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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

88 Gisbert Fanselow If the MLC applies blindly irrespective of whether the LF it generates is wellformed or not, then only wh 1 can move to Comp A (wh 2 cannot move because of intervening wh 1), which implies that the derivation breaks down, because a wh-phrase is required to move that must not do so. In this way, aspects of the wh-island condition might be derived, see Chomsky (1995). This would constitute a case in which the MLC rules out a meaning that cannot be expressed otherwise. It is not advisable, however, to derive the wh-island effect from the MLC. In spite of the fact that it respects the superiority condition, English is sometimes quite liberal with respect to wh-islands, as the status of e.g. what do you wonder how to fix suggests. German respects the wh-island condition, but fails to show superiority effects. The two phenomena simply are not correlated with each other. If wh 1 is frozen in its position in (28b), i.e., if it cannot move further, and if that is taken into account in the computation of MLC effects, then wh 1 does not constitute a b is the sense of (1) repeated below that could go to Comp A (1) Minimal Link Condition (MLC) α cannot move to γ if there is a β that can also move to γ and is closer to γ than α Therefore, wh 2 can move to Comp A (as in (28c)). The derivation leading to (28c) is well-formed, yielding a nested structure, because the lower of two Comps (which attracts first) only attracts the higher of two wh-phrases if movement respects the MLC. In this way, the nestedness condition is derivable from the MLC. Obviously, this reduction of the nestedness condition to the MLC presupposes that the applicability of the MLC does not depend on the existence of a different way of constructing the intended Logical Form. The LF (28d) is different from (28c), so that the fact that (28c) cannot be arrived at in a derivation respecting the MLC is irrelevant for the wellformedness of (28d). (28) d.[wh 1 Comp A … wh 2 [Comp B [ .. wh 1 .. [ wh 2 … ]]]] If one wants to stick to the idea that the MLC triggers nestedness effects, one has to offer alternative accounts of the data presented sections 1 and 2.1 that suggest an interpretation-sensitivity of the MLC. There are, however, good reasons for not endorsing such an MLC-based account of nestedness. Superiority and nestedness do not go hand in hand, as one would expect if the two phenomena were due to the same principle of UG.
For example, Swedish respects the nestedness condition (see Maling and Zaenen 1982: 238f) although it fails to show superiority effects, see (29) and (ii) in endnote 3. Thus, at least in Swedish, nestedness cannot be reduced to the MLC. (29) Absence of superiority effects in Swedish Vad koepte vem what bought who The MLC and derivational economy 89 At least certain varieties of Spanish (see (30)) and Catalan exemplify what appears to be an anti-nestedness effect for extractions from wh-clauses: the wh-phrase that is merged in the higher position must also be the one moved to the higher of the two Spec,CP slots. Thus, wh-subjects and wh-indirect objects may cross wh-objects, but not vice versa. (30) Anti-nestedness in Spanish a.*qué libros no sabes quién ha leido which books not you know who has read b. quién no sabes qué libros ha leido who not you know which books has read c. a quién no sabes qué libros ha devuelto Celia to who not you know which books has returned Celia d.*qué libros no sabes a quíen ha devuelto Celia Likewise, Richards (2001: 27) claims that there is an anti-nestedness effect in Bulgarian. Again, the constraint seems uncorrelated with superiority, since simple superiority effects are observed in Bulgarian only, and not in Spanish. (31) Anti-nestedness in Bulgarian a. Koj1 se opitvat da razberat kogo2 t1 e ubil t2 Who self try to find out whom is killed b.*Kogo 1 se opitvat da razberat koj 2 t 2 e ubil t 2 In any event, it is hard to draw firm theoretical conclusions from such contrasts, since there is considerable individual variation among speakers of
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 and 10: (12) constitute further evidence fo
Page 11 and 12: (18) Missing superiority effect for
Page 13 and 14: (22) Missing Adjunct Effects in OV-
Page 15: The MLC and derivational economy 87
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?