examples we showed the headlessness of
certain instances of relativization where the relativized NP is a direct
object within the embedded clause and the past nominalizer -shca is
employed. This type of relative clause is represented schematically:
(20) Np[s[Subject OBJECT Verb-shca]s]Np
Such relative clauses are in fact structurally ambiguous between object
and subject relativization. Compare (18) and (21):
(21) a. [wambra wagra-ta randi-shca] ali wambra - mi
boy cow-acc buy-past nom good boy-validator
'The boy who bought a cow is a good boy'.
b. [runa alcu-ta jatu - shea] ali runa - mi
man dog-acc sell-past nom good man-validator
'The man who sold the dog is a good man'.
It is context which determines that the relative clauses in (18) are
understood as object relativization, while those in (21) are understood as
subject relativization.
Consider these examples:
(22) Headless Relativization of Embedded Subjects
a. [wambra wagra-ta randi - j] ali wambra - mi
*wagraf
boy cow-acc buy-pres nom good boy - validator
*cow
'The boy who is buying the cow is a good boy'.
b. [runa alcu-tajatu - j] ali runa }- mi
*alcu f
man dog-acc sell-pres nom good man - validator
*dog
'The man who is selling the dog is a good man'.
The sentences of (22) differ from those of (18) in that they must be
interpreted as involving the relativization of a single grammatical role,
subject. Thus, (22a) cannot constitute a statement that the cow is a good
cow nor (22b) that the dog is a good dog.
What is the evidence that the sentences of (22), like those of (18), are
instances of headless relative clauses (as indicated by the bracketing and
the caption given in the examples)? Alternatively, one might want to
argue that these sentences should be interpreted, not as instances of
headless relative clauses, but rather as instances of right-branching
relative clauses with heads on the left. The two possible structures are
illustrated in:
(23) a. Headless Relative Clause
NP[S[SUBJECT Object Verb-/]S]NP
b. Right-Branching Relative Clause

NP[Np[HEAD]Np S[SUBJECT > 0 Object Verb-j]s]Np
We shall argue that the sentences of (22) are not in fact right branching,
but rather are headless.
The two hypotheses in question make the same predictions regardi
case marking and word order. Both predict that the boldface noun
phrases of (22) would receive zero case marking and appear in initi
position. Thus, word order and case marking cannot be used as tests
headless relativization in these cases.
It is, however, possible to determine empirically whether the sentences
of (22) are headless or right branching. Remember that in clear instances
of relative clauses with (nondummy) heads, left-branching relative
clauses with heads on the right, relativization was possible regardless o
the grammatical role of the relativized NP within Si and regardless of
the nominalizing suffix employed. If the relative clauses of (22) are right
branching, it would, therefore, be expected that sentences similar to (22)
but involving the relativization of the object of Si should be gram-
matical. But, as the sentences of (24) show, such relative clauses are no
well formed:
(24) a. ?? wagrai [wambra 0i randi - j] ali wagra - mi
cow boy buy-pres nomgood cow-validator
'The cow which the boy was buying is a good cow'.
b. ?? alcui [runa 0i jatu - j] ali alcu - mi
dog man sell-pres nom good dog-validator
'The dog the man is selling is a good dog'.
Right-branching relative clauses in which the object of the lower clause
is relativized and the present nominalizer -j is employed are ungram-
matical.
It might be proposed that the sentences of (24) do not constitute
conclusive evidence that the right-branching hypothesis is false. Perhaps
in right-branching relative clauses the nominalizers encode both tense
and the grammatical role of the relativized NP. Relative nominalizers
have both of these functions generally in most dialects of Peruvian
Quechua. They also have both functions in Imbabura headless relatives,
as demonstrated by the lack of ambiguity in the examples in (22). Thus,
it would not be surprising if the -j nominalizer were restricted to
relativized subjects in right-branching relative clauses. Hence, according
to the revised right-branching hypothesis, the ungrammaticality of (24)
would be due to the choice of :j as nominalizer. This proposal can be
easily tested by substituting -shca and/or -na for -j in the examples
in (24):
(25) a. ?? wagrai [wambra 0i randi -na] ali wagra - mi
-shca]
cow boy buy ( -fut nom good cow-validator

