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

138
same way me in me seems can be interpreted as to me. In the syntax, the strong
PCC alone exists. The PCC repair applies to 1/2-2/1 combinations because they
are blocked the syntactic PCC, despite being legitimate surface strings.
This view dovetails with the irreparability of morphological clitic cluster
gaps. The repair reveals which clitic cluster restrictions and possibilities belong to
the syntactic PCC, and which ones elsewhere. It holds promise for understanding
the weak PCC and the mixed person-number restrictions of Nevins (2007), Nevins
and Săvescu (2008), much as has been discussed for the syntactic correlates of
morphological subject-object interactions in section 3.
4.6.9 Overview
This section has passed through a number of contexts where clitics are impossible
yet unfocussed strong pronouns remain unavailable. Some of these clitic
problems are extrasyntactic, some conjugate the absence of a cliticization site and
a syntactic ban on clitic movement. Unfocussed strong pronouns are not licensed
by the unavailability of clitics, and must be barred independently of it. Kayne
(2000: chapter 9, cf. 1975: 2.16) reaches this conclusion on some of the same
grounds, as well as others pertaining to subject clitics and reflexives. Only in the
PCC context do unfocussed strong pronouns emerge and must be keyed to it.
Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) develop a system where the unavailability of
clitics or weak pronouns in a given syntactic context or for a given meaning
should automatically free up strong pronouns. Their conclusions repose above all
on subject weak-strong pronoun alternations like (217): strong pronouns are not
available when weak ones will do, but emerge under focus or coordination.
(217) a. Jeani a admis que ili / *luii / LUIi a fini la bouteille.
Jean has admitted that he (weak/strong) has finished the bottle
b. Jeani a admis que luii et sesi amis ont fini la bouteille.
Jean has admitted that he and his friends have finished the bottle
((b) Cardinaletti and Starke 1999: 200, (a) adapted)
There may indeed be a net contrast in coordinations between strong pronouns
for weak ones and strong pronouns for clitics, as already pointed out by Blanche-
Benveniste (1975: 103). It does not yet follow that there is syntactic competition
between strong and weak nominatives. Kayne (2000: chapter 9) demonstrates that
strong nominatives do not become automatically available when weak ones are
not. One possibility is that the apparent strong forms in coordinated and modified
nominatives are syntactically identical to weak ones and the difference resides in
spell-out (with further nuances, e.g. only [+human] weak pronouns might have
strong forms). Another possibility is that French unfocussed nominatives like datives
and accusatives must be weak/clitic pronouns by the Cliticization Requirement,
and the appearance of unfocussed strong pronouns in nominative coordinations
(217) arises from the existence of silent 3 rd person nominative weak
pronouns, perhaps reflected in agreement, in the same manner that overt object cli-