Dropping the F-bomb: An argument for valued features as derivational time-bombs*

Laura Kalin

Princeton University

1. Introduction

A long tradition in generative syntax holds that nominals have two fundamental licensing
needs (Vergnaud 1977/2008, Chomsky 1980 et seq): (i) every nominal needs a semantic
role (theta role), and (ii) every nominal needs abstract syntactic licensing, capital C Case.
This paper joins a rich body of work that challenges some aspect of the latter component of
this picture (Zaenen et al. 1985, Marantz 1991, Carstens 2001, Pesetsky & Torrego 2007,
Bobaljik 2008, Danon 2011, Preminger 2011, Arregi & Nevins 2012, Bhatt & Walkow
2013, i.a.). The argument made in this paper is that nominal licensing is not driven by
abstract Case, but rather by the valued, so-called interpretable features nominals bear.
The motivation for this argument comes from crosslinguistic restrictions on 1st/2nd
person and on nominals high in definiteness/animacy. Jewish Zakho (Neo-Aramaic) pro-
vides a clear illustration of such restrictions. In the simple perfective, a 3rd person object
must be accompanied by agreement if specific, (1a), but must not if nonspecific, (1b), and
a 1st/2nd person object is entirely disallowed, accompanied by agreement or not, (1c).

(1) a. AnA zwn-A-li tlmsA. (specific object agrees)

I buy.PFV -O BJ.3 FS -S BJ .1 MS flatbread.F
I bought the flatbread.
b. AnA zwn-ni tlmsA. (nonspecific object does not agree)
I
buy.PFV-S BJ .1 MS flatbread. F
I bought some flatbread.
c. *AnA zwn(-t)-ti (AttA). (1st/2nd person obj. disallowed)
I buy.PFV (-O BJ .2 MS )-S BJ .1 MS you
Intended: I bought you.
* Thankyou to Andrs Brny, Jonathan Bobaljik, Chris Collins, Amy Rose Deal, Anoop Mahajan, Troy
Messick, Carson Schtze, Adrian Stegovec, Coppe van Urk, Martin Walkow, Lauren Winans, and Susi Wurm-
brand for extremely helpful discussions of and feedback on this work. Thanks also to audiences at Leipzig
University, NYU, Rutgers, UConn, UMass, USC, University of Toronto, SLE 48, and GLOW 40.
 Laura Kalin

The pattern in (1ab) plausibly falls under the umbrella of Differential Object Marking
(Coghill 2014), stated in (2), while (1c) can be seen as an extended instance of the Person
Case Constraint (as argued by Doron & Khan 2012, Kalin & van Urk 2015), (3).

(2) Differential Object Marking (DOM; Comrie 1979, Bossong 1991, i.a.):
Objects high in definiteness/animacy are more likely to need to be overtly marked.

(3) The Person Case Constraint (PCC; canonical strong version, Bonet 1991):
In a combination of a weak DO and a weak IO, the DO must be 3rd person.

The PCC and DOM are both extremely common crosslinguistically, surfacing in numerous
unrelated languages. Theoretical accounts of the PCC and DOM typically treat the two
phenomena as being completely independent of each other, and often appeal to licensing
conditions that exist alongside (on top of) traditional abstract Case licensing.
The main goal of this paper is to show that the PCC and DOM are related phenomena
that call for a unified account. I begin in 2 by exemplifying the PCC and DOM and noting
some recurring features of generative syntactic accounts of these phenomena. 3 composes
the core of the paper, comparing the empirical profiles of the PCC and DOM and making
a number of novel observations about the ways in which they are parallel. Finally, in 4, I
conclude by proposing that we can understand these commonalities if the burden of nomi-
nal licensing is shifted to valued features; in other words, the licensing needs of a nominal
depend on its interpretable featuressuch features can be derivational time bombs.

2. Brief overview of the PCC and DOM

2.1 The PCC

The PCC refers to the ungrammaticality of certain person combinations when two weak
arguments (pronouns, clitics, agreement) occupy some domain. The canonical strong PCC
holds between an indirect and direct object (IO, DO) (Bonet 1991, 1994, Anagnostopoulou
2003, Bjar & Rezac 2003, i.a.), (4), as seen in French, (5) (Bjar & Rezac 2003).

