You are on page 1of 27

Nominalization and case assignment in Quechua

Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon*

Department of Linguistics and Cognitive Science, University of Delaware, 42 E. Delaware Avenue, Newark, DE 19716, United States
1. Introduction
This paper provides an overviewof the issues related to nominalization in the Quechua languages. Drawing on data from
various Quechua languages, we shall argue that the facts from Quechua support an analysis of nominalization in terms of
mixed projections (as suggested originally in Borsley and Kornlt, 2000). Our analysis will be compared with the feature
based mixed categories analysis for Quechua presented in Lefebvre and Muysken (1988). We will also examine how the
Quechua facts t in with the DP analysis of Miyagawa (2008, 2011).
Quechua refers to a group of Amerindian languages spoken in the Andean region of South America. The various
Quechua languages share many common features, and no clear relationship has been established to any other known
language family.
Ethnologue has 46 separate entries for Quechua languages (Quichua being the alternative Ecuadorian
Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251
Article history:
Received 22 March 2009
Received in revised form 29 July 2010
Accepted 20 January 2011
Quechua languages
Case assignment
Genitive subjects
Mixed categories
In Quechua most embedded clauses are nominalized. In addition, dialects like Cuzco and
Junin-Huanca have genitive subjects in both complement and relative clauses.
Signicantly, objects in these clauses cannot be marked with accusative case. Based on
the approach to nominalizations suggested in Borsley and Kornlt (2000), we derive the
case marking pattern in nominalized clauses from the level at which nominalization
applies in the derivation. We also analyze the genitive subjects in Quechua as licensed by C
(as in Turkish) rather than by D (as suggested in recent work by Miyagawa for Japanese).
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Abbreviations: 1, rst person subject agreement; 2, second person subject agreement; 3, third person subject agreement; ACC, accusative case; af, affect
marker; BEN, benefactive; cause, causative; CIS, cislocative; def, denite determiner; DS, different subject (switch reference) marker; EVID, evidential
marker; fut, future tense; GEN, genitive case; INT, interrogative (question) marker; NOM, nominative (zero-marked) case; nomin, nominalizer; 1OM, 1st
person object agreement marker; poss, possessive; progr, progressive; Qu, question marker; re, reexive; SS, same subject (switch reference) marker; subj,
subjunctive mood; top, topic marker; val, validator (evidential marker).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: (G. Hermon).
The original Proto-Quechua ancestor language rst began to spread across the Andes, diverging regionally into what became the modern Quechua
family, sometime between about 2500 and 1200 years ago. A larger language family which also includes Aymara has been suggested at various times, but
most researchers believe that the features shared by Aymara and Quechua are due to language contact rather than genetic relationship. Cerro n-Palomino in
his inuential work Lingustica Quechua (1987, republished as 2003) suggested a family tree for Quechua, based on the earlier work by Torero (1964) and
Parker (1963).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ l i ngua
0024-3841/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
spelling). There are two main branches: the languages of central Peru (called Quechua I, 17 major languages per
Ethnologue) and those spoken elsewhere, in Southern and Northern Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile and Colombia
(Quechua II, 29 languages).
Ecuadorian Quechua is a variety of Northern Quechua (Quechua II). Cuzco is a southern Quechua II variety. Huanca
and Ancash are typical examples of Quechua I languages. One of the crucial features of the nominalization discussed in
this paper is the genitive (GEN) versus nominative (NOM) case marking of subjects of nominalized clauses found in both
branches of the language family. For example, one of the languages we draw on (Junin-Huanca) is Quechua I, while
another one (Cuzco) is Quechua II. Both languages have the option of case marking subjects in nominalized clauses as
GEN, while Ancash and Imbabura Quechua (IQ) are examples of Quechua I and II respectively, and only allow NOM
The occurrence of GEN subjects may thus be an areal feature of south-central and southern Peru. It is unclear to us
whether this option represents a historically older stage of the language or an innovation that is spreading from a certain
geographical area. We have not conducted a survey of all Quechua languages with respect to the possibility of using GEN
subjects in embedded clauses, but we know that GEN subjects are not an option in the major traditional dialects in central
Peru, like Ancash Quechua or Huanuco (see Weber, 1989). See the map below for an illustration of the locations for the
various Quechua languages referred to in this paper.
After a brief overview of Nominal Clauses (NCs) we shall review the facts which differentiate NCs from verbal main clauses
(sections 2 and 3). In section 4 we discuss the features which make NCs look verbal. In section 5 we review the major
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1226
case marking patterns in NCs and nally, in section 6, we turn to the question of how the mixed behavior of NCs can be
accounted for.
1.1. What are nominalized clauses in Quechua?
All Quechua languages have the property of nominalizing embedded clauses. Thus, most complement clauses and relative
clauses (RCs) can only appear with a nominalized sufx on the verbal head of the clause.
Examples of nominalized clauses
from various dialects are provided below
(1) Xwan hamun-na-n-ta yacha-ni. (Cuzco)
Juan come-nomin-3-ACC know-1
I know that Juan is to come.
(2) Muyu-mu-na-n-ta muna-a. (Huanca)
leave-dir-nomin-3-ACC want-1
I want him to leave.
(3) Shinka-sha-n-ta yantra-nki. (Huanca)
Drink-nomin-3-ACC know-2
You know that he got drunk.
(4) Paqarin usqay Lima-man ri-na-yki-ta yacha-n. (Cuzco)
tomorrow fast Lima-to go-nomin-2-ACC know-3
He knows that you are going to Lima fast tomorrow.
(5) Nuna ranti-shqa-n bestya alli bestya-m ka-rqo-n (Ancash)
man buy-nomin-3 horse good horse-EVID be-past-3
The horse the man bought was a good horse.
The sufxes attached to the verb glossed as nomin (nominalizer) are limited to non-main clauses in all Quechua languages.
Thus nominalizers are ungrammatical in main clauses:
(6) * N

uka tanta-ta miku-na. (IQ)

I bread-ACC eat-nomin
(I will eat bread.)
(7) *Nuna mama-n-ta lika-q. (Huanca)
I mother-3-ACC see-nomin
(The man sees his mother.)
In main clauses in IQ, for example, verbs have to be marked by a tense marker which is followed by a subject agreement
(8) N

uka tanta-ta miku-rka-ni (IQ)

I (NOM) bread-ACC eat-past-1
I ate the bread.
As discussed below, both the tense and subject agreement markers differ in verbal and nominalized clauses. In the next
section, we turn to a detailed discussion on the nominal characteristics of NCs.
There are a few exceptions to this generalization: Cuzco has a limited option of using a nite clause with an overt complementizer (see L&M 1988 and
the examples in section 2 of this paper), and some dialects of IQ have developed a nite RC (see Cole, 1982; Hastings, 2004).
All data fromCuzco come fromL&M1988 (with some examples fromHastings, 2004; Cusihuama ns 1976 grammar of Cuzco). The Imbabura and Ancash
data are from eld notes (and include data collected on NSF grant # 7904784 and reported in Cole, 1982; Hermon, 1985). The Junin-Huanca data are taken
fromCerro n-Palominos grammar of Junin-Huanca (Cerro n-Palomino, 1976) and froman unpublished paper (Cerro n-Palomino, 1975), and fromeld notes
by Cole and Hermon (from 1979). In addition, some Cuzco and Huanca judgments were provided by Seran Coronel-Molina and Rodolfo Cerro n-Palomino.
We are very grateful to them for discussing the topic of genitive subjects with us, and for providing us with additional examples. Please note that all
references in this paper to Huanca, are to the Junin-Huanca dialect only.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1227
2. Why NCs are nominal (or: how NCs differ from verbal main clauses)
A traditional viewis that NCs are a type of mixed category, a clause which has some nominal and some verbal properties.
In this section we examine how NCs in Quechua differ from verbal main clauses.
NCs seemto be treated as DPs externally since they are always case marked if they occur as a complement of the matrix verb.
In the examples below, -ta (ACC case) is assigned to the object complement NC:
(9) Marya-ka Juzi-ta visita-na-ta muna-n (IQ)
Maria-top Jose-ACC visit-nomin-ACC want-3
Maria wants to visit Jose.
(10) Xwan-pa hamu-na-n-ta yacha-ni (Cuzco)
Juan-GEN come-nomin-3-ACC know-1
I know that Juan is to come.
If the subordinate clause is not nominalized, it cannot receive case. For example, subjunctive clauses in IQ (which carry a
same subject or different subject switch reference marker) are not case marked:
(11) N

uka-ka Marya Juzi-ta visita-chun -(*ta) muna-ni (IQ)

