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

Morphology might also need devices more powerful than syntax. There is a
superficial diversity to opaque cliticization that suggests more arbitrary and more
finely specified couplings between the features manipulated and the features of the
context than occur in syntax (Bonet 1991: 64-75, 1995a: 645, 1995b). The 3.DAT
3.ACC clusters may turn the 3.DAT into reflexive SE, locative LOC, or genitive
GEN clitic, or add these elements to 3.DAT (at least SE and LOC), the 3.ACC
may turn into ∅ or 3SGM.ACC or 3PL.ACC, plurality may be transferred or not,
in systems that seem closely similar (Bonet 1991, 1993, 1995ab, Manzini and Savoia
2002, 2005, 2008, 2010, Pescarini 2010, Rezac 2010a, 2010c). A fuller consideration
of this point is found in Rezac (2010c), and here it will be made more
simply for opaque agreement below. However, a couple of points of variation for
3SG.DAT → LOC may be noted (from Rezac 2010c, cf. Bonet 1991, 1993, 1995a
on Catalan, Ahlborn 1964: 59-63 on Ruffieu-en-Valrômey):
– Some varieties only have opaque cliticization in 3.DAT GEN → GEN
LOC, others also 3.DAT 3.ACC → 3.ACC LOC.
– In Barceloní Catalan and Ruffieu-en-Valrômey, 3SG/PL.DAT 3.ACC →
3.ACC LOC, in "Catalan B" only 3SG.DAT 3.ACC → 3.ACC LOC. The
difference does not correlate with the surface form of 3PL.DAT which
may or may not look like it contains LOC.
– In Barceloní 3SG.DAT /li/ becomes LOC /i/ in the context of a GEN /n/
clitic, so that 3SG.DAT GEN is /n-i/, but 3PL.DAT /lzi/ in the same context
splits into /lz/ and /i/, so that 3PL.DAT GEN is /lz-n-i/.
Opaque cliticization thus presents a coherent modular signature of the morphology
component distinct from syntax on all three elements: interaction with
syntax, information used, and mechanisms. It patterns with other morphological
phenomena such as the phi-syncretisms discussed in section 2.1.
Opaque agreement presents the same profile. Combinations of agreeing arguments
often fail to control simple cumulations of the exponents realizing their
3SG.DAT. We may see (i) as involving the chain lui/leur y veux lui/leur y prêter, leur but not lui
licenses spell-out of adjacent y downstairs, else spelled out upstairs.
(ii) que m' en bau pourta m' en lou
C me GEN I'm.going.to carry me GEN it
I will carry it away with me.
(Occitan, Piat 1911: §44).
(iii) J' y veux le lui/*leur prêter.
J' veux *lui/leur z'y dire, moi, comment ça marche
I LOC want it.ACC him/them.DAT LOC lend/say me how it works
I want to lend it to them. / I wanna tell them, me, how it works.
(Vaudois French, Bürgi 1998: 53, cf. 99f.)
43