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

76 Gisbert Fanselow
(7) Absence of superiority effects for wh-phrases with different scope
a. who wonders what who bought?
b. who wonders who bought what?
c. who wonders what John persuaded who to buy __ ?
d. who wonders what John told who that he should buy __ ?
According to Golan (1993), Kitahara (1993), and Reinhart (1995, 1998), such
facts suggest that the MLC must be interpreted as an economy constraint
related to LF-outputs (meanings). Whenever there is no other way to express
a certain meaning, the MLC need not be respected. Let us consider (7a) in
more detail. Overt movement of a wh-phrase to Spec,CP fixes its scope. A
wh-phrase merged in a complement clause can thus take matrix scope under
two conditions only: it moves to the Spec,CP position of the matrix clause,
or it stays in situ, and gets scope-bound by an element in the matrix clause.
It must not, however, be placed into the Spec,CP position of the complement
clause, and still take matrix scope. Thus, the subject of the complement clause
who can take matrix scope in (7a) only if it stays in situ. In other words, it
can take matrix scope only if crossed by the lower wh-phrase what targeting
the complement clause Spec,CP position. The meaning (8a) of (7a) simply
cannot be expressed differently – (7b) means something else (viz. (8b)).
Whether the MLC is respected or not is irrelevant when the structural alternatives
differ in interpretation.
(8) a.For which persons x,y: x wonders what y bought
b.For which person x, and for which z: x wonders who bought z
In contrast to what holds for (7), the two derivational alternatives in (3) do
not yield different interpretations: there is only one scope option available
for the two wh-phrases. In such a situation (and only in such a situation),
the MLC filters out derivations that are not in line with it. Further English
constructions illustrating that the application of the MLC depends on the
interpretation arrived at will be presented in sections 2.1. and 2.3.
Given that the wellformedness of (7a) is of some theoretical importance,
it is surprising that little evidence from other languages has entered the discussion
of the interpretation-sensitivity of the MLC. According to one of
my informants (Koyka Stoyanova, p.c.), (9a,b) are as fine in Bulgarian as
they are in English if the second occurence of koj is stressed, but in her
dialect, the order kakvo koj is grammatical in simple multiple questions, too.