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

184
(282) Optional operations apply only if they have an effect on outcome: in the
present case, v* may be assigned an EPP feature to permit successivecyclic
A'-movement or Int [an interpretation assigned to the EPP position
of v*] (under OS [Object Shift]).
(Chomsky 2001: 34)
These proposals go in the direction of what is needed for last-resort Case licensing,
for they are used for similar last-resort addition of uninterpretable features
as probes. The initial formulation of a mechanism to subsume both their uses
and the PCC repair is (283):
(283) ℜ (preliminary formulation): An uninterpretable feature may enter the
numeration only if it has an effect on output.
The proposal limits ℜ to affecting the numeration and to adding uninterpretable
features. On the first point, ℜ, along with (280)-(282), differs from the
earlier global mechanisms of Chomsky (1995: chapters 2, 3) such as Shortest
Move in not affecting the syntactic computation itself. The second point derives
the conservativity of PCC repairs. ℜ can activate a potential Agree/Case locus
present in a structure by adding a phi-probe to it, turning T to TERG, v to vACC, PDAT
to Pfull. It cannot however add or delete the interpretable content of a structure,
unlike (280): add a new potential Agree/Case locus such as a second T, enrich or
replace PDAT with P pour 'for'. Thus ℜ can only activate the syntactic dependencies
already potential in a structure. One might entertain principled departures
from this position: the addition of an expletive-like syntactic terminal to host the
added uninterpretable feature, or even of a contentful terminal if UG principles
specify a pairing between uninterpretable and interpretable features, for instance
between uninterpretable [wh:] and interpretable [CQ] in questions (cf. Chomsky
1995: 4.2.2, 2000a: 128). It seems unnecessary, although the issue will reemerge.
These two restrictions are imposed on ℜ by modularity. The status of syntax
as a module restricts ℜ to affecting its numeration. ℜ cannot see inside the syntactic
computation to change its operations or their outputs. The modular status of the
lexicon may be responsible for the restriction of ℜ to uninterpretable features. The
lexicon fixes the groupings of interpretive, realizational, and uninterpretable features
drawn from UG primitives at acquisition. The numeration is its interface
with syntax, selecting items at the start of the syntactic computation. Thereafter ℜ
can affect the numeration, but the lexicon is a closed module where ℜ cannot seek
for other lexical items. Uninterpretable features can be accessed from UG inventory.
Other features are inaccessible because their addition would demand the construction
of new lexical items, a procedure not available on-line after acquisition.
The most evident effect of modularity is one that has been omitted from the
preliminary formulation. Modularity greatly constrains the "effect on output" that
permits ℜ to apply. In (280)-(282), the "effect on output" may appear transmodular,
and that should be a cause for concern. Chapter 2 has argued for phonology-
and morphology-free syntax, which cannot respond to PF requirements even if