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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
(44) MLC: Liberal Version α cannot move to γ if there is a β that can also move to γ and that asymmetrically m-commands α Suppose, then, that MLC effects are computed relative to (44). Whether a whobject may be moved across a wh-subject then depends on the hierarchical position of the subject. Subjects are base-generated in the VP. If the subject moves to Spec,IP as in (45a), it asymmetrically m-commands the object. Therefore, an object cannot pass it on its way up to Spec, CP. If the subject stays in VP, as in (45b), the condition for the application of (44) is not met, so that the presence of a wh-subject does not interfere with the preposing of a wh-object. (45) a.[ IP subject [ verb phrase [V object]] b.[ IP [ verb phrase subject [V object]] (44) thus links the presence or absence of simple superiority effects to an independent parameter, viz., the location of the subject. Indeed, subjects need not move to Spec, IP in many of the languages (among them Spanish or German) that disrespect superiority. The “free inversion” of subjects and verbs in Spanish has always been taken as evidence that Spec,TP can be filled by an empty pleonastic pro, which allows the subject to stay in the verbal projection. (46) Free Inversion in Spanish le regalaron los estudiantes un libro her gave the students a book “the students gave her a book as a present” The view that thematic subjects need not leave the VP in German either is corroborated by constructions in which the VP precedes the second position auxiliary, as was noted by Haider (1986, 1990, 1993): The subject can be part of such VPs (47b,c), a fact suggesting that it need not move to Spec, IP in overt syntax. (47) a.[Mädchen geküsst] hat er noch nie girls kissed has he not yet “he has not yet kissed any girls” The MLC and derivational economy 97
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 21 and 22: (33a) and the locality requirements
Page 23: The key to an understanding of this
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?