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

200
I.A Miren-D liking R.1sAi.3sDj
Miren likes me.
c. *Zui Miren-ij gustatzen zi-atzai-zkii-oj / zai-(zkii)-oj
you.A Miren-D liking R.2pAi.3sDj / R.(3pAi).3sDj
Miren likes you.
(305) ABSS T vABS [DATAppl [VP V tS]]
EPP/subjecthood number, *person Agree
(306) a. Nesk-aki Peru-rij hurbiltzen zai-zkii-oj
girls-PL.A Peru-D approaching R.3pAi.3sDj
The girls are approaching Peru.
b. % Nii Peru-rij hurbiltzen ni-atzai-oj
I.A Peru-D approaching R.1sAi.3sDj
I am approaching Peru.
(307) ABSS T vABS [VP V [ tS DATPP]]
EPP/subjecthood number, person Agree
(Basque)
(PCC in applicative unaccusatives)
(Basque)
(No PCC in prepositional unaccusatives)
This is not always the end of the story. In (305), S raises past the dative to the
local neighbourhood of T. This does not help for Agree with vABS, but it does
bring it into the range of Agree with T. If T had a phi-probe, it could Agree with S
in its derived position and eliminate the PCC, as has been seen in section 5.2 for
Icelandic (ex. (255)). In some Western Basque varieties, a similar absolutive displacement
phenomenon exists. In a PCC context, and only there, S switches from
absolutive to ergative in case and agreement morphology, in both monopredicate
(308) and raising (309) constructions. This ergativization is restricted to PCC contexts
(308)b. It cannot occur for the S of plain unaccusatives, the 3 rd person S of
unaccusatives with an applicative dative (308)a, the S of unaccusatives with a
prepositional dative (308)c. For the latter it is banned even when the morphology
of a given variety has a gap in the agreement paradigm, as for % zatzaizkio in
(308)c. 145
(308) a. Itxaso-rii liburu-ak/*ekj gustatzen zai-zkij-oi / *di-oi-tej
Itxaso-D books-A/*E liking R.3pAj.3sDi / *R.3sDi.3pEj
b. Itxaso-rii (zu-k/*∅j) gustatzen *zj-atzai-zkij-oi / di-oi-zuj
Itxaso-D you-E/*A liking *R.2pAj.3sDi / R.3sDi.2pAj
c. Zu-∅/*kj Itxaso-rii etortzen % zj-atzai-zkij-oi / *di-oi-zuj
you-A/*E Itxaso-D coming % R.2pAj.3sDi / *R.3sDi.2sEj
145 See Rezac (2008c) for details: dialectal distribution; vacillation in the case of overt S (always
ergative in agreement) due to the spellout of the multiple Case and agreement that S gets through
vABS for number and TERG; the details of the raising construction; and the interaction with other
phenomena such as 'dative displacement', which tend to favour the form nauzu for didazu in
some varieties. See also Arregi and Nevins (2008) on most of these points.