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

78
goal, subextracting from its PP, (109)c. This is not the view of PH-interactions
that will ultimately be developed in chapter 5, where the inverse will rather be a
last-resort response to the unavailability of the direct. However, it illustrates the
primitives that need to be referred to, and their syntactic character: 1 st /2 nd vs. 3 rd ,
and EA vs. O in the form of the O > EA c-command produced by movement. 47
(109) a. [TP T1/2 probe [αP O [vP [PP P EA] v … O … ]]]
b. [TP EA1/2 T1/2 probe [αP O3 [vP [PP P EA1/2] v … O3 … ]]]
c. [TP O1/2 T1/2 probe [αP O1/2 [vP [PP P EA1/2/3] v … O1/2 …]]]
This brings us to the evidence that Arizona Tewa PH-interactions are syntactic
in the first place. If the difference between its direct and inverse were only in
the morphological realization of one and the same syntactic structure, their complementarity
would fit a familiar pattern of PF phenomena discussed in chapter 2
for synthetic-analytic alternations like the English comparative. 48 The fundamental
prediction of any PF phenomenon is its invisibility to syntax and interpretation
(chapter 2). This is the touchstone by which a syntactic phenomenon may be told.
For Arizona Tewa, Kroskrity (1985: 313f.) presents two good arguments that
the direct and the inverse reflect two different syntactic structures, not two spellouts
of the same one. The first is that the inverse structure prevents relativization
on its oblique EA, while the direct structure allows relativization on its unmarked
EA. This is shown in (110). The sentence is the inverse 3EA→2O youO were helped
by him/herEA. The O may be relativized to be the subject of may … be happy, but
the EA cannot. In the direct, the EA could be relativized as well (although there is
no example to cite). Accessibility to relativization is usually viewed as a syntactic
47 See Medová (2009), Caha (2009) for work developing the idea that unmarked structural Case
is due to movement from richer PP-like structures. The story can equally be explored in reverse
according to another view of the ergative: the EA is base-generated bare, T attracts all EAs
unless a 3 rd person O intervenes, and it is movement to T that results in the assignment of an ergative
oblique-like case (cf. Rezac 2003).
48 A PF mechanism of that would then lend itself well to Arizona Tewa is lower-copy spell-out
due to a PF constraint, along the lines developed by Bobaljik and Branigan (2006) for Chukchi
(cf. section 4.4). Both direct and inverse configurations would involve the same structure, (ia).
The fully agreeing bare EA of direct combinations is the spell-out of the copy of the EA in [Spec,
TP], (ib), forced when possible. A morphological constraint that the person of AGREA outrank
AGRO prevents this in 3EA→1/2O and 1/2EA→2/1O combinations. It is resolved in (ib) by impoverishing
AGREA with consequent lower-copy spell-out of the EA in [Spec, vP], di-marked.
(i) a [EA O V+T [EA … O …]] syntax
b [EA O AGREA+AGRO+V+T [EA … O …]] spellout AGREA > AGRO
c [EA O AGREA+AGRO+V+T [EA … O …]] spellout otherwise
where top-copy EA spell-out is bare, lower-copy di-marked, and AGREA is impoverished
if lower copy spell-out of EA occurs