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

52
tactic mechanisms (insofar as Merger operates in a special way in virtue of linear
order). The same signature appears in synthetic-analytic alternations due to gaps
defined by phi-features. In Irish, the subject of a verb must be realized as an
agreement affix if an appropriate inflected form of the verb is available, and as a
strong pronoun otherwise, (78). The verb cuir 'put' has a synthetic 1SG conditional
form, blocking the strong pronoun, but no 2PL conditional, for which must be
used the 3SG and a strong pronoun (McCloskey and Hale 1983, Andrews 1990):
(78) a. Chuirfinn (*mé) b. *Chuirfeadh mé c. Chuirfeadh sibh
put.COND.1SG I put.COND.3SG I put.COND.3SG you.PL
(Irish, McCloskey and Hale 1983: 489-91)
The set of inflected forms is syntactico-semantically arbitrary, although there
are islands of regularities over phi-feature classes. Taking the present and past
from Andrews (1990): the dialect of Kerry has inflected forms for all phi-features
save 2PL present; likewise Chorca Dhuibhne, but the gaps extend to 2SG/PL present;
Connacht and Ulster retain only 1SG present (Connacht also has 1/2SG present/past
and 3PL past in a tag/response VP-ellipsis construction). An arbitrary,
lexically-specified set of inflected forms block the analytic constructions used
elsewhere (McCloskey and Hale 1983: 531, Andrews 1990, and the citations below).
Modularity predicts that this affix-strong pronoun alternation should have a
morphological signature, including syntactico-semantic invisibility and locality.
McCloskey and Hale (1983) establish that the behaviour of the agreement affix
and the pronoun is indeed syntactically identical: that of a strong pronoun. For
example, the affix can head relative clauses, or participate in coordinate structures
(79). This is a context where in Romance only strong pronouns and not clitics or
pro can occur. Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) argue that the prosodic deficiency of
Romance clitics and pro corresponds to a syntactico-semantic deficiency that excludes
them from such contexts (cf. chapter 4). In Irish, prosodic and syntacticosemantic
deficiency do not cohere, as also sometimes elsewhere (Zribi-Hertz and
Mbolatianavalona 1999, Zribi-Hertz and Diagne 2001). Irish affixes are deficient
in their prosodic attachment need alone, not in syntax or interpretation.
(79) dá mbeinn -se agus tusa mór len a chélie
that be.COND.1SG CONTR and you great with each other
that you and I would be very friendly with one another.
(Irish, McCloskey and Hale 1983: 502)
Attributing the Irish alternation to morphology immediately explains its key
properties and its contrast with French. It is syntactico-semantically inert, both the
pronoun and the affix reflecting the same syntactic structure. It is sensitive to arbitrary
gaps. It can ignore the Coordinate Structure Constraint in (79) because the
morphological verb-pronoun amalgamation is not blocked by syntactic islands
(Pranka 1983, Doron 1988, Legate 1999, Ackema and Neeleman 2003; cf. (49)b).
Finally, it is limited to a 'small' domain. In French strong pronouns are VP-internal
and clitics attach to T, and much phrase-structure lies between. Morphology can-