Amy Rose Deal, [email protected]
Properties of probes: Evidence from Nez Perce complementizer agreement
Overview. Recent work on agreement raises a series of questions about the elements that function as probes.
What is the relationship betwen probes and φ -features, and probes and phase heads? This paper investigates
these questions through the lens of complementizer agreement (CA) in Nez Perce, a phenomenon which is
of interest for three reasons. First, CA shows ‘omnivorous agreement’, supporting the proposal that probes
may be specified for particular feature values (Preminger 2011). Second, CA occurs alongside ordinary
subject-verb agreement, and CA and verb agreement need not match in features. This suggests that C
probes independently of T (Haegeman & van Koppen 2012); the φ -probe of T need not be inherited from
the C phase head. Third, person-number interactions in CA provide evidence that φ -features may occur
together in a bundle, contra recent proposals that situate each type of feature in a separate probe.
Omnivorous agreement. The Nez Perce complementizer ke occurs in relative clauses and various adjuncts,
e.g. ‘when’-clauses. CA occurs with 1st and 2nd person arguments. The form of agreement is identical for
subjects and for objects; this is a pattern of ‘omnivorous agreement’ (Nevins 2011, Preminger 2011).
(1) a.
ke-x kaa pro ’e-cew’cew’-teetu A.-ne
C-1 then pro 3 OBJ-call-TAM A.-ACC
1 subj/3 obj: When I call A.
b. ke-x kaa A.-nim hi-cew’cew’-teetu pro
C-1 then A.-ERG 3 SUBJ-call-TAM pro
3 subj/1 obj: When A. calls me
(2) a.
ke-m kaa pro ’e-cew’cew’-teetu A.-ne
C-2 then pro 3 OBJ-call-TAM A.-ACC
2 subj/3 obj: When you call A.
b. ke-m kaa A.-nim hi-cew’cew’-teetu pro
C-2 then A.-ERG 3 SUBJ-call-TAM pro
3 subj/2 obj: When A. calls you
I conclude that ke is a relativized probe, specified for particular feature values. The values in question are
revealed when both 1st and 2nd persons are present in the clause. Here, structure matters: C agrees with
both a 1st person subject and a 2nd person object, (3a), but only the subject when the subject is 2nd person,
(3b). This suggests that C is specified for [PART ( ICIPANT ), ADDR ( ESSEE )] – the featural signature of 2nd
person. Probing continues past a 1st person subject in search of [ADDR] in (3a), but the 2nd person subject
in (3b) fully satisfies the C probe.
(3) a.
ke-m-ex kaa pro cew’cew’-teetu pro
C-2-1 then pro call-TAM
pro
1 subj/2 obj: When I call you
b. ke-m kaa pro cew’cew’-teetu pro
C-2 then pro call-TAM
pro
2 subj/1 obj: When you call me
C and T probe independently. A variety of approaches to CA posit a close relationship between C and
the lower head T/Agr/Infl (i.a. den Besten 1989, Zwart 1997, Watanabe 2000). For Chomsky (2008), the
φ -probing features of T are inherited from C, the phase head. This predicts that T should either lack φ features under CA, or realize the same features as C, given that the two heads share one φ -probe. Nez Perce
CA challenges this claim, supposing subject-verb agreement reflects φ on T (Deal 2010). Verb agreement is
overt for plural and 3rd person arguments, with distinct forms for subject (hi- 3rd person, pe- plural [some
aspects], -(’n)ix plural [other aspects]) versus object (’e- 3rd person, nees- plural). Verb agreement thus
shows no omnivorous effect. The presence of CA has no effect on verb agreement, and φ -features in the two
loci often mismatch. In (1b)/(2b), C agrees with the 1st or 2nd person object, whereas T agrees with the 3rd
person subject. In intransitives, T agrees with the subject, but C may agree with the subject’s possessor:
(4)
ke-x kaa ’iin-im pike
hi-pnim-ce
C-1 then 1 SG - GEN mother.NOM 3 SUBJ-sleep-TAM
1 possessor/3 possessum: When my mother is sleeping
Such mismatches between C and T suggest that these heads bear two separate φ -probes, as Haegeman &
van Koppen (2012) have recently independently argued for CA in West Germanic.
The probe bears both person and number features. I propose that Nez Perce C bears a combined probe
for person and number. While the person feature of C is specified for particular values, number is not
1
specified. Probing stops as soon as C has located [PART, ADDR] within the clause, or exhausted the set of
possible goals. I assume that the latter possibility does not crash the derivation; see Preminger (2011).
