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

distribution of inverse morphemes in languages that have them. An Ojibwa-type
system could then be created by one set of PF gaps in the paradigm of inversemarked
verbs, for 1/2EA→3O combinations, and another in the paradigm of directmarked
verbs, for 3EA→1/2O. Beside it, other systems should occur where the set
of gaps is arbitrary and non-complimentary, because such is the empirical nature
of arbitrary gaps: for instance, 1PLEA→2O direct, 1EA→2SGO inverse. Yet syntactically
visible EA-O PH-interactions appear to be governed by simple person hierarchies
like 1/2 > 3, not by arbitrary gaps. These in their turn are syntactically inert.
If this is systematic, different mechanisms underlie the arbitrary spell-out gaps
established for PF-Filtering, and the principles that govern PH-interactions.
If PH-interactions are attributed to PF, they call for principles like (98), rather
than arbitrary gaps. However, such principles are not self-evidently justified. The
arbitrary spell-out items and rules of a language belong to Chomsky's (1995:
222f.) 'bare' output conditions, necessary to realize syntactic structures. Filters like
(98) call for an additional computational system interposed between syntax and
realization, whose existence is more dubious. It is the core distinction between approaches
to morphology that view it as an extension of syntax to the arbitrary
properties of the lexicon, as in Distributed Morphology, and those that attribute it
an independent, distinctive computational components. 44
The logic of PF/LF-filtering leads to a different way to distinguish it from a
syntactic approach to PH-interaction. PF/LF-filtering dispenses with syntactic reference
to phi-features by positing that syntax freely generates two structures, the
direct one where EA is more prominent than O, and the inverse one where O is
more prominent than EA. A simple LF or PF constraint C like (99) then filters the
two structures to ensure that the prominence of EA and O matches the person hierarchy.
This turns out to be inadequate for the PH-interaction seen next.
3.4 PH-interactions and repairs in Tanoan
Arizona Tewa is a language of the Tanoan group (Kroskrity 1985, Klaiman
1992, Zuñiga 2002). It is convenient to approach its PH-interaction by passing
through those of other Tanoan languages, Southern Tiwa (Allen and Frantz 1983,
1986, Allen et al. 1990, Rosen 1990) and Picurís (Nichols 2001). In that way is
best revealed the property of Arizona Tewa that is difficult for PF/LF-filtering,
while something of the variation and evolution of PH-interactions appears.
The common features of PH-interactions in these languages are resumed in
(100). Direct contexts on the 1/2 > 3 hierarchy, 1/2EA→3O, look like plain actives,
with bare, agreeing EA and O. Inverse 3EA→1/2O contexts look more like passives,
with an oblique EA, absent or impoverished EA-agreement, and sometimes
44 The same issues appear to be reflected in the following claim for postsyntactic, realizational
approaches to phi-agreement and case, which would be undermined by a PF principle like (98) to
PH-interactions: "Syntactic ungrammaticality will not result from the realization of case and
agreement. In particular, there is always a default case realization." (Marantz 2000: 20)
73