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

see her, PRO to see her, your/you seeing her. These are syntactic properties of the
designated subject position [Spec, TP/FinP]. Mapudugun is special because what
occupies this position is determined by the EA-O PH-interaction (cf. Baker 2003).
For 1↔2 combinations, both the morphology and the syntactic facts are unclear.
Thus as in Algonquian, the Mapudungun evidence establishes that the 1/2 > 3 portion
of the PH hierarchy has a syntactic correlate. 39
(96) a. mule-y mün allkü-tu-ñma-ya-fi-el ñi dungu (direct)
have-3SG your(PL) listen-?-SRC-FUT-OBJ-VN his word
You must listen to his word.
b. fey muna kutran-ka-w-üy mi trem-üm-a-t-ew (inverse)
she very illness-FAC-REFL-3SG your(SG) grow-CAUS-FUT-INV-
VNOM-3(.O)
She made a lot of sacrifices in order to raise you.
(Arnold 1994: 38, 1997 ex. 46, 47) 40
Algonquian and Mapudungun make a robust case for syntactico-semantic correlates
to PH-interactions. The correlates closely track the morphological manifestation
of the PH-interaction, strikingly so in the Algonquian independent-conjunct
contrast. The morphological and syntactic PH-interactions thus clearly reflect the
same mechanism.
The languages reviewed here are not alone in having potential syntactic correlates
of PH-interactions, but rather the ones where the evidence is clearer and
bears specifically on phi-features rather than on notions like obviation. Agreement
and case-marking have been excluded as evidence for the syntactic status of PHinteractions,
since their syntactic or morphological character is precisely the issue,
in the face of theories that would put them into an enriched morphology, one that
can span the phrase-structural distances seen in cross-clausal agreement (Marantz
2000, Halle and Marantz 1993, Bobaljik 2008). Also excluded for the same reason
have been phenomena where PH-interaction affects only the presence, order, or
shape of affixes or clitics. In Cavineña for instance, the 1 > 2 > 3 hierarchy determines
the order of second position enclitics for the subject and the direct object
(Guillaume 2006), while in French, the 1/2 > 3 hierarchy determines the order of
object proclitics to the verb (Laenzlinger 1993). 41 Similar phenomena appear to be
39 In 1↔2 scenarios, Arnold (1994: 38, 1997) observes that the EL-forms choose 2 nd person in
1EA→2O and 2EA→1O, which Zuñiga (2002: 235) qualifies. Other syntactic correlates of the EA-
O interaction in Mapudungun bear on or have only been tested for 3.PROX > 3.OBV. For instance,
wh-movement applies to the O of morphologically direct and to the EA of morphologically
inverse clauses, recalling the cross-linguistically common ban on ergative extraction and its
repair in some Mayan languages fix by demotion to absolutive (Berinstein 1985, 1990, Davies
and Sam Colop 1990, Hale 2001, Aissen 1999, Béjar and Rezac 2007: Appendix).
40 The inverse e is missing by assimilation to a (Arnold 1994: 40 note 10, 1997 note 14). The
gloss of mün has been changed from you to your on the basis of Arnold's discussion.
41 I am grateful to A. Guillaume for discussion of Cavineña and providing me with his work.
69