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

128
agnostics appear to show the absence of an independent theta-role for the object.
On the other hand, there is present an accusative Agree/Case relation with the object.
This object surfaces overtly when reflexive se clitic-doubles nondislocated
phrasal anaphora, as in (201) (Ruwet 1990: 75f., Kayne 2000: chapter 8, Labelle
2008). In Spanish where the accusative is overtly marked, they are accusative
(Torrego 1995, Zagona 2006: 187). Thus the reflexive se and/or the element it
doubles gets accusative Case from v, but shares a theta-role with the subject in the
various ways proposed in the literature. The se-anaphora are [+person], so if a dative
intervenes between vACC and them, the PCC arises, and is repaired. 87
(201) Elles sei voient elles-mêmesi / l'une l'autrei (quitter leur pays, se pétrifier à
mesure qu'elles avancent).
They SEi see themselvesi / each otheri (leaving their country, petrifying as
they advance).
(reflexive but not mediopassive reading)
In the mediopassive (200)b, [Spec, vP] is occupied by a silent agent, proarb,
detectable by interpretation, control, and adverbs. The overt subject originates in
the direct object position (for diagnostics such as genitive clitic subextraction).
This position cannot be filled by any other element, as indicates (201). v does not
assign accusative, and the direct object agrees with and gets Case from TNOM.
It is not clear what problem arises in the mediopassive when a dative clitic is
added. The dative clitic should pose no PCC-like problem for the relationship between
TNOM and the object, since it does not do so in unaccusatives and passives.
Perhaps somehow the PCC occurs between the generic pro and the dative clitic in
(200)b, but it is not clear then why the PCC repair is impossible (yet see section
5.7). Alternatively, mediopassive se + dative clitic is ruled out by a different constraint,
perhaps a morphological one (Mendikoetxea 1992). This is suggested by
Romance variation. Occitan varieties permit mediopassive se + dative, while
blocking reflexive se + dative (Ronjat 1937: §792 vs. §798, de Kok 1985: 384).
Spanish varieties seem to exhibit mismatches in the opposite direction (reflexive
se + dative clitic good, Rivero 2004: 498 note 3, with variation, Albizu 1997a:
note 12; mediopassive se bad, Mendikoetxea 1992: 319f., but see Mendikoetxea
1999: 26.4.2.3, Fernández-Ordóñez 1999: 21.2.1.6). French alone prevents all
kinds of se from combining with dative clitics, not only the reflexive and mediopassive,
but also the anticausative and others(contrast Ronjat 1937: §798 for
Occitan, Cuervo 2003a: 3.2.2, 4.2.2 for Spanish). It may be that se + dative clitic
is subject to a sweeping morphological gap in French, perhaps with diachronic
origins in the exclusion reflexive se + dative clitic by the PCC (Rezac 2010a). 88
87 Medová (2009: 4.4) shows that in Czech se contrasts with phrasal reflexives in combining
with nominative rather than accusative secondary depictives. This may be explained if the antecedent
of secondary depictives must have an independent theta-role: the subject, not se.
88 For recent overviews of the types of se constructions in Romance and elsewhere, see Cuervo
(2003a), Dobrovie-Sorin (2005), Medová (2009). Mediopassive se superficially resembles but is
distinct from anticausative se, which derives unaccusatives from transitives by eliminating the