I-top Maria Jose-ACC visit-subj.DS-(ACC) want-1
I want Maria to visit Jose.
The agreement morphology referring back to the subject of the embedded clause is nominal rather than verbal, with the
markers drawn from the possessive agreement paradigm:
(12) Paradigms: verbal versus nominal agreement in Cuzco
Verbal (main clause)
Nominal agreement
-y -ni 1
-yki -nki 2
-n -n 3
-nchis -nchis 4 (=1pl incl)
Lefebvre and Muysken (1988) (L&M) summarize this by stating that the Main Tense person paradigm occurs only on verbs
bearing a Main Tense marker such as -rqa-; while the nominal paradigm occurs on nouns and nominalized verbs as in (14)
(13) Hamu-rqa-ni
I came.
(14) hamu-sqa-y-ta
. . .that I came
In many cases the nominalizers are also used for lexical nominalization. For example, while -sqa- in Cuzco is described as a
nite unrealized nominalizer in complement clauses, it also forms nouns such as a drunk when attaching to the root drink.
-na- (described in L&Mas a unrealized nominalizer) is also used to forminstruments such as toy when attached to the verb
play. -q is an agentive nominalizer in RCs and also forms agentive nouns:
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1228
(15) Lexical nominalization (based on L&M, 1988)
resultative -sqa- upya-sqa
drink-SQA drunk
instrument, -na-
play-NA toy
abstract noun -y- yarqay-y
hungry-Y hunger
agentive noun -q- suwa-q
steal-Q thief
Nominalizers have tense/aspect marking, but it is a reduced system compared to main clause verbal tense marking:
(16) Paradigms: verbal versus nominal tense in Cuzco
Non-finite - -y-
No tense implied - -q-
Nominalization Verbal markers
---- Present, unmarked zero
---- Simple past -rqa-
Realized (Finite) Sudden discovery -sqa-
Future -na-
Unrealized (finite)
This is typical of all Quechua languages. Even though the nominalizers do express tense/aspect, nominalizers make less
ne-grained distinctions than the main clause tense markers. For example, Cerro n-Palomino (1976:251) remarks that in
Huanca the subordinate NCs are not marked for tense (no tienen exion de tiempo). He notes that these clauses
do mark a relative temporal relation with the matrix verb by indicating whether the action occurs before or after
the main clause action. Crucially, no independent tense marking (separate from the nominalizer) is possible in NCs,
and the nominalizing morphemes collapse information about niteness, tense/aspect, and some have no tense
implications at all.
In RCs, the nominalizers in Cuzco also mark whether the relativized NP is a subject (-q-) or non-subject (-sqa- and -na-).
The precise pattern varies across dialects: in some dialects (Junin-Huanca) -q- is restricted to subjects, but -sha- (the
equivalent of Cuzco -sqa-) is used for object relativization in general, and for subject relative clauses in the past tense, while
-na- can be used for objects and is also used for subjects in relative clauses which indicate future tense. As reviewed in
Muysken (2011), while some Ecuadorian varieties (such as Imbabura and Caldero n) select the markers by tense, other
Cuzco allows other markers on verbs for future tense, such as the afx -saq- (1st person future), -nqa- (3rd person future).
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1229
dialects select markers by grammatical relations (Salasaca and Arajuno), while others have a mixed system in which both
tense and GR play a role (Salcedo and Tigua).
We will return to the discussion of the selection of nominalizers in Cuzco in
section 6.3, and argue that the distinctions are due to so called complementizer agreement (CA) effects, as proposed in
Kornlt (2003, 2008) for Turkish.
A crucial feature of what we call nominalized clauses is that the case assignment patterns differ from the case patterns in
main clauses. In all the Quechua languages examined here, ACC case on a direct object (usually a variant of -ta) is optional if
the DOis inside a nominalized clause, and is strictly adjacent to the nominalized verb. This zero marking option for objects is
not available in main clauses (as illustrated below for IQ):
(17) [Maria tanta(ta) miku-shka-ta] ya-ni (IQ)
Maria bread-(ACC ) eat-nomin-ACC think-1
I think that Maria ate the bread.
(18) Maria tanta(*ta) miku-rka-n (IQ)
Maria bread-(*ACC) eat-past-3
Maria ate the bread.
The use of optional null objects case is widespread and seems not to correlate with how the subject is marked in NCs. We
shall return to this issue in section 5, and will argue that there are actually two sources for the null objective case, and that
the null with GEN subjects has a different distribution from the null with NOM subjects, and therefore the two types of zero
marking should not be treated in the same manner.
In addition, both Cuzco and Huanca Quechua allow the subject of the NC (but not subjects of verbal clauses) to appear
with GEN rather than (1) NOM case:
(19) Xwan-pa hamu-na-n-ta yacha-ni. (Cuzco)
Juan-GEN come-nomin-3-ACC know-1
I know that Juan is to come.
(20) Wamla-kaq-pa kata lula-sha-n-kaq gusta-ma-n. (Huanca)
boy-def-GEN blanket make-nomin-3-det like-CIS-3
I like the blanket that the boy made.
GEN is the also the case marker used for marking possessors in possessive DPs:
(21) xwancha-q wasi-n (Cuzco)
Juan-GEN house-3
Juans house
(22) qam-pa chuku-yki (Huanca)
your-GEN sombrero-2
your sombrero
The issue of whether GENcase is actually the preferredcase marking for subjects inNCs is rather complicated.
As describedin
L&M(1988), inCuzco both NOMand GENcase are anoption for case marking subjects of NCs, witha preference for GENcase in
many examples. Hastings (2004:99), in contrast, notes that her consultants always reported that the subject should have
genitive Case in nominalized complement clauses. We are not sure whether this difference is due to idiolectal variation, or
whether there has beena change inthe grammar since Lefevbre andMuyskencollectedtheir data more than30 years ago, with
GENcase becoming the only option for many speakers. In Huanca we nd GENin a more limited domain (only with internally
headed RCs; see the discussion in section 3). We do not have an account of why GEN subjects are limited to RCs in Huanca.
To sumup, the mere fact that GENmarking is possible makes these clauses look like nominalized clauses in languages like
Turkish and Japanese (discussed in other chapters in this issue).
For example, Muysken (2011) reports that Salasaca Quechua (a variety spoken not very far from Salceco, in the province of Tungurahua) approximates
the Grammatical Relations Model most closely, since -k can be used for subject relatives in all tenses, while -shka can be used for non-subject relatives in all
As far as we know, surveying available grammars of Peruvian and Ecuadorian Quechua, it is only these two Peruvian varieties which allowGEN case on
subjects of NCs.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1230
In some Quechua languages, such as Huanca, the NCs which function as RCs have to be marked with an overt determiner.
In Huanca there is a denite article -kaq that developed from the verb kay be + the agentive marker -q-: (Cerro n-
Palomino, 5.25):
(23) Wamla-kuna-kaq-ni-n-ta qaya-yka-n. (Huanca)
Girl-PL-det-ller-POSS.3-ACC call-progr-3
He is calling to his (ART) girls.
Notice that -kaq in (23) seems to occur with a 3rd person possessive marker which follows it. Interestingly, when -kaq
appears on nominalized verbs in RCs in Huanca, it follows the subject agreement marker:
(24) Qilu kuchu-na-yki-kaq-ta lika-chi-shayki.
Wood cut-nomin-2-det-ACC see-caus-fut.1>2om
I will show you the wood which you are going to cut.
This again shows that the nominalized V is treated like a noun.
We shall end this section by noting that even in languages whichdo not have all the characteristics described above in RCs
and in complement clauses, these clauses have been analyzed as nominalized clauses (NCs) in the literature. For example, IQ
(and Ecuadorian Quechua in general) has lost the ability to have subject agreement in both DPs and embedded domains, and
only allows NOM (1) case on subjects of embedded nominalized clauses. As discussed in Cole (1982), these clauses still
differ from nite main clauses: they select for nominalizing afxes and are case marked by the higher verb.
(25) Nominalized Complement Clauses in Imbabura
a. [Maria kay-pi ka-j-ta] ya-ni.
Maria here-in be-nomin-ACC think-1
I think that Maria is here.
b. [Maria kay-pi ka-shka-ta] ya-ni.
Maria here-in be-nomin-ACC think-1
I think that Maria was here.
c. [Maria kay-pi ka-na-ta] ya-ni.
Maria here-in be-nomin-ACC think-1
I think that Maria will be here.
The nominalizing sufx (as in Cuzco) also marks tense: -shka for past, -j/-y for present, -na for future. The use of -y- is mainly
reserved for innitival complements (Control clauses):
(26) N

uka [tanta-ta miku-y-ta] muna-ni. (IQ)

I bread-ACC eat-nomin-ACC want-1
I want to eat bread.
As can be seen above, all verbs have person agreement marking in the main clause, but complement clauses lack agreement
markers, nominal or otherwise. In Ecuadorian Quechua, possessive agreement has been lost even in possessive DPs, as can be
seen from comparing the forms below:
-shayki is used in Huanca as a portmanteau marker for rst person subject and second person object in the future tense. Note also, that this example is
best analyzed as an internally headed object RC.
The word order is head nal inside the complement clauses. Thus, SVO is typically ruled out in subordinate clauses (example belowis fromIQ). We do not
have a clear account of why word order in main clauses is more variable than in subordinate clauses, except for noting that functional heads are always on the
(i) [Maria tanta-ta miku-na-ta] ya-ni.
Maria bread-ACC eat-nomin-ACC think-1
I think that Maria will eat the bread.
(ii) *[Maria miku-na-(ta) tanta-ta] ya-ni.
Maria eat- nomin-ACC breadACC think-1
I think that Maria will eat the bread.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1231
(27) Possessive Agreement
IQ Ancash Cuzco
pay-paj wasi- pay-pa wayi-n xwancha-q wasi-n
he-poss house he-poss house-3 Juan-poss house-3
his house his house Juans house
In other words, the option of having GENcase on the subject inside an NC and nominal agreement on the verb inside the NC
is not criterial for dening an embedded clause as an NC, since in many dialects (such as in Ecuadorian Quechua varieties)
neither GEN case nor possessive agreement in embedded clauses is an option in the grammar. The option of having null ACC
case on the object inside the NC and the ability to case mark the entire NC are, however, criterial in considering a clause as an
NC. In the next section we turn to a discussion of howNCs are used in the syntax, observing their distribution as complement
clauses and relative clauses.
3. The syntactic distribution of nominalized clauses (NCs)
Having discussed the main reasons for considering some embeddings as nominalization in Quechua, this section provides
additional data on the syntactic distribution of NCs. Specically, we will show that:
(a) NCs act as complement clauses in all positions complements are allowed.
(b) Relative clauses are also nominalized clauses, with the nominalizing afx often taking on the function of marking the
grammatical relationof thegap(or therelativizedNPininternallyheadedRCs). This isagainverysimilar tothesituationin
Turkish, as described in various works (such as Underhill, 1972, Hankammer and Knecht 1976, and Kornlt, 2003, inter
(c) In some limited cases NCs can also be used as adverbial clauses, but most subjunctive adverbial clauses are not
With few exceptions (as noted below), all complement clauses in the languages we surveyed are NCs. NCs appear as clausal
subjects, and as object complements (under raising verbs, non-raising verbs, and in control structures):
As object complements:
(28) Xwan hamun-na-n-ta yacha-ni. (Cuzco)
Juan come-nomin-3-ACC know-1
I know that Juan is to come.
(29) Shinka-sha-n-ta yantra-nki. (Huanca)
drink-nomin-3-ACC know-2
You know that he got drunk.
(30) Miku-y-ta muna-a (Huanca)
eat-nomin-ACC want-1
I want to eat.
As subject clauses:
(31) Papa alla-y kunan-mi ka-sha-n. (Cuzco)
potato dig-nomin now-af be-progr-3
The potato digging is now.
(32) Sirtu-mi [Maria mishu shimi-ta parla-j-ka]. (IQ)
true-val Maria mestizo language-ACC speak-nomin-top
It is true that Maria speaks Spanish.
There are other differences between NCs and mainclauses. For example, it is clear that NCs create anembeddedclausal domainsince certain markers which
only appear inmainclauses (duetopragmatic reasons) cannot appear inside the NCs (withthe exceptionof reducedrestructuredinnitives, see Cole, 1982). The
markers bannedfromNCs include various evidential markers (-mi, afrmative; -si hearsay, -cha dubitative), and the negative marker -chu. We are not sure what
these restrictions derive from, but we think that the facts do not directly address the issue of the categorial status of the NCs.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1232
As adverbial (clauses adjoined to CP):
(33) Miku-na-a-paq-mi apayka-a. (Huanca)
eat-nomin-1-BEN-val bring-1
I bring it for me to eat (it).
(34) Qaynunchaw Pidru wiqchu-ku-sqa-n-rayku nana-chi-ku-sha-n. (Cuzco)
yesterday Pedro slip-REFL-nomin-3-CAUSE hurt-CAUS-REFL-PROGR-3
Because Pedro slipped yesterday, he feels pain.
A very common use of NCs is as RCs. RCs are typically nominalized in IQ, Huanca, Ancash, and most other dialects. RCs are
most frequently head nal, but internally headed RCs (IHRC) are common in most dialects. An RC can function as a main
clause subject, object, or PP:
RC as subject of the main clause (externally headed RC):
(35) [[riku-sqa-y] warma-qa] hamu-nqa. (Cuzco)
see-nomin-1 girl-top come-3.fut
The girl I saw will come.
RC as subject of the main clause (IHRC):
(36) [Luwis-pa kawallu lanti-sha-n-kaq] alfa-kta miku-yka-n. (Huanca)
Luis-GEN horse buy-nomin-2-det alfalfa-ACC eat-progr-3
The horse that Luis bought is eating alfalfa.
(37) [Kawallu mansa-na-yki-kaq] yu-m. (Huanca)
horse tame-nomin-2-det bad-val
The horse you will be taming is bad.
RC as object of the main clause (externally headed RC):
(38) [[Mariya riku-q] runata] riqsi-ni. (Cuzco)
Maria see-nomin man-ACC know-1
I know the man who saw Maria.
RC as object of the main clause (IHRC):
(39) [Nuna kaarru suwa-sha-n-kaq-ta] ashiyka-a (Huanca)
man car steal-nomin-3-det-ACC look.for-1
I am looking for the man who stole the car.
In general, most subordinate clauses have to be nominalized, including adverbial clauses of purpose and of reason (see 3334
above). There are certain exceptions to this, described below.
First, in Imbabura Quechua, some clauses use a subjunctive mood marker which is also a Switch Reference marker.
Unlike NCs, these clauses do not allow a zero marking on the object inside the NC, and no case marking is possible on the
embedded clause itself (see Hermon, 1985:3031). We therefore do not analyze these as NCs.
(40) Munan-ni Juzi pay-paj mama-ta riku-chun. (IQ)
want-1 Jose he-poss mother-ACC see-SUBJ (DS)
I want Jose to see his mother.
Second, adverbial subordinate clauses of time are not nominalized, but use either an SS (same subject) or DS (different
subject) marker.
As in the examples of subjunctive clauses (ex. 40), ACC case on the object is obligatory in time and manner adverbial Switch Reference clauses. This is
evidence for these clauses not being NCs. See the examples in Hermon (1985), Chapter 2. Examples of such clauses in Cuzco are also given in L&M, who
categorize these as non-nominalized adverbial clauses (L&M, p. 269).
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1233
(41) N

