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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

114 However, transitives already have an accusative object, so their causee is dative. This causee dative appears to be an inherent Case, like other datives: where the restructuring causative can be passivized, it is the accusative direct object that becomes nominative, while the causee remains dative (Burzio 1986: 258, 232, Santorini and Heycock 1988: 5.1, 5.4). The coding of the internal arguments of the infinitive is unaffected. 78 – The foregoing Case-domains correlate with domains for clitic climbing and binding, (136). The causee must always cliticize upstairs. In the ECM causative, the internal arguments of the infinitive cliticize downstairs. In the restructuring causative, they must cliticize upstairs, in a single cluster with the causee. The direct object of the infinitive can be coreferential with the causer if it stays downstairs, in ECM, but not upstairs, in restructuring. (172) a. Maii la*i laissera lai dessiner. (ECM causative) Mai them.A will.let her.A draw. b. Maii la*i lui*i fera dessiner. (restructuring causative) Mai her.A them.D will.make draw. Mai will make her draw her. (cf. de Kok 1985: 598 note 2, Morin 1978: 358f.) – In both causatives, the causee c-commands the direct object. This is patent for the ECM causative where the two are in different clause-like domains, as in (172)a. In the restructuring causative, evidence comes from effects attributed to the Specified Subject Condition (Kayne 1975: 3.5, 3.9, 4.2-3, Rouveret and Vergnaud 1980, Zubizarreta 1985, Jones 1996: 9.3-4). The dative causee acts as the antecedent for reflexive se and inalienably possessed nouns in (173), along with other anaphora and secondary predicates; it intervenes in anaphora binding by the causer; and it blocks cliticization of lower locatives, genitives, and datives, unless itself cliticized, as shown in (174) and (175). These effects require c-command by the DP of the dative into the clause. The examples also show that the par 'by'-phrase agent of causativized passives has none of these properties. It is a richer PP that prevents its DP from c-commanding into the clause, discussed at the end of this section. (173) a. Pierre fera s' acheter une montre à/*par Marie. 78 The French restructuring causative cannot passivize, least of all with an overt à-causee, so the argument have been made from the similar Italian restructuring causative. There the direct object becomes nominative, in minimal contrast is Japanese where the dative causees does. See Folli and Harley (2007: section 7) for a counter-analysis claiming that passives of restructuring causatives are unavailable in Italian as well, and their work and Bobaljik and Branigan (2006) for a structural Case analysis of dative causees. For other applicative datives, passivization clearly shows them never to become nominative.
115 Pierre will.make SE.D buy a watch to/*by Marie Pierre will make Marie buy herself a watch. b. Elle fera lever la main à/*par Jean she will.make raise the hand to/*by Jean She will have Jeani raise hisi hand. (par ok for 'the hand') ((a) Miller 1992: 250, (b) Kayne 1975: 236f.) (174) a. Jean fera [comparer cette sonatine à Paul à une symphonie]. Jean will.make compare this sonata to Paul to a symphony. Jean will have Paul compare this sonata to a symphony. b. *Jean y fera [comparer cette sonatine à Paul ty]. Jean will have Paul compare this sonata LOC=to.it (y). c. Jean leur y fera [comparer cette sonatine tleur ty]. Jean will have them.D (leur) compare this sonata LOC=to.it (y). (Rouveret and Vergnaud 1980: 178, adapted; literary for some) (175) a. Paul les lui fera [porter tles à sa femme] tlui. Paul them.A him.D will.make carry to his wife Paul will have him carry them to his wife. b. Paul les (*lui) fera [porter tles tlui ] à son fils. Paul will have his son (à son fils) carry them (*to her.D (lui)). 