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

96 Gisbert Fanselow
of 17 informants, while (42b) was judged as grammatical by three informants
only. To my ears, (42a) allows a pair-list reading, while (42b) is restricted to
a single pair/echo interpretation. See Haider (this volume) for an analysis of
languages (not necessarily true for German) in which multiple questions
must not involve two adjuncts. Below, we will comment on the apparent
superiority effect in (42).
(41) Swedish multiple questions involving two adjuncts
a.*Varfoer bettedde sig barnen hur
why behaved refl the children how
b. *Hur betedde sig barnen varfoer
(42) German multiple questions involving two adjuncts
a. Warum benahmen sich die Kinder wie?
why behaved refl the children how?
b.*Wie benahmen sich die Kinder warum?
3.2. The absence of simple superiority effects: caused by low subject
positions?
At least two types of formal accounts for the absence of superiority effects in
(35) can be found in the literature, and we will discuss them in turn before
we consider a pragmatic explanation. First, the definition of “closeness”
central to the MLC might be modified, so that two phrases can be “equidistant”
from a target position even if one of them asymmetrically c-commands
the other. Second, additional movement operations might reverse the ccommand
relations between wh-phrases before wh-movement.
Whether a wh-phrase α may cross another wh-phrase β c-commanding
α depends on the definition of closeness in (1): If the MLC is defined as in
(43), crossing is excluded in general, but if closeness is made precise in a
more liberal way, as in (44), the MLC does not restrict the movement of
phrases within the same maximal projection.
(43) MLC: Strict Version
α cannot move to γ if there is a β that can also move to γ and that
c-commands α