(4) Canonical Strong PCC: *IO > 1/2.DO

(5) a. Je la lui ai prsent-. (PCC respected)

1SG . NOM 3FS . ACC 3SG . DAT have.1 SG . PRES introduce-PART
I introduced her (DO) to him (IO).
b. *Je te lui ai prsent-. (PCC violated)
1SG . NOM 2SG . ACC 3SG . DAT have.1 SG . PRES introduce-PART
Intended: I introduced you (DO) to him (IO).
c. *Elle me lui a prsent-. (PCC violated)
3FS . NOM 1SG . ACC 3SG . DAT have.3 SG . PRES introduce-PART
Intended: She introduced me (DO) to him (IO).
 An argument for valued features as derivational time-bombs

Abstracting across generative syntactic accounts, PCC effects are typically taken to
arise when two arguments compete for the attention of one licenser, (6) (Anagnostopoulou
2003, Bjar & Rezac 2003, Adger & Harbour 2007, Nevins 2007, Rezac 2008, 2011,
Walkow 2013, i.a.). In particular, it has been argued that licensers (modeled as -probes)
decompose into separate person ( ) and number (#) licensing components, with search-
ing for a goal first, # second. This ordered probing makes it possible, in a PCC configura-
tion, for the two licensing components of the probe to reach different nominals, (6).

(6)
,#
IO
... DO

In (6), first the -probe probes and agrees with indirect objectthis is referred to as defec-
tive intervention, since the indirect object is itself already licensed (by Appl) and so does
not actually need the licensing that is on offer from the -probe. The -probe removes the
indirect object as an intervener (e.g., via an operation of clitic-doubling; Anagnostopoulou
2003, Bjar & Rezac 2003), allowing # to reach the direct object.
While the agreement configuration in (6) is able to license a 3rd person direct object, it
is not able to license 1st/2nd person, because of an additional licensing condition, (7).

(7) Person Licensing Condition (PLC; Bjar and Rezac 2003)

Interpretable 1st/2nd-person features must be licensed by entering into an Agree
relation with an appropriate functional category.

According to these accounts, then, the PCC arises because the direct object in a PCC con-
figuration will never be reached by a -probe, and so is limited by the PLC to 3rd person.

2.2 DOM

DOM is a widespread phenomenon that differentiates objects into two groupsa group
that gets or triggers overt marking and a group that does not (Comrie 1979, Croft 1988,
Bossong 1991, En 1991, de Hoop 1996, Torrego 1998, Woolford 1999, Aissen 2003,
de Swart 2007, Dalrymple & Nikolaeva 2011, i.a.). Objects are mainly differentiated along
two scales, (8)(9) (Silverstein 1976, Moravcsik 1978, Comrie 1979, Croft 1988, i.a.).

(8) Animacy / person 1/2 > 3 Pronoun > Name > Human > Animate > Inanimate

(9) Specificity / definiteness Pron. > Name > Definite > Specific Indef. > Nonspecific

Objects on the left side of the scale (often considered the more prominent or less canon-
ical objects) are overtly marked, while those on the right are unmarked. We can see these
scales at work in object-marking in Senaya and Palatinate German:
 Laura Kalin

(10) Senaya (Neo-Aramaic): DOM-agreement; specificity-based (Kalin 2014)

a. Axnii ksuuta kasw-ox. (nonspecific object; no agreement)
we book. F write.IMPF-S BJ .1 PL
We (will) write a/some book.
b. Axnii ksuuta kasw-ox-laa. (specific object; agrees)
we book. F write.IMPF-S BJ .1 PL-OBJ.3FS
We (will) write a (specific) book.

(11) Palatinate German: DOM-case; animacy-based (Philipp Weisser p.c.)

a. Du hAS deA mA gseje. (non-human object; gets NOM)
you have.2 SG DEM . NOM bucket see.PRT
You saw that bucket.
b. Du hAS den mAn gseje. (human object; gets ACC)
you have.2 SG DEM.ACC man see.PRT
You saw that man.

Other factors influencing DOM are affectedness (Nss 2004), and information structure
(Woolford 1999, Dalrymple & Nikolaeva 2011).
Abstracting across generative syntactic accounts, marked objects are taken (i) to have
more internal structure (or features) than unmarked objects do (Danon 2006, Lidz 2006,
Rodrguez-Mondoedo 2007, Richards 2008, Lpez 2012, Lyutikova & Pereltsvaig 2015,
i.a.), (12), and/or (ii) to raise out of VP, while unmarked objects do not (Bhatt & Anag-
nostopoulou 1996, de Hoop 1996, Woolford 1999, Bhatt 2007, Baker & Vinokurova 2010,
Richards 2010, Lpez 2012, Ormazabal & Romero 2013, Baker 2014b, i.a.), (13).

