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

256
nomenon known as leísmo. In the leísmo of the Basque Country reported in Ormazabal
and Romero (2007, 2009), the animate le but not inanimate lo clitic falls to
the PCC, (392). 194 In the leísmo reported in Rivero (2008), le does not, (393).
(392) a. Lei/*loi llevé a casa (, a Aritzi/a ustedi)
him/*it.ACC I.brought to home A Aritz/A you
I brought him(, Aritz,) home.
b. Te loi/*lei llevé a casa (, a Aritzi/*a ustedi)
you.DAT it/*him.ACC I.brought to home A Aritz/A you
I brought him/*you (polite) home to you.
(Basque Country Spanish leísmo; Ormazabal and Romero 2007, 2009.)
(393) a. A Juan (nosotros) nos lo comeremos vivo. (non-leísmo)
b. A Juan (nosotros) nos le comeremos vivo. (leísmo A)
c. *A Juan (nosotros) nos le comeremos vivo. (leísmo B)
d. ACC Juan we us.D him.A we.will.eat alive
As to Juan, we are going to eat him alive.
(Spanish varieties; (a,b) Rivero 2008: 238, (c) J. Ormazabal p.c.)
Morphologically distinctive 3 rd person animate marking appears to favour
[+person] specification and its absence lack thereof. Both are absent in French and
Basque, both present in Finnish and Chinook. There are superficial exceptions, as
the variation in (393) indicates, although on closer analysis they might turn out to
reflect other parameters such as unmarked vs. animate. Whatever the correlation
with morphology, it is clear that pronouns referring to 3 rd person animates may but
need not have the [+person] specification that triggers the PCC.
Similar variation occurs for the reflexive clitic se across Romance. In French,
the 3 rd person reflexive se counts as [+person] for the PCC and its repair. In Spanish,
Catalan, and Italian it does not, as in (394). 1 st /2 nd person reflexives are more
prone to participate in the PCC even in these languages, with variation (García
2002: 92, Rivero 2004: 498 note 13, Albizu 1997a: note 12, Bonet 1991: 192f.,
Wanner 1977: 109, Bianchi 2006: 2028 note 10, Cardinaletti 2008). In other matters
than the PCC, the reflexive clitic systems seem relevantly identical syntactically
and interpretively across all these languages. 195
(394) Ella se le entregó cuerpo y alma.
she SE him.DAT gave body and soul
(Spanish, Rivero 2004: 498 note 2)
It seems that [+person] is interpretatively facultative on 3 rd persons referring
to addressees, to animates/humans, or to subject-oriented reflexives: compatible
with these interpretations, but not needed for them. Its actual presence is a matter
194 Section 6.5 returns to lo (*…a usted) of (392)b.
195 There are differences, for instance in the use of se for or in combination with 1 st /2 nd person
reflexives (Bonet 1991: 119f., 138f. on Catalan varieties). They do not appear to correlate with
variation for the PCC which segregates systems superficially similar to French.