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

142
Those Case/Σ-licensed by the PP surface as strong pronouns in the PP,
(cliticization of the PP itself in the CP yields pro-PP clitics).
– Dative à-phrases and clitics are defective PPs in not providing Σ-licensing
at least; Case-licensing is discussed below.
(220) a. [CP … Case/Σlicensing … pronoun(→clitic)](complete licensing/binding domain)
b. [PP … Case/Σlicensing … pronoun(→strong)](complete licensing/binding domain)
A major difference from Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) is that the absence of
Case/Σ-licensing on pronouns is immutable, save by the PCC repair. The failure of
cliticization, or the needs of meaning, do not enrich the structure of pronouns to
provide Case/Σ-licensing independent of the CP. 101
The Case and Σ-deficiency of pronouns distinguishes clitics from other DPs.
All DPs need Case and participate in the Agree/Case system. In French, case morphology
only appears on clitics, but verb and participle agreement differentiate
nominatives from accusatives, and DPs are subject to the Case Filter. 102 A need
other than Case drives dative and accusative pronouns to cliticize to T in the CP:
Σ-deficiency. Its character is suggested by comparison with Germanic weak pronoun
movement (Johnson 1991, Holmberg and Platzack 1995, Lasnik 1999,
Thráinsson 2001, Anagnostopoulou 2003: 7.3-4). Across Germanic, different Apositions
between the VP and T are available to or required of different DP types.
Weak pronouns target the highest one, next to T, as in Icelandic (221). However,
they do not attach to T, while French clitics do and follow T in T-to-C movement,
(222). Plausibly, French clitics move through the same A-positions as Germanic
weak pronouns, (223), along the way triggering participle agreement, licensing
bare preverbal floating quantifiers, and participating in the PCC. From their final
landing site they attach further to T (Chomsky 1995: 249, Sportiche 1996: 244,
Matushansky 2006). This step is cliticization proper, and satisfies the Σ-deficiency
101 Short shrift is given here to focussed pronouns. Following Cardinaletti and Starke (1999),
they have their own Σ-licensing, and perhaps Case-licensing at least for person in (144), albeit
fixed by their focus structure/content rather than given by last resort; they might then be PP-like
phases. Having Case-licensing would not prevent them from participating in Agree/Case system
of the clause if some of their phi-features (number, for instance) project outside the phase by
Agree with the phase-head (section 5.2, Rezac 2008a; for the number but not person agreement
of focussed nominatives, cf. Kayne 2000: chapter 9). Zribi-Hertz (2008) takes focussed dative
and accusative pronouns to be adjuncts to clitics in Case position, building on Kayne's (2000:
chapter 9) generalization that pronouns in Case-positions must be cliticized or clitic-doubled; but
this is not true for all the French grammars considered here (note 60). An alternative is that focussed
pronouns are clitic-doubled when the focussed DP is a big-DP structure containing a clitic
that must move out, and this is a property parametrizable by person and case (Uriagereka 1995,
Belletti 1999, Cecchetto 2000 and references there). Postal (1990) takes dative focussed pronouns
to have transformed to a locative (cf. Kayne 2000: 166 for topicalized datives). All of
these approaches provide a start on explaining why focus often blocks applicative relations for à
+ focussed strong pronoun, if it yields phases, adjuncts, or locatives.
102 For the Case Filter, see section 5.4, 5.9. Spanish and Basque are closely parallel to French in
the PCC and PCC repair, but display accusative/absolutive Case overtly on nonpronominal DPs.