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

64
morphology, it controls the agreement prefix n- for 1 st person, and determines the
–g suffix which indicates an inverse context where the O wins. In the syntax, this
sentence satisfies the Ban on Inanimates, because the pivot is animate. In contrast,
(90)d has the same same 3inanEA→1O combination, but in the conjunct order. In
the conjunct, PH-interactions have been seen not to affect the morphology,
indicating that the EA is always the pivot. For this reason (91)d remains ruled out
by the Ban despite the presence of animate O: the EA pivot is inanimate. The first
verbal form gii-bsikwid is morphologically appropriate to the 3EA→1O conjunct
with a grammatically animate EA mshiimin 'apple', but runs into the Ban on Inanimates.
The second gii-bsikaagyaan is morphologically inappropriate because it
treats mshiimin as if grammatically inanimate. No other verbal form is possible
(Rhodes 1994: 145). The Ban illustrates the tight coupling of syntax and morphology
in PH interactions. The 2 > 1 > 3 interaction is relevant to the syntactic Ban
only if it affects morphology: in the independent order. 32
The nature of constraints like the Ban on Inanimates is not fully understood.
When a thematic role is constrained by animacy, selectional restrictions may be
posited. However, EA-O PH-interactions go beyond selection, because in order to
allow O to be inanimate or not, it is necessary to know what the features of the EA
are, and because EA and O may come from different clauses, as will be seen below.
Instead, PH-interactions are usually formalized through movement-type dependencies
whereby the winner/pivot moves to the highest (A-)position (section
3.3). Even in English, tools are necessary to constrain A-movement by animacy,
as Abney (1987: 176f., 205, 207f.) points out for (91). Possessive and unmarked
subjects of gerunds may both involve raising, but the possessive prefers animates
and excludes idiom chunks and expletives. On Abney's proposal (92)a, this is a selectional
restriction on the possessive base-generated in [Spec, DP], which controls
a PRO, which undergoes A-movement. A-movement is thus constrained by
animacy indirectly. Ojibwa may lend itself to the same analysis, as in (92)b. 33
(91) a. [John('s) seeming / being likely t to win] will only spur Bill on.
b. I was surprised at [it(??'s) seeming that John might not win].
c. I was irked at [advantage(??'s) being taken of John's situation].
d. This justified [much(*'s) being made of Calvin's foresight.]
(cf. Abney 1987: 177, 205, 208)
32 The same Ban constraints 3↔3 contexts on the hierarchy 3.PROX→3.OBV. They are not illustrated
here in detail, but they provide supporting evidence for the syntactic status of obviation.
The tree (inanimate) hit John (animate) requires by the Ban that John be the winner on the hierarchy
and thus proximate, giving an inverse configuration where O outranks EA. By contrast,
John hit the tree is fine only if John is proximate, a direct configuration. These direct/inverse distinctions
are reflected in the morphology (Rhodes 1994: 433f.).
33 At issue is whether the pivot can reconstruct, which it should not be able to do via PRO unlike
via A-movement (Burzio 1986). Bruening (2001: 131) does demonstrate for the Algonquian language
Passamaquoddy that the inverse of 3EA→3O combinations not only allows O > EA scope,
but also reconstructed for EA > O scope, while the direct only allows EA > O.