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

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

120<br />

When <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>me <strong>of</strong> falloir is a 1 st /2 nd person accusative clitic, <strong>the</strong> PCC prevents<br />

<strong>the</strong> dative experiencer from being a clitic, (184). As for o<strong>the</strong>r applicative datives,<br />

<strong>the</strong>re is no repair. For many speakers, a 1/2.ACC clitic is also incompatible<br />

with an à-phrase experiencer, (185). It has been suggested that a covert dative clitic<br />

doubles <strong>the</strong> à-phrase <strong>and</strong> creates <strong>the</strong> PCC (Anagnostopoulou 2005: 231 note 2).<br />

This is disproved by <strong>the</strong> failure <strong>of</strong> floating quantifiers to be licensed, (186).<br />

Ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> à-phrase itself counts for <strong>the</strong> PCC. 82<br />

(184) ¥ a. *Il vous (lui/y) faut (à lui)<br />

it you.A him.D/LOC needs to him<br />

b. % Il faut cela à LUI plus impérativement qu'à elle.<br />

it needs this to him more imperatively than to her<br />

(Postal 1990: 172; (b) given <strong>the</strong>re as *, but ok for some)<br />

(185) (Cette fille,) il la/*te lui faut.<br />

(Cette fille,) il la/*te faut à mon ami.<br />

this girl it her/you.A him.D needs to my friends<br />

This girl, my friend/he needs her/*you.<br />

(cf. Kayne 1975: 241 note 47)<br />

(186) Il la/*te leuri a (tousi) fallu.<br />

Il la/*te a (*tousi) fallu aux enfantsi.<br />

it her/you.A <strong>the</strong>m.D has all needed to.<strong>the</strong> children<br />

They all / *all <strong>the</strong> children needed her.<br />

4.5.6 Overview<br />

The behaviour <strong>of</strong> dative à-phrases bears out <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> PCC in (122) applied<br />

to <strong>the</strong> applicative-prepositional distinction (132). Indirect objects <strong>of</strong> ditransitives<br />

can or must be in <strong>the</strong> prepositional construction below <strong>the</strong> direct object as àphrases,<br />

where <strong>the</strong>y do not participate in <strong>the</strong> PCC. As clitics, <strong>the</strong>y pass through an<br />

A-position between v <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> direct object, <strong>and</strong> here <strong>the</strong>y do create <strong>the</strong> PCC. Applicative<br />

datives do not have recourse to <strong>the</strong> prepositional construction. They are<br />

between v <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> direct object <strong>and</strong> always participate in <strong>the</strong> PCC. Causees are<br />

expected to show this pattern most clearly, <strong>and</strong> do, because <strong>the</strong>ir position is clear.<br />

All datives are defective PPs. The PCC repair streng<strong>the</strong>ns <strong>the</strong>m to full PPs in<br />

<strong>the</strong> prepositional construction, similar or identical to locatives. These have <strong>the</strong> capacity<br />

to host unfocussed pronouns, are immune to <strong>the</strong> PCC, but also bar <strong>the</strong>ir DP<br />

from participating in various clausal relationships. Among <strong>the</strong>m are applicative relations<br />

like causee or possessor, so <strong>the</strong> repair is unavailable to <strong>the</strong>m. Section 4.7<br />

explores fur<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> PPs <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> repair.<br />

82 Some do allow à-phrases with 1/2.ACC clitics, although not à + strong pronoun under focus or<br />

<strong>the</strong> PCC repair: see Postal (1990: 172) in (184), vs. Kayne (1975: 241 note 47). Both grammars<br />

occur among <strong>the</strong> speakers surveyed here. Similar variation for <strong>the</strong> PCC in Basque unaccusatives<br />

reflects high vs. low datives (Rezac 2008c, forthc, Albizu 2009b).

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!