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

205
with it (Rezac 2006: 3.7, 2008b: 722). Neither incorporation nor number/gender
Agree provide [+person] licensing, so S/O cannot be [+person] in Mohawk or Nahuatl.
Thus the applicative IO thus creates the PCC in the most straightforward incarnation
of the Agree/Case approach. As a plain DP it pre-empts clausal Agree,
and there is no other means to license [+person] S/O.
(318) a. TheyEA baked herIO two cakesO
b. SheIO was baked tIO two cakesO
c. *Two cakesS were baked herIO tS.
(319) Ni-mitz-im-maca in huē-hue'xōlo-'.
1SG.SU-2SG.O-3PL.O2-give IN RED-turkey-PL
IEA give youIO the turkeysO.
(Nahuatl, Baker 1996: 240 note 12, from Launey 1981: 174)
Chinook seems to belong to this group. Its IO behaves exactly like the S/O of
nonapplicative unaccusatives/transitives for agreement and case. The remaining
S/O of applicative constructions agrees for number/gender, but is ruled out as
[+person]. Systems of this type should raise the applicative IO to satisfy the EPP
of T, since it is closest to T and not distinguishable by being dative. This is so in
English and apparently in Mohawk. Chinook would then have the structure in
(317)b. In Basque (317)a, S is in the range of T to receive last-resort ergative, but
in Chinook (317)b, the applicative IO is. The mechanics are as in Basque, save
that it is the IO that must escape the vP. The only convergent derivation is one
where it does so prior to (person) Agree with vABS, which remains available for
S. 152
The discussion of Chinook may end on a sketch of the third asymmetric pattern,
because it sheds further light on the ergative as dependent Case. As in the
second one, IO is not oblique and participates in the Agree/Case system of the
core arguments. However, applicative unaccusatives are always treated as transitives,
not just when S is [+person]. The IO is ergative, or the O accusative. Baker
(1996: 9.6.2) discusses this system in Ainu and Mayali, but their case and agreement
do not indicate whether transitives are ergative or accusative. Other languages
do, but do not make for minimal comparison with Chinook. The Chukchi
alternation in (320) comes close. In (320)a is an unaccusative with an absolutive
experiencer. In (320)b an absolutive theme is added. As a result, the experiencer
switches to the ergative, independent of the person value of either argument.
(320) a. ətɬəɣən (pəčɣ-etə) korɣav-ərkən
152 Some Basque varieties this and the foregoing types: a dative controls absolutive agreement,
and an extra number-only probe appears for the remaining S/O, with the PCC: see Rezac (2006,
2008a, 2008b) for Basque and cross-linguistically. S still raises to satisfy the EPP and ergativizes,
(Rezac 2008c: 80 note 13, 85 note 14, forthc). This continues to follow from whatever
property renders specifically datives unavailable to satisfy the EPP in Basque.