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

(62) a. Elle*x∈i lai/∅i lui a déjà présenté[e].
she her.ACC her.DAT has already introduced[-F]
She has already introduced her(*self) to him.
b. Elle n'a plus de conseillèr(e)si à proposer:
elle lesi/∅i lui a (tou-s/tout-esi) déjà présenté[-(e)s].
elle me lesi/*∅i a (tou-s/tout-esi) déjà présenté[-(e)s].
elle lesi/*∅i a (tou-s/tout-esi) déjà présenté[-(e)s].
she me.A them.A her.D has all-PLM/F already introduced[-PL(F)]
She has no more counsellors(M/F) to propose:
she has already introduced them all to him/to me/∅.
(French; [] only orthographic)
c. Et luy donne ceste couronnei, Ainsi que je ∅i luy ay promis-ei.
and him.D give this crown(F) as that I him.D have
promised-SGF
and I give him this crown, as I have promised it (her) to him
(Middle French, Zink 1997: 247)
The second element of a modular signature is the distinctive information in
different modules. Clitic forms in Romance systematically ignore certain syntactic
distinctions, for instance between dative clitics for indirect objects, possessors,
and benefactives. Opaque cliticization ignores the same distinctions, so that
3.DAT → Spanish SE se apply to all datives indiscriminately. Catalan (63) again
provides a minimal contrast between the opaque locative for dative in 3.DAT
3.ACC contexts, and the syntactic locative for dative to repair the PCC (cf. (58)).
The former affects all datives. The latter affects only the indirect object, accessing
a syntactic distinction otherwise absent from morphology.
(63) a. L' hi va recomanar/pintar. (opaque cliticization)
b. M' hi va recomanar/*pintar. (PCC repair)
him/*me.ACC LOC recommended/painted
She recommended him/me to him; She painted him/*me for him.
(Catalan, Bonet 1991: 212, 1992: 107, Rezac 2010c)
Theories of morphology model the systematic invisibility of certain syntactic
information by its impoverishment in the mapping from syntax to morphology
(Bonet 1991: 46f., 1995a: 617). Putting opaque cliticization in morphology explains
why it fails to see the very same information as other exponence.
The third element of a modular signature is the difference of syntax and morphology
in mechanisms. A striking difference appears in their domains. Opaque
cliticization pays attention only to information available in a phrase-structurally
local neighbourhood, including the clitic cluster, and it only has consequences in
that neighbourhood. There seems to exist no analogue of the above 3.DAT 3.ACC
→ SE/LOC 3.ACC that would turn a 3.DAT clitic to a SE/LOC clitic in the context
of a phrase-structurally remote 3.ACC pronoun, or conversely turn a nonclitic
dative to a locative in the context of a 3.ACC clitic. Not even elements linked to
an opaque clitic are affected by its opacity, as already pointed out (55), where the
41