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

202
The C/T-phase rebuilds and Agree occurs between the new TERG and S, (312)h.
The Transfer of the C/T phase now converges. 147
(312) Derivation of dependent ergative in the PCC context
a. v[π:,#:,κ:A] … DAT … S[π:1,#:PL,κ:] →Agree v-DAT
b. v[π:+,#:,κ:A] … DAT … S[π:1,#:PL,κ:] →Agree v-S
c. v[π:+,#:(PL?),κ:A] … DAT … S[π:1,#:PL,κ:] →S Move
d. S[π:1,#:PL,κ:] v[π:+,#:(PL?),κ:A] … DAT … tS →Transfer
e. T S[π:1,#:PL,κ:] v[π:+,#:(PL?),κ:A] … DAT … tS →C/T-phase, EPP
f. S[π:1,#:PL,κ:] T tS v[π:+,#:(PL?),κ:A] … DAT … tS →*Transfer, ℜ
g. T[π:,#:,κ:E] S[π:1,#:PL,κ:] v[π:+,#:(PL?),κ:A] … DAT … tS →Agree T-S, EPP
h. S[π:1,#:PL,κ:E] T[π:1,#:PL,κ:E] tS v[π:+,#:(PL?),κ:A] … DAT … tS →Transfer
(Notation: π [person], # [number], κ [Case], + [+person] of DAT)
The emergence of the ergative in the PCC repair is thus analysable in the
same way as its emergence in transitives. It fits nicely the characterization of dependent
Case as last-resort repair through ℜ. The limits of ℜ also correctly circumscribe
the scope of ergativization. It cannot apply to the O of transitives, even
in a PCC context, because in transitives TERG already Agrees with the EA. It cannot
apply for reasons other than the failure of Transfer to converge, due to modularity,
among them the morphological gaps mentioned for (308)c. Finally, ℜ cannot
usefully apply elements other than T in the above derivation. Most are not
potential Agree/Case loci. The PDAT of datives is one, but it would become a full
PP, which cannot have an applicative interpretation as will be discussed in section
5.7.
An issue deferred until section 5.9 is the parametrization of ℜ, for only some
Basque varieties permit absolutive displacement. In most, PCC contexts irremediably
crash. Paraphrase takes the place of the simplest way to say 'I like you'. 148
5.6.3 Chinook
The ergativization of Basque has a remarkable parallel in Chinook, described in
Silverstein (1986) and related to Basque in Rezac (2009). 149 The case and agreement
of Chinook are introduced through (313):
147 If it were desirable that S stay in-situ in the vP, it would have to be assumed that a crashed
Transfer at v permits the derivation to continue (as seems plausible, section 5.4), or that Transfer
of the v-complement is delayed until C (Chomsky 2001). However, there is evidence that S raises
to the edge of the unaccusative vP in Basque (Rezac 2008c: 4.4). Also discussed in Rezc (2008c)
is evidence that partial v-S number Agree results in absolutive assignment to S and licensing of
the number of S, leaving person unlicensed. Such relativization of Case to phi-features and multiple
Case are compatible with the present approach to the PCC (section 5.2).
148 Typically gustuko(a) zaitut/ditut lit. 'I have you/them pleasing', independent of the PCC.
149 The Chinook analogue of absolutive displacement was pointed out to me by D. Harbour, p.c.