26.11.2012 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

104<br />

nological repetition. However, upper copy spell-out runs into a ban on repetition,<br />

<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> response is to realize a lower copy, (149)c.<br />

(149) a. Cine (ce) precede (*ce)?<br />

b. Ce (*ce) precede (ce)<br />

c. [cei cek precede cei cek]<br />

who/what what precedes<br />

(Romanian)<br />

Lower copy spell-out makes <strong>the</strong> following fundamental prediction:<br />

(150) The spell-out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> higher or lower copy <strong>of</strong> a chain has no consequences<br />

for syntax or its interpretation, because it occurs in realization.<br />

(cf. Polinsky <strong>and</strong> Potsdam 2006, Bobaljik <strong>and</strong> Branigan 2006: 71f.)<br />

The prediction is a basic consequence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> modular architecture <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> syntax,<br />

realization, <strong>and</strong> interpretation components explored in chapters 1 <strong>and</strong> 2. For <strong>the</strong><br />

lower copy spellout in (149), Bošković (2002: 374f.) shows that <strong>the</strong> in-situ whword<br />

in (149) licenses parasitic gaps as if it had moved in <strong>the</strong> syntax. Polinsky <strong>and</strong><br />

Potsdam (2001, 2006) use <strong>the</strong> same logic to show that 'backward' raising <strong>and</strong> control<br />

involves DP-movement to a higher clause, although <strong>the</strong> DP is spelled out in a<br />

lower clause; <strong>the</strong>y contrast simple cross-clausal agreement where <strong>the</strong> DP remains<br />

in <strong>the</strong> lower clause for all syntactico-semantic purposes.<br />

The prediction (150) is <strong>the</strong> touchstone that puts <strong>the</strong> PCC-governed cliticstrong<br />

alternation into syntax. In French, clitics <strong>and</strong> strong pronouns differ on<br />

various syntactico-semantic properties o<strong>the</strong>r than focus: floating quantifiers, right<br />

dislocation, binding, <strong>and</strong> perhaps phi-<strong>features</strong>. For each, <strong>the</strong> strong dative pronoun<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> PCC repair has a syntactic structure distinct from that <strong>of</strong> a dative clitic.<br />

4.4.2 Floating quantifiers<br />

Dative clitics license bare preverbal floating quantifiers, (151). To do so, <strong>the</strong>y pass<br />

through an A-position above <strong>the</strong>m (section 4.2). The à + pronoun <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> PCC repair<br />

fails to license a bare floating quantifier. It behaves like focussed strong pronoun<br />

datives <strong>and</strong> like all locatives, not like a dative clitic.<br />

(151) a. Elle la leuri a tousi présentée (à EUXi)<br />

b. Elle l' a (*tousi) présentée à EUXi/*à eux<br />

c. Elle s'/m' a (*tousi) présentée à euxi.<br />

she her/SE/me.A <strong>the</strong>m.D has all introduced to <strong>the</strong>m<br />

(for (c), cf. Kayne 1975: 6 note 9, Ruwet 1982: 309 note 54)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!