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

247
Everywhere onei (on) presents oneselfi/usk/*i (se/nous) to one'si/ourk
(ses/nos) hosts first.
e. Oni nousk/*i a présenté à nosk/*i hôtes d'abord. (on∃/*1PL)
Someone introduced us to our hosts first.
*We introduced ourselves/us to our hosts first.
(French)
The 3SG verb agreement and se that on controls do not have 1PL uses without
a local on: in (377)a when anteceded by the older 1PL nous, in (377)b by a relative
operator linked to nous, or by on in another clause in (377)c. 185
(377) a. Nousi nousi sommes présentés à nosi hôtes.
Wei have.1PL introduced ourselvesi (nous) to ouri hosts.
a' *Nousi si'est présenté(s) à nos hôtesi.
*Wei have.3SG introduced ourselvesi (se) to ouri hosts.
b. C'est nousi quii nousi sommes exilés.
It's usi whoi have.1PL exiled ourselvesi (nous)
b'. *C'est nous qui si'est exilé(s).
*It's usi whoi have.3SG exiled(PL) ourselvesi (se).
c. Quand oni dit aux gensk de PROk vousi/nousi/*sei photographier…
When we/onei tell(s) peoplek to PROk photograph youi/usi/*sei…
(French, (c) cf. Kayne 1975: 172 note 123)
It is envisageable that the 3SG phi-set of 1PL on is transmitted to the verb and
to se by morphology rather than syntax, because the three are always adjacent. 186
However, control shows that the 3SG of on is in syntax. In (378), the matrix on
obligatorily controls the embedded PRO. Despite its 1PL reading, PRO binds the
3 rd person anaphor se, and only sometimes and uneasily 1PL nous (cf. Oukada
1982: 102, Kayne 2007). Inversely in (378), the older 1PL nous controls PRO that
binds the 1PL anaphor nous, not se. These constraints reflect the transmission of
phi-features under obligatory control. Obligatory control is not a morphological
phenomenon, operating across phrase-structurally unbounded distances and CP
boundaries. It is likely not interpretive either, since we would expect 1PL on to
use its 1PL features, as for other pronominal anaphora. It is syntactic. 187
185 Morin (1978: 4.3) reports spoken French varieties that regularly use 3SG when relativizing
any strong pronoun, but they are not easily accessible for my consultants, nor are the resumptive
relatives of the type nous qu'on… 'we (nous) that we (on) = we who' of Lambrecht (1981: 30).
186 There exist similar phi-feature transmissions that are candidates for morphology, as in (i),
where the plural object clitic anomalously controls subject agreement (a grammaticality judgment
for some, although usually a production error, as in Franck et al. 2010; for similar phenomena,
see Harris and Halle 2005, Kayne and Pollock 2008).
(i) Le professeur les prend/(*)prennent pour de cons!
The professor them.ACC (les) take.SG/PL (prend/prennent) for idiots!
187 The nous object clitic is fine if disjoint to a quasi-universal/existential rather than 1PL on controller,
as expected. It also improves under deeper embedding even for 1PL on, as Kayne (2007)