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

uci-maceha-t [mesq mace-ntu]].
from-leave-3.CJ not.yet start-sing.1.CJ.NEG
(I wonder if) my motherEA knows (about meα) that everyone left before
Iα started singing.
b. K-piluwitaham-ul Mihku [keti-maceha-t [’sami sakhip-huk-ihin]].
2-suspect-1/2 M. IC.FUT-leave-3CJ because bring-drive-2.CJ
IEA suspected (about youα) that Mihku would leave when youα drove
up.
(Bruening 2001: 275f., 277, matrix pivot O in bold)
Thus the morphological PH-interaction of the EA and α in the matrix clause
correlates with whether α relates to a movement gap or to a resumptive in the embedded
clause. The difference between movement and resumption is syntactic, not
morphophonological, so the 2 > 1 > 3 PH-interaction has a syntactic correlate. 37
Bruening (2001: 279ff.) proposes the following account:
– The matrix clause may agree with α at the edge of the embedded clause.
– α may be base-generated at this edge and linked to a resumptive, but only
with a feature P that requires it to undergo further A-movement.
– In Passamaquoddy, O A-moves over the EA if and only if O wins the EA-
O PH-interaction (inverse). Thus if α outranks the matrix EA on the 2 > 1
> 3 hierarchy, it undergoes A-movement over it and satisfies P.
– Otherwise, α cannot A-move over the EA. Consequently, it cannot be
base-generated the lower edge, because its P could not be satisfied. The
only source of α is movement from within the embedded clause to its edge.
There it agrees with the matrix clause without further A-movement.
The three diagnostics reviewed for Algonquian show that the PH-interactions
signalled by the morphology have syntactico-semantic correlates, at least for the
1/2 > 3 subset of the hierarchy. The Araucanian language Mapudungun corroborates
the Algonquian evidence. EA-O PH-interactions in Mapudungun are analysed
by Arnold (1994, 1997). She finds that they govern not only verbal morphology,
but also the licensing of overt subjects in nonfinite clauses, more clearly
syntactic. The relevant morphology of the finite verb is given synoptically in Table
3.3. Agreement is controlled by the winner of EA-O PH-interaction on the 1 >
2 > 3.PROX > 3.OBV hierarchy: EA in direct 1EA→2O, 1/2EA→3O,
3.PROXEA→3.OBVO, O in inverse 2EA→1O, 3EA→1/2O, 3.OBVEA→3.PROXO. Inverse
contexts are further marked by the inverse affixes e and mu (e except in
2EA→1O combinations of more than two participants, where mu is found). 38
37 More precisely, the 1/2 > 3 portion of the hierarchy does. (95)b shows that in the 1EA→2O, O
wins and creates an inverse, but there is no data on 2EA→1O (Bruening 2001: 277 note 10).
38 The 3.PROX-3.OBV distinction is inferred solely from the existence of two agreement patterns
for 3↔3 interactions. The 1EA→2O combinations are special; Arnold calls them 'middle'.
67