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

139
tic doubling allows unfocussed strong pronouns in coordinations (211) (cf. Kayne
2000: chapter 9). In remains to be understood why simple strong nominatives cannot
be unfocussed. At any rate, nothing can be concluded from it about undoubled
strong object pronouns that only the PCC licenses. 99
4.7 The PCC, the repairs, and the nature of datives
The following elements of the PCC repair have been established:
– The Cliticization Requirement: Unfocussed pronoun datives and accusatives
must be clitic, unlike locatives and genitives, and unlike other PPs
that have no clitic version. The requirement operates whether cliticization
is available or not, save in the PCC context.
– The PCC: *1/2/SE.ACC clitics + applicative datives (clitics, à-phrases).
– The PCC repair: In the PCC context, unfocussed pronoun datives are à +
strong pronoun, or in the y-grammar the locative clitic y. Accusatives cannot
be affected (save when the dative is inherent se).
– The repair yields PPs: Both forms of the repair can only express datives
that may be prepositional, not those that must be applicative.
– The repair is syntactic: The strong pronouns of the repair have the syntax
and interpretation of strong pronouns, as found independently in focussed
99 The discussion of Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) entails that Italian object clitics behave like
nominative weak pronouns in (217), and other literature hints at the same without controlling for
focus, e.g. for the *3SG.DAT LOC gli ci (= lui y) clitic gap (Wanner 1977: 109 note 9), or SE +
dative in enclisis (Cardinaletti 2008: 4.7). Italian object clitics would on this point behave like
French weak pronouns rather than French pronominal object clitics. The literature reaches a
similar conclusion on other grounds, some resumed below (García 2001: 412-4). They do not
suggest that Italian clitics are weak pronouns, but closer to them than French clitics are. Better
understanding might come from the diachrony of the French object clitic – strong pronoun alternations,
which was not always as restricted as it is now (Zink 1997).
(i) The greater clitic-doubling of focussed strong pronouns in Spanish and French than in Italian
(García 2001: 412-4), beside the general impossibility of doubling by weak pronouns (Cardinaletti
and Starke 1999: 169). Italian clusters where clitics seem poorer in undergoing morphological
fusion may also be those that allow clitic doubling (section 2.2).
(ii) The exclusion of the PCC clusters 1/2.ACC + DAT from Old French on, independently of the
changing ordering of clitics (De Kok 1985, Zink 1997), versus their availability in even recent
Italian, for some with sensitivity to order (Wanner 1977: 109, Evans et al. 1978, Renzi and
Cardinaletti 1988: 588f., García 2001: 412-4, Cardinaletti 2008: note 40). The PCC is variable
or absent for Germanic weak pronouns and Slavic second position clitics (Anagnostopoulou
2008, Rezac 2010c).
(iii) The greater immunity of Italian clitics to constraints on clitic climbing in causativization
than those of French and Spanish, e.g. datives in causativized unergatives in section 4.6, or
animate 3 rd person objects in causatives in note 79 (García 2001; cf. Burzio 1978: 23-5, Postal
1984: 143 vs. Santorini and Heycock 1988: 51, Baschung and Desmets 2000: 216).