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

90 Gisbert Fanselow
Bulgarian (see Richards 2001: 28) and of Spanish (at least among the
speakers we consulted). This variation suggests that processing factors contribute
to generating (anti-)nestedness effects (see also Fodor 1978).
Furthermore, nestedness effects have properties are different from those of
superiority. Norwegian shows nestedness effects, but only if three (or more)
dependencies are involved (Maling & Zaenen 1982). This is unexpected from
an MLC perspective: the addition of a third wh-phrase eliminates superiority
effects in English. Likewise, at least in English, there is no discourse-linking
influence on nestedness: (26b) is bad although both wh-phrases are d-linked
in the sense of Pesetsky (1987). Superiority effects fail to show up, however,
when the wh-phrases are d-linked. To sum up, there is a number of reasons
for not deriving (anti-)nestedness from the MLC.
2.4. Cyclic application of the MLC
Our discussion corroborated the view that the MLC is an economy constraint:
it does not apply when the relevant LF cannot be generated without violating
it. The MLC is, however, insensitive to the issue of whether other components
of grammar (such as PF) might prevent the structure selected by it from surfacing.
The target LFs that the MLC compares must be very similar to each other.
Otherwise, we could not understand the data discussed in section 1: the availability
of a wh-scope-marking constructions was shown to be irrelevant for
the applicability of the MLC in a structure involving long wh-movement.
From a conceptual point of view, the MLC should be a derivational principle
that applies when a phrase moves, or when a phase is completed. A
cyclic application of the MLC may be called for on empirical grounds as
well: if the principles that block in situ wh-subjects in English non-subjunctive
clauses, and wh-adjuncts in non-left peripheral positions do not apply
to PF, but rather at LF, then we must guarantee that the application of the
MLC is not affected by them. This would hold if the MLC is applied cyclically,
while the two constraints are representational restrictions on completed
LFs.
The simplest (but insufficient) way of applying the MLC cyclically and
capturing interpretation effects at the same time works with the assumption
that attracting Comps come with some index that must be shared by the whphrase
to be attracted. The index indicates the target scope of the wh-phrases.
Comp can attract a wh-phrase only if the indices borne by the two elements
are identical. Therefore, under a strict interpretation of (1), a wh-phrase can