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

90
Dative and locative à preposition or case-marker have the same morphology
(Miller 1992: 4.5.5.4, 248 note 14, Roberge and Troberg 2007). However, the two
correspond to morphologically distinct clitic series and have different syntax.
These differences are set out in the following list under several headings. They
will be important throughout this chapter. Their usual theoretical interpretation is
through a DP-PP distinction originating with Kayne (1975: 2.II-III). It is preliminarily
set out in (125), and further articulated in section 4.7. Locative arguments
are full PPs and their clitics are pro-PPs, (125)c. Accusatives and accusative clitics
are (pro-)DPs, (125)a. Datives are in between, especially dative clitics. Their PDAT
à is 'weaker' than the full preposition PLOC à, and in clitics perhaps need not project
over D, (125)c. They are defective PPs. (Genitives pattern with locatives.)
(125) a. ACC: D b. DAT: [D/P? PDAT D] c. LOC: [P PLOC D] (clitic)
DP [PP? PDAT DP] [PP PLOC DP] (nonclitic)
– Agreement and Case: Only accusatives participate in the nominativeaccusative
Case alternation or, as clitics, control participle agreement. 58
A temporary resident must obey them.Di / (?)LOCi, to these legal measuresi.
(Couquaux 1975: 35, Blanche-Benveniste 1978: 6)
(ii) Le départementi de breton a besoin d'une secrétaire. Il ne nous reste que Claire/toi. On
va {la/*te lui attribuer} / {t'/*l'attribuer à lui} pour un an.
The department(M)i of Breton needs a secretary. We have only Claire/you left. We
will attribute {her.A/*you.A it.Di} / {you.A/*her.A to him.Di} for one year.
Genuine locations do not permit the locative clitic to refer to humans and need à + strong pronoun,
e.g. venir 'come to', amèner 'bring (someone) to'. A class of verbs selects locative arguments
with a less clearly locative meaning and their clitics may then refer to humans, with some
variation: e.g. penser 'think about', réflechir 'reflect on', songer 'dream about', habituer 'habituate
to', interesser 'interest in', s'attacher 'attach oneself to', faire attention 'pay attention to', faire
peur 'frighten' (Kayne 1975: 106-9, Gaatone 1984, Herslund 1988: 2.3, 3.2.1, Jones 1996: 262;
CNRTL s.v. y 2 II.B.2.a remarque 1, Grevisse and Goosse 2008: §678.2°, Pinchon 1972: 2.III,
Nyrop 1925: §221). One set of grammars permits the y of such verbs to refer to humans and even
1 st /2 nd person provided they are not the subject of consciousness (Ruwet 1990: 80f., 1991, Pica
1994; cf. Blanche-Benveniste 1978, Lamiroy 1990, 1991, Zribi-Hertz 2000). Another freely
permits human reference (Couquaux 1975, Lambrecht 1981: 35). See Rezac (2010c) for a comparison
and relationship to the PCC repair. Matters are similar for the genitive clitic en, save that
it admits human reference freely as partitive.
58 On participle agreement, see Kayne (1989), D'Alessandro and Roberts (2008). Reflexive clitic
datives exceptionally agree for some speakers, (i): Grevisse and Goosse (2008: §953), Medová
(2009: 5.3, 6.3.2), vs. Burzio (1981: 482, 446), Kayne (2000: 24 note 21); cf. for Italian, Belletti
(2005: 2.2), D'Alessandro and Roberts (2008: 484 note 8). Reflexive clitics are syncretic for dative
and accusative, although differentiated by linked elements such 'each other' in (i), but nonreflexive
1 st /2 nd person clitics are also syncretic yet agree only if accusative. The participle agreement
of reflexive accusative and dative reflexive clitics has been related to the fact that through
reflexivity their phi-features are the same as those of the subject, and the perfect auxiliary involved
in reflexives is BE rather than HAVE, so it is really the subject of BE that controls parti-