1 c. Paul les lui fera [porter tles tlui] par son fils. Paul will have them carried to her by his son (par son fils). (Kayne 1975: 290, adapted) Causees create the PCC not only as clitics, but also as à-phrases. Consider the paradigm (176). In the restructuring causative, the matrix + infinitive complex is a single Case, cliticization, and binding domain, and the dative causee c-commands the direct object. When the two are brought together in the clitic cluster, the PCC occurs in (176)c (Postal 1981: 312). Nothing happens in the ECM causative, where they remain in separate clauses, (176)g. However, 1 st /2 nd /reflexive accusative clitics are in fact barred in the restructuring causative even if the causee is an à-phrase, (176)d, in contrast to the par 'by'-phrase agent in (176)f (Postal 1989). In consequence, the PCC in (176)c cannot be repaired by à + strong pronoun for the clitic, (176)e: the à-phrase causee incurs the PCC just like the clitic. (176) a. Marcel a fait choisir/dessiner Maï à Ilse. b. Marcel lui a fait choisir/dessiner Maï c. Marcel l'/*vous lui a fait choisir/dessiner d. Marcel l'/*vous a fait choisir/dessiner à Ilse. e. *Marcel vous a fait choisir/dessiner à nous Marcel her/*you.A her.D has made choose/draw Maï to Ilse/us Marcel had Ilse/her/ % HER choose/draw her/Maï/*you. (restructuring caus. of active) f. Marcel l'/vous a fait choisir/dessiner par Ilse Marcel had her/you drawn by Ilse/her. (restructuring caus. of passive)
Page 1 and 2:
Title: Phi-features and the Modular
Page 3 and 4:
4.6.3 Arbitrary clitic cluster gaps
Page 5 and 6:
Conventions and glosses Cross-refer
Page 7 and 8:
Preface This work uses phi-features
Page 9 and 10:
1 Modularity, phi-features, and rep
Page 11 and 12:
(4) a. Irati-rii nesk-ak/*ekk gusta
Page 13 and 14:
Lyer illusion, a line terminating i
Page 15 and 16:
Lexicon This simple model may be en
Page 17 and 18:
(12) As far as Johni is concerned,
Page 19 and 20:
(18) a. *(Some goatsi) seemi/*seems
Page 21 and 22:
Uninterpretable phenomena should no
Page 23 and 24:
d. There were shown (*her) to be fi
Page 25 and 26:
able features, and ultimately expli
Page 27 and 28:
1997, Yang 1997, Jacobson 1997, Fra
Page 29 and 30:
Syntax: syntactic but not properly
Page 31 and 32:
(44) Morphology-free syntax: Syntax
Page 33 and 34:
(Distributed Morphology) (49) a. Sy
Page 35 and 36:
In Aronoff's example, it may be eas
Page 37 and 38:
(53) v dolea/zákonub/kolec/máled/
Page 39 and 40:
a. 3SG/PL.DAT le/les + 3SGM/3SGF/3P
Page 41 and 42:
(62) a. Elle*x∈i lai/∅i lui a d
Page 43 and 44:
Morphology might also need devices
Page 45 and 46:
agreement exponent maps to another
Page 47 and 48:
singular or 1 st /2 nd person plura
Page 49 and 50:
frire 'fry' (e.g. 1PL *frions vs. r
Page 51 and 52:
domains. The well-studied English c
Page 53 and 54:
not cross this distance, just as in
Page 55 and 56:
There are more robust cases of appa
Page 57 and 58:
ecause then there is no crossing of
Page 59 and 60:
(85) a. n-waabm-aa b. n-waabm-ig c.
Page 61 and 62:
2- go.home go.home 2SG.SU he goes h
Page 63 and 64: sion is that EA and O PH-interactio
Page 65 and 66: (92) a. [DP Johni 'sD° [IP PROi no
Page 67 and 68: uci-maceha-t [mesq mace-ntu]]. from
Page 69 and 70: see her, PRO to see her, your/you s
Page 71 and 72: )movement (Nichols 2001, cf. chapte
Page 73 and 74: distribution of inverse morphemes i
Page 75 and 76: . No direct-like version with 3EA
Page 77 and 78: suppose that its oblique EA does no
Page 79 and 80: fact. Thus the oblique-like EA of i
Page 81 and 82: movement through probes for individ
Page 83 and 84: digm (114) reveals the exception to
Page 85 and 86: Lucille her/you.A them.D/LOC will.i
Page 87 and 88: structures that only occur in conte
Page 89 and 90: 1PL nous no-tre/s nous, on nous 2PL
Page 91 and 92: (126) a. Il lesi (lui) a dit-esi. H
Page 93 and 94: (130) a. Je connais cette fillei. J
Page 95 and 96: cliticization may take place, as fu
Page 97 and 98: (134) a. Pourquoi est-ce que Jean p
Page 99 and 100: (137) a. [Film synopsis:] L'étrang
Page 101 and 102: 101 seen in section 4.5. Thus the P
Page 103 and 104: 103 To sum up this section, the PCC
Page 105 and 106: Dative clitics continue to license
Page 107 and 108: 107 These possibilities can be cont
Page 109 and 110: 4.4.6 Overview 109 The syntax and i
Page 111 and 112: 4.5.2 Possessive, dessus, and benef
Page 113: c. Azenor les laisse être mangés
Page 117 and 118: 117 arise through the intervention
Page 119 and 120: 119 The causee of the connaître-cl
Page 121 and 122: 121 The syntactic character of the
Page 123 and 124: 123 Paul seems to her to be unpleas
Page 125 and 126: 125 *sans se leur en prendre. sans
Page 127 and 128: 127 a. aux agriculteurs de vos rég
Page 129 and 130: 4.6.5 Datives in DPs and APs 129 Th
Page 131 and 132: 131 c. L'infinitifi […] a été t
Page 133 and 134: 133 (210) a. Elle photographiait *v
Page 135 and 136: 135 These peoplei are going to be q
Page 137 and 138: 137 1/2.ACC DAT clusters. Thus, the
Page 139 and 140: 139 tic doubling allows unfocussed
Page 141 and 142: 141 This view of the PCC repair ori
Page 143 and 144: 143 of French unfocussed pronouns.
