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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

96 With this background on French clitics, the next section proceeds to set out in detail the PCC, prior to establishing its syntactic character. 4.3 The PCC repair and the Cliticization Requirement This section sets out the relationship between the Cliticization Requirement and the strong pronouns of the PCC repair, giving the following generalizations: – Cliticization Requirement (section 4.2): Outside the PCC context, unfocussed dative and accusative pronouns must be clitic, and (àDAT +) strong pronouns require semantic focus. In contrast, locatives (and genitives) may be clitic or àLOC + strong pronoun without focus. – PCC repair: When a dative clitic is impossible through the PCC, à + strong pronoun is perfect instead without semantic focus, for indirect objects (other datives are addressed in section 4.5). – Accusatives: An accusative strong pronoun is impossible in the PCC context or out of it, whether the PCC repair for the dative is available or not, save to an unclear extent when the dative clitic is an inherent reflexive. The Cliticization Requirement requires semantically unfocussed accusative and dative pronouns to be clitic, while strong pronouns must have semantic focus. The semantic focus that may license strong pronouns comes about through: (i) ostension; (ii) contrast, where the contrasted alternatives may be silent or explicit, as in Il parle à LUI (et non à MOI) 'He talks to HIM (and not to ME)', Il parle à LUI (plutôt qu'à MOI) 'He talks to HIM (rather than to ME)'; (iii) focus associated with elements such as aussi 'also'. A nondislocated dative or accusative strong pronoun must have such a focussed reading, a clitic cannot. From semantic focus must be carefully distinguished prosodic accent. Zribi-Hertz (2008) argues that strong pronouns in French do not undergo deaccenting even when semantically unfocussed, unlike in English. The meaning of the French and English sentences in (134) is the same: jealoux has narrow focus and of her has none. Thanks to the absence of focus, of her can be realized as the genitive clitic en in French. However, it can also be realized as the genitive strong pronoun d'elle. In that case, it retains prosodic accent, despite lack of focus, in contrast to English. 63 63 Inversely, prosodic accent may be hard to detect under certain conditions such as second occurrence focus (but see Beaver et al. 2007). Distinct from focus is the construction ne…que 'only', as in Il ne parle qu'à moi lit. 'He NEG speaks than to me', meaning 'He is speaking only to me' (Cardinaletti and Starke 1999, Kayne 2000: 159 note 68, 170). Que behaves as if it were a preposition: it licenses undoubled accusative strong pronouns even for those that cannot license them otherwise, blocks clitic doubling, and allows coreference with the local subject. Perhaps related should be Postal's (1990: 161f.) ability of comparative plus…que 'more…than' to license
(134) a. Pourquoi est-ce que Jean passe son temps à critiquer Mariek? Parce qu'il enk est JALOUX / Parce qu'il est JALOUX d'ellek. b. Why does John keep criticizing Maryk? Because he is JEALOUS of herk. (Zribi-Hertz 2008: 616; caps = semantic focus, bold = prosodic accent) Uniquely in a PCC context, where the dative clitic is ungrammmatical, unfocussed strong dative pronouns are perfect. This is the subject of Blanche- Benveniste (1975), introduced through the paradigm (135). The focus-only reading of à vous in (135)b contrasts with the unfocussed à toi in (135)c. (135) a. Roger vous les avait recommandés. Roger you.D them.A had recommended Roger recommended them to you. b. Roger les avait recommandés à