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

194
gative languages because their C/T system has nominal or prepositional properties
(cf. Johns 1992, Alexiadou 2001, Mahajan 1996 for such connections).
(295) Obligatory Case Parameter: In the lexicon, one of v (absolutive) or T
(nominative) has a phi-probe.
Active loci are phases, since phasehood follows upon Agree. Thus in unaccusatives,
vABS Agree leads to Transfer of the vP phase in ergative languages, TERG
Agree of the TP phase in accusative ones. These are approximations, insofar as
cyclicity may permit building up structure between the Agree of a head and its
consequent Transfer, for instance the CP above an Agreeing TP in Chomsky
(2001, 2008). For convenience, I will speak of the v-phase and of the C/T-phase as
the phases due to the Agree of v and T. Potential Agree/Case loci are not phases as
such, but other features make them so, such as the EPP/Edge Feature of Chomsky
(2008). This is standardly assumed at least for C/T.
By the Obligatory Case Parameter, the lexicon provides one active locus per
CP, v or T. This is adequate for unaccusatives. It is also all that unaccusatives can
tolerate, if a probe must find a goal, since they have only one DP. For transitives,
ℜ (293) steps in to add a phi-probe to a potential Agree/Case locus in the derivation,
activating it. This is the source of dependent Case. In an ergative system, the
derivation proceeds as in (296), diagrammed in (297):
(296) ℜ in an ergative system:
1. vABS-Agree with O and S, valuing [phi:] on v and [Case:] on them.
2. Transfer upon v-Agree of the complement of v, with convergence.
3. The next phase is built up, including the EA at the vP edge.
4. The potential Agree/Case locus T has no phi-probe, thus no T-EA Agree.
5. Transfer of the C/T-phase, which crashes because of [Case:] on EA.
6. ℜ adds [phi:] on the potential locus T of the failed numeration.
7. The construction of the phase restarts from the new numeration.
8. Agree between T and EA, valuation of their [phi:] and [Case:].
9. Transfer of the C/T-phase, with convergence.
(297) Derivation of dependent ergative
a. v[φ:,κ:A] [… DP[φ:1PL,κ:]]] →Agree
b. T[κ:E] [DP[φ:2PL,κ:] v[φ:1PL,κ:A] [… DP[φ:1PL,κ:A]]] →√Transfer,…
c. T[κ:E] [DP[φ:2PL,κ:] v[φ:1PL,κ:A] [… DP[φ:1PL,κ:A]]] →*Transfer, ℜ
d. T[φ:2PL,κ:E] [DP[φ:2PL,κ:E] v[φ:1PL,κ:A] [… DP[φ:1PL,κ:A]]] →√Transfer
(Notation: κ [Case], φ [phi], strikethrough Transfer)
It has not been specified how ℜ knows to add a phi-probe, nor to add it on the
potential Agree/Case locus T. It seems unnecessary. A potential Agree/Case locus
is such by having an interpretable [Case] feature. If the phi-probe is added elsewhere,
the [Case:] of a DP cannot be valued. How ℜ knows to choose a phi-probe