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

a. 3SG/PL.DAT le/les + 3SGM/3SGF/3PLM/3PLF lo/la/los/las → se lo/la/los/las
(Iberian Spanish)
b. 3PL.DAT les + 3SGM/3SGF.ACC lo/la → se los/las
(additionally in some American Spanish dialects)
c. 3SG/PLF.DAT le/les + 3SG/PLM.ACC lo → se la/las
(additionally in some American Spanish dialects)
(55) El libroi, a ellosj, ¿quién sej losi prestó?
the book, to them, who SE 3PLM.ACC lent
The book, who lent it (lo > los) to them (les > se)?
(American Spanish, Bonet 1995a: 634)
(56) Si ellasi me quieren comprar el caballoj, yo sei lasj venderé.
If they(F) me wish buy the horse(M) I SE 3PLF.ACC will.sell
If they want to buy my horse, I will sell it (lo > las) to them (les > se)
(American Spanish, Bonet 1995a: 636)
This opaque cliticization creates syncretisms conditioned by phi-features of
other arguments, and thus a type of phi-agreement. In particular, the use of
3PL.ACC for 3SG.ACC clitics is agreement with the plurality of nonreflexive
3PL.DAT. Yet neither syntax nor interpretation are affected by this transfer of phifeatures.
It does not force a plural reading of los, nor does it permit an interpretively
singular left-dislocated pronoun linked to los to be morphological plural.
Similarly, the opaque use of se for 3PL.DAT does not confer on it any reflexive or
other properties that se has independently.
An opaque cliticization in Barceloní Catalan illustrates the same point for another
property. Here, the 3.DAT 3.ACC clitic cluster surfaces as 3.ACC LOC. Independent
dative but not locative clitics can double non-dislocated DPs, (57). The
opaque locative for a dative in (58)a retains the dative's doubling capacity. Thus,
doubling behaviour fails to be affected by opaque cliticization. 17
(57) a. (a Barcelonai,) hii viu en Joan (*a Barcelonai)
in Barcelona, LOC lives the Joan in Barcelona
b. en Joan lii va donar una rosa a la Mariai
the Joan 3SG.DAT gave a rose to the Maria
17 The generalization that an opaque clitic does not adopt the syntax of its other uses is independent
of the possibility of clitics having special properties in virtue of occurring in a cluster. Italian
3.ACC + 3.DAT clitic clusters permit 3.DAT to double DPs, while 3.DAT in isolation cannot
(Cinque 1990: 178 note 4, Benincà and Poletto 2005: 232, Kayne 2008; not so in French). This is
unrelated to opaque cliticization, because there is none, only a phonological vowel lowering, e.g.
3SGM.DAT gli [ʎi], 3SGM.DAT+3SGM.ACC gli lo [ʎelo] (Russi 2008: 4.3). One possible explanation
of these facts indicates how morphology can appear to have an effect on syntax by realizing
it. Doubling may require particularly poor clitics and Italian clitics may be closer to weak
pronouns in this respect (García 2001: 412-4; section 4.6). However, clitics in the clusters with
the vowel lowering mentioned above have been argued to fuse into units similar to a single clitic
(Laenzlinger 1993, Cardinaletti 2008). 3.DAT clitics in clusters should then be poorer than when
independent, permitting doubling. The richer 3.DAT can only be spelled out by the independent
gli, the poorer 3.DAT only by the fusional glie in a clusters.
39