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

148
(229) ECM: (clACC clDAT) v believe (clDAT) [SC ACC X° 〈 [AP faithful DAT] 〉]
(X° a phase head, phase edge boxed)
Whether the PCC should occur in (229) depends on whether the dative and
accusative are equidistant at the small clause edge, if equidistance is pertinent, if
the PCC will not recur at subsequent steps of cliticization. The PCC at any rate
does not explain the exclusion of 1/2/SE.DAT + ACC along with 1/2/SE.ACC +
DAT clusters. There are other cases of dative clitic climbing restricted to 3 rd person
to which this ban might be attributed (clitic splitting in causatives, note 67,
Postal 1981: 316, 1983: 409f., climbing under 'seem' in Italian, Cinque 2004: note
27, cf. 2002: 633f.). Perhaps the PCC is not responsible even for the exclusion of
1/2/SE.ACC + DAT. The PCC bleeds virtually all sources of such clusters in
French, which might lead to purely morphological clitic gaps for some speakers
(cf. Rezac 2010a), as it has done in Basque varieties (Rezac 2008c, forthc). Examination
of the PCC repair in these configurations is difficult. 108
The reason to allow for the absence of PCC in ECM is the extraordinary
grammar reported in Postal (1983: 413f., 1984: 153-8, 1990: 177), citing also
Morin (1979c). It is shown in (230). The bare right-dislocated phrase in (230)b ensures
that the clitic is accusative. The coindexation is discussed below. This
grammar does have the PCC in other simple and complex structures along the
lines described in this chapter (e.g. Postal 1990: 176f., 1989). It is thus key evidence
about the nature of the PCC, as Postal points out. First, the PCC cannot be a
simple morphological ban on clitic clusters, for 1/2/SE.ACC + DAT clusters are
108 In ECM (i) Kayne (1975: 305) assigns the nonclitic dative only ?, but counts it with other irreparable
datives, comparing Jean (t')est antipathique (?à toi) 'Jean (you.D) is unpleasant (?to
you)' (p. 306 note 30), cf. Elle (t')est infidèle (*à toi) 'She (you.D) is unfaithful (*to you)' (p.
172). (ii) extends (i) to the ECM grammar (228). My inquiries indicate (i) and (ii) are both ungrammatical,
if not easy to judge due to the inherent difficulty of ECM (see Appendix A). A configuration
similar to ECM (225)a should exist for causatives embedding intransitives with a dative
argument. There is great variation on the types faire ACC naître/ressembler DAT 'make
ACC be.born/resemble to DAT', faire ACC sembler/paraître DAT INF 'make ACC seem to DAT
to INF', as well as on unfocussed strong pronoun datives when the result is bad for various reasons,
including PCC-like clusters: see Postal (1983: 414, 1984: 116, 1990: 171f.). My own investigation
finds a great deal of variation over Postal's data; little can be made of it for now.
(i) a Tout le monde croit Jean antipathique à Marie / ?à toi
b *Tout le monde te croit Jean antipathique
everyone your'.D believes Jean antipathetic to Marie / to you
Everyone believes Jean antipathetic to you / to Mary.
(Kayne 1975: 305f.)
(ii) C'est à cause de leursi propos que
a on la/te croit sympathique aux étudiants / à EUXi / (*)à euxi.
b on la/*te leuri croit sympathique.
one her/you.A them.D believes sympathetic to.the students / to them
It's because of theiri words that we believe her/*you sympathetic to themi.