Definite Markers, Phi Features and Agreement - Georgetown ...

The empirical focus of the investigation is the definite marker, which surfaces in avariety of positions that would be unexpected if it were the realization of D. However, itsdistribution can be easily accounted for by assuming that D undergoes Local Dislocation(Embick and Noyer 2001, Embick 2003) and that Local Dislocation is sensitive to phaseimpenetrability. There is also evidence that, when the definite marker is optional, it is not arealization of D but the reflex of a definiteness agreement process. The definiteness agreementprocess does not respect phase impenetrability, and this leads me to suggest that phaseimpenetrability does not come into play until a late stage of PF (after Vocabulary Insertion andLinearization).This research is connected to recent work on definite markers in Scandinavian languages(see e.g., Hankamer and Mikkelsen 2002, 2005, Heck, Müller and Trommer 2008) and inBulgarian (see e.g., Embick and Noyer 2001, Dost and Gribanova 2006). I follow many of theseworks in using Distributed Morphology and/or phases to account for complex patterns ofdefinite marking. There has also been much recent work on the internal syntax of the AmharicDP (Demeke 2001, Ouhalla 2004, den Dikken 2007), and the connection between this researchand definite marking is discussed in Section 3. The primary descriptive work of the chapter is inSection 2, which contains the data on obligatory and optional definite marking. Previousaccounts of definite marking and how to approach an analysis of definite marking in general arediscussed in Section 3. The analysis of obligatory definite marking is presented in Section 4, andthe analysis is supported by additional data in Section 5. Section 6 contains the analysis ofoptional definite marking, and Section 7 concludes.24