uka-ka Kitu-pi ka-shpa kan-ta riku-rka-ni. (IQ)

I-top Quito-in be-SS you-ACC see-past-1
When I was in Quito, I saw you.
(42) N

uka Kitu-pi ka-jpi riku-wa-rka-ngi. (IQ)

I Quito-in be-DS see-1OM-past-2
When I was in Quito, you saw me.
Cole (1982) also mentions a dialect spoken close to Otavalo (in San Roque) in which embedded complements carry main
clause verbal inection
(43) Pedro ya-n [nuka Agatu-pi kawsa-ni-ta].
Pedro think-3 I Agato-in live-1-ACC
Pedro thinks that I live in Agato.
In addition, both L&Mand Hastings discuss a type of nite clause with a complementizer chay that which takes an IP which
is nite and not nominalized:
(44) [Pi-man Xwan sara-ta qu-rqa-n] chay-ta yacha-nki-chu? (Cuzco)
who-to Juan corn-ta give-past-3 that-ACC know-2-INT
Do you know who Juan gave the corn to?
L&M claim that this type of clause can also be used as an RC:
(45) [Paqarin runa chaya-mu-nqa] chay-qa tiyu-y-mi. (Cuzco)
tomorrow man arrive-CIS-3.fut that-top uncle-1-val
The man that will come tomorrow is my uncle.
Note that the element chay bears accusative case when embedded as the complement of a case assigning verb like yacha
know. This is explained by L&M as a sign of the complementizer being a referential element which heads a CP. However,
these clauses behave differently from nominalized clauses: they only allow main clause verbal tense and agreement, and
they are islands for extraction (see discussion below). Most other dialects do not have such clauses, so these clauses will be
mostly ignored in what follows. We shall next turn to a reviewof the verbal characteristics of NCs. The point we will make is
that any theory which accounts for GENand NOMmarked NCs has to be able to accommodate the mixed nominal and verbal
nature of these clauses.
4. Verbal characteristics of NCs
Often, nominalized clauses have been described as constituents which are verbal on the inside, and nominal on the
outside. In the previous sections we have described the features which make NCs look nominal: the lack of ACC case on
internal objects, the lack of elaborate separate tense distinctions, the nominal rather than verbal subject agreement markers,
the GEN case marking on subjects in some dialects, and the fact that NCs are themselves case marked. In contrast to these
nominal characteristics, NCs also exhibit some verbal characteristics.
Below, we examine the verbal characteristics of these mixed clauses, in terms of similarities between verbal main
clauses and embedded nominalized clauses. To anticipate, it appears that NCs do behave in many (but not all) respects like
verbal clauses internally, and behave like nominal clauses externally. After surveying the facts, we shall turn to the analyses
which have been proposed to derive such facts (in section 6).
The rst observation is that in all the Quechua languages we surveyed, verbs in NCs (as in 46, 48) can take the same type of
arguments as verbs in main clauses (as in 47, 49):
Note, however, that the complement clause is still case-marked. Hastings (2004) gives additional examples from RCs in with the verb appears fully
inected, as in main clauses, with no nominalizing sufx at all. These examples are fromPeguche, a village not far fromthe Iluma n and San Roque, northeast
of Otavalo (where Cole collected his data).
(i) Juan randi-gri-ju-n wagra-ka yurak-mi.
Juan buy-inch-prog-3sg cow-top white-evid
The cow that Juan is buying is white.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1234
(46) Juzi-ka [nuka kaya merkadu-pi llama- ta randi-na]-ta kri-n. (IQ)
Jose-top I tomorrow market-in sheep-ACC buy-nomin-ACC believe-3
Jose believes I will buy a sheep tomorrow in the market.
(47) N

uka kaya merkadu-pi llama-ta randi-sha. (IQ)

I tomorrow market-in sheep-ACC buy-fut.1
I will buy a sheep tomorrow in the market.
(48) [Xwan papa-ta mikhu-sqa-n-ta] yacha-ni. (Cuzco)
Juan potato-ACC eat-nomin-3-ACC know-1
I know that Juan eats potatoes.
(49) Xwan papa-ta mikhu-n. (Cuzco)
Juan potato-ACC eat-3
Juan eats potatoes.
Both main clause verbs and nominalized verbs allow object agreement, regardless of the whether the Case on the subject of
the NC is GEN or NOM. The object agreement marker always precedes the nominalizer:
(50) Xwan tata-y-(pa) maqa-wa-sqa-n-ta uyari-n. (Cuzco)
Juan father-1-(GEN) beat-1OM -nomin-3-ACC hear-3
Juan heard that my father had beaten me.
(51) Tata-y maqa-wa-rqa-n. (Cuzco)
father-1 beat-1OM-past-3
My father beat me.
(52) N

uka-ka [Maria shuj libru-ta kacha-wa-shka-ta] ya-ni. (IQ)