(12) a. DP (marked) b. NP (unmarked)

D NP N
[ :VAL]
[Case: ] N

(13) [TP T ... [ marked object ... [VP V t ] ] ]

Taken together, (12) and (13) can derive DOM: DPs are structurally high and bear Case/ -
features, which makes them require Case-licensing and/or makes them visible/accessible
to Case-licensing. NPs are structurally low and do not bear Case/ -features, which makes
them invisible and/or inaccessible to Case/agreement processes. Accounts differ as to what
they take such low NP objects to need in terms of licensingperhaps they need no li-
censing at all (Massam 2001, Danon 2006, Ormazabal & Romero 2013), perhaps they
need licensing by being adjacent to the verb (Baker 1988, Baker & Vinokurova 2010), or
perhaps they in fact do get Case, its just morphologically zero (Laka 1993, Bhatt 2007,
Rodrguez-Mondoedo 2007).
 An argument for valued features as derivational time-bombs

3. The PCC and DOM are closely related phenomena

As seen in 2, the PCC and DOM are typically taken to be independent phenomena, and
are given very different sorts of analyses. In this section, I will make the case for treating
the PCC and DOM as closely related and therefore meriting a unified analysis.

3.1 Configuration

A preliminary set of PCC/DOM commonalities has to do with the number and relative
height of nominals targeted (and not targeted) by the phenomenon. First, both the PCC
and DOM crucially involve two arguments. For the PCC, this is explicitly stated in the
definition of the phenonenon: in the context of an indirect object, the direct object must be
3rd person. For DOM, this is somewhat less obvious, but nonetheless, making reference to
an object typically implies the presence of another nominal, the subject.
Second, of the two nominals involved in the phenomenon, both DOM and the PCC
target the lower nominal, which is canonically the direct object. The PCC restricts the
lower nominal to 3rd person, while DOM requires that the lower nominal be marked if it
is high in definiteness/animacy (and not otherwise). In contrast to the lower nominal, the
higher nominal in a PCC or DOM configuration is (canonically) immune from the effect.
In strong PCC configurations, the higher nominal (typically the IO) can freely be 1st, 2nd,
or 3rd person. In DOM configurations, subjects are (typically) not differentiated from each
other; subjects all behave uniformlyall are marked, or all are unmarked.1
Third, for both the PCC and DOM, it is ultimately the above-described configurations
that matter, not the grammatical roles of the nominals involved. PCC effects surface in
double unaccusatives in Chinook (Rezac 2011, Ch. 5), in simple transitives in Jewish Zakho
(Kalin & van Urk 2015), and in scrambled DO>IO configurations in Slovenian (Stegovec
2015). Differential marking can appear on subjects of nominalized clauses, e.g., in Turkish
(Kornfilt 2008), and on arguments of certain adjectives in Hebrew (Danon 2006).2

3.2 Intervention

The configurational facts discussed abovethat the lower nominal of two is restricted in
some waysuggest that the PCC and DOM might be due to intervention of some sort by
the higher nominal. We can test whether intervention is involved by removing the higher
nominal from the triggering configuration.
1 The fact
that the higher argument in the configuration is typically immune from differential marking and
person restrictions has led most of the accounts discussed in 2 to posit featural asymmetries across arguments
with different grammatical roles. Classic syntactic accounts of the PCC need indirect objects to always have
a person feature (such that they always intervene for person), while direct objects only have a person feature
(only need person licensing) when they are 1st or 2nd person. Classic syntactic accounts of DOM need to
say that subjects always have -features/a Case feature (and so are always visible to Case/agreement), while
direct objects only have these features when they are high in definiteness/animacy.
2 Although these latter configurations dont obviously involve two nominals, they do plausibly involve

intervention by something like a phase boundary; the brief proposal in 4 is compatible with this.
 Laura Kalin

For the PCC, it is clear that the effect goes away when the higher nominal is removed.
Take, for example, the French example in (14), cf. the ungrammatical version in (5b).

(14) Je t-ai prsent-.

1SG . NOM 2SG . ACC-have introduce-PART
I introduced you (DO).

