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

157
(241) Person Case Constraint (Agree/Case approach): A goal G cannot Agree
for [+person] φ-features if X intervenes between it and its Agree/Case locus,
where X is of a type to intervene in the Agree/Case system, to which
belong applicative datives but not full PPs. If G has no other means of licensing
its [+person], it fails the Case Filter.
(242) T/v > X > G [+person] > is c-command
*Agree/Case
(243) [+person]: a. 1 st /2 nd but not 3 rd (Basque, Georgian)
b. 1 st /2 nd (/SE) but not 3 rd (French, Icelandic)
c. 1 st /2 nd but not 3 rd /SE (Spanish)
d. 1 st /2 nd /3 rd human but not 3 rd default (Finnish)
This version Agree/Case approach is essentially that developed in Anagnostopoulou
(2003), in part synthesizing earlier work, including Taraldsen (1995),
as well as in other works such as Béjar and Rezac (2003, 2009), D'Alessandro
(2004), Richards (2004, 2008), Rezac (2008a, 2008c). They share the view that
the intervention of the dative is due to its phi-features, discussed later on in this
section, and partly differ on assimilating [+person] licensing to Case, to which
section 5.9 returns. Close are syntactic proposals with somewhat different assumption
about how the intervention or licensing works: Laenzlinger (1993), who introduces
feature-relativized locality for the PCC, Albizu (1997ab), Ormazabal and
Romero (1998, 2002, 2007), and Ormazabal (2000), who bring in the relevance of
Case-domains and double object constructions, Adger and Harbour (2008), Baker
(2008), Sigurðsson and Holmberg (2008), and somewhat farther, Bianchi (2006).
All seem compatible with the proposal for PCC repairs here, given a suitable reformulation
in their own terms, sketched in section 5.9. Some unify the PCC with
the subject-object person hierarchy interactions of chapter 3, including Albizu
(1997ab), Bianchi (2006), Béjar and Rezac (2009), and section 5.9 here. 114
In the following subsections, the Agree/Case approach is set out through the
generalizations that it makes about the PCC. They design a hypothesis space
within which it and related proposals lie, and in it the present theory of the repair
is articulated. These are all syntactic approaches, and start out by carving the data
differently from morphological ones, whether generative (Bonet 1991), constructionist
(Haspelmath 2004), or functionalist (García 2001). At the heart of syntactic
approaches lie the two observations made in section 4.1 for French. On the one
hand, surface morphology is insufficient to state the PCC, because it does not rule
out all 1/2/SE.ACC DAT clitic clusters, and no 1/2/SE.DAT DAT clitic clusters
that are syncretic with them, (244). On the other, surface morphology is insuffi-
114 Of syntactic approaches in different frameworks, those of Couquaux (1975) and Postal (1990)
for French, and Rosen (1990) cross-linguistically, are in related to the proposals here.