I-top Maria one book-ACC send-1OM -nomin-ACC think-1
I think that Maria sent me a book.
(53) Maria shuj libru-ta kacha-wa-rka. (IQ)
Maria one book-ACC send-1OM -past.3
Maria sent me a book.
Derivational verbal afxes, such as the causative marker -chi- in IQcan be found with nominalized verbs (and of course with
main clause verbs), and also precede the nominalizer. The same is true for some aspectual afxes (such as the perfective
marker -qla-, or the so-called cislocative afx -mu- in Huanca
(54) Juzi Juan-ta ruwana-ta awa-chi-shka-ta ya-ni. (IQ)
Jose Juan-ACC poncho-ACC weave-cause-nomin-ACC think-1
I think that Jose made Juan weave a poncho.
(55) Tra-qla-mu-sha-n-ta uyali-lqa-a. (Huanca)
arrive-perf-cisloc-nomin-3-ACC hear-past-1
I heard that he had arrived to here already.
It seems that certain aspectual sufxes, such as the causative marker -chi- and the cislocative -mu- (which indicates motion
toward the speaker), sufxes that typically attach to verbs and not to nouns, can also occur with nominalized verbs.
Following Bakers Mirror Principle, all the verbal afxes are neatly stacked belowthe nominalizing sufx. The division seems
quite clear and the following order is observed:
The cislocative marker -mu indicates motion toward the speaker.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1235
(56) Order of sufxes with nominalized verbs
V+verbal sufxes (aspectual, directional, causative, reexive. . .) -OM-
nominalizing sufx-nominal subject agreement Case
As discussed in detail in L&M:16 for Cuzco, NCs like main clauses can include adverbs of time and manner.
(57) Paqarin usqay Lima-man ri-na-yki-ta yacha-n. (Cuzco)
tomorrow fast Lima-to go-nomin-2-ACC know-3
He knows that you are going to Lima fast tomorrow.
(58) Alma tuta puli-sha-n-kaq tayta-a-pa-m. (Huanca)
soul last.night walk-nomin-3-det father-1.poss-GEN-val
The soul that walked last night was my fathers.
Examples (4647) also illustrate this point for IQ.
Perhaps surprisingly, NCs seem to allow wh-elements to move to the left edge inside the NC and also to be extracted out of
the NC. In this respect, NCs are not islands and behave like verbal main clauses.
(59) Pi-man Xwancha-q sara qu-sqa-n-ta yacha-nki-chu? (Cuzco)
who-to Juan-GEN corn give-nomin-2-ACC know-2-INT
Do you know who Juan gave the corn to?
(60) Pi-qpa-ta-n muna-nki platanu ranti-na-n-ta? (Cuzco)
who-GEN-ACC-val want-2 banana buy-nomin-3-ACC
Who do you want to buy bananas?
(61) Ima-ta-taj muna-nki Juzi merkadu-pi ranti-na-ta? (IQ)
what-ACC-Qu want-2 Jose market-in buy-nomin-ACC
What do you want Jose to buy in the market?
(62) Ima-ta-taj Juzi merkadu-pi ranti-nga? (IQ)
what-ACC-Qu Jose market-in buy-fut.3
What will Jose buy in the market?
Note also that we observe no syntactic difference between GEN and NOM marked NCs in this respect. Both allow wh-
extraction and scrambling out of their clauses. In contrast, non-nominalized complement clauses (marked with the C
element chay in Cuzco) do not allow wh-words to move out. NCs, however, do seem to have a left Spec position into which
wh-elements can be moved.
(63) a. *Pi-n/*Pi-ta-n muna-nki platanu ranti-nqa chay-ta? (Cuzco)
who-af/who-ACC-af want-2 banana buy-fut.3 that-ACC
Who do you want that shall buy bananas?
b. *Ima-ta-n muna-nki Maryia ranti-nqa chay-ta? (Cuzco)
what-ACC-af want-2 Maria buy-fut.3 that-ACC
What do you want that Maria shall buy?
In summary, NCs in Quechua seem to have many nominal characteristics, but also have a number of verbal characteristics.
This mixed nature is what prompted L&M to call NCs mixed categories. We shall attempt in section 6 to give an analysis for
We do not have any information, however, on whether so-called speaker oriented high adverbs like unfortunately or accidentally can occur inside the
nominalized clause. We hope to be able to elicit such data in the future, given that the existence of such high adverbs in constructions in which we assume
very high nominalization would be problematic for our analysis.
While in Cuzco (per L&M1988) wh-questions can occur both in situ and on the left edge of the sentence, in Imbabura wh-questions have to move to the
left edge and cannot occur in situ.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1236
these facts in terms of mixed projections. Before turning to our analysis, we would like to review the case marking patterns
we found to obtain inside NCs, since accounting for the variable case marking is one of the goals of our account.
5. Case marking patterns once again: additional details
It may be helpful at this stage to summarize again the facts which led us to the conclusion that NCs differ from main
clauses as far as case marking is concerned. As we discussed in section 2 above, case marking in NCs is not always identical to
case marking in main clauses. We observed two generalizations:
(a) In Cuzco (and Huanca to a limited extent) NC subjects can be Genitive or NOM, while subjects of verbal clauses are
usually NOM.
(b) Objects inside the NC cannot bear overt ACC case if the subject is GEN, but can optionally bear overt ACC case if the
subject is NOM.
Let us discuss the case on the subject rst. L&M:235 show that the case of the embedded subject in complement clauses can be
either NOM (marked as 1) or GEN:
(64) a. Xwancha- 1 wasi-ta ruwa-sqa-n-ta yacha-ni. (Cuzco)
Juan-NOM house-ACC make-nomin-3-ACC know-1
I know that Juan has built a house.
b. Xwancha-q wasi ruwa-sqa-n-ta yacha-ni. (Cuzco)
Juan-GEN house make-nomin-3-ACC know-1
I know that Juan has built a house.
There is a preference, however, for using the GEN rather than the NOM in most environments. L&M note that in subject
clauses the embedded subject has to be in the GEN case. Thus, replacing the GEN Xwan-pa with Xwan (1, NOM) is
ungrammatical in the example below:
(65) [Xwan-pa hamu-sqa-n-qa] manchari-chi-wa-n-mi. (Cuzco)
Juan-GEN come-nomin-3-top afraid-caus- 1OM -3-val
That John has come frightens me.
In non-subject RCs, either NOM or GEN subjects are allowed, but there is a very strong preference for using GEN subjects in
Cuzco. A clear example of a NOM subject in an RC can be found in example (66) below (in which the IO was relativized):
(66) Runa qulqi-ta qu-sqa-n warmi-man chay-ta ni-rqa-ni.
man money-ACC give-nomin-3 woman-to that-ACC say-past-1
I have said that to the woman to whom the man gave the money.
In Huanca, the situation is more complicated. As pointed out to us by Seran Coronel-Molina (a linguist and native speaker of
this dialect), complement clause subjects cannot appear in the GENcase. However in RCs, GENsubjects are obligatory under
certain conditions. For example, inside an IHRC formed with -sha- (the equivalent of -sqa-), in which the target of
relativization is an object, and the entire RC is in subject position in the main clause, the subject of the RC has to be marked
with GENcase. This is discussed in detail in Cerro n-Palomino (1975, 1976). Cerro n-Palomino views this as necessary to avoid
ambiguity, since without the GEN the rst NP is likely to be interpreted as a main clause subject:
(67) [Luwis-pa kawallu lanti-sha-n-kaq] alfa-kta miku-yka-n. (Huanca)
Luis-GEN horse buy-nomin-2-det alfalfa-ACC eat-progr-3
The horse that Luis bought is eating alfalfa.
It could then be that in embedded subject position in an IHRC, GENmarking is needed to avoid the creation of a garden path.
In contrast, we do nd RCs which appear clause initially, with a NOMembedded subject as the internal head of the RC, when
the RC functions as a main clause object:
(68) Nuna kaarru suwa-sha-n-kaq-ta ashi-yka-a. (Huanca)
man car steal-nomin-3-det-ACC search-prog-1
I am looking for the man who stole a car.
Subjects can also receive ACC case under certain verbs (ECM type verbs).
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1237
To sumup, no clear syntactic differences seemto exist between GENand NOMcase marked subjects inside NCs, although we
do observe strong preferences for GEN subjects in certain sub-constructions.
We have no account as to why certain
constructions, but not others, allow(or prefer) a GENsubject. It seems, however, that GENsubjects are often used obligatorily
to avoid garden path parses in constructions in which an embedded subject is at the left edge of the sentence, and that GEN
case is used to signal the fact that the DP is in fact an embedded subject.
Another issuewhichwecannot fullyaddress hereis whether GENsubjects areacceptableinadverbial clauses. This issueis of
some importance, since inrecent work Kornlt (2001, 2003) proposes that AgrPhas to be licensedina particular way to be able
to assign GEN case to the subject of an NC. Kornlt claims that an AGR head which is not surrounded by totally nominal
projections has to be licensed via predication (inRCs) or head a complement of a higher V(which assigns the CP containing the
AGR a theta role). NOMthen should be the default case for subjects of indicative nominalized adjunct clauses, as is the case in
Turkish. It seems that this is indeed the case also in Cuzco, and that GENsubjects are not allowed in adverbial clauses. L&Mcite
the sentence in (69) with a NOM subject and as far as we can tell GEN is ungrammatical inside the adverbial clause
(69) Qaynunchaw Pidru- *(q) wiqchu-ku-sqa-n-rayku nana-chi-ku-sha-n. (Cuzco)
yesterday Pedro *(GEN) slip-RE-nomin-3-cause hurt-cause-REC -progr-3
Because Pedro slipped yesterday he feels pain.
In purpose clauses, GEN subjects are also not possible:
(70) Xwancha qulqi-ta suwa-rqa-n, Mariya-*(q) wasi ranti-na-n-paq. (Cuzco)
Juan money-ACC steal-past-3 Maria *(GEN) house buy-nomin-3-for
Juan stole money, so Mariya can buy a house.
To sumup, we are not certain about the conditions which make GEN subjects obligatory in RCs and possible in complement
clauses. GENsubjects seemto be limited to these two domains, but dialects differ as to whether they allowGENsubjects only
in RCs (as in Junin-Huanca) or in both RCs and complement clauses (as in Cuzco).
Turning next to the options of case marking the object, we do nd a perfect correlation between GEN subjects and null
marked objects in both Huanca and Cuzco.
As can be observed in the examples above, in nominalized clauses with a GEN subject, the object is not marked with -ta
(like the main clause object), but is obligatorily marked with 1, as shown again in (71) below:
(71) Mariyacha muna-n [xwancha-q platanu-(*ta) ranti-na-n-ta]. (Cuzco)
Maria want-3 Juan-GEN banana-(*ACC) buy-nomin-3-ACC
Maria wants Juan to buy bananas.
The pattern then is GEN-1 ( *GEN-ACC).
This seems to be the case in Huanca as well, and all the examples from Cerro n-Palomino conform to this generalization.
Turning next to NOM marked subjects in NCs, we observed before that objects can be marked either ACC or 1 (while
objects of verbal clauses are always ACC):
(72) Pi-man Xwan sara-(ta) qu-sqa-n-ta yacha-nki-chu. (Cuzco)
who-to Juan corn-ACC give-Nom-2-ACC know-2-INT
Do you know who Juan gave the corn to?
In this example, the ACC marking on the embedded object is optional: zero is an acceptable (and sometimes the preferred
option, see L&M, table IV:122). For example, with innitives zero- marked objects are preferred:
(73) Xwan papa- 1 miku-y-ta muna-n. (Cuzco)
Juan potato eat-nomin.inf-ACC want-3
Juan wants to eat potatoes.
We should emphasize, however, that we have not examined the issue of whether NOM subjects can have higher scope than GEN subjects. Nor do we
knowwhether GENsubjects are obligatory in RCs for some speakers. For example, Hastings (2004) notes that her informants only allowGENin RCs inCuzco.
Clearly, individual variation is an issue here and this topic needs further study.
The ungrammatical examples are not from L&M, and represent judgments we elicited from Coronel-Molina. It also seems to be the case that inside
Switch Reference time adverbial clauses GEN subjects may be acceptable. This needs further investigation.
(i) Pidru-q lisas alla-chi-qti-n, bindi-pu-saq-mi. (Cuzco)
Peter-GEN potatoes-dig-CAUS-DS-3 sell-BEN-fut.1-AF
After I make Peter dig potatoes, I will sell them.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1238
Imbabura (which only allows NOM subjects in NCs) also has optional ACC marking on objects in NCs:
(74) Juzi-ka aycha (ta) miku-y- ta muna-n. (IQ)
Jose-top meat- (ACC) eat-inf-ACC want-3
Jose wants to eat meat.
(75) Juzi-ka [nuka kaya llama- (ta) randi-na]-ta kri-n. (IQ)
Jose-top I tomorrow sheep-(ACC) buy-nomin-ACC believe-3
Jose believes I will buy a sheep tomorrow.
L&M treat all zero-marked objects as resulting from a neutralization (turning off) of the nominal feature of the mixed
category (the nominalized verb) regardless of howthe subject is case marked, which leads to some problems in their account
(see the next section).
However, we will claim that there is an important difference between the zero-marked objects in NCs with GEN subjects
versus zero-marked objects in NCs with NOMsubjects, and the two cases should not be derived via the same mechanism. As
discussed in Cole (1982), in IQ(which only allows NOMsubjects in NCs) objects can appear with a zero case only if the object
is structurally adjacent to the nominalized verb. As opposed to the last example, if the adverb kaya is placed between the
nominalized verb and its object, -ta becomes necessary:
(76) Structural adjacency condition on 1-marked objects with NOM subjects:
Juzi-ka [nuka llama-ta (*1) kaya randi-na]-ta kri-n. (IQ)
Jose-top I sheep-ACC (*1) tomorrow buy-nomin-ACC believe-3
Jose believes I will buy a sheep tomorrow. (Cole, 1982:37)
This is not discussed for Cuzco in the L&Mvolume, but in all the examples given, zero-marked objects with NOMsubjects are
always adjacent to the nominalized verb.
Crucially, no adjacency condition is imposed on the zero-marked object with GEN-marked subjects
(77) Muna-nki [ima- 1 Xwan-pa ranti-na-n-ta]? (Cuzco)
want-2 what- 1 Juan-GEN buy-nomin-3-ACC
What do you want Juan to buy?
(78) Muna-nki [Mariyacha-q platanu- 1 pi-wan ranti-y-mu-na-n-ta]? (Cuzco)
want-2 Maria-GEN bananas-1 who-with buy-inf-cis-nomin-3-ACC
You want that Maria will buy bananas with whom?
We, therefore, obtain the following generalization: the zero-marked object with GEN subject is not dependent on the
position of the DO, while the zero-marked object in NCs with NOMsubjects obeys a strict adjacency requirement. Moreover,
remember that ACC-marked NPs cannot lose their case when they appear in verbal clauses (even when adjacent to the main
V) or in non-nominalized subjunctive clauses:
(79) *Juzi-ka llama- 1 randi-rka. (IQ)
Jose-top sheep- 1 buy-past.3
Jose bought a sheep.
(80) *Maria-ka [Juzi- 1 riku-ngapaj] muna-n. (IQ)
Maria-top Jose- 1 see-subj.SS want-3
Maria wants to see Jose.
Hastings (2004) explicitly argues against an incorporation analysis of null marked objects in Cuzco, citing examples with GEN subjects and scrambled
objects (I retain her glosses in the example):
(i) [[Juan-pa regalo Mariya-man qu-sqa-n]]-ta muna-ni.
Juan-GEN gift Maria-DAT give-nm-3sg-ACC like-1sg
I like the gift that Juan gave Maria.
She derives this effect from her assumption that the projection which allows the assignment of ACC case (which she calls Transitivity Phrase, but which
clearly is a type of vP) is missing in NCs with GENsubjects. We shall adopt an approach which is similar in nature by claiming that the vP in these derivations
is not verbal but has been nominalized, thereby having the effect of forcing this type of non-verbal little v head to assign null case to its object.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1239
We would like to argue that while the lack of ACC case with GEN subjects is due to the fact that the verb has lost its verbal
features by nominalization and hence cannot assign structural ACC case, with NOMsubjects the verb does not lose its ability
to assign case. However (with both GENand NOMsubjects), objects next to a nominalized verb can incorporate into the verb
and hence will surface without case. This optional incorporation is a late morphophonemic process and applies to all surface
N-N structures. We, thus, have two sources for the null case on objects: with GEN-marked subjects a nominalized verbal
head (or rather v) is incapable of assigning case (an indication of early nominalization of the verbal projection); while with
NOM subjects the verb in the NC can in principle assign case. We will claim that this difference will fall out from the level at
which nominalization applies in various derivations.
6. An analysis
Before turning to our analysis of NCs in Quechua, let us summarize our factual claims. The surface patterns are as follows:
(81) Summary of Clause types and their characteristics:
Subject Clause Type
on clause

