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

220
(Georgian, (a) Nash 1995: 199, (b, c) Anderson 1984: 168)
The c-command relations among the A-positions of the transitive subject EA,
intransitive/passive subject S, transitive object O, applicative object IO, are EA >
IO > O in transitives, less clear for S and IO (Harris 1981, McGinnis 1997, and
note 165). The case marking is nominative (EA/S) – accusative (O) in the present
and ergative (EA) – absolutive (S/O) in the past, where the nominative and
absolutive are identical and both called nominative. In the present, the case of O is
syncretic with the case of IO, both called dative. However, in the aorist, passives,
and detransitivizations O becomes nominative while IO remains dative. Thus the
dative of O reflects a structural Case while that of IO an inherent one. 1 st /2 nd person
pronouns do not mark case; a bracketed gloss indicates the case that a corresponding
3 rd person would have.
Verbal agreement has a unique prefix slot for 1 st /2 nd person, underlined here
along with its controller. It shows nominative-accusative alignment in the present
and aorist alike, with IO and O controlling one set of morphemes (1SG m in
(339)a), and EA and S another (1SG v in (339)b and (339)c). When two potential
agreement controllers are 1 st /2 nd person, O/IO beats EA and IO beats S for control
of the prefix; competition between IO and O is blocked by the PCC below. 3 rd person
IO controls a distinct prefix slot, also underlined, while 3 rd person EA/O/S is
unmarked by prefixes. These agreement relations are obligatory for the winning
agreement controller. The remaining potential controllers are fine without agreement,
for instance 1 st person EA when O is 2 nd person (see below for (343)). In the
suffix field are marked the person and number of the subject, glossed SU. 165
The PCC in Georgian bars agreement with 1 st /2 nd person O in the presence of
IO, both in the present where O is has dative case, and in the aorist where it is
nominative (absolutive). Two otherwise unavailable structures, repairs, then appear.
One suspends the otherwise obligatory agreement of the IO (Boeder 1968:
89, 2002: 97f., cf. Hewitt 1995: 140f.). In (340)a, the dative mas controls no
agreement (cf. (340)b). The appearance of a nonagreeing dative IO in the PCC
context is parallel to Western Basque in section 5.7, and can be treated in the same
165 1 st /2 nd person O and IO are thus particularly close because they do not overtly mark case and
control the same person prefix. They remain differentiated as structural vs. inherent Case in detransitivizations,
where IO retains IO/O-type agreement, while O comes to control S-type agreement
(the EA/S prefix series and subject suffixes). 3 rd person IO uses a prefix that combines in
principle with 1 st /2 nd person EA/S, e.g. 1 st person EA v- + 3 rd person IO s/h-, but not with 1 st /2 nd
person O by the PCC. For the most part however, only one of the 1/2.EA/S and 3.IO agreement
prefixes surfaces (Rezac 2008b: 721 note 21 and references there, adding Boeder 2005: 28f., Tuite
1998: 89, cf. 74f. for S-IO, 2008: 157). The combination of IO and S occurs in unaccusatives
and detransitivizations. The PCC does not occur in such structures, which indicates that S has
access to person agreement. In Georgian S does raise higher than O for the purposes of agreement
because it aligns with EA not O (Rezac 2008c: 92 note 21), but 1 st /2 nd IO beats 1 st /2 nd S for
the control of the agreement prefix and some c-command purposes (Harris 1981, McGinnis
1997). The relevant person agreement that permits S to avoid the PCC might rather be seen in the
subject agreement suffixes, which S (like EA) and not IO (like O) controls; they exhibit person
distinctions (Aronson 1990: 42f., 470, Hewitt 1995: 226ff., Boeder 2005: 27 (e)).