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

70
more clearly syntactic in some systems. There is great potential for enriching the
set of syntactic correlates of PH-interactions. 42
3.3 Theories of PH-interactions
Syntactic correlates of EA-O PH-interactions demonstrate that the interactions
play a role in deciding which syntactic structures are grammatical. Most analyses
conclude that syntax accesses the necessary distinctions among phi-features, for
instance to move 1 st /2 nd person to a different position than 3 rd . However, it remains
analytically possible that PH-interactions only filter syntactic structures without
themselves being syntactic. These options and their limits are discussed in this
section, leading to the more robust evidence of Arizona Tewa in the next.
A common implementation of PH-interactions envisages that the clause is partitioned
into regions dedicated to a particular interpretation. 43 The person hierarchy
is a hierarchy of layers in the nonthematic region of the clause, each defined
by a phi-feature class. For a 1/2 > 3 hierarchy, there would be a 1 st /2 nd person layer
above one for 3 rd person as in (97), for instance Déchaine's (1999) PersonP above
NumberP or Bianchi's (2006) Speech Act Participants Phrase SAPP above 3 rd person
Phrase 3P. The layers may be suitable elaborated, for instance 2 > 1 >
3.PROX > 3.OBV for Algonquian.
(97) a. [PersonP 1/2:EA [NumberP … tEA … 3:O …]] direct (1/2→3)
b. [PersonP 1/2:O [NumberP … 3:EA … tO …]] inverse (3→1/2)
Arguments map to the appropriate layers by movement. 1 st person moves to
the 1 st /2 nd person layer whether EA or O, 3 rd person stays lower. Only EA and O
are affected, since DPs in PPs are typically inaccessible to the relevant clausal (A-
42 For instance, in Movima, Haude (2006: 7.1-5), the winner of EA-O PH interaction must be
overtly expressed and enclitic to the verb, with direct/inverse verbal markers indicating whether
it is the EA or the O, according to the hierarchy 1SG > 1INCL/EXCL > 2SG > 2PL > 3 human >
3 non-human. This constraint ranges over both enclitics and full 3 rd person DPs, making it appear
syntactic rather than morphological. Moreover, the generalization has exceptions where the 2 nd
person in 1↔2 combinations is enclitic, but then the 1 st person must still obey the constraint by
being overt as a free pronoun, also suggesting a generalization going beyond clitics (Haude 2006:
278). In syntactic terms, the winner of the PH-interaction might move to a designated subjecthood
position, which must be overt and control enclisis. Fascinating PH-interactions that fail to
be clearly syntactic include Lakämper and Wunderlich (1998) for Quechua, and Dixon (2000),
Farell (2005: 77ff.) for Jarawara; an example of a PH-interaction that has turned out to be spurious
is Nichols' (1998: chapter 2) reanalysis of Zuni from Nichols (1996), Albizu (1997b).
43 For other types of syntactic theories where phi-feature distinctions condition movement, see
Laka (1993a), Johns (1996), Nash (1997), Hale (2001), Béjar (2003), Béjar and Rezac (2009),
Baker (2008). Reference to phi-features may be under other terms. For Bruening (2001: 2.4.5),
A-movement occurs through the feature [+P], but the 1 st /2 nd -3 rd person distinction governs the
distribution of [+P]: 1 st /2 nd person is inherently [+P], a 3 rd person must not be [+P] if coargument
of 1 st /2 nd person, while for two 3 rd person coarguments one and one only is [+P].