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

sion is that EA and O PH-interaction counts for these syntactic diagnostics, but
only when it counts for the morphology: for the 2 > 1 > 3 hierarchy in the independent
order, but not in the conjunct order. In the independent order, their pivot
is the argument that controls the prefix agreement; in the conjunct, where there is
no prefix agreement, it is always the EA. For 1↔2 interactions, the diagnostics are
either inapplicable or untested. Thus (89) establishes that the 1/2 > 3 subset of the
2 > 1 > 3 hierarchy governs syntactically visible PH interactions.
(89) a. Ban on inanimates: The pivot cannot be notionally inanimate, even if
grammatically animate like mtig 'tree', mshiimin 'apple', pwaagan 'pipe'.
(Rhodes 1994: 333f.; see also Rhodes 1993: 144).
b. Cross-clausal obviation: Only the pivot triggers obviation on the
subjects of adjunct clauses.
(Rhodes 1994: 440f.)
c. Cross-clausal agreement ('raising'): Only the pivot of a PH-interaction
(and only if topic and animate) can control agreement on certain upstairs
verbs like gkendank 'to know', as if it were their O. This argument's PHinteraction
with the matrix EA has syntactic repercusions for the way O
links to its site in the embedded clause.
(Rhodes 1994: 338-40; Bruening 2001: 275-8)
The ban on inanimates is demonstrated in (90). 31
(90) a. *Wgii-bsikwaan mshiimin niw pwaagnan.
The apple (mshiimin) struck the pipe-OBV (pwaagn-an).
b. *Wgii-bsikaagoon aw pwaagan mshiimnan.
The apple-obv (mshiimn-an) struck the pipe (pwaagan).
c. Ngii-bsikaag aw mshiimin.
The apple (mshiimin) struck me (n-) (independent).
d. Mii-sh *gii-bsikwid / ?*gii-bsikaagyaan aw mshiimin.
[Then] the apple (mshiimin) struck me (n-) (conjunct).
(Rhodes 1993: 144f., Ottawa Ojibwa)
The ban requires that the one of EA, O which is the pivot be animate. The
constraint operates over notional rather than morphological animacy, so that nouns
animate only in the morphology like mtig 'tree' and mshiimin 'apple' count as
inanimate for it. This indicates that the ban is about syntax or interpretation rather
than morphology. When EA and O are both inanimate, there is no way to satisfy
the ban. This is so in (90)a and (90)b, although their verbs would be fine for an
EA that is both morphologically and interpretively animate. If the sentences are
modified to make one of the arguments animate, they are fine provided it turns out
to be the pivot of the PH-interaction. In the independent order of (90)c, the object
is replaced by 1 st person to give a 3INANEA→1O. Since the 1 st person O outranks
the inanimate EA on the 2 > 1 > 3 hierarchy, it wins the PH-interaction. In the
31 I do not add glosses to Rhodes's translations; the discussion below should clarify the examples.
63