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

4.6.5 Datives in DPs and APs
129
The next set of cliticization failures have nothing to do with clitic clusters. Certain
domains neither have a cliticization site, nor permit clitics to move out of
them: DPs, AP modifiers, and coordination and modification structures. An unfocussed
dative or accusative pronoun trapped inside is ineffable.
Nouns may take dative arguments, yet do not offer a cliticization site, nor can
clitics escape them. Nevertheless, Kayne (1975: 185f.) observes that unfocussed
pronoun datives cannot be strong pronouns, (202), unlike in the PCC repair.
(202) a. [Ta réponse à Jean-Jacques / *nous] a été parfaite.
external argument, casser – se casser 'break (the wind broke the branch) – break (the branch
broke)'. It is incompatible with a dative clitic, but the PCC repair cannot be tested, because the
optional dative added to them is applicative and so irreparable: la branche se (*me) cassé (*à
moi) 'the branch broke (*on me)', la tête se (*me) cassé (*à moi) 'the/*my head broke' (se me
good here e.g. in Spanish, Occitan, Czech). More uncertain are similar-looking structures from
ditransitives, like La question s'est posée à ma génération 'The question posed itself to my generation',
Le paysage s'est offert à nos yeux 'The scenery offered itself to our eyes', where the PCC
repair is fine, La question s'est posé à moi 'The question posed itself to me' (Kayne 1975: 398
note 65). The English translations does not correspond to plain anticausatives, of the type the
gates opened to us, but rather to the reflexive type the gates opened themselves to us (Fellbaum
1989, Levin 1993: 84f.). These have a Case-marked reflexive and so are not simple unaccusatives
(cf. Rothstein 1992), yet the nominative is the thematic object and so presumably derived.
For French the low origin of the nominative can be ascertained, because the subject in (i) is compatible
with the 'subnominal' genitive clitic en that is only combinable with unaccusative and not
transitive or unergative subjects (Pollock 1998, Boivin 2005 and references there).
(i) Ilsi sont heureux d'agir en accord avec l'Angleterre, quand l'occasion s'en offre à euxi.
Theyi are glad to act in accord with England, when the opportunity GEN=of.it (en)
presents itself.A (se) to them.Di (à eux)'.
The type the opportunity presents itself thus has a promoted object in French but accusative reflexive
in English. This mix recalls object-experiencer psych-transitives like frighten, strike on
the analysis where the nominative theme raises from below the accusative experiencer (Belletti
and Rizzi 1988, Pesetsky 1995). If itself/se is accusative, the PCC and its repair can occur as in
regular transitives and reflexives. The relationship of the nominative and accusative/se is unclear.
One might seek a solution along the lines of Alboiu, Barrie and Friggeni (2004) where se is the
Case-marked trace of the nominative.
On unification of reflexives and anticausatives through 'reflexivization-by-movement' reviewed
and developed in Medová (2009), (i) the external argument raises to [Spec, vP] from the thematic
direct object position, sharing a theta-role, and (ii) se is or signals an element that blocks accusative
assignment to it. Here (i) is irrelevant, and other devices such as a special anaphoric
pro/PRO would do, while (ii) would be accomplished by se absorbing the accusative of vACC, say
as Medová's antipassive applicative + an anaphoric pro/PRO in its specifier, or as the Casemarked
trace of the raised object, with overt anaphora like each other adjoined to it. The crux is
keeping the mediopassive se sufficiently distinct for the PCC and its repair.