-past nom
'The cow which the boy would buy is a good cow'.
~had bought
b. ?? alcui [runa 0i jatu -na] ali alcu - mi
-shca]
dog man sell 5 -fut nom good dog-validator
-past nom
'The dog which the man will buy is good'.
tbought
The ungrammatical examples of (25), in which -shca and -na have
been substituted, show, we believe, that the ungrammaticality of (24) is,
in fact, not due to the choice of nominalizer. If the right-branching
hypothesis were to be maintained in the face of such facts, it would be
necessary to restrict right-branching relative clauses to the relativization
of embedded subjects. Furthermore, headless relative clauses would have
to be restricted to object relativization. Thus, the right-branching analy-
sis is fraught with irregularities and ad hoc restrictions.
But if the sentences of (22) are analyzed as headless, such restrictions
are unnecessary. In headless subject relatives, the nominalizer -j or
-shca is employed, while in headless object relatives the nominalizer
-shca is employed. This distribution parallels the distribution of the
cognate morphemes in other Quechua languages in both headless and
headed relative clauses (e.g., in Ancash Quechua). The absence of
sentences like those of (24) and (25) is predicted if Imbabura does not
allow right-branching relative clauses at all.
Thus, we conclude that in Imbabura there are two types of relative
clauses, left branching and headless. Headless relative clauses may be
formed on either embedded subjects or embedded objects. The choice of
relativized NP is indicated in part by the nominalizer. A similar, though
not identical, pattern is seen in Huanca, to which we now turn.
3. The discussion of Huanca is based on the excellent reference

grammar for the language written by Cerron-Palomino (1976) and
informant work conducted in Peru in 1979.
Huanca displays a distribution similar to that found in Imbabura. In
addition to left-branching relative clauses like:
(26) [0i lisqi-sha-yki] nuna-kak-mani kuti - y
know-nom-2 man-the - to return-imperative
'Return to the person that you know'.
Huanca also exhibits headless relative clauses. Consider relativiza-
tion of embedded direct objects when the -sha nominalizer (cog-
nate to Imbabura -shca) is employed:
(27) Relativization of Embedded Direct Object with -sha

Luwis - pa kawallu lanti-sha-n-kak alfak - ta miku-yka-n
Luis-genitive horse buy-nom - 3-the alfalfa-acceat-prog-3
'The horse that Luis bought is eating alfalfa'.
Sentences like (27) have a derived structure:
(28) NP[S[ ]S]NP
This is shown by word order, as in Imbabura. (The absence of the
accusative -ta on the embedded direct object is due to the same process
of incorporation noted in Imbabura.)
An examination of Cerr6n-Palomino's examples suggests that relative
clauses in Huanca can be left branching or headless, but not right
branching:
(29) Relativization of Embedded Subject with -sha
walash libro lanti-sha-n-kak wanu-ku - n
boy book buy-nom - 3-the die-refl-3
'The boy who bought the book died'.
(30) Relativization of Embedded Subject with -q"
allqu chuqllu suwa - q -kak yana - m
dog corn steal-nom-the black-validator
'The dog that steals the corn is black'.
Unfortunately, negative data analogous to (24) and (25) in Imbabura are
not at present available for Huanca. Thus, the existence of right-
branching relativization in Huanca cannot be ruled out. The existence of
headless direct object relativization, however, has been clearly demon-
strated.
4. Relativization in Ancash is considerably more complex than in

Imbabura and Huanca.12 As in other dialects, left-branching relative
clauses are found, as in:
(31) poncho-ta rura-q warmi sumaq - mi
poncho-acc make-nom woman beautiful-validator
'The woman who makes ponchos is beautiful'.
But, in addition, there is found in this dialect a range of case-marking
facts in relative clauses, which is beyond the scope of this article.
Like many other Quechua languages, there are certain relative clauses
that are clearly headless. As in Imbabura and Huanca, the clear cases
involve the relativization of direct objects:
(32) a. noqa dansa-rqa-a Mario warmi-ta kuya-sqa-n-wan
I dance-past-i Mario woman-acc love-nom-3-obl
'I dance with the woman Mario loves'.
b. Mario warmi-ta kuya-sqa-n wanu-sqa
Mario woman-acc love-nom-3 die-past
11 The -q nominalizer is cognate to Imbabura -j.
12 Our discussion is based on fieldwork in the Department of Ancash, Peru, in 1979.
'The woman Mario loves died'.

The sentences of (32) are completely analogous to instances of he
less relativization of direct objects in Imbabura. As in both Imba
and Huanca, the position of the boldface NPs is the one appropriat
those NPs are constituents of the embedded clause, but not if the
heads. Similarly, the accusative case marking of the boldface NP
clearly due to their grammatical role within the embedded clause.
case marking would be unexplained if these NPs were heads and, h
matrix clause constituents. Additional examples, in which obliqu
within the embedded clause are relativized, appear in:
(33) a. noqa kuya-a - mi qam warmi-wan dansa-sqa-iki-ta
I love-l-validator you woman-obl dance-nom-2 - acc
'I love the woman you danced with'.
b. Mario wayi-caw yaca-sqa-n rupa-sqa
Mario house-loc live-nom-3 burn-past
'The house Mario lived in burned down'.
The argument that relative clauses like those in (32) and (33)
headless is further strengthened by the fact that when a direct object o
oblique relativized NP remains in it normal position between the sub
and the verb, it may not receive matrix clause case marking. This
shown in these examples:
(34) a. *noqa dansa-rqa-a Mario warmi-wan kuya-sqa-n-wan
I dance-past-1 Mario woman-obl love-nom-3-obl
('I danced with the woman Mario loved'.)
b. *kuya-a - mi qam warmi-ta dansa-sqa-iki-ta
love-l-validatoryou woman-acc dance-nom-2 - acc
('I love the woman you dance with'.)
Thus, the boldface NPs in (32) do not behave like heads with respect to
either word order or case marking.
5. We have taken pains to demonstrate that three Quechua languages

