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

179
These observations do not mean that phi-agreement, Case, and A-movement
cannot affect LF or PF, only that they do not reduce to their requirements. They
can clearly be displayed at PF, and A-movement at least creates new scopal and
binding positions at LF, as for each other in (272)a and (273)a. Yet binding is not
the reason for A-movement, which occurs independently of it (Chomsky 2001:
32). Without A-movement, English phi-agreement and structural Case even seem
to lack all detectable interpretive correlates, such as the capacity to create anaphora
binding configurations in (272)b and (273)b (discussed in chapter 1).
(272) a. Some linguists-NOMi seem.PLi to themj / each otheri [ti to have been
given good job offers].
b. There seem.PLi to themj / *each otheri) [to have been some linguists-
NOM given good job offers].
(273) a. The DA proved [two men-ACCi to have been at the scene] during
theirj / each otheri's trials.
b. The DA proved [there to have been two men-ACCi at the scene] during
theirj / *each otheri's trials.
(Lasnik 1999: 138, 18, adapted)
Phi-agreement, Case and A-movement thus seem to have no motivation in PF
or LF requirements. Chomsky (e.g. 2000a: 113, 118f.) concludes that they are
driven by purely syntactic features of lexical items, features that are illegible to
both the interfacing systems, PF and LF, in violation of the Interpretability Condition.
Illegibility to PF/LF may be spoken of as uninterpretability to them, a term
particularly suited for illegibility to LF. Syntactic features that are illegible to an
interfacing system must be eliminated prior to it to meet Full Interpretation. To
this need is attributed the core mechanism of syntax beyond pure Merge: the operation
Agree, which relates an uninterpretable feature to an interpretable one, and
removes it. Illegible features and their Agree relationships correspond to syntactic
licensing in other frameworks, but their grounds are sought in the Full Interpretation
requirement of interfacing systems. Syntactic construction proceeds so long
as there is material to assemble, but its output may not be legible.
In the implementation of these ideas, uninterpretable features are construed as
feature types without values, for instance [number:] on T. They are present on
lexical items as they enter syntax, and constitute a locus of its parametrization.
They are legible neither to LF nor PF, for there is neither realization nor interpretation
for valueless [number:]. The syntactic operation Agree provides a value by
relating an uninterpretable feature to an interpretable one on another element, such
as the interpretable [number:plural] on a noun. The newly-valued [number:plural]
is legible to PF. LF however still does not find it interpretable on T. To satisfy Full
Interpretation, the valuation of a feature is accompanied by its deletion. Deletion
occurs upon the Transfer (Spell-out) to LF. Thus Agree-cum-valuation has as consequence
Transfer of the object containing the just-valued feature. If at Transfer a
syntactic object meets Full Interpretation, it converges; otherwise it crashes.