VOUS, pas à Jean. Roger them.A had recommended to you, not to Jean Roger recommended them to you, not to Jean. c. *Roger nous t' avait recommandés. Roger nous avait recommandés à toi. Roger us.A you.D had recommended to you. Roger recommended us to you. (Blanche-Benveniste 1975: 43; caps added) All verbs with dative indirect objects behave in this manner, including décrire 'describe', dénoncer 'denounce', mentionner 'mention', recommander 'recommend', vendre sell', montrer 'show', présenter 'introduce', as well as verbs alternating between datives for animate goals and locatives for inanimate goals or locations, including amèner 'bring', associer 'associate', donner 'give', sacrifier 'sacrifice', soumettre 'submit', substituer 'substitute', affilier 'affiliate', imposer 'impose', confier 'confide', promettre 'promise', assujettir 'subject' (Blanche-Benveniste 1975: 235ff., Blanche-Benveniste et al. 1984: 89ff.). Applicative datives like possessors are taken up in section 4.5. 64 strong pronouns for certain applicative datives where regular contrastive focus will not (not all speakers have those contrasts). For metalinguistic accentuation of clitics, see Morin (1982: 19 note 6), Cardinaletti and Starke (1999: 153), Zribi-Hertz (2008: 627 note 22). 64 Blanche-Benveniste (1975: 208 note 1, 1978: 13f.) notes a class of verbs for which human 3 rd person accusative clitics appear to act exceptionally as 1 st /2 nd person, (i). Here belong e.g. amèner 'bring', assimiler 'assimilate', associer 'associate', attacher 'attach', comparer 'compare, sacrifier 'sacrifice', soumettre 'submit', substituer 'substitute'. Cross-linguistically the PCC does sometimes treat 3 rd person humans as 1 st /2 nd person (chapter 6), but this is not the right analysis here. Gaatone (1984: 133) finds the key. These are alternations between a locative argument for spatial motion towards the theme and a dative argument for more figurative motion emphasizing interest to/for/of the theme. The humanness of the accusative clitic is relevant only insofar as only human themes allow the latter, and is independent its being clitic (Cf. also Barnes 1980: 278ff., 289 note 26). (i) thus belongs with (ii)-(iv). 97
Page 1 and 2:
Title: Phi-features and the Modular
Page 3 and 4:
4.6.3 Arbitrary clitic cluster gaps
Page 5 and 6:
Conventions and glosses Cross-refer
Page 7 and 8:
Preface This work uses phi-features
Page 9 and 10:
1 Modularity, phi-features, and rep
Page 11 and 12:
(4) a. Irati-rii nesk-ak/*ekk gusta
Page 13 and 14:
Lyer illusion, a line terminating i
Page 15 and 16:
Lexicon This simple model may be en
Page 17 and 18:
(12) As far as Johni is concerned,
Page 19 and 20:
(18) a. *(Some goatsi) seemi/*seems
Page 21 and 22:
Uninterpretable phenomena should no
Page 23 and 24:
d. There were shown (*her) to be fi
Page 25 and 26:
able features, and ultimately expli
Page 27 and 28:
1997, Yang 1997, Jacobson 1997, Fra
Page 29 and 30:
Syntax: syntactic but not properly
Page 31 and 32:
(44) Morphology-free syntax: Syntax
Page 33 and 34:
(Distributed Morphology) (49) a. Sy
Page 35 and 36:
In Aronoff's example, it may be eas
Page 37 and 38:
(53) v dolea/zákonub/kolec/máled/
Page 39 and 40:
a. 3SG/PL.DAT le/les + 3SGM/3SGF/3P
Page 41 and 42:
(62) a. Elle*x∈i lai/∅i lui a d
Page 43 and 44:
Morphology might also need devices
Page 45 and 46: agreement exponent maps to another
Page 47 and 48: singular or 1 st /2 nd person plura
Page 49 and 50: frire 'fry' (e.g. 1PL *frions vs. r
Page 51 and 52: domains. The well-studied English c
Page 53 and 54: not cross this distance, just as in
Page 55 and 56: There are more robust cases of appa
Page 57 and 58: ecause then there is no crossing of
Page 59 and 60: (85) a. n-waabm-aa b. n-waabm-ig c.
