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

c. Azenor les laisse être mangés (par Nelson)
Azenor lets them.A (les) be eaten (by Nelson)
(ECM causative)
The restructuring causative will be pertinent at several junctures. Its properties
are laid out briefly below, with reference to (170) and (171). 77
(170) Restructuring causative (causee underlined, clitic sites in brackets)
a. Causer (cli clk) vACC faire EA.DATi Vtrans.INF O.ACCk
b. Causer (cli) vACC faire Vintr..INF S.ACCi
(171) ECM causative (causee underlined, clitic sites in brackets)
a. Causer (cli) vACC laisser EA.ACCi [vACC (clk) Vtrans.INF O.ACCk]
b. Causer (cli) vACC laisser Vintr.INF S.ACCi
113
– The causative verb (faire) takes an infinitival complement in both causatives.
The infinitive is structurally poor in the restructuring causative,
without negation, temporal, and passive auxiliaries, all possible in the
ECM causative.
– The two infinitives differ in their Case domains and their effect on the
causee. The causee is the highest argument of the embedded verb. In the
ECM causative, all causees are structural accusatives, and the Case domain
of the matrix clause ends at them. The infinitive has a separate domain for
its remaining arguments. In the restructuring causative, there is a single
Case domain for both predicates, explaining the dative-accusative coding
of the causee. The causee of unaccusatives and passives is accusative.
77 For French causatives, see esp. Kayne (1975: chapters 3, 4, 1991), Rouveret and Vergnaud
(1980), Quicoli (1980), Postal (1981, 1983, 1984, 1989), Tasmowski (1985), Zubizarreta (1985),
Gibson and Raposo (1986), Santorini and Heycock (1988), Roberts (1991), Miller (1992: chapter
5), Miller and Sag (1997), Guasti (1996, 1997, 2005), Bobaljik and Branigan (2006), Folli and
Harley (2007). Among issues not immediately pertinent but occasionally referred to are:
- Failure to climb in the restructuring causative for inherent clitics (Kayne 1975: 6.6, Miller
1992: 5.5.4.3); failure to climb for se reflexive to the infinitive's subject, which also makes the
infinitive behaves as if unergative if it is its direct object (Kayne 1975: 6.1, 6.5, Reinhart and
Siloni 2005); climbing in causatives with modals (Postal 1981: 293 note 15); rare climbing in
the ECM causative (Postal 1990: 168, 196 note 69, Tasmowski 1985: 314, 362 note 7).
- The poorly understood mixed causative of transitives, with a dative causee but no clitic climbing
(and the concomitant binding pattern of (172)a), available variably, usually when the embedded
verb (potentially) takes an indirect object, alongside the regular restructuring causative,
but also when the latter is impossible e.g. due to clitic cluster restrictions (Kayne 1975:
295 note 23, Milner 1982: Document 2, Postal 1981: 315, 1983, 1984, Tasmowski 1985: 287,
315f., 330, 363f., Baschung and Desmets 2000: 214).
- Verb preferences for different causative types and coercion (Miller 1992: 5.5.5-6, Abeillé,
Godard and Miller 1997, Tasmowski 1985; Kayne 1975: 295 note 22, Postal 1981: 315).
- Factors and variation in the coding of the causee of unergatives as dative or accusative (Morin
1980, Postal 1981, 1983, 1984, Blanche-Benveniste et al. 1984: 192-5, Tasmowski 1985, Reed
1992, Abeillé, Godard and Miller 1997, Baschung and Desmets 2000). Cf. section 4.6.