In French, if the IO is supplied from context, it need not be syntactically expressed, and the
direct object can be then freely be 1st or 2nd person. Along the same lines, a direct object
clitic in simple transitives (no indirect object at all) is not restricted to 3rd person.
The case is murkier for DOM, as removing the higher nominal (the subject) typically
leads to promotion of the object.3 Nevertheless, we can see that when an internal argument
is not under a higher nominal, the internal argument is not marked differentially (i.e., there
is uniform marking or lack of marking). First consider Senaya. When the internal argument
stays an internal argument, as in an active transitive clause, it is subject to differential
marking, (10). When there is no external argument, (15), the exact same nominal (boxed
below) that would have been unmarked as an object (cf. (10a)) is marked (and is a subject).

(15) Xa ksuuta mpel-aa.

one book.F fall.PFV-SBJ.3FS
A/some book fell.

We can see the same leveling of marking in passives in Palatinate German. An internal ar-
gument that gets nominative case (unmarked) as an object, (16a), nevertheless participates
in agreement (marking) when it is promoted to subject, (16b) (Philipp Weisser, p.c.).4

(16) a. Du hAS deA mA un deA trekA gseje.

you have.2 SG DEM . NOM bucket and DEM . NOM tractor see.PRT
You saw the bucket and the tractor. (Object is non-human, no ACC)
b. DeA mA un deA trekA sin gseje wOK@.
DEM . NOM bucket and DEM . NOM tractor be.3 PL see.PRT AUX . PASS
The bucket and the tractor were seen. (Subject is non-human, but agrees)

If the external argument is demoted (passives) or absent (unaccusatives), the differentiation

of internal arguments disappears.
In the typical case, then, removing the higher nominal involved in a PCC or DOM
configuration obviates the restriction on the lower nominal. This strongly suggests that
there is indeed intervention by the higher nominal involved in both phenomena.
3 There are some exceptions to this generalization in Hebrew and Hindiwhere the internal argument can
remain differentially marked even when it looks like the external argument is absentwhich merit a closer
look in future work. Thank you to Hagit Borer and Ethan Poole for bringing these to my attention.
4 This example features coordinated singular nominals so that (i) case is evident on the demonstratives and

(ii) there is non-3rd-singular agreement (i.e., agreement that is not potentially default) on the verb when the
object is promoted to subject.
 An argument for valued features as derivational time-bombs

3.3 Valued features

Both PCC effects and DOM effects are modulated by valued features on nominals. There
are two ways we can see this. First, it is valued features that are responsible for determining
whether a particular configuration of nominals is grammatical or ungrammatical. The con-
figuration ruled out by the PCC is clearly featural: a weak direct object bearing 1st or 2nd
person features is disallowed, so grammaticality comes and goes with whether the lower
nominal bears those features, (5).
While it is less obvious for DOM that grammaticality is featurally-determined, this is
still so: DOM is a generalization about objects with certain features requiring marking.
Crucially, if an object that bears those features goes unmarked, then the result is ungram-
maticality. Recall Senayas specificity-based DOM, (10). In Senaya, an unambiguously
specific object, like that in (17a), causes a crash if it is unmarked (if it fails to occur with
agreement). How can we tell that it is the objects features that are responsible for the
ungrammaticality of (17a)? If we minimally change the features of the object, then the sen-
tence becomes grammatical, (17b). Just as (5b)(5c) can be seen as PCC violations, so
can (17a) be seen as a DOM violation.

(17) a. *Axnii oo ksuuta kasw-ox. (DOM violated)

we that book.F write.IMPF-S BJ .1 PL
Intended: We (will) write that book.
b. Axnii xa ksuuta kasw-ox. (DOM respected)
we that book.F write.IMPF-S BJ .1 PL
We (will) write a book.

