Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of - UMR 7023 - CNRS

155
terpretation, not problems that arise within them. Second, ℜ cannot affect syntax,
only its input, the numeration, which is its interface with the lexicon. Third, ℜ
cannot affect the interpretable content of the numeration, which it would have to
seek in the lexicon, only add uninterpretable features to drive syntactic operations.
New derivational paths may become available to a numeration through ℜ, and
thus permit it to satisfy Full Interpretation, but its 'basic' content is conserved: the
form and meaning that derives from the interpretable lexical items present in the
numeration, and the combinatorial possibilities inherent in them.
The formulation and application of ℜ is undertaken in the second part of this
chapter. Section 5.4 presents the background on uninterpretability and Full Interpretation
in the Minimalist Program of Chomsky (1995 et seq.). ℜ is situated in
the Agree, phasal model of current work. In the ensuing sections, the proposal is
developed: first as a general mechanism for the ergative/accusative 'dependent'
Case in section 5.5, then for the unaccusative repairs where dependent Case
emerges in section 5.6, and last for the transitive repairs by strengthening a PP or
DP in sections 5.7 and 5.8. The conclusion 5.9 sketches the extension of ℜ to
other person interactions of chapter 3, like Arizona Tewa and Yurok in Table 5.1,
its parametrization, and addresses the relationship of Case and person licensing.
The conclusion also considers the scope of ℜ and uninterpretable features. In
the Minimalist Program, uninterpretable features are the device that corresponds
to syntactic licensing in other frameworks. They must be eliminated for legibility
to the external systems, for Full Interpretation, and their elimination proceeds
through the creation of syntactic dependencies. At the same time, the resulting dependencies
are often needed by the interfacing systems for other reasons, such the
dual scopal and thematic position of wh-words created by A'-movement. To the
extent these reasons could be attributed to Full Interpretation, ℜ can respond to
them, dynamically inserting uninterpretable features to create them:
(239) (Some) uninterpretable features are the response of an autonomous syntax
to meet Full Interpretation at the interfaces with external systems.
This conclusion is strong support for the proposition that uninterpretable features
and their need to be eliminated underlie syntactic dependencies. Yet perhaps
not all uninterpretable features can be reduced to such a dynamic response to Full
Interpretation. Some remain the autonomous properties of lexical items, the heirs
of diachrony, acquisition, and other factors outside the core systems. Chapter 6 returns
to phi-features from this perspective. 113
113 This chapter develops the proposals in Rezac (2007), drawing on Postal (1990) and Reinhart
(1995). Albizu (1997a) is the earliest syntactic proposal to bring together the various elements
that form the view of the PCC in section 5.2 and unite them with other person hierarchy interactions.
Albizu (1997b), graciously provided by the author during the revisions of this book, is an
extraordinarily unpublished work that anticipates the present one in a last-resort syntactic approach
to the PCC / person hierarchy repairs, albeit quite a different one.