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

212
5.6.5 Overview
With Finnish, the accusative joins the ergative as the dependent Agree/Case
relation activated in unaccusatives to repair the PCC. They appear when the
obligatory Agree/Case relation has been used up yet there remains a DP in need of
licensing. This the same distribution as that of the dependent ergative and
accusative in transitives. In PCC contexts however, the obligatory Case may or
may not suffice for one and the same DP, according to its [+person] specification.
When it does not, last-resort dependent Case emerges through ℜ (293) (repeated):
(293) ℜ (for Agree/Case): A uninterpretable feature (probe) may enter the
numeration on a potential Agree/Case locus if needed for Case-licensing.
The examination of ℜ in the unaccusative PCC repairs reveals something of its
scope and limits. ℜ has the capacity to distribute dependent Case in a way more
nuanced than selection, which would always activate a given type of T/v, and than
reference to a Case competitor DP, because PCC contexts are not defined by DPs
but by their [person] specifications. At the same time, ℜ is highly conservative,
for it only activates the potential Agree/Case capacity of a structure. The potential
of unaccusatives to add the ergative or accusative for Case licensing surfaces independently
of the PCC: in systems discussed where the applicative argument is
the Case competitor (section 5.6.3, ex. (320)), in unaccusatives with a covert Case
competitor such as Faroese dative-experiencer psych-verbs (section 5.5), in simple
transitivization of unaccusatives by the addition of an external argument.
Several more technical aspects of the mechanics of ℜ have been come up. It affects
the numeration, or requires limited countercyclicity, in the same way as the
repair of transitives in (298). Nothing has needed to be said about where ℜ inserts
a phi-probe, since the set of potential Agree/Case loci in an applicative unaccusative
is limited to T/v (the P of applicative arguments being excluded to keep the
applicative interpretation). The parametrization of ℜ has been relegated to section
5.9. The next two sections extend ℜ to PCC in transitives.
5.7 Transitive repairs: Strengthening the PP
When the PCC occurs in transitives, repair by an additional ergative or accusative
is unavailable. Both the T/v Agree/Case loci have been used up, and ℜ cannot
introduce new ones, only add uninterpretable features. Two other repairs occur in-
or for some other reason. The present analysis may then proceed in the same manner to provide
repair. An alternative view is that the nonagreeing nominative is a realization of the accusative;
see Brattico and Vainikka (2009) on Finnish, Lavine (2000: 4.4), Franks and Lavine (2005: 5.3,
for objects of infinitives only) on North Russian and Lithuanian.