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

Lucille her/you.A them.D/LOC will.introduce to them
Lucille will introduce her/you to them.
(y ok as locative: Lucille will introduce her/you there.)
(PCC/non-PCC, Postal 1990: 127, adapted)
(119) a. ¥ On leur a jeté Paul dans les bras.
b. ¥ *On me leur a jeté dans les bras.
c. ¥ *On m' y a jeté dans les bras.
d. ¥ *On m' a jeté dans les bras à elles.
one me.A them.D/LOC has thrown Paul into the arms to them
One threw Paul/*me into their arms.
(y ok as locative: One threw Paul/me there.)
(possessor dative, Couquaux 1975: 58)
(120) a. ¥ *Cela ne se luii dit pas , à Louisei.
b. ¥ *Cela ne s' yi dit pas , à Louisei.
c. ¥ *Cela ne se dit pas à elle.
this NEG SE her.D/LOC says not to her to Louise
One does not tell her (Louise) such a lie.
(y ok as locative: One does not tell such a lie there).
(mediopassive, Postal 1990: 167, adapted)
The paradigms (118)-(121) illustrate the parallelism of the strong pronoun
and y-repairs. The first line of each example is with a dative clitic, the second replaces
it with the locative clitic y, the third with a strong pronoun. The two repairs
come and go together. They are available to fix the PCC (118), but not for certain
datives like possessors (119), and not for problems with dative clitics in contexts
that are not the PCC, like mediopassives (120). All are discussed with other structures
that make the same points in sections 4.5 and 4.6. The repairs are not general
responses to clitic unavailability. This will be seen to be so even for clitic clusters
surface-identical to those banned by the PCC, and even if the repair creates a
string that is itself legitimate, as is the case in all the above examples on the true
locative reading of y rather than its use as a repair for the dative.
The subtle distribution on the PCC and of its repairs is used in this chapter to
understand their internalist character. They are also excellent grounds for setting
aside pragmatic and functionalist accounts (Tasmowski 1985, García 2001). These
depart from such observations as the high topicworthiness that 1 st /2 nd person clitics
share with dative but not locative clitics, and the preference for salient antecedents
to be picked up by more grammaticalized expressions like clitics rather than
strong pronouns. Such insights may well help explain the factors contributing to
the creation of this or that synchronic person hierarchy interaction or its repair (cf.
Haspelmath 2004). However, they provide neither an explanation nor an account
of the subtle synchronic state of affairs (cf. note 97 and chapter 6).
The PCC and its repair give a first impression of a division of labour between
clitics and strong pronouns. Cliticization occurs if it can, and strong pronouns take
over otherwise. The availability of the strong pronoun thus seems to refer to that
of the clitic, in a 'transderivational' or 'global' comparison:
85