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

agreement exponent maps to another that is related to it by being poorer in the phifeatures
it expresses, but not by any phonological properties. Third, regularities
like the interaction of 1PL and 2 nd person make sense in terms of phi-featural
complexity but not any property of its exponents. Finally, there is an effect on the
allomorphy of auxiliary roots that depends specifically on phi-features rather than
exponents, discussed for (68)c.
Both opaque cliticization and opaque agreement present the same morphological
signature. Taking up first the arbitrariness with which concluded the discussion
of opaque cliticization, opaque agreement has it in an exacerbated form. In
(66), Albondiga but not Ondarroa transforms both 2SG/PL.ERG→1PL.ABS and
1PL.ERG→2PL.ABS, and the latter transformation unlike the others differentiates
2PL from 2SG. More extreme is Chukchi (67), where object agreement features
are deleted for arbitrary combinations of the object, subject, and tense features.
(67) Chukchi spurious antipassive: deletion of object agreement phi-features
and insertion of an extra voice-like morpheme in the subject→object contexts
3SG→1SG, 2→1 in the non-participial tenses, and additionally
1→2, 1/2→3, 3SG→3 in the participial tenses.
(Bobaljik and Branigan 2006: 68, 77 note 20)
The superficial impression of arbitrariness may be given a sharp edge: it has no
analogue in agreed-on syntactic dependencies. There is no Object Shift known for
1SG but not 1PL object when the subject is 3SG but not 3PL (see further section
3.5). Syntax may lack the mechanisms for to code such feature couplings.
Bobaljik and Branigan's (2006) analysis of (67) is couched in a postsyntactic
morphology, and they underscore that it rightly predicts syntactico-semantic intertness
(p. 71f.). The same is true of the opaque agreement of Basque (66), illustrated
in (68). The opaque forms retain their nonimpoverished interpretation, even
under pro-drop, and the phi-features of linked pronouns are unaffected.
(68) a. Su-ki guj ikusi d-o-sui [< gaj-itxj-u-sui]
you-ERG us.ABS seen DFLT-AUX-2pE 1pA-pA-AUX+ERG-2pE
You saw us.
(Ondarroa Basque, Arregi and Nevins 2008, ex. 32)
b. erungo-sui [< -gaj-itj-u-sui] guj
bring.FUT-(AUX.)2pE 1pA-pA-AUX+ERG-2pE we.ABS
You will bring us.
(Bermeo Basque, Egaña 1984: 14, Hualde 2000: 22 note 1)
c. gu-ki ikusi sj-ara [< saj-itj-u-gui]
we-ERG seen 2pA-AUX-ERG.pA 2pA-pA-AUX+ERG-1pE
We saw you.
(Foru Basque, Gaminde 1992: 92)
Most strikingly, Case assignment to overt pronouns is also not affected.
Basque agreement-bearing auxiliaries use different roots according to the presence
or absence of ergative agreement: [+ERG] vs [-ERG] roots (Rebuschi 1983, Al-
45