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

167
– It is unclear whether dative clitics in French require [+person] licensing in
the same manner that accusative clitics do in the PCC. For datives visible
to the PCC in Icelandic, some Case-like need has been posited to render
them visible to A-movement (Chomsky 2000a, cf. Belletti and Rizzi 1988,
Freidin and Sprouse 1991, Yoon 1996).
These properties of datives have been explored in different ways in the
Agree/Case approach. On one, datives create the PCC simply because they are
visible to A-movement, not because of their phi-features. Baker (2008: 3.3) develops
such a proposal. He posits that Agree for [+person] requires the spec-head
configuration, for instance [Spec, TNOM] in Icelandic. Applicative arguments, including
datives, A-move to the specifier of T/v. This prevents nominatives from
doing so, and thus Agree for [+person]. Better understanding is needed of the differences
between languages like Icelandic and Basque, since only in the former do
datives undergo A-movement to become subjects, and of person agreement with
apparently low nominatives as in (254) that casts doubt on the premise. 122
On an alternative view, that of Anagnostopoulou (2003) and related work, datives
block [+person] Agree/Case relationships through their own phi-features.
The analysis partly inspires itself from applicative objects that are plain DPs, as in
English or Mohawk. These are simply treated as the goals of the Agree/Case system
for all purposes and prevent it from reaching a lower object, as in (260). The
applicative argument in (260) controls agreement, gets accusative, and raises to
[Spec, TP], while the theme is licensed differently. English is uninformative on
this point, and probably uses inherent Case or a null preposition (Larson 1988, Pesetsky
1995, Baker 1997, Anagnostopoulou 2001; cf. Bittner and Hale 1996: 18).
Mohawk is more revealing. The theme must incorporate, and incorporation only
licenses inanimates (Baker 1996: 5.3, Ormazabal and Romero 1998).
(260) a. She showed them the cake. (active)
b. They were shown the cake. (passive)
Although applicative datives do not control agreement or get overt accusative,
unlike applicative DPs, Anagnostopoulou (2003: 5.4.2) proposes that they never-
139f.), along with unclear 'facilitation' effects of a nonagreeing dative on agreement across it (for
Icelandic, see Holmberg and Hróarsdóttir 2003: 1001, Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008; for
Basque, Etxepare 2005, Preminger 2009; for Greek, Anagnostopoulou 2003: 202).
122 The evaluation of Baker's proposal must include various inversion constructions with low
subjects. In English, locative inversion seems to place the fronted PP in an A-position (Bresnan
1994, Collins 1997, Culicover and Levine 2001) and resist all nominative pronouns (Bresnan
1994: 86). Some inversions do show the absence of person agreement specifically (on French,
see Bonami and Godard 2001, Rezac 2004a: chapter 5, 2010b; cf. Chomsky 2000a: 149 note 90,
Schütze 1997: 4.1.6). Others do not, as Icelandic (254) or postverbal subjects in Czech, not to be
simply set aside by assuming that the 1 st /2 nd person is really in [Spec, TP] (Baker 2008: 89 note
17), unless it can be shown that it licenses elements like floating quantifiers (Rezac 2010b).