Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of - UMR 7023 - CNRS
Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of - UMR 7023 - CNRS
Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of - UMR 7023 - CNRS
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
158<br />
cient to delimit <strong>the</strong> repair, because it fixes only some impossible clusters, not all<br />
where cliticization is impossible, (245), nor all ruled out by <strong>the</strong> PCC, (246).<br />
(244) a. Lucille la/*nous leur a fait [(tleur) [choisir (tleur) tnous].<br />
Lucille her/*us.A <strong>the</strong>m.D has made choose<br />
Lucille had <strong>the</strong>m choose her/*us. /<br />
Lucille had her/*us be chosen for <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
b. Lucille nous leur a fait [tnous [tirer tleur dans le ventre]].<br />
Lucille us.D <strong>the</strong>m.D has made shoot into <strong>the</strong> stomach<br />
Lucille had us shoot into <strong>the</strong>ir stomach.<br />
((a) PCC, (b) *DAT+DAT clitics; French, section 4.1)<br />
(245) a. ¥ *Cela ne se lui dit pas , à Louise.<br />
b. ¥ *Cela ne s' y dit pas , à Louise.<br />
c. ¥ *Cela ne se dit pas à elle.<br />
this NEG SE her.D/LOC says not to her to Louise<br />
One does not tell her (Louise) such a lie.<br />
(*mediopassive SE + dative; French, section 4.6)<br />
(246) a. ¥ On leur a jeté Paul dans les bras.<br />
b. ¥ *On me leur a jeté dans les bras.<br />
c. ¥ *On m' y a jeté dans les bras.<br />
d. ¥ *On m' a jeté dans les bras à elles.<br />
one me.A <strong>the</strong>m.D/LOC has thrown Paul into <strong>the</strong> arms to <strong>the</strong>m<br />
One threw Paul/*me into <strong>the</strong>ir arms.<br />
(PCC with possessor dative; French, section 4.5)<br />
These considerations have shown that <strong>the</strong> PCC <strong>and</strong> its repair pay attention to<br />
syntactic facts neutralized in realization, including <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> 1 st /2 nd person clitics,<br />
c-comm<strong>and</strong> between datives <strong>and</strong> accusatives, applicative vs. prepositional datives,<br />
reflexives vs. mediopassive se. The same has been observed elsewhere: Romance<br />
<strong>and</strong> Basque TP-internal datives vs. TP-external ethical <strong>and</strong> allocutive markers<br />
(Albizu 1997ab, Ormazabal <strong>and</strong> Romero 2007), Basque <strong>and</strong> Chinook applicative<br />
vs. prepositional datives (section 5.6), Georgian subject-object vs. object-dative<br />
competition (section 5.8), <strong>and</strong> morphemes with ∅ exponence in Georgian <strong>and</strong><br />
Tzotzil (Bonet 1991: 190, Albizu 1997a: note 8). Morphology could refer to this<br />
information only at a steep price, for as distinct from syntax <strong>and</strong> phonology, it is<br />
motivated precisely by phenomena like syncretisms. These are respected by morphological<br />
operations, including <strong>the</strong> opaque cliticization <strong>and</strong> agreement <strong>of</strong> chapter<br />
2 that superficially resemble PCC repairs. More generally, a modular architecture<br />
attributes to morphology a 'modular signature' that has been confirmed in chapter<br />
2. The PCC <strong>and</strong> its repair have proven to have a fully syntactic signature in chapter<br />
4, along with <strong>the</strong> similar person hierarchy interactions <strong>of</strong> chapter 3.
Change language