Page 145 and 146: 145 the possessum (section 4.5). Al
Page 147 and 148: 147 When such adjectives are embedd
Page 149 and 150: legitimate in ECM but not elsewhere
Page 151 and 152: 151 These are very tentative sugges
Page 153 and 154: 5 Repairs and uninterpretable featu
Page 155 and 156: 155 terpretation, not problems that
Page 157 and 158: 157 (241) Person Case Constraint (A
Page 159 and 160: 5.2.2 Intervention 159 In the Agree
Page 161 and 162: 161 (Etxepare and Oyharçabal 2008a
Page 163 and 164: tive within the TP, the PCC disappe
Page 165 and 166:
165 you.ABS visit-ing liking R.3sAi
Page 167 and 168:
167 - It is unclear whether dative
Page 169 and 170:
169 PCC are tied up with this issue
Page 171 and 172:
5.3.2 The choice of mechanisms The
Page 173 and 174:
(264) [DATapplicative [v+P[+person:
Page 175 and 176:
175 some structure always wins the
Page 177 and 178:
177 distinct from syntax and from e
Page 179 and 180:
179 These observations do not mean
Page 181 and 182:
may also lead to the (re-)Merge of
Page 183 and 184:
183 (279) Numeration: The numeratio
Page 185 and 186:
185 they lead to ineffability. Vari
Page 187 and 188:
187 distinction between valued unin
Page 189 and 190:
189 she believed to.have been bough
Page 191 and 192:
girls-ERG tired R.3pA-that seem R.3
Page 193 and 194:
193 To integrate dependent Case, di
Page 195 and 196:
195 depends on what other probes ex
Page 197 and 198:
197 b. She vacc+showed (*the studen
Page 199 and 200:
199 The structures of interest for
Page 201 and 202:
201 (Basque, Tolosa T1, Rezac 2008c
Page 203 and 204:
203 (313) (i-kalai) ga-či-łj-(a)
Page 205 and 206:
205 with it (Rezac 2006: 3.7, 2008b
Page 207 and 208:
207 agreement (Holmberg 2005, Holmb
Page 209 and 210:
209 of Icelandic and Finnish, not n
Page 211 and 212:
211 (329) Minu-ni täyty-y ti men-n
Page 213 and 214:
stead in Table 5.3. The dative inte
Page 215 and 216:
215 This application of ℜ has som
Page 217 and 218:
217 with cliticization alone. This
Page 219 and 220:
219 serve in the applicative constr
Page 221 and 222:
221 way. IOs must normally be appli
Page 223 and 224:
223 The facility of modeling both r
Page 225 and 226:
y ℜ in the same way as that of PP
Page 227 and 228:
227 of the target, goal, and the pa
Page 229 and 230:
229 tives, the relationship of EA-O
Page 231 and 232:
231 Pesetsky and Torrego forthc, Wi
Page 233 and 234:
233 For an important class of synta
Page 235 and 236:
235 The conditions on these depende
Page 237 and 238:
6 Phi in syntax and phi interpretat
Page 239 and 240:
239 predicate-argument relations, d
Page 241 and 242:
speaker/addressee because the more
Page 243 and 244:
243 The second point illustrated by
Page 245 and 246:
245 The quasi-existential on in (37
Page 247 and 248:
247 Everywhere onei (on) presents o
Page 249 and 250:
249 *[Marie and I] found.3PL themse
Page 251 and 252:
251 to Agree by locality, if it wer
Page 253 and 254:
- Albizu (1997b, cf. 1997a): A pers
Page 255 and 256:
255 of 3 rd person. This is so even
Page 257 and 258:
257 of diachrony and grammaticaliza
Page 259 and 260:
259 tain configurations like (385),
Page 261 and 262:
person 'impostors' for the speaker/
Page 263 and 264:
263 like invite, which do not. The
Page 265 and 266:
265 sions and eliminations of a mor
Page 267 and 268:
267 featural relationships in synta
Page 269 and 270:
269 Carruthers, Peter, Stephen Laur
Page 271 and 272:
271 Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Agree
Page 273 and 274:
7.2 Chapter 2 273 Ackema, Peter, an
Page 275 and 276:
275 De Crousaz, Isabelle, and Ur Sh
Page 277 and 278:
277 Luís, Ana R., and Andrew Spenc
Page 279 and 280:
279 Szendrői, Kriszta. 2005. Focus
Page 281 and 282:
281 Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and P
Page 283 and 284:
283 Rosen, Carol. 1990. Rethinking
Page 285 and 286:
285 Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Conse
Page 287 and 288:
287 Fauconnier, Gilles. 1983. Gener
Page 289 and 290:
289 Legendre, Geraldine. 1989a. Inv
Page 291 and 292:
291 Rezac, Milan. 2010a. Ineffabili
Page 293 and 294:
7.5 Chapter 5 293 Abels, Klaus. 200
Page 295 and 296:
295 Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and P
Page 297 and 298:
297 Den Dikken, Marcel. 2001. 'Plur
Page 299 and 300:
299 Holmberg, Anders, and Christer
Page 301 and 302:
301 McCreight, Katherine. 1988. Mul
Page 303 and 304:
303 Rezac, Milan. 2008c. The syntax
Page 305 and 306:
305 Vainikka, Anne Marjatta. 1989.
Page 307 and 308:
307 Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia. 2003
Page 309 and 310:
309 Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of
Page 311:
311 Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann.
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?