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

(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