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

1997, Yang 1997, Jacobson 1997, Frampton and Gutmann 1999, Johnson and
Lappin 1999, Potts 2002), some outside narrow syntax in realization (Pesetsky
1998), or in interpretation (Kim and Peters 1998, Fox 2000, Reinhart 2006).
Chapter 5 proposes that there is nevertheless a mechanism by which syntax
may respond to the needs of Full Interpretation. Evidence for it comes from a robust
cross-linguistic paradigm of repairs for phi-featural licensing requirements,
including French (1)/(2) and Basque (4). In both, the usual coding of arguments is
impossible in the presence of a 1 st /2 nd person with structural Case. In both, an otherwise
impossible structure then emerges, a repair: a nonclitic PP for a clitic dative
in (1), an ergative for an absolutive in (4), an accusative for nominative, and
others still. These repairs will be analysed as the last-resort activation of the potential
phi-Agree/Case capacity of a structure, fortifying a defective to a full PP, an
unaccusative to a transitive. Under it all 'dependent Case', accusative and ergative,
will be proposed to fall, along with other last-resort repairs.
The mechanism starts from Chomsky's (1995, 2000a, 2001) proposals lastresort
successive-cyclic movement, and is explored under the formulation in (38).
(38) ℜ: An uninterpretable feature may enter the numeration only if needed
for Full Interpretation of the syntactic structure built from it.
ℜ is a relativization of the idea that some of the content of a syntactic structure
is licensed only if it has an effect on output (Chomsky 1995: 234). Modularity
restricts ℜ to the input/output interfaces of syntax and external systems. It is an interface
algorithm that can respond to illegibility at the interfaces of syntax by
changing the numeration. It cannot see problems within or outside the external
modules, for instance failures in the morphophonological realization of clitics or
agreement, or binding conditions. It cannot affect syntactic computation itself, to
add operations, relax principles, change intermediate representations, for it also is
a closed module to it. The study of the repairs will also indicate that they are conservative
of interpretable content. ℜ cannot add or delete it, respecting the modular
inaccessibility of the lexicon. ℜ can only add uninterpretable features to the
numeration, permitting new syntactic dependencies to form. New derivational
paths may thus become available, but the 'basic' meaning and realization are preserved,
insofar as they derive from the fixed interpretable content of lexical items
and the combinatorial possibilities inherent in it. Uninterpretable features are the
mechanism by which syntax can dynamically respond to the needs of Full Interpretation,
while remaining autonomous of the external systems, (39):
(39) (Some) uninterpretable features are the response of an autonomous syntax
to meet Full Interpretation at the interfaces with external systems.
27