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

195
depends on what other probes exist, whether they can be added to potential
Agree/Case loci, and whether Agree by them would value Case (section 5.4).
The accusative system is more interesting because its dependent Case has an
intuitively countercyclic character. The accusative is available for O because the
higher EA takes up the nominative, not for S when there is no EA. ℜ faces no
problems here, because it affects the numeration of a nonconvergent phase, which
may as consequence split into two phases. Let us proceed first on the assumption
that v is a phase only if it has a phi-probe that Agrees. In a nominative-accusative
system, only T bears a lexically specified phi-probe. It Agrees with the transitive
subject. At the C/T phase, the derivation is Transferred and crashes, because nothing
has valued the [Case:] of the direct object, (297)a. ℜ adds a phi-probe to the
remaining potential Agree/Case locus in the numeration, v. The derivation rebuilds
from the new numeration. Now v Agrees and licenses the direct object, and
thereby becomes a phase, (297)b. It Transfers with convergence, (297)c. Next the
C/T phase is built up as in the previous failed attempt, save that now there remain
no unvalued Case features, and Transfer succeeds in (297)d.
(298) Derivation of dependent accusative
a. T[φ:2PL,κ:N] [DP[φ:2PL,κ:N] v[κ:A] [… DP[φ:1PL,κ:]]] →*Transfer, ℜ
b. v[φ:,κ:A] [… DP[φ:1PL,κ:]]] →Agree
c. v[φ:1PL,κ:A] [… DP[φ:1PL,κ:A]]] →√Transfer
d. T[φ:2PL,κ:N] [DP[φ:2PL,κ:N] v[φ:1PL,κ:A] [… DP[φ:1PL,κ:A]]]
(Notation: κ [Case] (N nom., A acc.), φ [phi], strikethrough Transfer)
These mechanics illustrate the consequences of the decision to have ℜ add features
to the numeration, rather than to a structure built from it. It allows ℜ to open
up a new derivational path. The ℜ-enriched numeration need not yield the same
structure as its poorer predecessor. The subset of the enriched numeration with the
added probe Agrees and Transfers separately, spawning off a phase. The rest remains
in the workspace, already selected from the lexicon. Derivation from it continues,
embedding the spawned-off phase, and converging. It seems an elegant
way to achieve the intuitive countercyclicity of dependent accusative and a conceptually
simple, modular way for ℜ to operate.
The alternative is to let ℜ add a probe within an already built-up structure,
along the lines of (281)/(282). ℜ would have to be able to add a probe to v at the
point of C/T Transfer, and the added probe would need to Agree with the object
and value its Case. Then the numeration is can be dispensed with in the formulation
of ℜ. The general application of operations within already built-up structure
is prohibited by cyclicity (Chomsky 1995: 234f., 248, 327f., 2000a: 3.6, 2007,
2008: 138; Kitahara 1997; Freidin 1999; Richards 1999). However, there are leeways.
If the phase defines the cycle, there are no cyclic restrictions on the order of
operations within a phase (Chomsky 2001, 2007, 2008, Hiraiwa 2010). It remains
that in (298)a, the structure built up to C/T would be remolded from the inside if
ℜ were to add a phi-probe to v and it Agreed with the object. Such a derivation