+ + + +
Gen RCs (NC)
( NOM)

(ACC/ )
- + + +
Indicative NC
(Adjunct) NOM ACC/
- - + +
- ACC NOM + - -
+ - - - ACC NOM
INDIC verbal
Compl w.overt C
+MV ACC NOM - Case
on C
We shall next ask what kind of analysis could account for these facts. Given the space limitations, we shall only briey review
and discuss other analyses of mixed categories, before we turn to the analysis we adopt (a version of the mixed projection
approachproposedinBorsleyandKornlt, 2000). Inparticular, wewill reviewthe analysis proposedinL&Mfor CuzcoQuechua.
6.1. Mixed categories
Lefebvre and Muysken (1988) is a detailed and careful study of NCs in Cuzco Quechua. They adopt a lexicalist approach to
nominalization: the NOM sufxes are added to the V in the lexicon. According to L&M, the nominalizing sufxes are
responsible for the nominal properties of the nominalized verb (NomV) in NCs. NOM sufxes also encode tense. The NomV
can head either a V
00 0
projection or an N
00 0
projection. This is allowed by a complicated theory of feature percolation (an
extension of X
conventions in terms of categorical neutralization). INFL can occur in both N
00 0
and V
00 0
projections, and so can
). Either the V feature or the Nfeature can be turned off at any projection level, but once a feature is turned off, it cannot
be turned on again. L&M assume the following rules for case assignment:
The wh-extraction facts were only illustrated for NCs versus nite complement clauses in this paper. Wh-extraction fromother domains in Ancash and
IQ are discussed in Cole (1982), and in Cole and Hermon (1994).
For other mixed category approaches, see also Aoun (1981), who argued that participial phrases in Arabic are [+V,+N]. Another mixed category
approach is the one taken in Malouf (2000). Malouf claims that verbal gerunds share the selectional properties of verbs and the distributional properties of
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1240
(82) Rules of case assignment, L&M:123
(a) The feature [+V] assigns ACC case to the X
00 0
that it governs. Objective Case is spelled out as:
-ta /[
1 /[
(b) AGR assigns subjective case to the NP that it governs, and is realized as:
1 /[
q /[
L&Massume that nominalized verbs are inserted fromthe lexicon with [+N, +V] features. If the Nfeature is never turned off,
we expect GEN case on the subject and 1case on the object. If the N feature is turned off at some intermediate projection
(before the subject receives case, but after case is assigned to the object), we expect 1case on the object and NOM case on
the subject. If the N feature is turned off at the X
level we get a pure V
projection, with ACC objects and NOM subjects. See
the sample trees in (83) below.
What is crucial here is that eachfeature of the mixedcategory canpercolate upwards. Features canbe turnedoff (youcan
switchfrom+ to-), but features cannot be turnedon. Lexical feature neutralizationaffects the feature compositionof higher
nodes. InCuzco, the categorial neutralization of the Nfeature accounts for the fact that bothnominal andverbal projections
canbe headedby the NominalizedV. Crucially, the locus of feature neutralizationis subject to variationbothwithina single
language (as in Cuzco) and across languages. Thus, a category switch (to [-N]) is allowed to take place at any level of
projection in Cuzco (either X
, X
,or X
resulting in options 83 b-c). In contrast, in other Quechua languages neutralization
can only occur at the X
and X
levels of projection, leading to the 1
-1 and 1
-ACC case distribution inside NCs,
illustrated in (83b) and(83c) below. Inother words, once the Nfeature of the NVcategory is turnedoff, the projectionabove
it has to be verbal rather thanmixed. Thus, turning off the Nfeature at the highest level results in projections that are more
nominal, while turning it off right at the NV level results in projections which are more verbal (with 1
-ACC case
Thus, in effect, L&M (un) nominalize a NomV at various levels of projection. The trees from L&M:3032, are
found in Appendix A.
(83) Clauses at the maximal level in Cuzco (L&M:124)
c. b. a.


This accounts for all the case marking options in Quechua and also rules out *GEN-OBJ since the [+N] domain required for
assigning GEN to the object is never found in the same tree conguration with the [-N] required for assignment of -ta to the
object. This is due to the formulation of the X
expansion rule, which allows projections to be less specied than their heads,
but not the inverse. Once a projection is [-N] (and assigns ACC case), the higher projection cannot turn back to [+N] (the
domain needed for GEN case assignment):
It is not clear whether L&M intend to actually neutralize the N feature at all in the GEN- pattern (81a). They seem to assume neutralization in (81),
since they mark the highest projection as V", but then in their actual tree for this construction (see Appendix A) they mark the projection as N
. It is clear,
however, that L&M intend to allow cross-linguistic variation in the levels at which features can be neutralized. This is very close in spirit to the account
suggested in this paper. However, instead of turning off an Nfeature (in fact, verbalizing and already mixed category) we assume that an Nfeature is added
to a verbal category (at any level), creating a mixed projection with nominal features.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1241
(84) Possible and impossible case assignment in NCs (based on L&M:125)


