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

203
(313) (i-kalai) ga-či-łj-(a)šk-l-u-√łada ((i)ł-šq w aj) ((i)š-Gagilakk)
3sm-man RPT-3smE-3n-3du-Appl-DIR-threw 3n-water 3du-woman
He (the man) threw it (the water) at the two of them (at the two women).
(Chinook, Silverstein 1986: 185)
Chinook cross-references the core arguments on the verb using pronominal
affixes of two series, in the order EA-O/S-IO. One series is dedicated to the external
argument EA, the other is used for S, O. There is no case or adpositional marking
for these arguments. Agreement thus has an ergative-absolutive alignment of
EA vs. O/S, and the affix series may be referred to as ergative, glossed E, vs. absolutive,
unmarked in the glosses. The treatment of applicative or indirect objects
differs from Basque, where they are dative in case and agreement. In Chinook
they are coded like S/O: unmarked for case and agreeing using the absolutive series.
This parameter of cross-linguistic variation is discussed below. 150
The PCC restricts the O of a transitive to 3 rd person if there is an IO, (314), as
in Basque. Also as in Basque, intransitives with S and IO split into two types,
identical in case and agreement but different for the PCC. One class, including 'go'
in (315), is immune to the PCC. By this and by their meaning they correspond to
Basque unaccusatives with an agreeing prepositional dative, like hurbildu 'approach'
in (306), although it is unclear whether their absolutive-like goal of motion
should be analyzed in the same manner the Basque dative one (cf. note 118). The
other class, including 'smell' in (316), permits 3 rd but not 1 st /2 nd person absolutive
S to combine with an IO, exhibiting the PCC. Silverstein's (1986: 191) description
suggests that they are intransitives with an applicative argument, corresponding to
the Basque gustatu 'like' class. The missing forms with 1/2.S are supplied by what
Silverstein (1986: 191-4) calls thematization. The IO is exceptionally coded by the
ergative rather than the absolutive series. The expected absolutive i banned in
(316)b (cf. (316)a) appears as the ergative č in (316)c. 151
(314) *č-n-a-l-u-√i-amit
3smE-1s-3sf- ? Appl- ? DIR-√ ? take-?
He is taking me for her. (Transitive + IO: PCC)
150 Usually the ergative series = absolutive series + k, but there are opaque forms like 3SGM.E č.
The O-S-IO identity holds across all phi-features, including allomorphies (1SG n → ∅ and
2DU/2PL nš/nt → impersonal q in the context of 2 nd person O/IO, both contiguous, and noncontiguous
in EA1-O-IO2). The exception is 3DU and 3PL, where S agreement has an extra suffix
compared with O/IO agreement. For a similar exception in Itelmen, Bobaljik (2000 note 10) suggests
that the realization of the O agreement marker is sensitive to the presence of EA. It is unclear
whether S under thematization below uses S or O affixes in 3DU/PL.
151 The PCC and thematization extend (partly?) to 3SGM animate S: "for third person animate
nominative and third person indirect object, there is a tendency among speakers" for the PCC and
thematization to occur (Silverstein 1986: 193). Thus *š-i-l-√ła 3du-3sm-Appl-√stink → č-š-l-√ła
3smE-3du. For animacy as a locus of [+person] variation, see chapter 6 and Finnish below.