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

224
object. It entails that ℜ is intuitively counter-cyclic in the sense discussed earlier
in section 5.4-6. A probe would have to be added to PDAT within the already constructed
vP, permitted to Agree to turn the PPDAT into a phase, freeing up the probe
of v for the direct object. Keeping rather to the proposal here where ℜ applies to
the numeration, it may be more difficult to activate the Agree/Case locus in DPs
than in PPs. PPs are autonomous of clausal Agree/Case are more common than
DPs, including in French. However, the implementation remains unclear. Finally,
the French repair in (346) might be a mirage, as discussed in section 4.3.
Georgian and Spanish are pertinent to the evaluation of these options, although
they do not presently lead to a solution. Georgian tavization has been described
as a free option beside the use of a nonagreeing IO, as seen in (340) (Boeder
1968: 1.6, 2002). This contrasts with the PPDAT > ACC repair preference in
French, and fits well with ℜ applying freely to the numeration. However, other
dialects of Georgian are reported to differ (Boeder 1968: 1.6, 2002, Harris 1981:
chapter 3 and 282f. note 4, Tuite 1998: 21f.). The Tbilisi dialect only allows tavization,
which may be captured by a parameter that does not allow the PDAT of IO
to host the probe added by ℜ (section 5.9). Other dialects apparently only allow
tavization if IO is 1 st /2 nd person. Since 1 st /2 nd person datives cannot become nonagreeing
under the PCC repair in Georgian generally, this resembles the French
condition that permits the strengthening of O only if IO is an inherent reflexive. It
might again be modelled by supposing the PDAT of 1 st /2 nd person IO is parametrically
inaccessible to ℜ, and perhaps connected with the near identity of 1 st /2 nd person
but not 3 rd person IO case and agreement with O (note 165; see Rezac 2008ab
and references there for person, Harris 1981: chapter 15, Tuite 1998 for number).
Much remains to be learned about this dialect, including whether tavization is allowed
in the presence of applicative IO, which also cannot become nonagreeing
(from French, one would not expect so). In Spanish a similar interaction of 1 st /2 nd -
3 rd person occurs (note 115). Its PCC repair also targets the IO unless it is 1 st /2 nd
person, when it may target either the IO or O. Spanish 1 st /2 nd person O and IO
along with 3 rd person IO are fully symmetric in morphology and syntax, and their
repair takes the same form of suspending otherwise obligatory clitic doubling and
focus. The symmetry explains why either IO or O can be targeted if 1 st /2 nd person,
but not why 3 rd person IO is preferred to 1 st /2 nd person O, like in Georgian. Some
Spanish varieties prefer to repair the IO always. 167
In the end, it remains unclear how to constrain the repair of the direct object.
Nothing is needed for the Georgian variety in (341), nor for Spanish 1/2.O+2/1.IO
interactions. Elsewhere, perhaps a preference exists for repairing the indirect
object that remains to be understood. The repair itself can be naturally modelled
167 Related to these issues appears to be the crosslinguistic tendency for 1 st /2 nd person to require
agreement or clitic doubling where that of 3 rd person can be suspended, including in PCC contexts
(see Simpson 1983: 193f. for Warlpiri). However, this is absolutive, not relative to another
argument. Moreover, in French this 1 st /2 nd -3 rd asymmetry exists (Morin 1982, Kayne 2000: chapter
9), but does not prevent the PCC repair from targeting 1 st /2 nd person datives.