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

44
agreement in isolation. Deletions and transfers of phi-features are commonplace.
For instance in Mapudungun (65), transparent 1subject + 2object agreement combinations
have been historically replaced by the agreement of 1PL reflexives if the total
number of participants is greater than two, and otherwise by the unique combination
1DUsubject agreement + an "inverse" morpheme (Arnold 1997):
(65) a. pe-e-ymi-∅ ⇒ b. pe-e-yu / c. pe-w-iiñ
see-INV-2SG.SU-1.O see-INV-1DU.SU see-REFL-1PL.SU
I see you. (2 participants) (2+ participants)
(Mapudungun, Arnold 1997)
Rhodes (1993: 145) aptly calls similar opaque agreement in Algonquian 'inflectional
idioms'. They are particularly common cross-linguistically for combinations
of two 1 st /2 nd persons (Heath 1991, 1998). The outcome typically makes use
of independently available affixes, though sometimes in unique combinations, just
as opaque cliticization tends to recruit independent clitics. 20
Arregi and Nevins (2006ab, 2008) study opaque agreement in the Basque dialects
in (66). The combinations of ergative→absolutive arguments on the left surface
not with morphemes reflecting their expected phi-features, but as the combinations
on the right, with the phi-features in bold deleted. These deletions are
obligatory; elsewhere the expected morphemes are found, for instance in
2SG/PL.E→1.PLA in Gallartu, 1PL.E→2SG.A in Albondiga. 21
(66) Basque phi-feature deletion (ERG→ABS): (dialect)
a. 2SG/PL→1PL → 2SG/PL→3SG (Ondarroa, Bermeo)
b. 2SG/PL→1PL → 3SG/PL→1PL (Maruri, Alboniga)
c. 1PL→2PL → 3SG→2PL (Alboniga)
d. 1PL→2SG/PL → 2SG/PL.ABS intrans. (Zamudio, Bakio, Foru;
Gallartu for 2PL.A)
Like Bonet for opaque cliticization, Arregi and Nevins model opaque agreement
as post-syntactic deletion of phi-features, but in the Distributed Morphology
framework. They bolster Bonet's point that phi-features are manipulated, rather
than their exponents or the phonology thereof. Examples will follow in (68), but
one may briefly summarize the key facts pertinent to this. First, the exponents involved
share no material and are on opposite edges of the word. Second, an
20 Mapudungun is returned to in chapter 3 for another aspect of its system. See Lakämper and
Wunderlich (1998) for another detailed study of 1↔2 opaque agreement, in Quechua dialects.
21 Some details are added from Yrizar (1992), Egaña (1984: 14), as is all of Foru from Gaminde
(1992). The rules are exhaustive save for Bakio (where all 1/2→2/1 combinations are said to be
opaque, Hualde 2001: 228 note 5). Thus in Gallartu only 2SG but in Albondiga 2SG/PL are affected
(Yrizar 1992(I): 479, 482, (II): 124, 127), and in Albondiga alone both 1PL→2 and 2→1
combinations are opaque. Some of these combinations are subject to 'arbitrary' gaps discussed in
section 2.3: 2PL→1PL in Bermeo, as well as in Foru where however an independent dativeobject
construction steps into the breach, as it does for 1PL→2SG in Gallartu. Morphologically,
2SG in (66) is 2PL and 2PL is a double plural (Rezac 2006).