Because person and number features are found on the same probe, the distribution of person features plays
a key role in determining which DPs may agree in number. If a [PL] feature occurs on the same DP as
[PART, ADDR], or on a DP structurally intermediate between such a goal and C, CA reflects plural. Plural
CA occurs with all 2pl arguments, (5), and also with a plural subject and a 2sg object, (6).
(5) a.
ke-pe-m kaa pro ’e-cew’cew’-tee-’nix A.-ne
C- PL -2 then pro 3 OBJ-call-TAM- S . PL A.-ACC
2pl subj/3sg obj: When you (pl) call A.
b. ke-pe-m kaa A.-nim hi-cew’cew’-teetu pro
C- PL -2 then A.-ERG 3 SUBJ-call-TAM pro
3sg subj/2pl obj: When A. calls you (pl)
(6)
ke-pe-m kaa A.-nim kaa T.-nim hi-cew’cew’-tee-’nix pro
C- PL -2 then A.-ERG and T.-ERG 3 SUBJ-call-TAM- S . PL pro
3pl subj/2sg obj: When A. and T. call you (sg)
Plural CA is impossible, however, with a 2sg subject and a plural object.
(7)
ke-m / *ke-pe-m kaa pro ’e-nees-cew’cew’-teetu A.-ne kaa T.-ne
C-2 / *C- PL -2 then pro 3 OBJ -O. PL-call-TAM A.-ACC and T.-ACC
2sg subj/3pl obj: When you (sg) call A. and T.
The asymmetry between (6) and (7) cannot be attributed to a general ban on plural CA with an object, given
that the 2pl object triggers plural CA in (5b). Rather, it follows from the combination of specified person
and unspecified number on a single probe. The extent of probing by C is fully determined by the distribution
of person features; no probing is possible past a 2nd person argument, regardless of whether or not a [PL]
feature is encountered. When C agrees with multiple goals, [PL] on any of them is copied to C. I assume
that Nez Perce contrasts [PL] with the absence of number. The only number feature available for CA is thus
[PL] in (5b) and (6), where person features cause C to probe multiple goals. The pattern overall provides
evidence that person and number may indeed occur together on the same probe, pace proposals that each
feature probes separately (Sigurðsson & Holmberg 2008, Preminger 2011).
Exponence of plural in CA. The connection between person and number features on C is also relevant for
the morphological exponence of [PL] features. Notably, CA morphologically registers plural only when it
also registers 2nd person; clauses without 2nd person invariably lack the plural suffix -pe on C. Examples
(8) show that -pe cannot be triggered by 1pl; analogous facts hold for 3pl.
(8) a.
ke-x kaa pro ’e-cew’cew’-tee-’nix A.-ne
C-1 then pro 3 OBJ-call-TAM- S . PL A.-ACC
1pl subj/3sg obj: When we call A.
b. ke-x kaa A.-nim hi-nees-cew’cew’-teetu pro
C-1 then A.-ERG 3 SUBJ -O. PL-call-TAM pro
3sg subj/1pl obj: When A. calls us
I attribute this effect to multiple exponence of the [ADDR] feature in cases like (5b) and (6): -m realizes
[PART, ADDR] (i.e. 2nd person) while -pe realizes at least [PL , ADDR]. While it is not exceptional for a single
morpheme to realize both person and number, -pe is notable for realizing [ADDR] at the same time as -m
does. Adopting ideas from Müller (2007), I propose a DM account involving enrichment, the counterpart
of the standard DM operation of impoverishment. Enrichment is, essentially, feature doubling. The result
is two [ADDR] features on C, allowing insertion of both -pe and -m in (5b) and (6). In (8), however, no
[ADDR] feature is present on C. Doubling/enrichment is therefore impossible, and -pe cannot be inserted.
Both syntactic & morphological phenomena thus connect person and number on the probe in Nez Perce CA.
References (selected). Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. Deal, A.R. 2010. Ergative case and the transitive
subject. NLLT. Haegeman, L. & M. van Koppen. 2012. Complementizer agreement and the relation
between C0 and T0 . LI. Müller, G. 2007. Extended exponence by enrichment. Penn. Ling. Soc. Preminger, O. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. MIT thesis. Sigurðsson, H.A. & A. Holmberg
2008. Icelandic dative intervention: person and number are separate probes. In Agreement restrictions.
2

Curriculum Vitae Jiwon Yun - the Stony Brook Linguistics Department

TRAFFIC IMPACT