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

204
(315) ga-nš-i-gl-u-√ya
RPT-1p-3sm-?- ? DIR-√go
We (exclusive) went toward him. (Intransitive + goal IO: no PCC)
(316) a. i-n-l-√ła
3sm-1s-Appl-√stink
He wafts towards me, es shtinkt mir, I smell him.
b. *nš-i-l-√ła →
1p-3sm-Appl-√stink
c. č-nš-l-√ła
3smE-1p-Appl-√stink
He smells us (exclusive). (Intrans. + appl. IO: PCC and repair)
(Chinook, Silverstein 1986: 190-2)
Chinook thematization is strikingly reminiscent of the absolutive displacement
of Western Basque. In both languages, the PCC bars 1 st /2 nd person O and S
in the presence of an applicative argument. Intransitives fall into two classes differentiated
by the applicative character of the IO despite their otherwise identical
case and agreement. Applicative unaccusatives alone are affected by the PCC, although
nonapplicative unaccusatives show the missing morphology. The PCC is
repaired by coding one of the arguments in the same way as the EA, ergative.
Unlike in Basque, the ergativized argument of Chinook is the applicative argument
rather than S. This difference would derive from another, if it may be posited
between Basque and Chinook: whether IO or S satisfies the EPP in (317).
(317) a. [S T(ERG) [vABS IODAT (Appl) … tS]] (Basque)
b. [IO T(ERG) [vABS tIO (Applnumber/gender) … S]] (Chinook)
This Basque-Chinook difference is expected. In languages with 'asymmetric'
applicative constructions, three Agree/Case patterns appear cross-linguistically.
One has been seen so far in Basque, French, and Icelandic. IO has an inherent
case, such as the dative. It participates in the PCC, but not in the agreement or
Case of S or O. Systems of this type differ in whether they raise IO (Icelandic) or
S (Basque, French, Spanish) to satisfy the EPP of T, for ill-understood reasons.
The second asymmetric pattern is seen in English (318). The applicative object
IO participates in the same Agree/Case and A-movement as the S/O of nonapplicative
unaccusatives/transitives. Mohawk, Ojibwa, Nahuatl, and Southern
Tiwa are other languages of this type, similar to Chinook in agreement and case
morphology (Dryer 1986, Baker 1996: chapters 5, 9). The remaining S/O of an
applicative unaccusative/transitive must be licensed differently. In English it
might be by inherent Case or a silent PP (Larson 1988, Pesetsky 1995, Baker
1997). In Mohawk it incorporates (Baker 1996). In Nahuatl (319) and in Southern
Tiwa it controls extra number/gender but not person agreement (Baker 1996:
194f., 2008: 3.3.3). This agreement may be viewed as a number/gender probe on
the Appl head of applicative constructions, (317)b, where the IO will not interfere