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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

102 Gisbert Fanselow 3.3. The absence of simple superiority effects: caused by scrambling? A second attempt of capturing (35) assumes that the object in fact c-commands the subject at the point of derivation when movement to Spec, CP is carried out. Under this circumstance, the MLC does not have to be relaxed in order to explain (35): Given that the order object > subject is in principle always grammatical in a German (53a,b), the question arises whether (53c) really is not in line with even the strictest version of the MLC. After all, (53c) might be derived from (53d) rather than (53e). In the former case, the highest wh-phrase is moved to Spec,CP in (53c), as predicted by the MLC. (53) Object-subject order in German and the MLC a. dass fast jeden jemand angerufen hatte that nearly everyone.acc someone.nom called had “that someone had called nearly everyone” b. dass fast jeden wer angerufen hatte that nearly everone.acc someone.nom called had “that someone had called nearly everyone” c. wen hat wer eingeladen who.acc has who.nom invited “who has invited whom?” d. hat [wen [wer eingeladen]] e. hat [wer [wen eingeladen]] In other words, (53c) might be grammatical because additional movement operations (scrambling) can change the c-command relations established by Merge. 6 If the object can in general be placed in front of the subject, structures such as (53d) can be derived in which the wh-object c-commands the wh-subject. Even in its strictest version, the MLC cannot block the subsequent movement of the wh-object to Spec, CP. See, e.g., Fanselow (1998, 2001), Haider (1986), Wiltschko (1998), among others, for different versions of this account. According to Fanselow (1998), the contrasts in (54) corroborate the view that apparent violations of superiority are licensed by scrambling. Certain wh-phrases such as wen von den Studenten (54a) or was für Frauen (54d) can either move to Spec,CP as a whole, or be split up in simple and multiple questions (54b,e). In the latter case, only the wh-part of the phrase under-
The MLC and derivational economy 103 goes fronting, whereas the remaining part is stranded. The stranded material indicates the position from which the phrase has been attracted to Spec, CP. The ungrammaticality of (54c,f) suggests, then, that a wh-phrase cannot cross another one in German, either. Objects may undergo overt wh-movement in multiple questions, but only if movement starts in a position c-commanding a wh-subject. (54) Superiority and Splitting a. wen von den Studenten hat heute wer eingeladen? who.acc of the students has today who.nom invited b. wen hat [von den Studenten] heute wer heute eingeladen? c.*wen hat heute wer abends von den Studenten eingeladen who has today who in the evening of the students invited “who has invited which of the students today (in the evening)s” d. was für Frauen hat wer heute eingeladen what for women has who.nom today invited e. “who has invited which kind of women today” was hat für Frauen wer heute eingeladen f.??was hat wer für Frauen heute eingeladen Pesetsky (2000) points out that contrasts such as the ones in (54) find an explanation in terms of the intervention effects analysed by Beck (1996), see also Mathieu (2002). (55) shows that the parts of a discontinuous wh-phrase must not be separated by any kind of operator in German. An intervention account can explain (54) and (55) at the same time, while the MLC-based explanation for (54) cannot be easily extended to (55). (55) Intervention effects and Split noun phrases a. was hat er für Frauen nicht getroffen what has he for women not met “what kind of woman did he not meet?” b.*was hat er nicht für Frauen getroffen Pesetsky’s observation certainly establishes that data such as (54) cannot be used to show that object wh-movement cannot originate below a wh-subject
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 and 26: (44) MLC: Liberal Version α cannot
Page 27 and 28: oft ‘often’, i.e., it precedes
Page 29: 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?