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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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).
(18) Missing superiority effect for extraction out of a subjunctive complement a.(?)what do they require that who buy? b.*who do they require that buy what c.*what do you expect who to buy d. who do you expect to buy what If the contrast between (16b) and (18a) generalizes, we have a further example from English that shows that the MLC does not block a construction (viz., (18a)) if the structure that conforms to the MLC (viz., (18b)) violates a different principle. The contrast between (18a) and (18b) would force upon us the assumption that the that-trace filter banning overt subject movement in fact applies at LF, and not at PF. Otherwise, its effects would not be visible to the MLC, as necessary for (18a). Consequently, the PF-located constraint that is invisible to the MLC (as required for (16)) is rather the further ban against in situ wh-subjects argued for by Haider (this volume) and not the that-trace filter. It should finally be noted that the contrast between (18a) and (18c) is due to the fact that the MLC-respecting competitor is well-formed in the case of (18c), but not in the case of (18d). 2.2. Adjuncts Multiple questions with adjunct wh-pronouns constitute a second domain that is relevant for the status of the MLC as an economy constraint. None of the structures in (19) is grammatical – although there is no other (monoclausal) way of expressing the intended interpretations. (19) Adjunct effects in English a.*who came why b.*why did who come c.*who spoke how d.*how did who speak? The MLC and derivational economy 83 The MLC clearly picks (19a,c) rather than (19b,d), and correctly so in the light of (20). (19a,c) are blocked by some requirement (see, e.g., Haider, this
Page 1 and 2: The MLC and Derivational Economy Gi
Page 3 and 4: Independent of whether such a facto
Page 5 and 6: Penka Stateva, my second Bulgarian
Page 7 and 8: The MLC and derivational economy 79
Page 9: (12) constitute further evidence fo
Page 13 and 14: (22) Missing Adjunct Effects in OV-
Page 17 and 18: For example, Swedish respects the n
Page 21 and 22: (33a) and the locality requirements
Page 23 and 24: The key to an understanding of this
Page 25 and 26: (44) MLC: Liberal Version α cannot
Page 27 and 28: oft ‘often’, i.e., it precedes
Page 29 and 30: Such an analysis is not convincing,
Page 37 and 38: (63) Restricted liberalization of s
Page 39 and 40: (65) Multiple questions in Yiddish
Page 41 and 42: (70) Non-referential subjects in wh
Page 43 and 44: The absence of a contrast between (
Page 45 and 46: Similarly, noun phrases with an obl
Page 47 and 48: References The MLC and derivational
Page 51: The MLC and derivational economy 12

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?