* +N
We shall next turn to a discussion of this analysis. L&M capture an important insight: the NCs marked with GEN and null
object case, are in some sense, more nominal than the NCs that have the NOM-ACC pattern. This is achieved by turning off the
+N feature of the mixed category early on in the latter case, and not turning it off at all in the GEN-1 pattern.
We believe this is on the right track, and we will also capture this generalization by allowing nominalization (adding an N
feature) to occur at various levels of structure. We reject, however, the N feature neutralization approach since it faces some
serious problems, as discussed below.
Most important is the fact that the L&M approach cannot account for the typological variation in case assignment across
NCs in various languages. The L&M approach rules out any language that allows a GEN subject and an ACC marked object.
This is due to the fact that GENcase is a sign that the Nfeature is still turned on, so anything belowthe subject must also have
nominal case marking, as was shown in (82) above. In other words, the systemaccounts for Quechua and Japanese (in which
the constraint against allowing ACC case on objects in clauses with GEN subjects is described as the so called Transitivity
Restriction; see Miyagawa (2008, 2011), and Hiraiwa (2001), inter alia). However, the case conguration in NCs in languages
like Turkish (which per Kornlt (2003, 2008) allows an ACC object with a GEN subject under the very same conditions that
allowfor an ACC object with a NOMsubject, as well) is predicted not to be possible. Such case congurations are ruled out by
L&M in principle, as was illustrated in the last box in 82 above. It is unclear howto parametrize the L&M system to allow for
A second problemis that in the L&Msystem, null case for objects is assigned the same way in GENsubject marked clauses
and NOMsubject marked clauses. In both instances, the Nfeature is still active at the X
level, forcing Vto assign a null case to
its object. However, as we argued above, the null object case in clauses with NOM subjects is due to a separate process of
(late) PF incorporation in Quechua. Thus, the apparent null case on objects in clauses with NOM subjects is lack of case (due
to incorporation, exhibiting strict adjacency effects), while the null case with GENis a nominal variant of objective case. L&M
predict no differences in behavior.
Thirdly, in the L&Msystemit is unclear why NCs with NOMsubjects (V
projections) should receive case fromthe higher
verb, since this is a [-N] domain. Remember that in order to account for NOM case marking, L&M have to neutralize the N
feature of their mixed category before case assignment applies. However, both N
and V
clauses receive case. In order to
allowcase marking to apply to the V
projection, L&Mwould have to in effect assume that the case is assigned to the NVhead
rather than to the V
projection (that is, accusative case is assigned to the nominalized verb before the Nfeature is turned off,
and not to the complement clause).
In addition, both V
and N
carry nominal AGR, as discussed in section 2. At the level of AGR, why is nominal AGR selected
for a V
projection? From the trees in L&M (see Appendix A), it is clear that AGR attaches to either V
or N
projections. This
should lead us to expect verbal AGR in one case (with NOMsubjects) and nominal AGR with GENsubjects, but as discussed in
section 2, we get nominal AGR regardless of the case of the subject in the NC.
It almost looks as if L&M need an additional
nominalization rule in the syntax, applying on top of the V
projections, to explain these facts. L&M create the mixed
category in the lexicon, but turn off the N feature in certain derivations (cf. 83 c) and then end up with a clause that looks
externally like a DP, which is a mystery since these clauses have a V
projection at the highest level.
We would like to emphasize, however, that the L&Manalysis captures an important insight: NCs with GENsubjects seem
more nominal than NCs with NOMsubjects. We would like to capture this insight not by turning off the Nfeatures at various
levels (a sort of denominalization, which is counter-intuitive to start with), but by nominalizing various parts of the
extended VP projections, as discussed below.
6.2. NCs as mixed extended projections
Instead of adopting a lexicalist approach like the one illustrated in section 6.1, in what follows, we would like to argue for
an approach which derives the characteristics of the various nominalization options in Quechua from the actual process of
nominalization as it applies in various derivations. This is an application of the Mixed Extended Projections approach
In general it is not clear how V
projections really differ from N
projections in the L&Msystem. As discussed, NCs with GEN and NOMsubjects behave
the same way, and the only difference is in Case assignment inside the V
and N
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1242
(Borsley and Kornlt, 2000, henceforth B&K) to Quechua languages. Our attempt is to work out in detail how such an
approach accounts for our data rather than specically compare this approach to other approaches to nominalization. After
reviewing the analysis for Quechua, we shall address the issue of crosslinguistic typology and discuss recent proposals for
crosslinguistic variation in this domain (cf. Kornlt, 2008; Miyagawa, 2011).
In the B&K approach clausal constructions can have certain nominal properties. This effect is achieved by allowing a mix
of verbal and nominal extended projections (functional categories). For example, nominal functional categories can be
associated with a verb that also has verbal functional categories. Crucially, B&K assume that there is a neat separation
between the verbal and nominal functional projections, with verbal projections only allowed to appear under nominal
projections (i.e. before nominalization applies).
There are two crucial elements of the B&K approach which we would like to adopt here (with some adaptations of our
(i) The various case assignment patterns are the result of nominal versus verbal FPs assigning case to their Specs. A verbal
head will assign accusative case to a complement and NOMcase to the subject. Anominal head will assign GENcase to its
spec, and (in our adapted system) a null (default) case to a complement. We shall take little v as the assigner of case to the
object. The case of the subject is assigned by a higher functional projection (after the EPP forces the subject to raise),
which we label FP (but which could be instantiated as AspP or TP).
(ii) Nominalization is the result of selecting in the numeration and projecting an overt nominalizing (Nom) head, which in
many languages also bears (or is combined with) modality, tense, and/or aspect. In languages with overt agreement, a
nominal AGR head typically is projected over the Nom head, resulting in nominal agreement. Crucially, languages can
differ as to the place in the extended projection at which nominalization can occur, but once nominalization (Nom) has
applied, introducing a Nomhead and resulting in a NomP, all projections above the NomP have to be nominal rather than
verbal functional projections.
For example, for Turkish, B&K project an MNP (a nominalizer which also contains mood)
immediately above VP. This has the effect of ACC case being assigned to the object. Case assignment to the object then
occurs inside the VP, before nominalization. The subject case, in contrast, has to be assigned outside the VP (B&K assume
that it is assigned in SpecAgrP). Therefore, the case must be GEN, the case assigned by a nominal head. See our example 1
in Appendix B for a slightly reworked tree for Turkish instantiating these effects.
In contrast, in a language like Basque, the nominalizer is projected above the IP. This predicts that all case assignment is done
as in a normal verbal IP (ERG-ABS for Basque). Again, all higher projections have to be nominal (for example DET attaches
above the nominalized phrase). The B&K Basque derivation then is identical to what we suggest for the NOM-ACC case-
marked NCs in Quechua (see our Tree 3 in Appendix B)
Let us next spell out what the derivation of various NCs would look like in Quechua, and explain how the features
discussed in sections 24 would fall out from this approach. We propose that the variation in case assignment in Quechua
can be accounted for if we allow a NOM projection to occur either relatively low in the tree, below the vP level (early
nominalization), forcing all case assignment to be of the nominal pattern (GEN-1), or very high up in the tree (at the FP/AspP
level). The latter leads to a verbal case pattern (NOM-ACC) inside the clause, with nominalization and nominal agreement
outside the clause. Crucially, both nominalizations occur higher than VP, so we can expect adverbials in the VP or adjoined to
VP to be available. Moreover, any lower functional projections such as Applicatives, Causatives, AGRO(for object agreement)
will be posited to appear lower, inside the VP (under the NOM afx), so all NCs in Quechua will have verbal morphology
added to the verbal stem before nominalization afxes are added. This will account for the fact that all nominalized verbs
select for arguments like regular verbs, allow object agreement, and allow adverbial modication. The two options are
illustrated in detail in Trees 2 and 3 in Appendix B.
Let us review the two options for nominalizations in greater detail, starting with the GEN-1option (Tree 2). This is the
derivation in which we place NomP below the vP (between vP and VP). This is close to claiming that nominalization is done
directly on V in Cuzco (and presumably Japanese), affecting both subject AND object case. However, note that given the fact
that we still need to allowfor object agreement and for various VP adverbials inside the GENNCs, we cannot claimthat this is
lexical nominalization. Inside the VP in Quechua we have a verb which allows all sorts of verbal afxes and crucially object
agreement. Instead we attach the nominalizer afx above the VP, and this forces all higher projections (including vP) to be
nominal. Since object case is assigned by little v, a nominal v will assign null case to its object.
Since the v projection is
nominal, all projections above vP are also nominal. A nominal F/ASP projection then assigns GEN case to the subject. This is
illustrated in Tree 2 in Appendix B.
To derive the NOM-ACC pattern, we allow the nominalizer afx to attach very high (above the FP), as shown in Tree 3 in
Appendix B. Hence, we get no effects of nominalizationas far as clause-internal case assignment is concernedin these NCs. As
in Basque, a verbal v assigns ACC case to the object and a verbal F (or Aspect head) assigns Nom case to the subject. NomP is
This requirement is somewhat relaxed in Kornlt (2003) since it is claimed that nominal AGRP is sandwiched in between two verbal projections:
ModalP and CP. (Note, however, that in an approach where a CP can be nominalsomething that we do allow ourselves in this papersuch an analysis
would not lead to a relaxation of the original B&K restriction against verbal functional projections dominating nominal functional projections; see also
footnote 21.)
Alternatively, one could view the null case as default case which occurs when v cannot assign case to an object, due to the fact that v has been
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1243
introduced above the FP, forcing all higher projections (such as AGRP) to be nominal. For both types of NC, then, all higher
projections are nominal: AGR heads must be nominal (explaining the nominal AGR in the NCs) and the clausal level
projection has to be a nominal CP (following B&K, labelled here as KP) which then allows case marking on the clause fromthe
higher verb.
Let us also spell out the case rules:
(85) Case assignment rules for verbal and nominal heads
object case marking: nominal v assigns null, verbal v assigns ACC case to the object
subject case marking: nominal F assign assigns GEN, verbal F assigns NOM case to the subject
To conclude, we have shown that the mixed projection account proposed in Borsley and Kornlt (2000) which species
where in a projection nominalization applies, and which assumes that, once nominalization has applied, all projections
above the NOMP have to be nominal, can account for the crosslinguistic variation observed in the literature. Specically, we
have accounted for the following variation:
(i) Turkish places nominalization above the vP but below the projection in which GEN is assigned to the subject (below FP
and AGRP in our system). As a result, ACC case is assigned to the object by a verbal n (before the v is nominalized), but
GEN case is assigned to the subject since both F and AGR are nominal. See example 1 in Appendix B.
(ii) The GEN-1option (in Cuzco and Japanese) will have nominalization occurring relatively low: right above VP (and below
nP). This results in nominal case (zero case) on the object and GEN case on the subject. The difference between Turkish
and the Quechua languages then is that nominalization applies lower in the tree in Cuzco (and presumably also in
Japanese) than in Turkish, resulting in a nominal rather than verbal v. In this sense then Turkish NCs are less nominal
than the Cuzco and Japanese NCs with GEN subjects. See Tree 2 in Appendix B.
(iii) IQ and the NOMsubject options in Cuzco and Huanca (and Basque) are due to nominalization occurring very high in the
tree, and as a result only affecting agreement on the NC and case marking of the entire projection in the KP. Subjects are
always NOM, since the F/Asp head assigning case to the subject is verbal. Objects are always ACC, since n is verbal. We
also expect verbal features inside the VP (such as adverbs, object agreement). In Quechua, we also have an additional PF
incorporation rule affecting direct objects which are strictly adjacent to the nominalized verb, allowing the incorporated
DO to survive without case. See example 3 in Appendix B.
This approach is very similar in nature to the one suggested in Kratzer (1996) for various nominalization options in English.
The Turkish GEN-ACC pattern is similar to the English Poss-ing nominalizations (His rebuilding the barn), in which
nominalization has to apply above the VP (to allowfor ACC case). The IQ and Cuzco NOM-ACC pattern is like the English ACC-
ing pattern (I remember himrebuilding the barn.), a type which Kratzer analyses as nominalization of the VoiceP (a functional
projection which, like the vP assumed in our derivations, is higher than VP).
The pattern of GEN-1is then the most unusual: it is similar to the Englishgerund found in examples such as His rebuilding
of the barn (the so called of-ing gerund), with -ing nominalizing the verb and precluding ACC case on the verb. Kratzer takes
this to be nominalization of V.
However, we have evidence that the Quechua GEN-1pattern is actually more verbal than the English of-ing gerund. As
noted in Kratzer (1996), in English, adverbials cannot be used to modify the of-ing nominalization and adjectives are used
instead (since the V head itself is nominal). However, in Cuzco, with either GEN or NOM case on the subject adverbials are
