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
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
123<br />
Paul seems to her to be unpleasant/sympa<strong>the</strong>tic/unpleasant to <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
(Rezac 2010a)<br />
The multiple dative clitic clusters created by raising overlap with those ruled<br />
out by <strong>the</strong> PCC on <strong>the</strong> surface, because 1 st /2 nd person clitics are syncretic for dative<br />
<strong>and</strong> accusative. Only <strong>the</strong> PCC clusters license <strong>the</strong> repair. Perhaps <strong>the</strong> problem<br />
with multiple dative clitics is a syntactic one distinct from <strong>the</strong> PCC (Postal 1981,<br />
1983, 1984). However, <strong>the</strong> variation among speakers <strong>and</strong> its pattern suggest a<br />
morphological ban on <strong>the</strong> repetition <strong>of</strong> identical <strong>features</strong>, strongest for 3.DAT +<br />
3.DAT, weakest for 1/2.DAT + 3.DAT (Rezac 2010a). If so, it belongs outside<br />
syntax, <strong>and</strong> a syntactic repair will not see it by modularity. 84<br />
4.6.3 Arbitrary clitic cluster gaps<br />
There are o<strong>the</strong>r clitic cluster gaps that belong to <strong>the</strong> morpho(phono)logy. Two<br />
would be fixed by <strong>the</strong> PCC repair because <strong>the</strong>y involve dative or accusative clitics.<br />
They are discussed in Rezac (2010a), which <strong>the</strong> following discussion resumes.<br />
One is <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> ?*3SG.DAT + LOC lui y [(l)ɥii] for many speakers, in contrast<br />
to ?3PL.DAT + LOC leur y [lœʁi], (189) (cf. Miller <strong>and</strong> Monachesi 2003:<br />
3.4, Morin 1981: 99 note 6, Couquaux 1975: 50, Blanche-Benveniste 1975: 77f.,<br />
85, Herslund 1988: 60f., 320f., de Kok 1985: 368, Grevisse <strong>and</strong> Goosse 2008:<br />
682.3°). Phonological hiatus plays a role, but perhaps only by exacerbating a morphological<br />
feature similarity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> dative <strong>and</strong> locative clitics, while factors like<br />
subcategorization attenuate it. Where lui y is ungrammatical, an unfocussed strong<br />
pronoun for <strong>the</strong> dative remains impossible. The PCC repair does not respond to<br />
this gap, in contrast to an alternation <strong>of</strong> (189) to add <strong>the</strong> PCC, (190). 85<br />
(189) C'est parce que le nid protège ses petitsi / son petiti que<br />
a. l'oiseau leuri y donne à manger.<br />
b. l'oiseau y donne à manger *à euxi / EUX.<br />
<strong>the</strong> bird <strong>the</strong>m.DAT LOC gives to eat to <strong>the</strong>m / THEM<br />
c. *l'oiseau luii y donne à manger.<br />
d. l'oiseau y donne à manger *à luii / LUI.<br />
<strong>the</strong> bird him.DAT LOC gives to eat to him / HIM<br />
Because <strong>the</strong> nest protects its young, <strong>the</strong> bird feeds <strong>the</strong>m/*him/HIM <strong>the</strong>re.<br />
(Rezac 2010a)<br />
(190) C'est parce que son petiti a faim que<br />
84 The o<strong>the</strong>r context where multiple datives are brought toge<strong>the</strong>r is in causatives; see Appendix<br />
A. Ei<strong>the</strong>r a syntactic or a morphological account would extend to <strong>the</strong> mechanism suggested<br />
<strong>the</strong>re. In raising like (187), both <strong>the</strong> datives brought toge<strong>the</strong>r must be disjoint from <strong>the</strong> matrix =<br />
embedded subject, unlike in <strong>the</strong> ECM <strong>and</strong> causatives structures <strong>of</strong> Appendix A.<br />
85 The questionnaire results are clear about <strong>the</strong> impossibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> strong pronoun. Speakers<br />
split on lui y, half perceiving <strong>the</strong> gap or only mildly, half sharply. Leur y is always better, but<br />
some do find it degraded. The results bear out Morin (1981: 99 note 6), Rezac (2010b).