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

86 Gisbert Fanselow
(24) Adjunct-object interaction in multiple questions
a.*what did Bill buy why
b. why did Bill buy what
Hornstein (1995: 147–149) reports further data such as (25) that may in fact
lead to a simpler analysis. If his judgements are correct, why (unlike its
Dutch, German and Swedish counterparts) cannot appear at all in multiple
questions, quite independent of the position it appears in.
(25) wh-adjuncts blocked in multiple questions
a.*I wonder why Bill left when
b.*I wonder why Bill lives where
c.*I wonder why which person came
d.*I wonder why you bought what
e.*why does John expect who to win
If Hornstein is correct, wh-adjuncts come in two varieties. German wie
“how” and warum “why” are linked to a semantic representation that makes
them eligible for multiple questions, whereas how and why cannot appear
there. Under such an account, all sentences in (19) are simply gibberish, and
we need not care about what the MLC would predict for them. Whether this
simplification is tenable or not depends on the status of (24b). If grammatical,
this sentence is incompatible with the idea that why cannot appear in multiple
questions. The simplification thus presupposes that (24b) involves an “illusion
of acceptablity” (Hornstein 1995: 148). We need not settle the issue here,
because the idea that the MLC is an economy constraint can be maintained
in the account discussed earlier as well.
2.3. Nestedness
A third domain sheds light on the question of whether the MLC is sensitive
to LF-identity or not: nestedness effects. It has been suggested that the nestedness
effect can be derived from the MLC, see Richards (2001) for a
detailed proposal. If this suggestion is correct, the application of the MLC
could not be confined to structural candidates yielding the same LF.