have headless relative clauses. (Our informant for a fourth language,
Cochabamba, appears to lack the construction. Headless relative clauses
are apparently not found in southern Quechua.) It is of some im-
portance that Imbabura, on the one hand, and the two Quechua I
languages, on the other, are about as distantly related genetically and
geographically as any two Quechua languages. It would seem unlikely
that either language acquired the construction by borrowing, and, given
the rareness of headless relative clauses among the languages of the
world, it is improbable that the three languages developed the construc-
tion independently.13 Thus, it seems likely that headless relativization
13 We would like to show that geographically intervening dialects lack headless relatives,
but we do not have sufficient information to do so at this time.
existed in Common Quechua, as Muysken (1976) has suggested. Head-

less relativization appears to be a relativization strategy of some im-
portance among Quechua languages.
We have observed that the existence of this strategy provides at least
apparent support for the Brame-Schachter hypothesis, according to
which even relative clauses with heads derive from underlyingly headless
constructions.14 In addition to the theoretical significance of headless
relatives for the study of the structure of relative clauses generally, they
provide a testing ground for a variety of theoretical claims. Was Ross
(1967) correct in defining the Complex NP Constraint on structures of
the form NP[NP[ ] S[ ]], or should the constraint prohibit extractions
out of relative clauses as such? Headless relative clauses may provide the
relevant test case.
Were Keenan and Comrie (1972) right in holding that the more a
relative clause preserves of normal sentential form, the more it will
able to relativize "difficult" positions on the NP Accessibility Hierarchy?
Are Quechua headless relatives in fact used for such purposes? These a
indicative of some of the questions that Quechua headless relatives ma
assist us in answering.
REFERENCES
ANDREWS, A. D. 1972. A typological survey of relative clauses. Ms.

BIRD, C. S. 1968. Relative clauses in Bambara. Journal of West African
5:35-47.
BRAME, M. K. Ms. A new analysis of the relative clause: evidence for an interpretative
theory.
CERR6N-PALOMINO, R. 1976. Gramatica Quechua Junin-Huanca. Peru: Ministerio de
Educaci6n/Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
COLE, P. 1979. The structure of headless relative clauses. Texas Linguistic Forum
15:47-59.
. 1982. Imbabura Quechua. Lingua Descriptive Series. The Hague: North-Holland

Publishing Co.
JACOBSON, P. 1977. Some aspects of movement and deletion. Berkeley Linguistic Society
3:347-59.
KEENAN, E. L., AND B. COMRIE. 1972. NP accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic
Inquiry 8:63-100.
MUYSKEN, P. C. 1976. Relative clause formation in Ecuadorian Quechua. Ms.
PARKER, G. J. 1963. La classificaci6n gen6tica de los dialectos quechuas. Traducido por
Gariel Escobar. Revista del Museo Nacional 32:241-52.
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachu
Institute of Technology.
SCHACHTER, P. 1973. Focus and relativization. Language 49:19-46.
TORERO, A. 1964. Los dialectos quechuas. Anales Cientificos de la Universidad Agr
2:446-78.
14 But see Cole (1979).

The University of Chicago Press International Journal of American Linguistics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The University of Chicago Press International Journal of American Linguistics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Headless Relative Clauses in Quechua

Author(s): Peter Cole, Wayne Harbert and Gabriella Hermon

PETER COLE, WAYNE HARBERT, AND GABRIELLA HERMON

0. The purpose of this article is to argue for the existence

existence of headless relative clauses in Quechua provides at least initial

1. Recent studies of relativization in English suggest that English

A rule of promotion copies the object NP into head position, yielding:

7 These arguments are weakened by an alternative explanation of the English data

Let us examine an example of a head behaving as though it were an

2. We first consider relativization in Imbabura.8 Before presenti

'The child who was sleeping is not here'.

boy cow-acc buy-past nom good cow-validator

Having established the existence of headless relative clauses in Im-

b. Right-Branching Relative Clause

cow boy buy ( -fut nom good cow-validator

3. The discussion of Huanca is based on the excellent reference

(27) Relativization of Embedded Direct Object with -sha

4. Relativization in Ancash is considerably more complex than in

'The woman Mario loves died'.

5. We have taken pains to demonstrate that three Quechua languages

existed in Common Quechua, as Muysken (1976) has suggested. Head-

ANDREWS, A. D. 1972. A typological survey of relative clauses. Ms.

. 1982. Imbabura Quechua. Lingua Descriptive Series. The Hague: North-Holland

14 But see Cole (1979).

You might also like