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

94 Gisbert Fanselow
Two remarks are in order before we can discuss possible analyses for (35).
First, it is often hard to determine whether a language tolerates superiority
violations or not. When I asked 22 Dutch linguists via the internet to rate
(36), five accepted it and seven found it questionable, while ten speakers
rejected the sentence. It not very plausible that this judgment pattern lends
support to the claim that there is a categorial difference between, say, Dutch
and German with respect to superiority. Likewise, it is not obvious what the
marginality of (37) implies for the status of superiority in French.
(36) Dutch superiority
#ik weet niet wat wie gekocht heeft
I know not what who bought has
“I do not know who has bought what”
(37) French superiority
?Je me demande à qui a parlé qui
I me wonder to whom has talked who
“I wonder who has talked to whom”
Instead of forcing (36) and (37) into one or the other category, the graded
nature of such MLC violations should figure in the analysis of the construction.
3 This is particularly true in the light of experimental findings concerning
judgements by linguistically naive informants. We compared structures such
as (38a) and (38b) in a questionnaire study and found a highly significant
difference between multiple questions that respect the MLC and those that
do not. Structures violating the MLC were rated worse than those respecting
it (4.8 vs. 2.34) on a 1-6 scale (1: perfect, 6: completely ungrammatical) by
linguistically naive informants.
(38) a. Wer besucht wen in der Villa? 2.34
who visited whom in the villa
b. wen besucht wer in der Villa? 4.80
Given that the syntax literature states more or less unanimously that German
lacks simple superiority effects, such findings are a bit surprising at first
glance, but they are in line with those obtained by Featherston (2002a,b),
and they reappeared in a very similar shape in our questionnaire studies
concerning Polish and Russian.