The valued features of the lower nominal modulate grammaticality in DOM configurations.
It is worth pausing for a moment to consider the plausibility of specificity-related fea-
tures, as specificity is often taken to be emergent, e.g., based on the syntactic height of
a nominal (Diesing 1992). However, there is strong morphological and semantic evidence
that the feature [specific] is needed, for example, (i) to characterize the distribution of deter-
miners and classifiers crosslinguistically (Haspelmath 1997, Lyons 1999, Cowper & Hall
2002, Ionin 2006, Simpson et al. 2011, Cowper & Hall 2014), (ii) to delimit the different
types of indefinite pronouns found across languages (Haspelmath 1997), and (iii) to ac-
count for specific interpretations of in situ indefinites (Fodor & Sag 1982). Animacy-related
features are also robustly attested crosslinguistically, for example, in verbal-marking in Al-
gonquian languages (Piggott 1989, Wiltschko & Ritter 2014, i.a.) and Abkhaz (Hewitt
1979, cited by Mithun 1986), nominal marking in Selayarese (Finer 1997), and impersonal
pronouns crosslinguistically (SigurDsson & Egerland 2009, Fenger 2015).
Taking the existence of the relevant nominal features as a starting point, the second way
we can see that such features are crucially implicated in the PCC and DOM is that different
languages care about different combinations of valued features both for the PCC and for
DOM. The PCC comes in many flavors, which rule out different combinations of indirect
object/direct object pairings based on their features, (18).
 Laura Kalin

(18) Some varieties of the PCC

a. Super strong (*1/2/3.IO>1/2.DO; *3.IO>3.DO)Kambera (Doliana 2013)
b. Strong (*1/2/3.IO>1/2.DO)Greek (Anagnostopoulou 2003)
c. Weak (*3.IO>1/2.DO)Sambaa (Riedel 2009)
d. Me-first (*2/3.IO>1.DO)Romanian (Nevins 2007)

DOM also comes in different flavors based on which features (or feature combinations)
require the direct object to be marked, (19).5

(19) Some varieties of DOM

a. [specific] objects markedSenaya (Kalin 2014)
b. [definite] objects markedHebrew (Danon 2006)
c. [human] objects markedPalatinate German (Philipp Weisser, p.c.)
d. [human, specific] objects markedSpanish (Rodrguez-Mondoedo 2007)
e. [animate] objects and [specific] objects markedKannada (Lidz 2006)

What is clear from these facts is that the PCC and DOM are both modulated by language-
specific restrictions on valued features on nominals; languages differ in which features, on
the lower of two nominals, are allowed and/or require marking.

3.4 Repairs

Finally, starting from the observation that both the PCC and DOM can be seen as ruling
out violations of certain featural configurations (cf. (5)/(17)), both can also be seen as
involving repairs for these illicit configurations.
Lets start with PCC repairs. In order to express the featural configurations that are ruled
out by the PCC, such as 3.IO>1.DO, languages make use of several different strategies that
can target the higher or lower nominal in the configuration (Bonet 1991, 1994, Rezac 2011,
Walkow 2013): (i) the repair could target the IO, such that the IO is licensed in some non-
canonical way, e.g., with an adposition (and IO as a strong pronoun) as in French, (20)
(Rezac 2011, 180), or (ii) the repair could target the DO, such that the DO is licensed
in some non-canonical way, e.g., with an adposition (and DO as a strong pronoun) as in
Catalan, (21) (Bonet 2002, 953, cited by Walkow 2013, 66). (In the examples below, the
DO whose features are (potentially) problematic is bolded and the repair is boxed.)

(20) a. *Lucille nous leur prsent-era. (PCC violation)

Lucy 1PL.ACC them.DAT introduce-3 SG . FUT
Intended: Lucy will introduce us (DO) to them (IO).

5 An apparent difference here between the PCC and DOM seems to be that certain PCC configurations
care about the features of the higher nominal, whereas DOM cares only about the features of the lower
nominal. However, there are languages with global case and/or agreement splits, where object-marking is in
fact affected by the subjects features, e.g., Hungarian (Brny 2015). It might be, then, that this is not in fact
a meaningful difference between the two phenomena.
 An argument for valued features as derivational time-bombs

b. Lucille nous prsent-era elles. (PCC repair)

Lucy 1.PL.ACC introduce-3 SG . FUT to them
Lucy will introduce us (DO) to them (IO).

(21) a. *Te mha recomanat per a la feina la subdirectora. (PCC violation)

2 1-has recommended for the job the deputy.director
The deputy director has recommended you (DO) to me (IO) for the job.
b. Mha recomanat a tu per a la feina la subdirectora. (PCC repair)
1-has recommended P 2 for the job the deputy.director
The deputy director has recommended you (DO) to me (IO) for the job.6

While repair-by-adposition seems to be the most common, other attested repairs involve
using a camouflage reflexive (e.g., as found in PCC repairs in Georgian and Greek), and
using Case with a strong pronoun (e.g., as found in PCC repairs in Arabic).
Turning now to DOM repairs, these, like PCC repairs, often take the form of an
adposition, but at first glance seem to target only the lower nominal. Take, for example, the
Spanish DOM repair in (22) (Rodrguez-Mondoedo 2007, 16).

