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

143
of French unfocussed pronouns. It has been viewed as morphophonological
(Matushansky) or syntactic (Sportiche). Section 5.7 returns to the question, favouring
a morphophonological requirement and attachment.
(221) a. Jón lasT+V (ðað/bókinai) líklega (*ðað/?bókinai) aldrei tV ti.
Jón read it(weak)/the.book probably never
b. Samt lasC+T+V (*ðað) Jón tT+V (ðað) ekki
Yet read it(weak) Jón not
(Icelandic, Jónsson 1996: 55)
(222) a. Elle (les) avaitT (tous) lu-sV (*les).
b. Elle (*les livres) avaitT (*tous) lu(*-s)V (les livres).
she them.A/the books had all read-PL them.A/the books
c. Les-avaitT+C-elle (tous) lusV?
Has she read them.A all?
(French)
(223) Elle lesi-avaitT+v+V … ti tousi … ti [VP lu-si ti ] (=(222)a)
It is unclear whether there is a relationship between Case and Σ-licensing and
deficiency, or to put it differently, how the Cliticization Requirement relates to
Case. In Cardinaletti and Starke's (1999) system, the functional category for Caselicensing
is higher in the functional architecture projected from N than that of Σlicensing,
so N that needs external Σ-licensing also needs external Case-licensing,
but not vice versa. Similarly, Kayne (2000: 165) proposes that structurally Casemarked
pronouns in French must be cliticized or clitic-doubled and includes
nominatives, accusatives, and datives. French locative and genitive pronouns are
not discussed in detail in these works. They seem wholly outside the Case system,
yet they too cliticize to T. Two views seem reasonable for them. On one, they are
Case- and Σ-deficient units that host phi-less pronouns, which do not need Caselicensing
because they are phi-less, but need to satisfy their Σ-deficiency by cliticizing
in the clause. On the other, they are full PPs with their own Case- and Σlicensing
for their pronoun, perhaps still phi-less, and cliticize by a different
mechanism than dative and accusative clitics ones, for which there is some evidence
(see note 61 and Appendix A). That leaves one entity in which the relationship
of Σ- and Case-deficiency can be examined: datives.
Examination of datives leads first to a more articulated view of PP types. Datives
occur in the applicative structure above the direct object, where they create
the PCC, and in the prepositional structure below it, where they do not, (218). For
all datives, floating quantifiers show that à-phrases behave like PPs but clitics like
PPs or DPs, while inertness for Case and agreement indicate that both à-phrases
and clitics are PP rather than DP-like (section 4.2). Since all unfocussed pronoun
datives must cliticize, both dative à-PPs in the applicative and prepositional alike
fail to meet the Σ-deficiency of pronouns, in contrast to locative à-PPs. Let us take
all dative à-phrases to have a PP structure defective for Σ-licensing, PDAT, while
locative à-phrases a full PP structure, PLOC. In nonclitics, PDAT and PLOC alike sur-