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

238
transfer of phi-features from the controller to the remote verb in (357), or the person
interactions of chapters 3 and 4. An example from morphology is the transfer
of number and gender from the dative to the accusative clitic in (56).
(357) There seem to be three guests arriving at Pohjola.
(chapter 1)
(358) Si ellasi me quieren comprar el caballoj, yo sei lasj venderé.
If they(F) me wish buy the horse(M) I SE 3PLF.ACC will.sell
If they want to buy my horse, I will sell it (lo > las) to them (les > se)
(Spanish, chapter 2)
Phi-features also exist in interpretation. In (17), they play a role in the patterns
of compatibility and entailment among the expressions they, them (3PL), me
(1SG), us (1PL), you (2SG/PL).
(359) a. Because theyi know mek, Hervor considers us/*them/*youi+k friends.
→ b. Hervor considers me and one or more others friends.
It is a common hypothesis that the phi-featural phenomena across these systems
use a single, share phi-alphabet, (360) (e.g., in work on morphology, Noyer
1992, Bonet 1995a, on interpretation, Wechsler and Zlatić 2000, Kratzer 2009).
(360) Common phi-alphabet hypothesis: The alphabets (symbols and relations)
of phi-features in morphology, syntax, and interpretation are isomorphic.
This common phi-alphabet hypothesis holds that there are one-to-one correspondences
among interpretation, syntax, and morphology. For instance, the interpretive
speaker (author) of a context corresponds to 1 st person in pronominal and
agreement paradigms. The foundations of the hypothesis are systematic correspondences
between interpretive phi patterns like those in (17) and morphological
phi patterns. The speaker and someone else may be picked up by we and not you;
1PL pronouns may be constructed out of 1 st but not 2 nd person pronouns and plural
elements, as in Chinese wǒ-men 'we = I-PL' (Cysouw 2001). Limited exceptions
are widespread, for instance the morphological plurality we 'speaker + addressee'
in some but not other languages (Corbett 2000), and may call for limited departures
from (360). However, often they reappear within morphology, say as different
types of plurality, and might be profitably addressed by a more refined analysis
of phi-features (e.g. Kratzer 2009, Harbour 2008).
The existence of a common phi-alphabet across linguistic modules is a striking
and surprising property of language. Interpretation might have been about philess
things – loci in the referential space, their modes of grouping, centres of
deixis or consciousness – that map only indirectly onto the person, number, and
class/gender that morphology provides to some but not all languages (see Aronoff,
Meir and Sandler 2005: section 4). Morphology and interpretation do not typically
share alphabets. The interpretation of (361) uses quantifier-variable relations,