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

Uninterpretable phenomena should not occur at LF. At PF, they are pervasive
(cf. (7)-(11)). On the modular architecture of the Y/T- and related models, PF is
invisible to syntax and interpretation. Phi-agreement there is by definition uninterpretable.
On the seminal analysis of Bonet (1991), the agreement in (24) of the accusative
clitic with the dative clitic occurs at PF, and other work on similar phenomena
concurs. It proposes PF mechanisms that manipulate phi-features. Chapter
2 studies their properties and develops the key differences with the phimanipulation
expected of syntax.
In syntax, the existence of neither uninterpretable nor uninterpreted phenomena
is a given. Frameworks within the broad sweep of the Minimalist Program develop
both the position that syntactic dependencies always subserve interpretive
needs (Brody 1995, cf. Rizzi 2006), and its contrary of a syntax wholly autonomous
of interpretation (Culicover and Jackendoff 1999, 2005, Jackendoff 2002).
Among the syntactic dependencies more clearly not driven by interpretive needs is
the A-movement discussed for (13). Its trigger ought not to belong to interpretation,
and so is uninterpretable at LF; perhaps it is independent of PF as well.
The Minimalist Program of Chomsky (2000a, 2001 et seq.) supposes that phiagreement
of the verb and subject in English is syntactic but uninterpretable in this
sense, for the reasons discussed from (18)-(23) above. T has part as of its lexically
specified content a set of unvalued phi-features, illegible to interpretation both in
virtue of the absence of values and their presence on a non-nominal. The operation
Agree values them from the interpretable phi-features of a nominal, and deletes
them. They never reach LF. The same treatment is accorded structural Case. In
(26), the case morphology of several boats alternates between nominative and accusative
in virtue of the active or passive voice of the verb in the higher clause,
and so cross-codes or agrees with its voice: accusative reflects vactive, nominative
absence of vactive and agreement with T. These relationships have no interpretive
correlates. Thematic meaning, scope, binding, all are the same for both nominative
and accusative, when movement is controlled for, as far as may be told. This is
necessarily so for contentless idiom chunks that yet obligatorily participate in both
agreement and Case assignment. Case is an unvalued feature valued by Agree and
deleted prior to LF. Chapter 5 returns to these points and the theory. 5
(26) a. Hún taldi [hafa verið keypta
she believed.3SG to.have been bought.MPL.ACC
einhverjir báta].
several boats(M).PL.ACC
b. Það voru taldir [hafa verið keyptir
there were.3PL believed.MPL.NOM to.have been bought.MPL.NOM
einhverjir bátar].
5 As with agreement, the issue is not the possibility of a semantics for case that happens to have
no detectable consequences, for instance as arity-reducers, combined with a suitable semantics
for raising and ECM verbs (see Gutierrez-Rexach 2000).
21