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

266
purely syntactic phi-features. If there is more to be said, it is about the interface of
syntax and PF/LF. One might speculate, for instance, that Agree/Case relations
permit the 3SG phi-features of 1PL on to be deleted, or on to be linked to 1PL phifeatures
in the clause, as suggested at the end of section 6.3.
No light has been shed on the potential autonomy of interpretive from syntactic
phi-features. The 1PL of on might be absent from syntax, but it might be
needed there, and its invisibility to certain mechanisms can be straightforwardly
modelled by making its 3SG more prominent. Similar devices can ensure that the
masculine of French laideron 'ugly woman' is visible only for concord.
There is no overstating the tentativeness of these conclusions. The inertness
of the 3SG of 1PL on or the masculine of laideron for interpretive dependencies is
striking. Yet no more so than Chomsky's (1975) argument from (411)a that
syntactic plural marking can be autonomous of interpretive entailments. Such 'dependent'
plurals admit of a different treatment, unspecified for number, and the inferences
in (411) depend on world knowledge, not plural semantics (Zweit 2008,
Seuren 2005). It has also been seen in the last section that there may be interpretive
coercions that affect syntactic phi-specifications, in perhaps only apparent
contrast to autonomy. Whatever future inquiry brings, phi-mismatches are likely
to prove fruitful in exploring this central ground of the relationship of syntax and
interpretation (cf. Chomsky 1975, 1977, 2000b, Higginbotham 1985, 1991,
McGilvray 1998, Fox 2000, Jackendoff 2002, Pietroski 2005, Hinzen 2006).
(411) a. Unicycles have wheels. (→only one wheel per unicycle)
b. Hotel rooms have bathrooms. (→at least one bathroom per room)
c. Students have supervisors. (→need not be one supervisor per student)
((a) Chomsky 1975, (b, c) Seuren 2005)
The autonomy of syntactic phi-features from interpretation corresponds to the
more robust conclusions drawn in chapter 3 for syntax and realization. Syntax and
realizational morphology both access and manipulate phi-features, but as separate
modules distinct in information and computation, and limited in interaction. Theories
of modularity should derive this as a matter of principle. The classical Y/T
model fits well, as do proposals that only partially weaken it and those that
strengthen it. Modularity does not bar all sharing of information or mechanism
and rich interactions between modules, nor limit the influence that realization
might have on syntax in the choice of primitives and the content of lexical items
during acquisition (Aronoff, Meir and Sandler 2005). On the interpretive side, all
is murkier, but the same principles hold.
A partial sharing of information types between modules is instantiated by phifeatures
themselves, as a common alphabet across syntax, interpretation, and realization.
A modular architecture requires a way to share information, and so it
must relate alphabets across modules. However, it is surprising to find a common
alphabet, and atypical of other primitives that map across the modules quite indirectly.
Through phi-features, syntax, interpretation and realization operate and interact
in commensurable ways. Here perhaps is a key to the central role of phi-