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

30
(42) is pervasive and systematic, not jeopardized by narrowly-defined exceptions,
and demands a principled explanation. 9
The example in (43) illustrates both phonology-free syntax, and the essential
difference between breaches of strong modularity and the simple cumulation of
processing by multiple modules. A phonology-free syntax cannot access phonological
information or operations, and phonology in turn cannot manipulate syntax.
However, phonology may filter the output of syntax by failing to realize it.
English ditransitives like give have two constructions available to them, double
object one in (43)a and the prepositional one in (43)b, preferring one or the other
according to various factors (Krifka 2004, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 2005: 7.3,
Bresnan and Nikitina forthc, Bruening 2010). English weak pronoun have a prosodic
requirement that prevents their being separated from the verb (Williams
1974: 69f., Zwicky 1986, Dowty 1995). In (43)a, this requirement renders the
double object construction unavailable, suspending all preferences (cf. Costa
2003: 266). Verbs like bet or envy only allow the double object construction, (43)c
(Emonds and Whitney 2005). This limitation comes into conflict with the prosodic
requirements of weak pronouns in (43)c. The conflict cannot be 'repaired' in (43)d
by the sudden emergence of the prepositional construction, nor of another otherwise
impossible structure such as theme + bare goal. The prosodic requirement
renders the syntax of these ditransitives unrealizable or ineffable, and do not affect
syntax to license an otherwise unavailable structure. It is particularly revealing because
prosody does play a role in the above-mentioned preferences for using one
or the other construction – but only when both are available (Williams 1974:
71f.). 10
(43) a. We gave Kate the book/*it.
b. We gave the book/it to Kate.
c. We envied/bet Kate the book/*it.
d. *We envied/bet the book/it (to) Kate.
So it should be in the Y/T model for all the modules downstream from syntax.
They may filter syntactic output by rendering some structures impossible, they
may impose their own preferences, but they cannot affect syntax. Weaker models
may add well-defined exceptions yet retain the generalization.
For morphology, the thesis corresponding to (42) is (44) (Zwicky 1996: 301,
Miller, Pullum and Zwicky 1997: 68; Corbett and Baerman 2006; Halle and Marantz
1993, Embick 2000).
9 Many exceptions are too relative to particular assumptions to be generally persuasive: cf.
Chomsky (2001: 23ff.) on the sensitivity of movement to the presence of phonological content,
Bobaljik (2002: 251-3) on that of scope to the linear position of copies, Tseng (2005) on that of
selection to phonological properties.
10 English varieties with theme-goal double object structures allow envy it Kate (Haddican
forthc).