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

legitimate in ECM but not elsewhere. Second, it must be sensitive to something
that differentiates ECM from other configurations, like causative (225)b. 109
149
(230) a. Pierrei {me luii/k} / {la luik/*i} / {sei lui} croit fidèle.
Pierre me.A him.D / her.A him.D / SE.A him.D believes faithful
Pierre believes me/her/himself faithful to him.
(Postal 1984: 156f.)
b. Pierre nousi lui croit fidèle, nous autres communistesi.
Pierre us.A him.D believes faithful, us other communists
(Postal 1984: 153)
In the approach to the PCC here, it is natural to take the immunity of ECM to
arise from the accusative > dative c-command in (225)a, with Albizu (1997b). It
fits the cross-linguistic pattern discussed in chapter 5, where dative > accusative
structures are subject to the PCC but accusative > dative ones are not, as in Icelandic
and Basque. The conundrum posed by French is how to tie the three different
ECM grammars together. If the exclusions in (228) are not the PCC, dative cliticization
in ECM might generally not yield the PCC.
One intriguing possibility for the ECM patterns is that the grammars with
(228)/(230) have a source for dative clitics beyond ordinary cliticization. A specific
form of this hypothesis is advanced in Postal (1984: 156-8) in Relational
Grammar. Dative clitics ordinarily represent applicative datives, GR3. In certain
contexts, dative GR3 demotes to a locative GR5, including ECM. Locative clitics
regularly escape ECM for all speakers, (232), usually in the regular form y. Postal
posits that in certain contexts they are instead spelled out as dative clitics. Independent
support might come from the fact that elsewhere in the grammar Postal
describes, datives escape some constraints on pronominal but not locative clitic
climbing (Postal 1983: 409f., cf. note 67).
(231) a. On croit Jean fidèle à ses principesi / amisk.
b. On yi / *leurk croit Jean fidèle.
one LOC / *them.D believes Jean faithful to his principles / friends.
(Kayne 1975: 306)
In present terms, Postal's analysis would be recast by having the dative clitics
in (230) come directly from the prepositional construction, structurally analogous
to locative PPs, without passing through the applicative-like position between v
and the direct object, where the PCC occurs. This faces a problem. Postal (1984:
156f., 134f.) presents the binding pattern in (230)a as evidence that the dative clitic
is special. When and only when the accusative ECM subject is 1 st /2 nd person,
the climbed dative can be coreferential with the subject of the clause where it cliti-
109 I know of no other published source for the Postal-Morin grammar. It is wholly inaccessible
to some who allow (228), but others find the result degraded yet in contrast with the PCC, perhaps
better for certain choices of adjectives (C'est à cause de vos écrits qu'on vous leur croit
proche, 'It's because of your writings that we believe you close to them'). Then they have Postal's
coindexation pattern indicated in (230) and discussed below.