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

210
You will be invited. (si + acc. object)
(327) a. proarb + TNOM [vP ti [v [VP V O.NOMj]]]
person
(Italian, Burzio 1986: 49)
nominative., number, *person si + nom. object
b. proarb + TNOM [vP ti [vACC [VP V O.ACCj]]]
person accusative si + acc. object
The same scenario plays out for the objects of structurally poor nonfinite
clauses under passives and unaccusatives. In (328), the unaccusative täytyä 'must'
embeds an infinitive whose subject raises to or is controlled by the matrix oblique
subject minun. The nominative of the matrix TNOM passes across minun to the object
of the infinitive, which has no Agree/Case system of its own. If the object is
[+person], the otherwise unavailable accusative again steps in. 158
(328) Minu-ni täyty-y ti nähdä kirje-et / se / *se-n / sin-ut.
me-GEN must-3SG see-INF letter-PL.N/A it.N *it-A you-A
I must see the letters/it/him/you.
(Finnish)
It is possible to stack such infinitives as in (329) to induce indefinite distance
between the nominative assigner, intervener, and object: see Timberlake (1975),
Vainikka (1989), Kiparsky (2001), and esp. Vainikka and Brattico (2009). 159
158 The oblique argument seems attributable in some cases to the matrix predicate (Kiparsky
2001: 334, followed in Rezac 2007), in others it is clearly the genitive or other oblique subject of
the infinitive (Laitinen and Vilkuna 1993: 3.1, Maling 1993: 54 note 8, Koskinen 1999, 2000;
Vainikka 1989: 303f., Brattico and Vainikka 2009: ex. 30). The oblique can be silent but syntactically
active progeneric, distinct from proarb (Rezac 2007: 132 note 20, Holmberg forthc). It is detectable
by preventing 3PL nominative from agreeing even when fronted, Lehmät pitää tuoda
kotiin 'The cows(NOM) must.3SG bring (=be brought) home' (Laitinen and Vilkuna 1993; in
their dialectal Lehmät (for Lehmien) pitää tulla 'cows.NOM (for cows.GEN) must.3SG come', cf.
Kiparsky 2001: 359, there might be an expletive pro). There is no satisfactory theory of which
infinitives are transparent, although it often goes with genitive/possessive subject (Kiparsky
2001: 356f., but Vainikka 1989: 303f., Brattico and Vainikka 2009). Also to be addressed are independent
subjectless infinitives in subject, adjunct, and noun complement positions that allow
or require nominative objects (Hakulinen and Karlsson 1975: 343f., Taraldsen 1986, Sakuma
1998, 1999, Hakulinen et al. 2004: §937-§940, Vainikka and Brattico 2009; cf. Maling 1993: 70
note 19). The logic would suggest that they have TNOM and an oblique subject. This seems confirmed
by North Russian and Lithuanian parallels (Lavine 2000: 265).
159 Finnish nonagreeing nominative/accusative may recurse across multiple DPs through transparent
infinitives: Maija pyysi Jukan lukemaan kirjan 'Maija-NOM asked Jukka-ACC to.read
book-ACC' vs. Pyydä Jukka lukemaan kirja 'Ask Jukka-NOM to.read book-NOM' (Vainikka
1989: 267f.; Kiparsky 2001: 356; Hakulinen et al. 2004: §936, Reime 1993: 102 note 9, and esp.
Brattico 2009: 90, but perhaps distinct from the partitive recursion discussed there, over greater
distances and with alternatives analyses). It suggests that a locus may Agree with multiple DPs
until valued, so the nonagreeing low nominative is a Case assigned without valuation. If so, section
5.2 (note 120) requires more to be said about why the PCC occurs with such a nominative.