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

fact. Thus the oblique-like EA of inverses but not the bare EA of directs occurs in
a syntactic structure that prevents relativization.
(110) wó:-k h ɛ̢ge-n-'i na-hik y an-mí
3SG→2(Set III)-help-PROG-REL IMPV-happy-OBLIG
a. May you who are helped be happy! (O of inverse)
b. *May he/she who has helped you be happy! (EA of inverse)
(Kroskrity 1985: 313)
The other argument comes from a constraint on cross-clausal anaphora or conjunction
reduction, an important subjecthood diagnostic (cf. Zaenen, Maling and
Thráinsson 1985, Bickel 2007). In (111), there is a gap for the intransitive subject
of the main clause, which is bound or controlled by an antecedent in the preceding
embedded clause. That antecedent can be the EA of direct and the O of inverse
contexts, but not the oblique EA of inverse contexts. English behaves the same
way: in the translation of (111)b, by the man cannot be the antecedent of the gap.
(111) a. hę'i sen hę'i k w iyó mán-k hw E¤7di-dí 'i nE¤'E¤ na-pówá.
that man that woman 3SG→3(Set II)-hit-SUBJ he here 3SG.I-come
That mani hit that woman and __i came here.
b. hę'i sen-di hę'i k w iyó 'ó:-k hw E¤7di-dí 'i nE¤'E¤ na-pówá.
that man-OBL that woman 3SG→3(Set III)-hit-SUBJ he here
3SG(Set I)-come
That womani was hit by the man and __i came here.
(Kroskrity 1985: 314; indexing added from description)
These diagnostics indicate a syntactic difference between the direct and inverse
structures. At the same time, more would be desirable to rule out alternative
accounts of them. 49 It is the task of the next chapter to introduce a PH-interaction
in French with a profile similar to that of Arizona Tewa, and to establish its syntactic
status more robustly than can be done here.
3.5 The limits of syntactic PH-interactions
In Arizona Tewa, the direct and inverse are distinct syntactic structures in
complementary distribution governed by EA-O PH-interaction: the direct occurs if
EA outranks O on the 1/2 > 3 hierarchy, the inverse otherwise. The other PHinteractions
considered in this chapter fit a similar description. Elsewhere morphologically
similar systems are widespread, although it is rare that syntactic correlates
have been demonstrated. Variation occurs in the person hierarchy, in the direct
or inverse treatment of combinations on the same point in the hierarchy, and
in the overt expression of the direct and inverse contexts. There is an overall coherence
to such systems and intermediate steps in the variation that suggest a uni-
49 For instance, both relativization and conjunction reduction might need PRO rather than a gap
in Arizona Tewa, and there might not be an oblique PRO in the language.
79