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

222
I kiss you, [and] you kiss me.
(344) *čem-ma tav-ma g-a-ḳoc-o-s
my-ERG head-ERG 2s-VN-kiss-OPT-3sSU
Intended: I kiss you.
(Georgian, Boeder 2002: 94, 102 (v-g- phototactically fine))
The Georgian repair by a nonagreeing dative falls under the ones seen in
section 5.7, the strengthening a defective, agreeing PPDAT to a full, nonagreeing
PP. Tavization may be seen as an analogous strengthening of a DP by providing it
with an internal Agree/Case (Rezac 2007, cf. Albizu 1997b). We may think of the
relevant type of pronouns as a nominal core N 'λx.x=x' and a phi-containing
functional projection Φ, giving [Φ N] (Déchaine and Wiltschko 2002). Ordinarily,
N raises to Φ and the whole is Case-licensed by Agree/Case with the clausal T/v,
(345)a. These are the ordinary agreeing strong pronouns and pro.
(345) a. [DP (δ[Case:D]) [Φ+N][Case:] tN] → bare pronoun
b. [DP δ[phi:,Case:D] Φ[Case:D] N[Case:]] → possessive pronoun + tav 'self'
(cf. Rezac 2007: 125f.)
In the tavization (345)b, the pronoun is 'strengthened' by an active Agree/Case
licenser δ for the phi-set Φ within the DP. A phi-set licensed by DP-internal Case
is naturally realized as a genitive/possessive pronoun, as in English. The N head is
left in-situ, and Case-licensed by the clause, where it agrees as 3SG. It is realized
by the lexical item closest to its meaning 'λx.x=x', namely tav 'self'. The striking
form of tavization thus has a fairly natural explanation and falls within the
purview of ℜ as the activation of an Agree/Case licenser.
X's tav avoids the PCC because it is 3SG, even when interpreted as 1 st /2 nd
person. The regular strong pronouns or pro of Georgian would not help, since they
must agree and are subject to the PCC, as in Basque. They must lack their own
internal Agree/Case licenser for [+person]. In order for ℜ to apply to (one of)
them, there ought to be within them a potential Agree/Case licenser δ for ℜ to
activate, at least optionally, unless ℜ is given the power to introduce a host for the
probe it adds. Ideally, δ would be active somewhere else in the language or in a
similar linguistic system, much as the PPDAT of French has a full PP analogue in
locatives, and that of Western Basque in Eastern Basque. Within Georgian, X's tav
expressions mostly serve as a subject-oriented object reflexives, although not as
logophora (Harris 1981: 23-6, 281 note 4, Amiridze 2006). This is a wide-spread
use of X's self/head expressions, including Basque X-GEN buru, and does not lead
their availability for PCC repairs. However, Boeder (2002: 100-2, 2005: 54-6)
notes uses as nonanaphoric emphatic pronouns, which have no analogues in
Basque, such as the vocative čem-o tav-o 'my-VOC head-VOC' = 'O me!'. Given a
potential Agree/Case locus δ (optionally) present in Georgian (strong) pronouns,
ℜ works in tavization in the same way as when strengthening a defective to a full
PP. When the vP phase crashes because of the PCC, a potential Agree/Case
licenser within its numeration, PDAT or δ, is enriched with a phi-probe.