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

145
the possessum (section 4.5). All these relationships are blocked for DPs inside
phasal PPs like locatives, because they undergo spell-out that severs them from
the surrounding syntactic structure. The PCC repair turns a dative into a full
phasal PP inaccessible to these relationships, as further developed in chapter 5. 104
This returns us to the Case properties of datives. Full PPs including PPLOC are
invisible to the Agree/Case system: verb and participle agreement, structural Case
assignment and licensing, the PCC effects on [+person] elements. This is expected
by their phasehood. Their P head or functional architecture has no phi-features,
and the DP is licensed inside the phase and inaccessible after its completion. Such
PP phases correspond to the typical PPs or obliques opaque to Agree/Case crosslinguistically
(Rezac 2008a, cf. the inherent case of McGinnis 1998, Chomsky
2000a: 148 note 87). French datives do not participate in agreement and in nominative-accusative
alternations, in contrast to accusative clitics, and their PDAT is to
be held responsible. Yet they are visible to the Person Case Constraint, unlike full
PPs and their clitics, as resumed in Table 4.3. Section 5.2 considers the ways to
hide datives from agreement yet let them participate in the PCC. One option is that
PDAT lets the clause see datives as [+person] but hides (some of) their other phifeatures.
Unfortunately, it is unclear how this or other proposals bear on the Caselicensing
of the DP in PPDAT, and thus the Case properties of datives. Appendix B
examines one pertinent phenomenon, inconclusively. 105
Table 4.3: Transitive subjects in causatives and the PCC (see sections 4.3, 4.5)
Applicative DAT causee Prepositional DAT causee Full de/GEN PP causee
Phrasal a. *Elle se fera chosir à Paul. b. Elle se fera connaître à Paul. c. Elle se fera aimer de Paul.
She will.make herself.A {a. *choose à Paul} / {b. know à Paul} / like {c. de Paul}.
Clitic a. *Elle se lui fera choisir. b. *Elle se lui fera connaître. c. Elle s'en fera aimer.
She will.make herself.A {a. *him.D choose} / {b. *him.D know} / {c. GEN like}.
Repair a. *Elle se fera choisir à lui. b. Elle se fera connaître à lui. -
She will.make herself.A {a. *choose à him} / {b. know à him.}
Repair ¥ a. *Elle s'y fera choisir. b. Elle s'y fera connaître. -
{She will.make herself.A {a. * LOC choose} / {b. LOC know}.
104 See Rezac (2010b) for different analyses of floating quantifiers, through Agree/Move (Sportiche
1988) or variable-binding (Fitzpatrick 2006); Landau (1999) and Pylkkänen (2002) for the
same alternatives for possessor datives; and Chomsky (2008: 148), Reuland (2001, 2006), Rezac
(2010b: note 2) for Agree in the binding of se. Not all relationships are sensitive to PP phasehood
or c-command, The chef told the guests about (the ingredients of) every dishi as iti was served
(Pesetsky 1995: 172-180, 228ff., Phillips 1996: 44-8; cf. note 62).
105 French datives also fail to raise to the [Spec, TP] subjecthood position, but that is presumably
independent of their relationship to the Agree/Case system, since datives in languages like Icelandic
do so, although they do not agree, change case, but participate in the PCC, like French datives.
Some property of PDAT might be the culprit of the Icelandic-French (Icelandic-Basque, etc.)
difference, or something about the applicative structure itself (Rezac 2008c).