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

252
6.4 Person in syntax
The Person Case Constraint PCC of chapters 4 and 5 makes use of a syntactically
visible distinction between 1 st /2 nd (/reflexive) and 3 rd person arguments. It has
been referred to as a distinction between [+person] arguments and others, leaving
in abeyance its ultimate character. In (385), the PCC bans [+person] 1SG in the
context of the dative. In response, an unfocussed dative pronoun can exceptionally
appear as a strong pronoun (underlined) rather than a clitic (italics).
(385) a. Elle la/*me lui a présenté.
b. Elle *l'/m' a présenté à lui.
she her/me.ACC him.DAT has introduced to him
She introduced her/me to him.
The view adopted and developed in chapter 5 is that [+person] pronouns need
[+person] Agree for their uninterpretable [Case] feature to be valued and deleted,
and this is blocked in PCC contexts. Unvalued [Case] is a purely syntactic feature
that must be valued for legibility to PF and deleted for legibility to LF.
Instead of resorting to uninterpretability, the Minimalist Program invites
search within the interfacing systems for both the features of syntax and their relationships
they require, under the guidelines in (30). Person hierarchy interactions
including the PCC have been explored in terms of these guidelines. The point of
departure is the hypothesis that the [+person] features involved are interpretive,
such as the set of discourse participants. The source of person hierarchy interactions
has been sought in their interpretive requirements, among them the following
(see chapter 5.9 for how to relate them to PCC repairs and ℜ):
– Bianchi (2006: 2047-9): Pronouns are variables that must establish a syntactic
relationship with a clausal head corresponding to their person feature,
in order to be valued to deictic elements of the speech act like the
speaker (cf. Speas and Tenny 2003, Sigurðsson 2004, Schlenker 2005).
– Nichols (2001, esp. p. 535): The highest-ranking argument on the person
hierarchy must be syntactically related to the functional head Tense, to anchor
referential arguments to utterance time.
on is all equal.SG/PL to our/soi kings
We are (all) equal.SG/PL (to our kings). (readings: 1PL with nos, generic with ses)
(ii) Toi et moi, on se croit égaux / égal.
You and I, we believe ourselves equal.PL/SG
((ii): from the questionnaire of chapter 4, égal (SG) for 4/11, égaux (PL) 11/11)