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

66
status, it affects syntax. As in the preceding diagnostic, there is a tight coupling
between morphology and syntax. Only in the independent order is the 2 > 1 > 3
PH-interaction morphologically visible, and only there does it matter for syntactic
obviation. As for the mechanism of cross-clausal obviation, there are various
possibilities. One is that the winner on the PH-interaction moves to the highest Aposition,
and from there triggers obviation of the adjunct subject, either
syntactically, or through the information-structural prominence thus attained. 35
The last diagnostic is cross-clausal agreement. Certain matrix verbs like
'think' agree with a designated argument α in their clausal complement as if it were
their own O (Dahlstrom 1986, Branigan and MacKenzie 2001, Bruening 2001,
Lochbihler 2008 in Algonquian, and generally Polinsky 2003). The situations of
interest are those where α can interact with another argument on the 2 > 1 > 3 hierarchy.
The embedded clauses are conjunct, so the 2 > 1 > 3 PH interaction does
not occur, and α is always the EA (Rhodes 1994: 438f.). However, if the matrix
clause is in the independent order, α does interact with its EA. Bruening (2001)
shows that in the Algonquian language Passamaquoddy, this interaction has syntactic
consequences. If α is lower-ranked than the matrix EA according 2 > 1 > 3
hierarchy (matrix direct context), α must link to a movement gap within the embedded
clause, by a path free of islands, and if it appears overtly, it is at the edge
of the embedded clause. Thus in (94), the EA wins the 1EA→3O EA-α interaction,
as seen by the prefix 1 st person n- on 'know', and therefore the 3 rd person α 'who'
cannot come from an adjunct island within the embedded clause. In (95) on the
other hand, α outranks the matrix EA in the 3EA→1O and 1EA→2O combinations,
controlling the prefixes 1 st person n- and 2 nd person k- on 'know'. Then α links to a
resumptive pronoun in the embedded clause, in disregard of islands, and may appear
overtly within the matrix clause itself. 36
(94) a. N-kosiciy-a [wen elomi-ya-t [mesq Mali mace-ntu-hk]].
1-know.TA-DIR who IC.away-go-3.CJ not.yet M. start-sing-3.CJ.NEG
IEA know whoα tα left before Mary started singing.
b. *N-kosiciy-a [wen elomi-ya-t Mihku [mesq t mace-ntu-hk]].
1-know.TA-DIR who IC.away-go-3.CJ M. not.yet start-sing-3.CJ.NEG
IEA know whoα Mihku left before t started singing.
(Bruening 2001: 268, matrix pivot EA in bold)
(95) a. N-kosiciy-oq al nikuwoss [eli psi=te wen
1-know.TA-INV uncertain 1.mother C all=EMPH someone
35 See further Bruening (2001), Mühlbauer (2008) on obviation. Superficially, the alternation in
the obviation of the adjunct subject is reminiscent of that between anaphor types in sentences of
the type Lynni found Katek tired when xi/k came home, in languages like Spanish, Finnish, or
German. If xi picks up the subject, it tends to be pro rather than a pronoun, or a pronoun rather
than a demonstrative, and inversely if xk picks up the object (Turan 1996, Arnold 1998, Kaiser
2003).
36 The 3.PROX > 3.OBV PH-interaction, which applies in the conjunct as well as independent
order, matters both for determining α in the lower clause and for Bruening's generalization.