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

suppose that its oblique EA does not count for the C, so that O is left as the sole
and highest argument. However, this inverse structure cannot be freely basegenerated.
It is only licensed if the O outranks or is equal to the EA, when the direct
structure is unavailable, not when the EA outranks O, although C would also
be met in the latter case. To restrict the inverse, another constraint C' referring to
PH-interactions is needed, a mirror of C, but stated over the inverse structure. C'
states that the inverse structure with its quasi-oblique EA is limited to EA→O
combinations where the O is equal to or outranks the EA, or alternatively, that the
inverse is a last-resort structure licensed only when the direct is unavailable.
In Ojibwa or Southern Tiwa, only C of type (99) is needed. Their inverse respects
C by ensuring that a 3EA is not more prominent than 1/2O, moving O higher
in Ojibwa and making it oblique in Southern Tiwa. They do not face the conundrum
of blocking the inverse for 1/2EA→2/1O. In Ojibwa, 1 st and 2 nd person arguments
go to separate clausal positions on the hierarchy is 2 > 1 > 3, so an elaboration
of C (99) uniquely determines the position for each EA-O combination. In
Southern Tiwa, 1/2EA→2/1O combinations are direct, satisfying a version of C (99)
that allows a person feature to c-command another equally prominent one, and the
inverse may be ruled out by a constraint like the Participant Chômeur Ban (104)b
that does not refer to PH-interaction. Arizona Tewa needs both C (99) and a second
PH-interaction constraint C' (107) tailored to inverse structures, or some
stipulative elaboration of C like (108) referring to both person and EA/O status.
(107) C': 1 st /2 nd person EA cannot be oblique if O is 3 rd person.
(108) 1/2.O is bare/highest, 1/2.EA is bare/highest with 3.O but not 1/2.O.
The existence of two PH-interaction constraints, C to restrict the direct and C'
the inverse structure, or the equivalent, removes the appeal of filtering approaches.
LF/PF-filtering is attractive because it seeks to ground PH-interactions a natural
LF or PF postulate like C (99): 1 st /2 nd person is hierarchically higher than 3 rd person.
A mirror image C' (107) of C tailored to inverse structures returns to an arbitrary
stipulation. It gains nothing over syntax in analytical simplicity, and makes
appeal to no independent property of the interfacing systems. The reverse rather is
true. The constraints would be extra-syntactic yet need to refer to the syntactic
primitives of EA vs. O, DP vs. PP, c-command, to the enrichment of PF, and adhoc
for LF. The regulation of the direct and inverse of Arizona Tewa is the province
of syntax.
Syntax then needs to refer to the phi-features in PH-interactions, for instance
to drive movement specific to 1 st /2 nd person. For Arizona Tewa, a simple system
may be sketched once such reference is available, (109). EA is base-generated as
an agreeing oblique in [Spec, vP], (109)a, as on inherent or quirky-case approaches
to the ergative (Woolford 1997, Legate 2008). O Object-Shifts to the
edge of the vP above it. From it, the inverse and the direct are derived by movement
of the closest 1 st /2 nd person to the higher functional head T. O moves if it is
1 st /2 nd person because it c-commands EA, in (109)b. Otherwise EA is the closest
77