licensed, and verbal morphology on the verb is licensed. In particular, as shown above, object marking (OM) is possible on the
nominalized verb, so OM must happen inside the VP, before nominalization applies. Crucially, as falling out of B&Ks
predictions, once a nominalizer is added, no further verbalizing sufxes can be added. Only an AGR (nominal) and Case
(nominal) sufx can follow the nominalizer. As was shown in (56), the order of afxes reects this fact: all verbal afxes
occur to the left of the nominalizing afx, and the only afxes which can follow the nominalizer are nominal AGR and case.
The GEN-1pattern is therefore yet another intermediate degree of nominalization: more verbal than the of-ing gerund,
but less verbal than poss-ing gerunds (and the Turkish pattern). In what follows, we turn to a discussion of the crosslinguistic
variation and examine where Quechua ts in. We shall next show that the Quechua data poses a puzzle for accounts which
link the GEN-1 case pattern to reduced clausal structure, and will argue instead that the lack of case on objects of GEN
marked subjects must followfromnominalization applying at the VP level rather than higher, a scenario which follows from
the B&K type of account.
In Turkish, there actually is no strong argument for the additional FP projection, and we could assume (as in B&K) that the nominal AGR assigns GENcase
to the subject (remember that nominalization applies in Turkish right above the nP). However, to capture the NOM-ACC pattern in Quechua, we need to allow
the F head to be verbal and assign NOM case before nominalization applies, in effect preventing the nominal AGR (which, as in Turkish, is higher and is
placed over the NomP) from assigning GEN case to the subject. For expository purposes, we found it useful to assume that we have the same inventory of
functional projections across the languages examined in this paper.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1244
6.3. CP versus DP phases as an account for GEN subjects and the obligatory GEN-1 pattern
An issue which the Quechua data can address is whether the GEN-1pattern in NCs is perhaps associated with a reduced
clausal structure, specically a DP structure which lacks a higher CP functional projection. We argue below against such an
Kornlt (2008) and also Miyagawa (2011) argue that there are two types of languages with GEN subjects. Based on data
from a variety of Turkic languages, Kornlt argues that modifying clauses can be either CPs or Tense/Aspect/Mood phrases
(TAMs): CPs in Turkish and TAMs in languages like Sakha and Uighur. Miyagawa then extends this typology to Japanese and
argues for a DP (rather thana CP) analysis for Japanese GEN-subjects. Miyagawa also connects the null (default) case onobjects
to the fact that Japanese does not have a CP functional projection in clauses that take GEN subjects. In what follows we shall
examine whether Quechua GEN subjects are in a CP or a more reduced TAM-type (or DP-type) projection. We show that
Quechua GENsubjects appear inconstructions whichareverysimilar tothe TurkishRCs describedinKornlt (2008) anddonot
havetheproperties associatedwithmorereducedarchitecture, suchas the Sakha RCs or the Japaneseclauses withGEN-marked
subjects. Nevertheless Quechua, like Japanese, does not allow ACC objects with GEN subjects. This conguration then argues
against associating the lack of ACC case with reduced (TAM-type or DP-type) clausal structure at least for Quechua.
Let us rst discuss why Quechua in our view is like Turkish in having a CP layer with GEN subjects.
Kornlt (2008)
convincingly argues that the nominal AGR in all Turkic languages gives rise to GEN subjects in RCs. She observes, however,
that in some languages (like Turkish) AGR has to be afxed to the nominalized verb, while in languages like Sakha and Uighur
AGR appears on the external head of the RC. This follows, in her view, from the fact that Turkish has a CP projection, while
other Turkic languages have a more reduced (TAM) projection structure. Locality principles then constrain AGR from
entering in a relationship with the subject of the modifying clause in CP type languages, since the head of the RC is not in a
local relationship with the subject. Therefore, in RCs with CP-modier clauses, the AGR element is placed on the predicate of
the modier clauses, while in RCs with reduced, non-CP modier clauses, the AGR is placed on the RC-head. This is the main
difference between Turkish (in which AGRappears on the nominalized verb) and Sakha (in which AGR appears on the head of
the RC). In other words, the location of AGR in RCs reveals whether the modifying clause has a CP or more reduced (TAM)
Note that in both Cuzco and Huanca (and actually in all Quechua dialects which have retained AGR in embedded clauses),
the obligatory agreement appears immediately following the nominalizer and cannot appear on the RC head
(86) Qayna warma riku-sqa-y-ta hamu-nqa. (Cuzco)
yesterday girl see-nomin-1-ACC come-3.fut
The girl I saw yesterday will come.
(86) is an IHRC with rst person subject agreement, agreeing with a null subject pronoun inside the RC. When a right-headed
RC is used, the verb still agrees with the rst person subject, but rst person marking on the head is not allowed:
(87) a. Riku-sqa-y-ta warma hamu-nqa.
see-nomin-1-ACC girl come-3.fut
The girl I saw will come.
b. *Riku-sqa-ta warma-y hamu-nqa.
see-nomin-ACC girl-1 come-3.fut
The restriction of the AGR sufx to the verb then follows fromthe fact that a CP phase imposes locality, and the external head
is outside this phase.
The second difference between CP- and TAM-RCs is that only CP RCs can exhibit what Kornlt analyzes as complementizer
agreement (CA) effects, sinceonlyCPtypelanguages havea CPlayer andCelements (thenominalizers). InTurkishthe CAeffects
(as describedinearlier worke.g. inKornlt, 2003, among others; Hankamer &Knecht, 1976; Underhill, 1972) are observable by
the fact that the nominalizer for a subject RC differs in shape from the nominalizer for non-subject RCs:
(88) a. [[e
du n bo lu m-de ben-i destekle -yen arkadas -lar
yesterday department-LOC I-ACC support-(y)An friend -PL
The friends/colleagues who supported me in the department yesterday
(No phi-feature morphology; special nominalization form on predicate)
Instead of CP, we labeled this projection as a KP in our sample derivations in Appendix B. Clearly the CP in Quechua (like the one in Turkish) must be able
to be of a nominal type.
The ACC marker -ta which appears on the nominalized verb in examples (86) and (87) is due to what L&M call Case-Floating. The ACC case of the
relativized NP can optionally appear on the nominalized verb. L&M do not discuss the exact conditions under which Case-Floating is possible in Cuzco, but
Case-Floating is a feature of many Quechua dialects and is discussed in detail in Weber (1978).
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1245
This contrast with non-subject RCs (traditionally so-called object relativization):
(89) [[pro du n bo lu m -de e
destekle-dig -im] arkadas -lar
yesterday department-LOC support-FN-1.SG friend -PL
The friends/colleagues who(m) I supported in the department yesterday
(Phi-feature morphology and general indicative nominalization form on predicate)
A similar distribution can be observed in Quechua. We discussed earlier the fact that there is considerable variation in
Quechua with respect to whether the nominalizers in RCs are determined by tense or by the grammatical function of the
relativized NP. While in most Ecuadorian varieties (as discussed in Muysken (2011)) the choice of the nominalizer is due to
tense of the embedded clause, the varieties discussed here all select the form -q- (for subjects). In addition, Cuzco uses -sqa-
and -na- exclusively for non-subjects.
It can therefore be claimed that the use of -q- represents complementizer
agreement, as in Turkish.
(90) Runa Maria riku-q-ta riqsi-ni. (Cuzco)
man Maria see-nomin-ACC know-1
I know the man who saw Maria.
(91) Riku-sqa-y-ta warma hamu-nqa.
see-nomin-1-ACC girl come-3.fut
The girl I saw will come.
-sqa- or -na- cannot be used in (90), and -q- can not be used in (91).
Since CA effects are only possible if the RC has a CP layer, this argues for Cuzco having a CP layer in RCs. As in Turkish, the
nominalizer for object RCs also expresses tense. Note also that as in Turkish, the subject RC marker does not have an
associated agreement element: AGR is impossible with the subject marker.
Toconclude, it looks promisingtoanalyzeCuzcoandHuanca as examples of RCs witha CPlayer. Another piece of supporting
evidence for the existence of a CP layer with complement clauses is the fact that nominalized complement clauses with GEN
subjects allow leftward movement of wh-elements out of these clauses: see examples (59)(61) above. Assuming that wh-
phrases endupinSpec,CP, there seems tobe nodifference betweenembeddedclauses inwhichthe subject is markedwithGEN
or NOM case: both allow the wh-phrase in a left edge position. This position would seem to be Spec CP.
Finally, we shall turn to the question of why we cannot get ACC objects with GEN subjects. Miyagawa (who adopts
Kornlts typology of CP versus TAM-nominalization), argues that Japanese clauses with GEN subjects only have a DP layer
and no CP layer. Moreover, Miyagawa claims that in Japanese one can observe a restriction that forbids accusative objects
from occurring in structures that have a genitive subject; if the subject is nominative and is raised out of the vP, there is no
problemwith such an object. This is very much like the situation in Quechua. Miyagawa derives this constraint (the so-called
transitivity restriction) from the fact that the genitive subject, but not the nominative subject, stays in situ in Spec,vP, in
conjunction with his condition (34):
(92) The subject-in situ generalization (SSG) (from Miyagawa, 2011)
By Spell-Out, vP can contain only one argument with an unchecked Case feature
This ineffect prohibits objects of GEN-subjects fromreceiving ACCcase anda non-structural (default) null case is assigned. The
question is whether it makes sense to connect the assignment of the null case to objects in Quechua to this generalization.
While we cannot address this question in full, since we do not have evidence addressing the issue of whether GENsubjects
areinSpecof vPor haveraisedinQuechua, weshouldnotethat theinsitusubject restrictionseemsrather arbitrary. It maymake
sense if the restriction could be somehow connected to how elaborate the functional layers are in a given derivation.
Miyagawa hints at such a connection: he shows that TAM-RCs (which he argues are represented as reduced RCs, in which the
In Huanca, however, while -q- is only possible for subject relativization, it is not the only afx that can be used. In other words, CA is possible but not
obligatory in Huanca.
Another way in which the -q- nominalizer in Quechua resembles the nominalizer used for subject RCs in Turkish is the fact that -q- (like Turkish -(y)An-)
cannot take AGR. Signicantly, nominal object agreement is possible in some dialects with -q-, as in the example below from Huanuco, cited from Weber
. . .qam-ta-pis kay mundu-man mira-ma-q-ni:-ta
you-obj-even this world-goal add-1obj-sub-1p-obj
. . .and to you, who brought me into this world
In previous work (Miyagawa, 2008), such a connection is suggested, since it is assumed that clauses with GEN subjects in Japanese are participial and
lack a T head, forcing small n to assign null rather than ACC case. No such connection is, however, explicitly made in the current version, although it is
claimed that a CP language like Turkish will not have this restriction.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1246
highest projectionis a DP) withGENsubjects have a very different distributionfromRCs withNOMsubjects inJapanese (which
have CP layers). Miyagawa also predicts that Turkish should not evidence the transitivity restriction because the clause that
contains the genitive subject is a full CP, and he cites Kornlts Turkish data, which illustrates that objects in NCs with GEN
subjects canindeed, mustbear ACC case:
(93) Turkish (Miyagawa, 2011, ex. 41)
[Sen-in bilgisayar-da makale-ler-in-i yaz-acag-n]- duy-du-m.
you-GEN computer-LOC article-PL-2.SG-ACC write-FUT-2.SG-ACC hear-PST-1.SG
(I) heard that you will write your articles on the computer.
We have argued above that Quechua nominalized clauses also are full CPs. However, unlike Turkish, Quechua exhibits the
transitivity restriction. Clearly, then, the connection between the transitivity restriction and clausal architecture cannot be
maintained, and we have to nd a different account for the restriction in Quechua. We have suggested in section 6.2 that the
restriction follows from the fact that nominalization in Quechua can occur rather lowin the tree, right above the VP, and this
prohibits ACC case on the object (since ACC can only be assigned by a verbal head) while also ensuring GENcase on the subject.
The Quechua facts then add to our picture of language variation, since as distinct from both Japanese and Turkish, it is a
language with a clear CP layer but with a GEN-1 pattern of case marking.
To conclude, we have shown that nominalized clauses in Quechua must be considered to be CP projections rather than a
reduced TAM-type or DP-type projection. At the same time, the case marking patterns observed in NCs can be derived from
the various places in the derivation in which nominalization can occur. This type of analysis is compatible with the analysis
of nominalizations as mixed projections, as argued in this paper.
We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers, whose comments hopefully improved this paper. Special thanks
are due to Jaklin Kornlt, whose critical editorial comments were especially welcome. We would also like to express our
gratitude to Rodolfo Cerro n-Palomino and to Seran Coronel-Molina, who helped us by providing additional examples from
Quechua and who patiently answered our various queries via email.
Appendix A. N
versus V
in Cuzco NCs
Nominalized clause with NOM subject (V
projection) in Cuzco
Miyagawas account shouldalso make clear predictions for Dagur (Mongolian) andfor Turkic languages withTAM-type RCs as discussedinKornlt (2008).
For example, as arguedinKornlt (2008) inthe Turkic languages whichonly have TAM-type of modifying clauses, the embeddedsubject does not seemto raise
up high. Therefore, Miyagawa wouldpredict that as opposed to Turkish, which allows ACCdirect objects inside modifying clauses, these Turkic languages (like
Sakha, Uighur and Uzbek) should also obey the transitivity restriction and ban ACC case inside RCs. However, RCs in those languages do not exhibit such a
restriction, as far as we are aware. This leads us to viewthe issue of a reduced status of the modifying clause in the relevant constructions in such languages as
independent from the status of the subject-in situ generalizationa statement which, as we mentioned earlier in passing, we view as ad hoc.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1247
Nominalized clause with GEN subject (N
projection) in Cuzco
Appendix B
See Trees 13.

