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

74 Gisbert Fanselow
in a strict and exceptionless way. To the extent that different ways of carrying
out operator movement are crucial in establishing different semantic relations,
the MLC effects we observe in this domain are modulated by considerations
of interpretation.
Originally, the idea that the MLC decides between those structural alternatives
only that have identical meanings was motivated by data involving
different scope assignments to wh-operators (see sect. 1). The present paper
argues that the required meaning identity must also involve distinctions of
information structure (sections 3 and 4), which explains why many (if not
most) languages are like German in not showing simple superiority effects
at all. Languages like English and Bulgarian fit into such a picture as well –
there is no variation among languages in this respect. Furthermore, we concur
with Sternefeld (1997) in the claim that the MLC must be applied in a
cyclic rather than global fashion (section 2.4), and we argue that it involves
reference to LF-identity rather than meaning identity in a broad sense.
1. The MLC and wh-phrase scope
The MLC is a core principle of current syntactic theorizing, and has been
made responsible for a wide variety of syntactic generalizations, such as the
Head Movement Constraint of Travis (1984), the intervention effects
restricting A-movement to subject position (Chomsky 1993, 1995, Stepanov
2001, this volume), and the superiority effect governing the formation of
multiple questions. In spite of the important role it plays in determining
whether syntactic computations are formally correct, some aspects of multiple
questions require that the MLC is sensitive to the interpretation of the
structures or derivations that it compares.
Before we discuss this fact, let us consider some simple superiority
effects in English. Object wh-phrases cannot cross c-commanding subject
wh-phrases (3), as was observed by Kuno and Robinson (1972). Haider
(this volume) argues that the contrast in (3) involves a grammatical constraint
that bans wh-phrases occupying the subject position of finite clauses
(such as the Empty Category Principle of Chomsky 1981).
(3) Simple subject-object asymmetry
a. (It does not matter) who bought what
b.(It does not matter) *what who bought _