Page 61 and 62: 2- go.home go.home 2SG.SU he goes h
Page 63 and 64: sion is that EA and O PH-interactio
Page 65 and 66: (92) a. [DP Johni 'sD° [IP PROi no
Page 67 and 68: uci-maceha-t [mesq mace-ntu]]. from
Page 69 and 70: see her, PRO to see her, your/you s
Page 71 and 72: )movement (Nichols 2001, cf. chapte
Page 73 and 74: distribution of inverse morphemes i
Page 75 and 76: . No direct-like version with 3EA
Page 77 and 78: suppose that its oblique EA does no
Page 79 and 80: fact. Thus the oblique-like EA of i
Page 81 and 82: movement through probes for individ
Page 83 and 84: digm (114) reveals the exception to
Page 85 and 86: Lucille her/you.A them.D/LOC will.i
Page 87 and 88: structures that only occur in conte
Page 89 and 90: 1PL nous no-tre/s nous, on nous 2PL
Page 91 and 92: (126) a. Il lesi (lui) a dit-esi. H
Page 93 and 94: (130) a. Je connais cette fillei. J
Page 95: cliticization may take place, as fu
Page 99 and 100: (137) a. [Film synopsis:] L'étrang
Page 101 and 102: 101 seen in section 4.5. Thus the P
Page 103 and 104: 103 To sum up this section, the PCC
Page 105 and 106: Dative clitics continue to license
Page 107 and 108: 107 These possibilities can be cont
Page 109 and 110: 4.4.6 Overview 109 The syntax and i
Page 111 and 112: 4.5.2 Possessive, dessus, and benef
Page 113 and 114: c. Azenor les laisse être mangés
Page 115 and 116: 115 Pierre will.make SE.D buy a wat
Page 117 and 118: 117 arise through the intervention
Page 119 and 120: 119 The causee of the connaître-cl
Page 121 and 122: 121 The syntactic character of the
Page 123 and 124: 123 Paul seems to her to be unpleas
Page 125 and 126: 125 *sans se leur en prendre. sans
Page 127 and 128: 127 a. aux agriculteurs de vos rég
Page 129 and 130: 4.6.5 Datives in DPs and APs 129 Th
Page 131 and 132: 131 c. L'infinitifi […] a été t
Page 133 and 134: 133 (210) a. Elle photographiait *v
Page 135 and 136: 135 These peoplei are going to be q
Page 137 and 138: 137 1/2.ACC DAT clusters. Thus, the
Page 139 and 140: 139 tic doubling allows unfocussed
Page 141 and 142: 141 This view of the PCC repair ori
Page 143 and 144: 143 of French unfocussed pronouns.
Page 145 and 146: 145 the possessum (section 4.5). Al
Page 147 and 148:
147 When such adjectives are embedd
Page 149 and 150:
legitimate in ECM but not elsewhere
Page 151 and 152:
151 These are very tentative sugges
Page 153 and 154:
5 Repairs and uninterpretable featu
Page 155 and 156:
155 terpretation, not problems that
Page 157 and 158:
157 (241) Person Case Constraint (A
Page 159 and 160:
5.2.2 Intervention 159 In the Agree
Page 161 and 162:
161 (Etxepare and Oyharçabal 2008a
Page 163 and 164:
tive within the TP, the PCC disappe
Page 165 and 166:
165 you.ABS visit-ing liking R.3sAi
Page 167 and 168:
167 - It is unclear whether dative
Page 169 and 170:
169 PCC are tied up with this issue
Page 171 and 172:
5.3.2 The choice of mechanisms The
Page 173 and 174:
(264) [DATapplicative [v+P[+person:
Page 175 and 176:
175 some structure always wins the
Page 177 and 178:
177 distinct from syntax and from e
Page 179 and 180:
179 These observations do not mean
Page 181 and 182:
may also lead to the (re-)Merge of
Page 183 and 184:
183 (279) Numeration: The numeratio
Page 185 and 186:
185 they lead to ineffability. Vari
Page 187 and 188:
187 distinction between valued unin
Page 189 and 190:
189 she believed to.have been bough
Page 191 and 192:
girls-ERG tired R.3pA-that seem R.3
