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

219
serve in the applicative construction, and cliticizes or agrees, into a full PP that
lacks these properties. Basque dative agreement and Romance cliticization and clitic-doubling
may even have the same analysis (Rezac 2006, 2008a, Etxepare 2010,
Arregi and Nevins 2008). The dative agreement/clitic originates in the dative DP
together with the doublee (if any). It moves to the neighbourhood of v/T through
the clausal Agree/Case system because of its visible [+person] feature (Anagnostopoulou
2003). From there, it attaches to the agreement complex, along the
lines discussed for French clitics above. The repair prevents this because DPs inside
full PPs are inaccessible to clausal Agree/Move.
The superficial expression of the repair varies across these systems. In
French, the repair is only visible for pronouns, since only they cliticize or (under
focus) clitic-double. Nonpronouns have the same realization whether as PPDAT
(dative) or as full PPs (locative and repaired datives), namely à 'to' + DP. In Western
Basque, the repair is visible for all datives, for they all obligatorily agree. In
the minimally different system of Eastern Basque, nonagreeing dative PPs are independently
available, so the repair invisible on the surface. Spanish (note 115)
and Georgian (section 5.8) have the same system as Western Basque, visible in the
former as the suspension of the otherwise obligatory clitic-doubling of all datives,
in the latter of dative agreement. Georgian also offers a last form of the PCC repair,
different from the ones seen so far in affecting the direct object and in form.
Echoes of it may occur in French and Spanish as well. Its unification with the others
is the subject of the next, penultimate section of this chapter.
5.8 Transitive repairs: Strengthening the DP
In the transitive repairs in Table 5.3, Georgian and perhaps French are shown
with a repair that affects the [+person] direct object rather than the dative. They
can be straightforwardly modelled through ℜ and highlight the issue of its parametrization.
However, aspects of this repair will remain mysterious. 164
(339) illustrates the case and agreement system of Georgian (Boeder 1968,
2002, 2005, Harris 1981, Anderson 1984, Hewitt 1995, Tuite 1998, Béjar 2003).
(339) a. nino-mi mej da-mj-xat-ai
Nino-ERG me[NOM] PV-1s-painted-3sSU.AOR
Nino painted me (= a picture of me).
b. deda-mi da-mk-i-xat'-ai (mek) surat-ij
mother-ERG PV-1s-VO-painted-3sSU me[DAT] picture-NOM
Mother painted me a picture.
c. (mei) da-vi-uk-xat'e deda-sk surat-ij
I[ERG] PV-1s-3D+VO-painted mother-DAT picture-NOM
I painted mother a picture.
164 The PCC repairs of Georgian are compared with Basque and French in Rezac (2009).