syle -di KP
Agr P
Agr -i DP
ua -n FP
F' -in DP
i (GEN) F (Nom F assigns GEN case)
DP Nom'
- di
DP v
v VP
(verbal v assigns ACC to object)
V oda-y
GEN-ACC pattern in Turkish
Hasan [ua - n oda-y temizle- di -in-i] syle-di. (B&K, p.101)
Hasan servant-GEN room-ACC clean-FACT-3SG-ACC say-PAST
Hasan said that the servant had cleaned the room.
Tree 1.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1248

yachani KP
Agr P ta
Agr DP
Agr FP
F - n DP {+3}
i (GEN)
v F (nominal F assigns GEN to subject) P
DP v
NomP v (Nominal v assigns zero case to object)
Nom DP
Nom VP
sqa V DP
Xwancha-q wasi- yacha-ni. ruwa-sqa-n-ta
Juan-GEN build-nomin-3-ACC house know-1
I know that Juan built a house.
Tree 2.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1249

yachani KP
Agr P K
Agr ta DP
Nom' n DP {+3}
ti (NOM) Nom FP
DP F' sqa{+N}
i (NOM)
v (verbal F assigns NOM) F P
DP v
VP v (verbal v assigns ACC to object)
V wasi-ta
Xwancha wasi-ta ruwa-sqa-n-ta yacha-ni.
Juan(NOM house-ACC ) make-nomin-3-ACC know-1
I know that Juan built a house.
(ACC case absorption in PF due to N-N adjacency is also possible, yielding: wasi
Tree 3.
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1250
Aoun, Yosef, 1981. Parts of speech: a case of redistribution. In: Belletti, Adriana, Brandi, Luciana, Rizzi, Luigi (Eds.), Theory of Markedness in Generative
Grammar. Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Pisa, pp. 324.
Borsley, R., Kornlt, J., 2000. Mixed extended projections. In: Borsley, R. (Ed.), The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories. Syntax and Semantics 32.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 101131.
Cerro n-Palomino, R., 1975. Relativization in Wanka-Quechua. Unpublished Ms. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Cerro n-Palomino, R., 1976. Grama tica Quechua: Junn-Huanca. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima, Peru.
Cerro n-Palomino, R., 2003. Lingu stica Quechua, 2nd edition. Centro de Estudios Rurales Andinos, Bartolome de las Casas.
Cole, P., 1982. Imbabura Quechua. North-Holland, Amsterdam (Lingua Descriptive Studies 5).
Cole, P., Hermon, G., 1994. Is there LF Wh-movement? Linguistic Inquiry 25 (2), 239262.
Cusihuama n, A., 1976. Grama tica Quechua Cuzco-Collao. Instituto de EstudiosPeruanos, Lima, Peru.
Hankamer, J., Knecht, L., 1976. The role of the subject/non-subject distinction in determining the choice of relative clause participle in Turkish. NELS 4, 123
Hastings, R.E., 2004. The syntax and semantics of relativization and quantication: the case of Quechua. PhD Dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Hermon, G., 1985. Syntactic Modularity. Foris Publication, The Netherlands.
Hiraiwa, K., 2001. On nominative-genitive conversion. In: Guerzoni, E., Matushansky, O. (Eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39: A Few from Building
E39. Cambridge, MA. pp. 66125.
Kornlt, J., 2001. On the syntax and morphology of clausal complements and adjuncts in the Turkic languages. In: Bisang, W. (Ed.), Aspects of Typology and
Universals. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp. 6382.
Kornlt, J., 2003. Subject case in Turkish nominalized clauses. In: Junghanns, U., Szucsich, L. (Eds.), Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information.
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 129215.
Kornlt, J., 2008. Subject case and AGR in two types of Turkic RCs. In: Ulutas , S., Boeckx, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 4,
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 56. pp. 145168.
Lefebvre, C., Muysken, P., 1988. Mixed Categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland.
Malouf, R.P., 2000. Mixed Categories in the Hierarchical Lexicon. Center for the Study of Language and Information. University of Chicago Press.
Miyagawa, S., 2008. Genitive subjects in Altaic. In: Ulutas , S., Boeckx, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 4, MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 56. pp. 181198.
Miyagawa, S., 2011. Genitive subjects in Altaic and specication of phase. Lingua 121, 12651282.
Muysken, P., 2011. Relative clauses in Ecuadorian Quechua. In: van Gijn, R., Haude, K., Muysken, P. (Eds.), Subordination in Native South-American
Languages. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Parker, Gary, 1963. La clasicacio n gene tica de los dialectos quechuas. Revista del Museo Nacional (Lima, Peru) 32, 241252.
Torero, A., 1964. Los dialectos quechuas. Anales Cientcos de la Universidad Agraria, 2, Lima, pp. 446478.
Underhill, R., 1972. Turkish participles. Linguistic Inquiry 3, 8799.
Weber, D.J., 1978. Relativization in Huallaga (Hua nuco) Quechua. M.A. Thesis. University of California at Los Angeles.
Weber, D.J., 1989. A Grammar of Huallaga (Hua nuco) Quechua. University of California Publications in Linguistics 112. University of California Press,
Weber, D.J., 1993. The Binding Properties of Quechua Sufxes. Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics 37. University of North Dakota, pp. 77
P. Cole, G. Hermon/ Lingua 121 (2011) 12251251 1251