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

56
terday, linguist speakers split in reporting clitic deletion in (82) as more difficult
to parse but perfectly grammatical, versus as degraded (?), if the floating quantifier
is present, than an overt clitic. 26
(82) a. Je ne peux pas te donner mes chaussuresi
I cannot give you my shoes(F)
parce que je lesi/∅i lui ai toutesi promisesi.
because I them.ACC her.DAT have all.PLF promised.PLF
b. Laisse-moi les robesi, je lesi/∅i lui mettrai toutesi
Leave me the dresses, I them.ACC her.DAT will.put.on all.PLF
pendant les vacances.
during the vacations.
c. Elle voulait [deux livres sur le Périgord et deuxj sur le Finistère]i,
She wanted two books(M) about Perigord and two about Finistere
On lesi/∅i lui a tousi envoyési tout de suite.
We them.ACC her.DAT have all.MPL sent[.MPL] immediately.
(French; [] orthographic agreement only)
The most striking illustration of such issues comes from interactions between
clitics and agreeing elements in Italian reported in Napoli (1974). Napoli proposes
a ban on the crossing of agreement dependencies between subject / clitic object
controllers and elements that agree with them. In (83)a, the floating quantifier
tutti, agreeing with the subject for plural masculine, is barred if it intervenes between
the plural feminine object clitic and the participle viste that agrees with it. If
the participle did not agree, for instance if the object were a non-clitic or a dative
clitic, tutti would be fine. Tutti is also fine in the postparticipial position in (83)a
26 The results reported here about clitic deletion are drawn, on the one hand, from discussions
with eleven speakers (four linguists), on the other, from the eleven speakers (three linguists) of
the questionnaire discussed in chapter 4; I am particularly grateful to M. Jouitteau, N. Guilliot,
A. Zribi-Hertz, A. Dagnac, and R. Kayne for discussion. The following patterns may be discerned.
Most speakers find 3PL.ACC les clitic deletion perfect with floating quantifiers (on the
questionnaire, 6/11 for (82)c); for some it is virtually obligatory unless the clitic is contextually
difficult to recover (cf. Ronjat 1937: 566). 4/11 only allow 3SGM/ % F.ACC clitic deletion, so that
in (i), elements that depend on plural rather than singular clitics are impossible with the silent
3.ACC clitic: cf. Je *(les) ai envoyé tous ensemble / les uns après les autres, Je *(l')ai envoyé
l'un après l'autre. Without them bare Je lui ai envoyé is fine in this context, or with right dislocation
Je lui ai envoyé, les uns après les autres, but a 3SG clitic may be posited here, cf. J'ai envoyé
la commande, les uns après les autres 'I sent the order, two at a time'. This pattern may be
reported in Morin (1978: 12 note 5, 1977: 371), brought to my attention by R. Kayne p.c. Some
speakers do not permit 3.ACC clitic deletion at all. (From floating quantifiers must be kept distinct
the nonagreeing adverb tout 'entirely', toute in Quebec French, Jones 1997: 237f., De Cat
2000: 4f.: J'ai % tout/*tousPLM rapé mes gants 'I have completely scratched up my gloves').
(i) [Context: (82)c.]
On ∅ lui a (??tous) envoyés (??tous ensemble / l'un après l'autre / ??les uns après les autres).
We him.DAT have (??all) sent (??all together / one after the other / ??ones after the others)