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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

92 Gisbert Fanselow then: either wh 1 or wh 2 moves to the specifier of Comp A , and the wh-phrase remaining in situ may or may not be scope-bound by Comp or the other whphrase. (34) a.[Comp A - - - [wh 1 - - - [ wh 2 - - - ]]]] Suppose that the in-situ wh-phrase is not scope bound after movement within (34a). Then we arrive at the representations (34b,c), which are different from each other. Therefore, the MLC-respecting structure (34b) cannot block (34c), if an application of the MLC presupposes that the relevant LF can be generated otherwise. (34) b.[wh1 [CompA - - - [wh1 - - - [ wh2 - - - ]]]]] c.[wh 2 [CompA - - - [wh1 - - - [ wh2 - - - ]]]]] Wh-phrases that are not scope-bound at all are illegal at LF. Consequently, the two partial derivations in (34b,c) will end up as grammatical only if the wh-phrase left unbound so far is later bound by a higher Comp, or by a higher wh-phrase. This is exactly what happens in (32a,b). These examples show that neither of (34b,c) should be able to block the other. If the derivation proceeds beyond (34b,c), the cyclic nature of wh-binding implies that the scope of the in situ wh-phrase must not be confined to the domain of Comp A . Suppose now that the in situ wh-phrase is scope bound after movement. This yields the representations (34d,e): (34) d.[wh1 [ Σ CompA - - - [wh A 1 - - - [ wh2 A - - - ]]]]] e.[wh 2 [ Σ CompA - - - [wh A 1 - - - [ wh2 A - - - ]]]]] The two syntactic objects in (34d,e) are certainly not identical, but they differ in a specific way only. The presence or absence of a phonetic matrix should be irrelevant for the constitution of a Logical Form. If we abstract away from the distribution of phonetic features in a syntactic object (and call the result a “partial Logical Form”), then the categories Σ are fully identical in (34d,e). Consequently, the MLC is applicable if it sensitive to the identity of the partial Logical Forms under construction, and if it selects the most economical one of the legal derivations. Normally, the MLC will pick (34d) and block (34e) because the closest phrase must be attracted. However, if there is a factor that applies cyclically and renders (34d) illegal, the MLC will let (34e) pass, since there is no better competing structure left. The that-trace filter
(33a) and the locality requirements for binding (33b) are examples of factors that imply a vacuous application of the MLC. 3. Pragmatic effects The MLC and derivational economy 93 In the majority of languages, there are no simple superiority effects for clausemate wh-phrases. The purpose of this section is to integrate the description of these languages into our interpretation of the MLC. Section 3.1 presents the core facts, discusses potential processing influences, and contains further remarks on argument-adjunct asymmetries. Section 3.2. refutes the idea that the absence of simple superiority effects is due to a relaxed definition of closeness, while section 3.3 argues that we also cannot be content with the proposal that the superiority violations are absent because scrambling may precede wh-movement. The economy account envisaged here is discussed in section 3.4. 3.1. The absence of simple superiority effects: some general remarks In a surprisingly large number of languages, intervention effects of the kind exemplified in (3) do not show up in single clauses. Consider, e.g., the examples given in (35), all illustrating (apparent) violations of (1). Other languages belonging to this group are Mohawk, Kashmiri, Malayalam, and the Slavic languages except Bulgarian. (35) Apparent violations of the MLC for clausemate arguments a. Vad koepte vem (Swedish) what bought who b. hva# keypti hver (Icelandic) what bought who c. qué dijo quién (Spanish) what said who d. co kto robił (Polish) what who did e. nani-o dare-ga tabeta no (Japanese) what who ate f. was hat wer gesagt (German) what has what said
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 17 and 18: For example, Swedish respects the n
Page 19: The MLC and derivational economy 91
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?