(22) a. *Bes- Mara. (DOM violation)

kiss-3 SG . PAST Mary
Intended: He kissed Mary.
b. Bes- a Mara. (DOM repair)
kiss-3 SG . PAST P Mary
He kissed Mary.

Other DO repairs (i.e., DOM strategies) include case-marking (e.g., P. German, Turkish,
and Hebrew), cliticization (e.g., Macedonian), and agreement (e.g., Swahili, Senaya).
Can DOM repairs also target the higher nominal in a DOM configuration, like a PCC
repair can, cf. (20)? While not referred to as DOM, it is well-known that features like
specificity on an object can induce ergative marking on a subject; what this looks like is
differential marking of subjects, but it is actually still determined by the lower nominals
features. We see this sort of ergative marking in Niuean (Massam 2000, cited in Woolford
2015), (23), and Eastern Ostyak (Gulya 1966, cited in Baker 2014a), (24).

(23) a. Ne inu kofe a Sione. (indefinite DO; no ERG)

PAST drink coffee ABS Sione
Sione drank coffee.
b. Ne inu e Sione e kofe. (definite DO; ERG)
PAST drink ERG Sione ABS coffee
Sione drank the coffee.
6 This is also compatible with the interpretation the deputy director has recommended me to you for the
job, i.e., with an IO repair, but the DO-repair interpretation is preferred (Victoria Mateu, p.c.).
 Laura Kalin

(24) a. M t@kak@Glamna ula m@nGal@m. (indef. DO; no ERG)

we.DUAL . NOM younger.sister.COM berry pick.PAST. SBJ .1 PL
I went to pick berries with my younger sister.
b. M@ -N@n l@G@ @ll@ juG kanNa am@GaloG. (definite DO; ERG)
we-ERG them large tree beside put.PAST. OBJ .3 PL / SBJ .1 PL
We put them (pots of berries) beside a big tree.

Taking into account the full range of repairs above highlights this final parallel, (25).
Note that one of the reasons these parallels have failed to be drawn in the past may be that
the PCC is named for the violation, while DOM is named for the repair.

(25)
Repair lower nom. Repair higher nom.
PCC Catalan, Arabic French, Basque
DOM Spanish, P. German Niuean, E. Ostyak

4. Where this leaves us

At the right level of abstraction, a number of commonalities between DOM and the PCC
become apparent. The PCC and DOM are about licensing: both involve the lower of two
arguments being restricted featurally, with overlapping strategies of repair surfacing to
lift the restriction. The PCC and DOM arise due to intervention: the higher argument is
typically immune from the effect, and if it is removed, the effect goes away. The PCC and
DOM are triggered by valued features and are general, configurational effects.
While the PCC and DOM have too much in common to be completely unrelated, exam-
ples like those in (1) show that a complete unification is not possible, because (e.g.) specific
nominals are not blocked in all environments that block 1st/2nd person. What, then, differ-
entiates the PCC from DOM? The following restatements of the PCC and DOM bring out
their commonalities while revealing the direction forward for an account.

(26) a. The PCC: In the context DP1 >DP2 where DP1 is a defective intervener, if
DP2 is 1st/2nd person, then DP1 or DP2 must be specially licensed.
b. DOM: In the context DP1 >DP2 where DP1 is a non-defective intervener, if
DP2 is high in definiteness/animacy, DP1 or DP2 must be specially licensed.

I propose that DOM and the PCC are conspiring to tell us that valued nominal features are
what crucially matter for licensingthey can be derivational time bombsand that certain
syntactic positions are (at least partially) inaccessible to canonical licensing. DOM envi-
ronments are those where any nominal that requires licensing (bears any valued nominal
feature that is a derivational time bomb) will require a special licenser to merge for the
derivation to converge; PCC environments are those where only partial licensing is possi-
ble, and so any nominal with participant features will require a special licenser to merge
for the derivation to converge. The details of such an account are left for future work.
 An argument for valued features as derivational time-bombs

