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

In Aronoff's example, it may be easy to think of a syntactic core shared between
the perfect and passive for the participle to realize. Other metaparadigmatic
syncretisms are more difficult, and syntax may be excluded as the source of the
syncretism if inflection class or phonological information enters into defining the
syncretism (see Embick 2000, Stump 2001 for examples). Phi-features are a domain
where there are robust reasons to put some metaparadigmatic syncretisms
outside syntax. These syncretisms make a good introduction to the morphological
manipulation of phi-features and its modular signature.
Consider first accidental syncretisms in the realization of phi-features. The
English word sheep is syncretic for singular or plural, while fox and dog are distinct.
The syncretism has no generality in English; plural in the context of sheep
happens to be expressed by ∅, en in the context of ox, ren of child, s most of the
time. Only the phonological realization of plural is affected, not its syntax or morphology.
By the thesis of phonology-free syntax, no phenomenon sensitive to syntactic
plurality sees the syncretism. (51) shows that it is indeed invisible for the
phi-agreement of determiners and pronouns (cf. Zwicky 1992: 355).
(51) a group of thesei/*thisi sheepi/foxesi/dogsi and of theiri/*itsi companions
This is commonplace yet not trivial, for language could easily have been otherwise.
There are other 'arbitrary' facts about words that do matter to determiners
and anaphora, such as [feminine] gender shared by French lampe 'lamp' and fille
'girl' and sentinelle 'guard'. The systems that put language to use do superficially
let sound influence meaning and vice versa, for instance in slips of the tongue like
compensation prize for consolation prize (Dell and Reich 1981, Griffin and
Ferreira 2006). It is a testament to the sweep of phonology-free syntax, and the
modular architecture that derives it, that accidental syncretisms are inert to syntax.
The same inertness is found for phi-feature syncretisms that are metaparadigmatic
rather than accidental. In French, gender is neutralized in 3PL nonnominative/strong
pronouns: plural strong 3PLM eux, 3PLF elles, weak nominative
ils, elles, but weak accusative les, dative leur, genitive leur-. To state the syncretism
across these different forms, phi-features themselves must be manipulated,
deleting the marked [feminine] in the context of {[oblique], …}. This syncretism
as well has no syntactic or interpretive consequences, as seen in (52) for the phiagreement
of participles, reflexives, and bound pronouns with the feminine gender
of les, despite its syncretism with the masculine.
(52) Les cuillèresi, je lesi ai mis-esi là où ellesi/*ilsi étaient.
the spoons(PLF), I them.ACC have put-PLF where they(F/*M) were
(French)
This is again commonplace, yet profoundly telling. A syntactic approach to
phi-syncretisms is easy to conceive of, for instance as the bundling of phi-features
on a single complex head by movement, but the syntactico-semantic inertness is
then to be explained. A deep principle is needed to explain that phi-syncretisms
35