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

151
These are very tentative suggestions. Yet even in the absence of further understanding,
ECM makes important points about the PCC. The PCC must refer to
more than surface morphology, to syntax that differentiates ECM from other structures
1/2.ACC DAT clitic clusters. This may ultimately be accusative > dative ccommand
in (225), directly or through forcing pseudo-cliticization by a system
that is immune to the PCC.
4.9 Appendix B: Datives in PCC contexts
French datives do not agree, enter into Case alternations, but they do participate
in the PCC. To understand how datives interact with the Agree/Case system
further, it would help to examine datives in the same context where the PCC
blocks [+person] accusatives, namely separated from an Agree/Case-licenser by
another dative. It should then be possible to see whether they have a [+person] licensing
requirement like DPs, or not, like PPs.
In monopredicate constructions, it is difficult to combine even applicative +
prepositional datives (Rezac 2010a). In the raising structures of section 4.6, resumed
in (233), dative combinations are fine if only one of the datives is a clitic,
and often also when leading to 1/2.DAT 3.DAT clitic clusters, and when they are
disallowed there is no PCC repair. However, it is difficult to draw conclusions
from such raising because it is ill-understood what position and potential licensing
domains the lower dative passes through (see Appendix A).
(233) a. Paul me semble tme [reconnaissant à Jeanne]
b. % Paul me leur semble tme [reconnaissant tleur]
c. ¥ *Paul m' y semble tme [reconnaissant tleur]
d. ¥ ?*Paul me semble tme [reconnaissant à eux]
Paul me.D them.D/LOC seems grateful to Jeanne/them
(resuming (188); (b), (c) for a grammar with *me leur in (a))
Causatives are more ambivalent. When multiple datives arise in causatives,
some speakers tolerate 1/2.DAT + 3.DAT, none 3.DAT + 3.DAT. Tolerated or
not, the repair by strong pronoun is excluded at least in the transitive type (234)
1 st /2 nd person (in causatives this is inspectable because 3.DAT 3.DAT sequences are never
grammatical). Presumably, it is related to the fact that some speakers only allow dative cliticization
out of ECM by itself or when it creates a 3.DAT + 3.ACC cluster, (228). These speakers
generally do not allow the dative to corefer with the matrix subject, but there are exceptions
when the ECM subject A'-extracts, (i); cf. perhaps Postal (1989: 9f.) for another person-based
difference in inverse binding of complex reflexives, and for (i) perhaps the need of ECM infinitives
in French to A'-move or cliticize their subject in Kayne (1984), Rooryck (1997). The binding
pattern (232) is problematic for a fully monoclausal approach to climbing structures (Miyagawa
1987, Wurmbrand 2002).
(i) ellei aime un hommej qu'ellei luii/*sei croit fidèle/redevable __j
she likes a man that she her.DAT/SE believes faithful/indebted