References

Adger, David, & Daniel Harbour. 2007. The syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case
Constraint. Syntax 10:237.
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Lan-
guage and Linguistic Theory 21:435483.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. The
Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Arregi, Karlos, & Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the struc-
ture of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.
Baker, Mark. 2014a. On dependent ergative case in Shipibo and its derivation by phase.
Linguistic Inquiry 45:341379.
Baker, Mark. 2014b. Types of cross-linguistic variation in case assignment. In Linguistic
variation in a minimalist framework, ed. M. Carme Picallo. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Baker, Mark, & Nadezhda Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: case in
Sakha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28:593642.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Brny, Andrs. 2015. Differential Object Marking in Hungarian and the morphosyntax of
case and agreement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge, England.
Bjar, Susana, & Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects.
In Romance linguistics: theory and acquisition, ed. Ana Teresa Prez-Leroux & Yves
Roberge, 4962. John Benjamins.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2007. Unaccusativity and case licensing. Talk presented at McGill.
Bhatt, Rajesh, & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1996. Object shift and specificity: evidence
from ko-phrases in Hindi. In Papers from the 32nd regional meeting of the Chicago
Linguistics Society, ed. Lisa M. Dobrin, Kora Singer, & Lisa McNair, 1122. Chicago:
Chicago Linguistic Society.
Bhatt, Rajesh, & Martin Walkow. 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: an argument from
agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31:9511013.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Wheres phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi
theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger,
& Susana Bjar, 295328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bonet, Eullia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance languages.
Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Bonet, Eullia. 1994. The Person-Case Constraint: a morphological approach. In The
morphology-syntax connection, 3352. Boston, MA: MITWPL 22.
Bonet, Eullia. 2002. Clititzaci. In Gramtica del Catal contemporani, ed. Joan Sol,
Maria-Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascar, & Manuel Prez Saldanya, volume 1, 933989.
Barcelona: Editorial Empries.
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In New
analyses in Romance linguistics, ed. Douglas A. Kibbee & Dieter Wanner, 143170.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
 Laura Kalin

Carstens, Vicki. 2001. Multiple agreement and case deletion: against -(in)completeness.
Syntax 3:147163.
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11:146.
Coghill, Eleanor. 2014. Differential object marking in Neo-Aramaic. Linguistics 52:335
364.
Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Definite and animate direct objects: a natural class. Linguistica
silesiana 3:1321.
Cowper, Elizabeth, & Daniel Currie Hall. 2002. The syntactic manifestation of nomi-
nal feature geometry. In Proceedings of the 2002 annual conference of the Canadian
Linguistics Association, ed. Sophie Burelle & Stana Somesfalean, 5566. Montreal:
Cahiers linguistiques de lUQAM.
Cowper, Elizabeth, & Daniel Currie Hall. 2014. The features and exponence of nominal
number. Lingue e Linguaggio 13:6382.
Croft, William. 1988. Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In Agreement in
natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, ed. M. Barlow & C. Ferguson,
159179. CSLI.
Dalrymple, Mary, & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge
University Press.
Danon, Gabi. 2006. Caseless nominals and the projection of DP. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 24:9771008.
Danon, Gabi. 2011. Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax 14:297317.
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. MIT Press.
Doliana, Aaron. 2013. The super strong person-case constraint: scarcity of resources by
scale-driven impoverishment. In Interaction in grammar, ed. Fabian Heck & Anke
Assmann, volume 90 of Linguistische Arbeits Berichte, 177202. Universitt Leipzig.
Doron, Edit, & Geoffrey Khan. 2012. The typology of morphological ergativity in Neo-
Aramaic. Lingua 122:225240.
En, Mrvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22:126.
Fenger, Paula. 2015. One needs to be properly fertilized to bear fruit: Impersonal pronouns
in Asian languages. Presented at the 4th UConn Linguistics Graduate Roundtable.
Finer, Daniel. 1997. Contrasting A-dependencies in Selayarese. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 15:677728.
Fodor, Janet Dean, & Ivan Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguis-
tics and philosophy 5:355398.
Gulya, Jnos. 1966. Eastern ostyak chrestomathy. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana
Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hewitt, George. 1979. Abkhaz. Lingua Descriptive Series Vol 2. Amsterdam: North-
Holland.
de Hoop, Helen. 1996. Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. New York:
Garland.
Ionin, Tania. 2006. This is definitely specific: Specificity and definiteness in article systems.
Natural Language Semantics 14:175234.
 An argument for valued features as derivational time-bombs

