Minimality Effects in Syntax · The MLC and Derivational Economy ...

82 Gisbert Fanselow
MLC violates a further condition on LF. Aoun et al. (1987) and others have
argued that the principle Q responsible for the that-trace effect applies at
PF, and not at LF. Consequently, Q cannot interact with the MLC: the MLC
applies to LFs, and compares derivations that yield (close-to-) identical LFs.
It is blind to what happens in other branches of the derivation. A structure
that has an optimal LF and is accepted by the MLC need not be in line with
further PF-requirements, rendering the LF unpronouncable. Given this relevance
of PF-constraints, (16) does not exclude an interpretation of the MLC
that compares different ways of arriving at essentially the same LFs – while
it falls in line with an other conclusion arrived at in section 1: the MLC is not
a principle that takes care of “expressivity” in a literal sense.
The following observation leads to a modification of our analysis of (16),
which leaves the crucial point intact, however: the MLC responds to the
need of respecting further LF-constraints, but it is blind to what happens in
the PF-branch of grammar. Haider (this volume) argues that there is an extra
constraint banning wh-phrase occupying the specifier position of a finite IP
in English. The constraint is independent of the MLC, since it shows its
force even in constructions that do not involve a crossing wh-dependency,
as was already observed by Chomsky (1981). Interestingly, as (17) illustrates,
the relative degree of (un-)acceptability involves dimensions such as
discourse-linking (see 17b), and, as Bresnan (1972) has observed, in situ
wh-subjects are much better when they appear in subjunctive clauses.
(17) Wh-subjects in situ
a.*who believes that who loves Irina?
b.?who believes that which man loves Irina?
c.?who demands that who be arrested?
The ungrammaticality of (16b) might therefore also be caused by the presence
of an in situ wh-subject in a finite clause quite independent of the MLC.
Given the contrasts in (17), one would expect that structures like (16b)
improve if, e.g., the complement clause appears in the subjunctive mood. In
such a construction, the overt movement of the subject of the complement
clause still implies a that-trace filter violation, but the additional ban against
in situ wh-subjects is now much less strict. According to Anthony Green and
Sue Olsen (p.c.), (18a) is indeed much better that (16b).