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

110 Gisbert Fanselow
of sequences of clitics and inflectional affixes. As Bonet (1991), Halle (1992)
and Noyer (1992) show, the order of elements in such clusters cannot be
exclusively predicted from syntax. Rather, independent principles of morphology
are needed, a view that is well-established nowadays in the theory
of distributed morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993,1994).
There is independent evidence that the composition of wh-phrases in
clusters is governed by non-syntactic principles in Bulgarian. Billings and
Rudin (1996: 43) suggest that (64b) is ungrammatical because *na kogo
kogo ‘to whom whom’ violates a ban against consecutive wh-homophones.
In colloquial Bulgarian, na kogo can be replaced by na koj, in which case
both orders of the objects are fine:
(64) Phonological restrictions in wh-clusters in Bulgarian
a. Koj kogo na kogo e pokazal?
who.nom whom.acc to whom.dat CL showed
b. *Koj na kogo kogo e pokazal?
c. Koj kogo na koj e pokazal?
who.nom whom.acc to who.dat CL showed
d. Koj na koj kogo e pokazal?
“Who pointed out whom to who?”
It natural to assume that further templatic constraints determine the arrangement
of wh-pronouns in the cluster, among them a requirement that koj must
come first in a truly transitive construction. This requirement implies the
contrast in (59). Since it is a PF constraint, considerations of expressivity
will not play a role, as required.
Some observations from other languages lend support to the view that
cluster formation is crucial in establishing ordering restrictions that resemble
(but fail to be) superiority effects. Languages in which cluster formation is
optional are of particular relevance here. In Yiddish, multiple fronting of whphrases
to a position preceding the verb is possible, but not mandatory. In
wh-clusters, word order is strict (65a,b) but it is free when only one wh-phrase
is placed into preverbal position (65c,d), see Hoge (2000) for discussion.
Likewise, in Hebrew, superiority can be violated only if the verb is placed
between the two wh-phrases, although inversion in wh-questions is not necessary
as such (66):