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

193
To integrate dependent Case, different extensions of the Agree/Case mechanism
beyond standard Agree/Move have been explored. Marantz's (2000) seminal
proposal specifies an algorithm that examines the domain of A-movement for a
Case-competitor. If it finds one, it assigns dependent Case upward from V+INFL
to the EA in an ergative system, downward to the O in an accusative one (cf. Bobaljik
2008, Harley 1995: 4.2, 4.3, 5.1). The algorithm does not use syntactic
mechanisms at all, because it operates within an extra-syntactic morphology given
the power to span the entire domain of A-movement. Reasons to reject such a
morphology have been discussed in chapters 2 and 3. Bittner and Hale (1996) enrich
syntax with an analogous (nonglobal) mechanism for detecting Case competitors
to a DP in the domain of A-movement. 140
The proposal here is to subsume dependent Case and PCC repairs alike under
ℜ, which permits a last-resort Agree/Case relation only when another fails. (293)
has the consequence (294).
(293) ℜ (for Agree/Case): A uninterpretable feature (probe) may enter the numeration
on a potential Agree/Case locus if needed for Case-licensing.
(294) Dependent Case exists only if a DP is not licensed by obligatory Case.
This keeps the fundamental insight of dependent Case, but refers to a Casecompetitor
indirectly, as a DP that absorbs the lexically-specified obligatory Case,
leaving another DP in need of Case licensing. ℜ applies to a numeration whose
Agree/Case properties are fixed by the lexicon of a language. The lexicon provides
potential Agree/Case loci, which have an interpretable, valued Case feature
such as [Case:NOM] on T. These are active loci if they have a phi-probe to seek a
DP and assign it Case under Agree. The lexicon fixes some active Agree/Case
loci, including T or v by the Obligatory Case Parameter (295). Here the choice of
T, v is for convenience. The parameter might well have deeper content; for instance,
it might activate a low v/Asp locus rather than a high C/Fin/T locus in er-
140 Quite different is the proposals of Laka (2000) to enrich probe types to distinguish those that
need (obligatory) and need not (dependent) find a goal. Her proposal refers to a Case competitor
only indirectly, like the one to be developed here. Discussion of it is deferred to section 5.9.
A property that differentiates Marantz's morphological algorithm from all other dependent Case
approaches is that it does not rely on available Agree/Case loci, and so it can assign dependent
Case to multiple DPs, while the obligatory Case should be unique (cf. Katzir 2007, Legate 2008
for discussion). The empirical domain is complex. Agree might allow multiple Case assignment
under certain circumstances, perhaps up to the DP that values the probe, visible as case concord,
stacking, or spreading (Maling 1993, Maling and Sprouse 1995, Yoon 1996, Schütze 2001; cf.
notes 159, 140, 132, 120); see note 160 for an instance. Here both the obligatory and the dependent
Cases behave alike. A wholly distinct domain is applicative constructions. Some are asymmetric
like English, but in others the applicative object and S/O are simultaneously symmetric
for case, agreement, and A-movement (Bresnan and Mochi 1990, MacKay and Trechsel 2008).
Such recursion seems to be of object Case, not dependent Case, and best stated as the availability
of Appl/P as an extra Agree/Case locus, with parametric variation in its probe: see section 5.6.