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

may also lead to the (re-)Merge of the goal at the position of the probe, giving
movement, but the details of how and when this occurs are not relevant here. 131
181
(276) Matching is a relation that holds of a probe P and a goal G. Not every
matching pair induces Agree. To do so, G must (at least) be in the domain
D(P) of P and satisfy locality conditions. The simplest assumptions
for the probe-goal system are[:]
a. Matching is feature identity [of type, not value, p. 124].
b. D(P) is the sister of P.
c. Locality reduces to "closest c-command."
(Chomsky 2000a: 122)
In this sketch, there are many options and alternatives explored in related
work. Those that concern the Agree/Case approach to the PCC are discussed in the
literature cited in section 5.2. The PCC is the failure of a [+person] DP to be licensed
if it fails to Agree for [+person], due to an intervening dative. Let us adopt
the following hypotheses, diagrammed in (277):
– Only [+person] DPs have [person] and [number], others only [number].
– [person]-bearing DPs need Agree for [person] to be Case-licensed.
– Datives that create the PCC block Agree for [person] by having some [person]
but not [number] specification visible to Agree; call this specification
"+". It is left open whether datives need [Case].
(277) {[π:], [#:], [κ:ACC]}v … {[π:+], ([κ:])}DAT … {([π:1]), [#:PL], [κ:]}DP
(Notation: π person, number, κ Case)
The failure of [person] Agree with a DP must lead to failure of Case assignment
to it. It might be easiest to suppose that each of [person] and [number] on a
DP comes with its own unvalued [Case]. Agree for [number] then values the
[Case] associated with [number], but not with [person]. Better explored for the
PCC is Chomsky's (2000a, 2001) proposal (278) (Anagnostopoulou 2003: 274,
Béjar and Rezac 2009: 46f.). 132
131 Phi/Case valuation may go together intrinsically (Frampton and Gutmann 1999), or because
Agree maximizes valuations as soon as it relates two lexical items (Rezac 2004b). The [Case:]
feature of DPs might be able to probe as well, depending on how the relationship of phi and Case
is understood. However, [Case:] might never be in a position where it could find a goal. If a head
can probe only within its maximal projection, neither N nor D can ever see into the clause, save
for a bare D, cf. Chomsky (2000a: 125, 2001: 16). N might probe its CP/IP complement, but this
fails if CPs are phases and Ns do not take IP (raising, ECM) complements because they cannot
assign Case, *John's appearance to leave (Chomsky 1986b: 3.5.2.5; cf. Abney 1987, Sichel
2007). On a proper understanding of the phi-Case link depends the possibility that other probes
than phi establish the Agree needed for Case assignment (Rezac 2004b).
132 To understand matters better, partial agreement with case-agreement mismatches seem a
promising domain (Rezac 2003, 2004a: chapter 5). If datives that intervene in the PCC need Case