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

226
Laka (2000: 109-113) approaches dependent Case in another way, which
sheds revealing light on the globality of ℜ and its alternatives. The cornerstone of
her proposal is a distinction between [+active] Agree/Case probes that require a
goal, and [-active] ones that do not. 168 The Obligatory Case Parameter puts a
[+active] probe on vABS in an ergative-absolutive system and on TNOM in a nominative-accusative
one. The remaining Agree/Case locus has a [-active] probe, TERG
and vACC. Either probe can seek to Agree freely. In transitives both are needed
(347)a. In unaccusatives, if the [-active] probe Agrees (347)b, the [+active] probe
is left without a goal, and the derivation crashes. On the other hand, if the
[+active] probe Agrees (347)c, it is the [-active] probe that has no goal, which it
tolerates.
(347) a. TERG,-active EAERG vABS,+active OABS √
b. TERG,-active vABS,+active SERG * (no goal for [+active] probe)
c. TERG,-active vABS,+active SABS √ (no goal for [-active] probe)
This is a dependent Case mechanism that makes no reference to the obligatory
Case relationship or to the argument that participates in it as the Case competitor.
It also makes no reference to crash to license dependent Case as last-resort. The [active]
probes of dependent Case are freely present and freely Agree. Full Interpretation
filters out those derivations where the Agree of a [-active] probe leaves
an [+active]'s probe need to Agree unsatisfied, and those where the failure to
Agree of a [-active] probe leaves a DP without Case. There is no globality, only
the filtering of syntactic structures by convergence.
In the domain of Case-licensing requirements, [-active] and ℜ-added probes
are coextensive, and reflect closely related intuitions. The ontological [±active]
distinction can be recast as phi-probe distribution in the lexicon. [+active] probes
correspond to regular lexical items that only come with a probe, TNOM, vABS. [active]
probes can be implemented as pairs of lexical items with and without a
probe, v/vACC, T/TERG. The resulting lexical duplication over-generates, by allowing
vACC, TERG where they usurp the goal needed by TNOM, vABS, and is filtered by
convergence. ℜ is the inverse mechanism to assign optional probes to the potential
Agree/Case loci v, T when needed for convergence. The parallelism extends to the
PCC and other person Case-licensing requirements, for which Béjar and Rezac
(2009) posit 'added probes' similar to Laka's [-active] ones.
Yet the role of crash in filtering the availability of nonobligatory Agree/Case
relations is different under the two proposals: to permit them only when needed or
weed them out only when detrimental. In consequence, they partition syntactic
phenomena in different ways, intensionally, even when extensionally equivalent.
The global but not the nonglobal approach claims that there is a difference of
mechanisms those Agree/Move dependencies that depend on the lexical properties
168 I adapt Laka's checking terminology to Agree. The [±active] distinction does not reduce to the
[±strong] distinction of Chomsky (1995), now Agree vs. Move or Move pre vs. post Transfer.