Page 193 and 194:
193 To integrate dependent Case, di
Page 195 and 196:
195 depends on what other probes ex
Page 197 and 198:
197 b. She vacc+showed (*the studen
Page 199 and 200:
199 The structures of interest for
Page 201 and 202:
201 (Basque, Tolosa T1, Rezac 2008c
Page 203 and 204:
203 (313) (i-kalai) ga-či-łj-(a)
Page 205 and 206:
205 with it (Rezac 2006: 3.7, 2008b
Page 207 and 208:
207 agreement (Holmberg 2005, Holmb
Page 209 and 210:
209 of Icelandic and Finnish, not n
Page 211 and 212:
211 (329) Minu-ni täyty-y ti men-n
Page 213 and 214:
stead in Table 5.3. The dative inte
Page 215 and 216:
215 This application of ℜ has som
Page 217 and 218:
217 with cliticization alone. This
Page 219 and 220:
219 serve in the applicative constr
Page 221 and 222:
221 way. IOs must normally be appli
Page 223 and 224:
223 The facility of modeling both r
Page 225 and 226:
y ℜ in the same way as that of PP
Page 227 and 228:
227 of the target, goal, and the pa
Page 229 and 230:
229 tives, the relationship of EA-O
Page 231 and 232:
231 Pesetsky and Torrego forthc, Wi
Page 233 and 234:
233 For an important class of synta
Page 235 and 236:
235 The conditions on these depende
Page 237 and 238:
6 Phi in syntax and phi interpretat
Page 239 and 240:
239 predicate-argument relations, d
Page 241 and 242:
speaker/addressee because the more
Page 243 and 244:
243 The second point illustrated by
Page 245 and 246:
245 The quasi-existential on in (37
Page 247 and 248:
247 Everywhere onei (on) presents o
Page 249 and 250:
249 *[Marie and I] found.3PL themse
Page 251 and 252:
251 to Agree by locality, if it wer
Page 253 and 254:
- Albizu (1997b, cf. 1997a): A pers
Page 255 and 256:
255 of 3 rd person. This is so even
Page 257 and 258:
257 of diachrony and grammaticaliza
Page 259 and 260:
259 tain configurations like (385),
Page 261 and 262:
person 'impostors' for the speaker/
Page 263 and 264:
263 like invite, which do not. The
Page 265 and 266:
265 sions and eliminations of a mor
Page 267 and 268:
267 featural relationships in synta
Page 269 and 270:
269 Carruthers, Peter, Stephen Laur
Page 271 and 272:
271 Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Agree
Page 273 and 274:
7.2 Chapter 2 273 Ackema, Peter, an
Page 275 and 276:
275 De Crousaz, Isabelle, and Ur Sh
Page 277 and 278:
277 Luís, Ana R., and Andrew Spenc
Page 279 and 280:
279 Szendrői, Kriszta. 2005. Focus
Page 281 and 282:
281 Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and P
Page 283 and 284:
283 Rosen, Carol. 1990. Rethinking
Page 285 and 286:
285 Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Conse
Page 287 and 288:
287 Fauconnier, Gilles. 1983. Gener
Page 289 and 290:
289 Legendre, Geraldine. 1989a. Inv
Page 291 and 292:
291 Rezac, Milan. 2010a. Ineffabili
Page 293 and 294:
7.5 Chapter 5 293 Abels, Klaus. 200
Page 295 and 296:
295 Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and P
Page 297 and 298:
297 Den Dikken, Marcel. 2001. 'Plur
Page 299 and 300:
299 Holmberg, Anders, and Christer
Page 301 and 302:
301 McCreight, Katherine. 1988. Mul
Page 303 and 304:
303 Rezac, Milan. 2008c. The syntax
Page 305 and 306:
305 Vainikka, Anne Marjatta. 1989.
Page 307 and 308:
307 Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia. 2003
Page 309 and 310:
309 Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of
Page 311:
311 Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann.
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?