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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

98 Gisbert Fanselow b.[Häuser gebrannt] haben hier noch nie houses burnt have here yet never “houses have never burnt here” c.[Mädchen geküsst] haben ihn noch nie girls kissed have him yet never “girls have not kissed him yet” Thus, there is independent evidence that (45b) is a legal constellation of German and Spanish. An MLC formulated as in (44) will not prevent the object from moving across the subject in (45b). In contrast, subjects must go to Spec,IP in English. Here, (45a) is the only constellation that can underlie multiple questions such as (3). Even in its liberal version (44), the MLC prevents an object from crossing a subject. The choice between (44a) and (44b) is thus a good candidate for an explanation of crosslinguistic variation concerning simple superiority effects (see, e.g., Haider, this volume). While such an approach successfully captures basic superiority facts, more complex data are not readily explained along these lines. Consider Icelandic first. One may want to relate the absence of superiority effects in this language to (44), since the existence of so-called transitive expletive constructions in Icelandic suggests that thematic subjects may be placed into lower positions than in English (see, e.g., Bobaljik and Jonas (1996)). Haider (2000, this volume) observes that movement to Spec,IP is an option for thematic subjects in Icelandic, German, and Spanish, and notes that an explanation of the absence of superiority effects in terms of a low subject position predicts that one should observe English-type asymmetries whenever the position of adverbial material makes it clear that the thematic subject occupies a high position. Haider cites contrasts such as (48) (which he attributes to Ottósson (1989), and H. Sigurdsson, p.c.) as evidence for the claim that this prediction is borne out: (48) Superiority effects in Icelandic and different subject positions a. Hva# hefur hver gefi# börnunum? what has who given the-children? b.*Hva# hefur hver oft gefi# börnunum? what has who often given the-children? “who has often given what to the children?” The availability of a low position for the subject hver in the verbal projection explains the grammaticality of (48a). In (48b), however, the subject precedes
oft ‘often’, i.e., it precedes an element adjoined to VP, and occupies a high position in the clause. The ungrammaticality of (48b) suggests, then, that the position of the thematic subject is the crucial factor governing superiority effects, as Haider argues. The argument presupposes, however, that (48b) becomes perfect when the order of the subject and the adverb is reversed. According to my informant (-orsteinn Hjaltason), this expectation is not fulfilled. Rather, we get the following array of relative judgements: (49) Superiority effects in Icelandic and different subject positions a. Hva# hefur hver gefi# börnunum? what has who given the children b.?Hva# hefur hver oft gefi# börnunum? what has who often given the children c.?Hva# hefur hver oft gefi# hverjum? what has who often given whom? d.*Hva# hefur oft hver gefi# börnunum? e. Hva# hefur hva#a fa#ir oft gefi# börnunum? what has which father often given the children f.*Hva# hefur oft hva#a fa#ir gefi# börnunum? The MLC and derivational economy 99 (49a) is grammatical because Icelandic shows no superiority effects. (49b) is less acceptable, but this effect is not eliminated by the addition of a third wh-phrase (49c), as it should be if the phenomenon is related to the MLC. Most importantly, the structure becomes fully ungrammatical when the order of the subject and the adverb is reversed. The status of (49d) is quite unexpected, because the order of subject and adverb seems to imply a low position for the former. The ungrammaticality of (49d) is matched by the one of (49f), which involves a d-linked wh-phrase. Whatever may be responsible for the contrasts in (48) and (49) – the MLC is not likely to come into play. Similarly, the grammaticality of (50a) might be related to the low position occupied by the unaccusative subject in this example. 4 However, the structure does not degrade dramatically when the subject is placed into the slot preceding the object pronoun (that is, when it presumably moves to Spec,IP): five out of a total of eight Dutch linguists I consulted found (50b) completely unobjectionable.
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 and 24: The key to an understanding of this
Page 25: (44) MLC: Liberal Version α cannot
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?