Kalin, Laura. 2014. Aspect and argument licensing in Neo-Aramaic. Doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Kalin, Laura, & Coppe van Urk. 2015. Aspect splits without ergativity: Agreement asym-
metries in Neo-Aramaic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33:659702.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2008. DOM and two types of DSM in Turkish. In Differential Subject
Marking, ed. Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart, 79112. Springer.
Laka, Itziar. 1993. Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative.
In Papers on case and agreement 1, ed. Jonathan Bobaljik & Colin Phillips, 149172.
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18.
Lidz, Jeffrey. 2006. The grammar of accusative case in Kannada. Language 82:123.
Lpez, Luis. 2012. Indefinite objects: scrambling, choice functions, and differential mark-
ing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyutikova, Ekaterina, & Asya Pereltsvaig. 2015. The Tatar DP. Canadian Journal of
Linguistics 60:289325.
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Con-
ference on Linguistics (ESCOL 8), ed. German Westphal, Benjamin Ao, & Hee-Rahk
Chae, 234253. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Massam, Diane. 2000. VSO and VOS: aspects of Niuean word order. In The syntax of
verb initial languages, ed. Andrew Carnie & Eithne Guilfoyle, 97116. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 19:153197.
Mithun, Marianne. 1986. When zero isnt there. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Vassiliki Nikiforidou, Mary VanClay,
Mary Niepokuj, & Deborah Feder, 195211.
Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. Agreement. In Universals of human language IV: Syntax, ed.
Joseph Greenberg. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Nss, shild. 2004. What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects.
Lingua 114:11861212.
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-
case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:273313.
Ormazabal, Javier, & Juan Romero. 2013. Differential Object Marking, case and agree-
ment. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2.2:221239.
Pesetsky, David, & Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of
features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation,
in honor of joseph e. emonds, ed. Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, & Wendy K. Wilkins,
chapter 262-294. John Benjamins.
Piggott, Glyne. 1989. Argument structure and the morphology of the Ojibwa verb. In
Theoretical perspectives on Native American languages, ed. Donna B. Gerdts & Karin
Michelson, 176208. New York: State University of New York Press.
Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. Doctoral dissertation, Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
 Laura Kalin

Rezac, Milan. 2008. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and
absolutive displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26:61
106.
Rezac, Milan. 2011. Phi-features and the modular architecture of language, volume 81 of
Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Springer.
Richards, Marc. 2008. Defective agree, case alternations, and the prominence of person.
Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86:137161.
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Riedel, Kristina. 2009. The syntax of object marking in Sambaa: a comparative Bantu
perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
Rodrguez-Mondoedo, Miguel. 2007. The syntax of objects: Agree and Differential Ob-
ject Marking. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
SigurDsson, Halldr rmann, & Verner Egerland. 2009. Impersonal null subjects in Ice-
landic and elsewhere. Studia Linguistica 63:158185.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical categories
in Australian languages, ed. R. M. W. Dixon, 112171. Canberra: Australian Institute
of Aboriginal Studies.
Simpson, Andrew, Hooi Ling Soh, & Hiroki Nomoto. 2011. Bare classifiers and definite-
ness: A cross-linguistic investigation. Studies in Language 35:168193.
Stegovec, Adrian. 2015. Personality disorders and missing persons: Deriving the Person-
Case Constraint without Case. Ms. University of Connecticut.
de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Doctoral disserta-
tion, Radboud University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands Nijmegen, Netherlands
Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Torrego, Esther. 1998. The dependencies of objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 2008. Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on Filters
and Control, April 17, 1977. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory, ed. Robert
Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta. MIT Press.
Walkow, Martin. 2013. A unified analysis of the Person Case Constraint and 3-3-effects
in Barcelon catalan. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East
Linguistic Society, ed. Seda Kan, Claire Moore-Cantwell, & Robert Staubs. Amherst,
MA: GLSA.
Wiltschko, Martina, & Elizabeth Ritter. 2014. Animating the narrow syntax. Ling-
Buzz/002291.
Woolford, Ellen. 1999. Animacy hierarchy effects on object agreement. In New dimensions
in African linguistics and languages, ed. Paul Kotey, 203216. Trenton, NJ: Africa
World Press.
Woolford, Ellen. 2015. Ergativity and transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 46:489531.
Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, & Hskuldur Thrinsson. 1985. Case and grammatical func-
tions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:441483.

Laura Kalin
lkalin@princeton.edu