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

150
cizes, from which other datives are usually disjoint. He persuasively unites it with
another paradigm. In the restructuring causatives discussed in the section 4.5,
climbed accusatives must be disjoint from the matrix subject, (172)b. Climbed datives
differ, (232). Dative clitic climbing in the restructuring causative can only
occur when the dative causee is itself a clitic (by the Specified Subject Condition,
cf. (175)), and the resulting double-dative clitic clusters are tolerated (1/2.DAT
DAT, and only by some). When they are fine, the climbed dative contrasts with
the accusatives in (172)b by being able to corefer with the matrix subject, as in
(232)a (Morin 1978: 358f., Aoun 1981: 219, Kayne 2000: 23 note 16, 118, Bouchard
1984: 69 note 10, Postal 1983: 401, 1984: 134, Tasmowski 1985: 319f.). On
Postal's proposal, the climbed dative in (232)a would have the same source as in
ECM (230)a, a dative demoted to a locative, and so the same binding pattern.
However, the rest of (232) belies this hypothesis. Purely applicative datives have
the same binding pattern; yet they never have a prepositional or locative-like
analysis, barring them from the PCC repair (section 4.5). 110
(232) Juliei me la luii a fait
Juliei me.D her.A her.D has made
a. …envoyer par la poste, la robe.
Juliei made me send it to heri by mail, the dress.
b. …mettre dans les bras, la robe.
Juliei made me put it in heri arms, the dress.
c. …a fait acheter, la robe.
Juliei made me buy it for/from heri, the dress.
This objection only means that the second dative of 1/2.ACC/DAT DAT clusters
in (230), (232) does not come from the prepositional construction. It may still
be the case that it cliticizes by a special mechanism that does not interact with the
PCC. Suppose that regular cliticization cannot take a dative beyond its own clause
in ECM and restructuring causatives, perhaps due to the presence of a local subject,
and in contrast to an accusative, perhaps because the latter moves to the edge
of its phase (Bobaljik and Branigan 2006: 61f.). The first position of the dative is
the embedded clause, where it may be coconstrued with the matrix subject. The
grammars with (230) or (232) have a further mechanism to move the resulting dative
clitic, akin to weak pronoun or second position clitic placement. The latter
two pronoun types do not always participate in the PCC (section 5.2). This
mechanism takes the dative clitics to the upstairs clause in (230) and (232). Whenever
regular cliticization is possible, it gets priority because it occurs earlier in the
derivation (lower in the structure). 111
110 Postal also relates the ability of locative clitics to be coreferential with their subject (but contrast
Postal 1990: 148 and 193 note 52). However, this is absent in other grammars that allow
(232) (Rezac 2010c, cf. Zribi-Hertz 2008: 604).
111 It is perhaps extensible to the type of phenomenon in note 67. The chief snag in this account
is why the dative in (230) has special binding properties only if the embedded ECM subject is