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

(85) a. n-waabm-aa b. n-waabm-ig c. g-waabm-in
1-see-3ANIM.O 1-see-INV 2-see-INV
I see him. He sees me. I see you.
(Ojibwa)
The Ojibwa example is typical of PH interactions, which often reveal themselves
in case-marking and agreement. The behavior of an argument α depends on,
or agrees with, the person of another argument β, uninterpretable to α, in interaction
with α's own person. The highest argument on the hierarchy tends to have
unmarked case and richer agreement. If it is the EA, as in Ojibwa 1EA→3O, the
EA-O combination is said to be direct, while if it is the O, as in 3EA→1O it is said
to be inverse, often bringing with it further special morphology. For reference,
Table 3.1 resumes these properties for the PH interactions of this chapter.
Table 3.1: Person Hierarchy interactions (excluding 3EA→3O)
Ojibwa Mapudungun Arizona Tewa Southern Tiwa
Hierarchy 2 > 1 > 3 1/2 > 3 1/2 > 3 1/2 > 3
Direct 2EA→1/3O
1EA→3O
Inverse 3EA→1/2O
1/2EA→3O
3EA→1/2O
1/2EA→3O
1/2EA→2/1O
3EA→1/2O
1/2EA→1/2/3O
3EA→1/2O
1EA→2O 1/2EA→2/1O
1/2EA→3O
EA in dir AGR; bare AGR; bare AGR; bare AGR; bare
EA in inv (AGR); bare (AGR); bare AGR; oblique -; oblique
O in dir (AGR); bare (AGR); bare AGR; bare AGR; bare
O in inv AGR; bare AGR; bare AGR; bare AGR; bare
Extra affix (Suffix field) Inverse - Inverse
Legend: AGR = agreement, (AGR) = different/impoverished agreement
'Global' PH-interactions must be strictly distinguished from superficially similar
phenomena that are 'local' in Silverstein's (1986: 178f.) sense. One is plain
voice alternations. PH-interactions resemble active-passive alternations, since if
the EA wins the interaction (direct), it tends to bear unmarked case and agree,
while if it loses (inverse), it tends to bear marked case and not agree. However, the
English passive is grammatically available independently of the interaction of the
phi-features of the arguments involved, as in (86), although factors like the foregrounding
of 1 st /2 nd person may affect its use in a given context (Delancey 1981).
By contrast, PH-interactions are inherently relational. An EA of a given person assumes
this or that behavior only in virtue of an O having a given person. Similarly,
PH interactions are distinct from differential case marking, where the
agreement and case of an argument depend on its person only (Delancey 1981,
Silverstein 1986). In Yidin y , EA is ergative if sufficiently low on the scale 1 st /2 nd
person > humans > names > common nouns, and O accusative if sufficiently high
59