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

(12) As far as Johni is concerned, I doubt that anyone will ever want to talk to
the fooli again.
Opinion is more diverse about the interaction of syntax with the thematic and
logical aspects of meaning. The logic is the same as for realization, but the evidence
less obvious. On the one hand, a great many syntactic dependencies affect
and can be motivated by interpretation, such as the movement of a wh-word to
scope over a question (cf. Brody 1995, Rizzi 1997, 2006, but Culicover and
Jackendoff 1999, 2005). On the other hand A-movement seems to have no such
motivation, for it can apply to idiom chunks like much in (13), apparently with no
content that pronouns, quantification, topicalization, existential assertion or other
tools can detect (chapter 6). Syntax moves elements that are interpretively inert. In
the domain of principles or mechanisms, movement and binding seem to share
some, such as c-command, and differ on others, such as the island constraints (14).
Bracketing paradoxes akin to (10) also have been observed. In (15)a, occasional
modifies the clause rather than the subject, and in (15)b the main verb may be a
modifier of the secondary predicate (Jackendoff 2002). However, the evidence
dissolves if such mismatches are only apparent due to covert syntactic structure
and movement. Finally, there will be seen in chapter 4 interpretive gaps invisible
to syntax, but not as many nor as clear as in realization.
(13) Muchi is expected to be made __i of the inscription, without much / *iti /
*iti's / *PROi being made __ of the surrounding design.
(14) a. How many tribesi were there about which Widsith knew a story that
named [both iti and itsi chieftain]?
b. *How many tribesi did Widsith name [both ti and itsi chieftain]]?
cf. c. How many tribesi did Widsith name ti [along with itsi chieftain]]?
(15) a. An occasional sailor walked into the bar.
b. Clive cooked the pot black. ('Clive made the pot black by cooking')
Phi-features will prove enlightening in contributing mismatches between syntax
and interpretation in chapter 6. Sometimes the syntactic phi-features are not
their interpretive ones. They support a syntax autonomous of meaning, along the
lines glimpsed in idiom chunk A-movement, but perhaps more robustly.
Thus the linguistic phenomena referring to and manipulating phi-features argue
for a strongly modular architecture of grammar, with a syntax distinct from
and autonomous of realization in chapter 2 and interpretation in chapter 6. The intervening
chapters focus on phi-features in the syntax and its interfaces.
17