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

162
tion, the absolutive with vABS (see further section 5.5). At first sight, nominativeaccusative
languages like French do not show the PCC in unaccusatives, (252)
(252) [TP Je lui plaisT+v+V [tlui tje avec les cheveux longs.]]
I.N him.D please.1SG with the hair long
She likes me with long hair. (lit. I please her.D with long hair)
(French)
However, this is not a property of the nominative, but comes about because in
French agreeing 1 st /2 nd person nominatives necessarily raise to [Spec, TP]. In doing
so, they bypass the intervening dative and end up with an unimpeded relationship
to T (Albizu 1997b, Rezac 2008c). In Icelandic, such raising need not take
place, and then the PCC surfaces in unaccusatives even in a nominative language
(Anagnostopoulou 2003, Boeckx 2000, Taraldsen 1995). In (253) the passive of
gefa 'give' combines with the applicative and the prepositional constructions
(Holmberg and Platzack 1995). With a prepositional dative (253)a, the object
raises to become the nominative subject in [Spec, TP] and there is no PCC. An
applicative dative prevents this in (253)b-(253)c. Unlike in French or Basque, in
Icelandic the dative raises to [Spec, TP]. The PCC then bars a 1 st /2 nd person nominative,
(253)b. Without the dative person agreement and licensing are fine, (254).
(253) a. Þú varst gefinn tþú honum.
you.NOM were.2SG given him.DAT
You were given to him. (unaccusative + prepositional dative)
b. *Honum var/varst gefinn thonum þú.
him.DAT was.3SG/2SG given you(SG).NOM
He was given you. (unaccusative + applicative dative)
c. Honum voru gefnir thonum peningarnir.
him.DAT were.3PL given the.money.PL.NOM
He was given the money. (unaccusative + applicative dative)
(Icelandic, Schütze 1997: 117, 122)
(254) Líklega höfum það þá (bara) verið við.
probably have.1PL it then only been we.NOM
Probably, it has then (only) been us.
(Icelandic, Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008: 262)
The Icelandic-French contrast suggests that the PCC occurs in unaccusatives
when a dative intervenes on the path between an argument and its Agree/Case licenser,
but not if the argument undergoes A-movement past the dative. Sigurðsson
and Holmberg (2008) confirm the role of intervention through the contrast in
(255). When an applicative dative undergoes A'-extraction, the nominative may
stay in-situ (255)a or cross over the trace of the dative to raise higher within the
TP (255)b. In-situ, a 1/2.NOM cannot agree by the PCC. When it bypasses the da-