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

251
to Agree by locality, if it were embedded within on and projected over by its 3SG
phi-set. This seems to allow more latitude for the treatment of pronouns like a
gente in (384), with projection of one or the other of their two phi-sets, perhaps of
both with resolution. The matter also depends on the proper treatment of local
phrasal reflexives, for which on is 1PL, and which might belong to syntax. 191
1PL on and similar pronouns indicate that syntactic phi-specifications may be
autonomous of interpretive ones. Perhaps interpretive phi-specifications are also
autonomous of syntactic ones, but that has not been determined, since on might be
1PL in syntax. This verdict for the autonomy of syntax from interpretation is tentative,
since one can imagine reasonable alternatives. 1PL on might have some interpretable
phi-set that conflicts with those of the pronouns and agreement to
which it is linked, in such a way that the conflict is resolved to 3SG for some elements
and 1PL for others, either at realization, or in interpretation (through Maximize
Presuppositions (398)). A broader look at similar mismatches suggests this is
not so, for they do not uniformly involve resolution to unmarked values, neither of
number and gender (section 6.2), nor of person (e.g. Ainu 1PL inclusive for 2SG;
see Corbett 2000: chapter 7, Cysouw 2005). It seems rather that the syntactic phifeatures
of an argument may be acquired from the evidence supplied by the morphology
rather than the interpretation of agreement or pronouns or (perhaps) of itself.
In the case of 1PL on from Latin 3SG homō 'man', this evidence is the synchronic
residue of phi-features that at an earlier stage were interpretable. The next
section draws a parallel conclusion for [+person] phi-specifications. 192
191 Cf. Wechsler and Zlatic's (2003) result that they need rather than may respect grammatical
gender, discussed in section 6.2.
192 The number of on also suggests an uninterpretable SG value. 1PL and quasi-universal on necessarily
include more than one entity. However, they may control plural or singular participles
and predicate adjectives agreement in (i), reminiscent of The committeei hasi/ % havei made
itsi/their choice (Sauerland and Elbourne 2002), or Someonei said % hei/ % theyi saw her (Sauerland
2008). However on can have singular adjectives in (i), (ii) with all or with be similar/equal,
where plural agreement is required for committee and someone (cf. Winter 2002: 500 note 6,
Kayne 2007: note 5) (so Grevisse and Goose 2008: §438b; many speakers do then require plural,
cf. (ii)). Yet participle and predicate adjective number/gender agreement in French is ordinarily
semantic rather than syntactic, e.g. singular for 2PL as 2SG polite and 1PL for 1SG authorial
(Wechsler 2004, Corbett 2000; Grevisse and Goosse 2008: §438a).
Similar issues may arise for plural predicate adjective agreement with quasi-universal se/si, optional
in French, obligatory in Italian, impossible in Spanish (Mendikoetxea 2008: 296), as well
as 1PL a gente in (384), agreeing optionally for plural in BPP' and not at all in BPP. In a syntactic
solution, D'Alessandro (2004) proposes a syntactic PL phi-specification dedicated to concord
for Italian si, cf. the work of Wechsler and Zlatić in section 6.2. However, there are diverse types
of interpretive plurality to be considered (Corbett 2000; Kratzer 2009, Sauerland 2008, Heim
2008, Harbour 2008, Rullmann 2004, Chierchia 1998, forthc). Particularly relevant may be
1 st /2 nd vs. 3 rd splits for number agreement, for object clitics in Romance (optional vs. obligatory
in Italian, Belletti 2005: 2.2, impossible vs. optional in Catalan, Muxí 1996), and for subject-verb
agreement (obligatory vs. impossible across Basque dialects, Rezac 2006: 1.2.2.3).
(i) Oni est (tousi) égal/égaux (à nosi/sesi rois). (on1PL with 1PL nos, on∀ with ses)